# Does it make sense to compare classical music and "popular" music?



## PresenTense (May 7, 2016)

At the end of the day, does it matter at all? Is a classical musician/composer superior to a rock/pop/jazz one? Is art meant to be compared? Classical music is harder to get and that's why popular music is so popular?


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

To the extent that all music shares SOMETHING in common (4'33" has sound still right?) then yeah, sure, they can be compared and contrasted. Coming from a rock and metal background and coming to classical music a bit later in life (like when I was 24, 26 now), I find a lot of similarities with classical and metal. Specifically any classical music that is mainly diatonic. Most rock and metal use rather diatonic type things for the most part. It really does depend, but MOST "popular" music stays pretty diatonic. So of COURSE things like Bach to Wagner are going to bear some resemblance and have something in common with even stuff like metal. They're all using the same scales, at least kinda. Classical composers do it from theory, and others by intuition, but it's there still.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

PresenTense said:


> At the end of the day, does it matter at all? Is a classical musician/composer superior to a rock/pop/jazz one? Is art meant to be compared? Classical music is harder to get and that's why popular music is so popular?


Based upon what is this sentence ?


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

PresenTense said:


> At the end of the day, does it matter at all? Is a classical musician/composer superior to a rock/pop/jazz one? Is art meant to be compared? Classical music is harder to get and that's why popular music is so popular?


Within the American tradition, there have been a number of composers (and musicians) who merged popular and "classical" styles - Joplin, Gershwin and Peterson to name three. The British and European tradition has been more towards the folk end of the spectrum than the popular - Grieg, Bartok and Vaughan Williams all made use of folk melodies.

I'm more familiar with the folk tradition and this is a regular topic of discussion. One thinks of Menuhin attempting to play folk for example. One point that has recently been made is the ability of some classically trained musicians to sight read folk melodies and play them at speed with an authentic feel. The general trend in folk is to disparage "the dots" because a dots bound musician may not be in touch with the tradition.

An interesting side note, the original "classical style" was not fully notated and relied on improvisation sometimes based on standard grounds e.g. the ruggiero or bergamask or passo mezzo. This has gone to some extent from Classical music but is still evident in jazz and blues. The standard 12 bar blues is just another ground. In the folk scene you can find similar examples e.g. Bert Jansch's _Angie_ uses the descending bass line typical of a passacaglia.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

PresenTense said:


> At the end of the day, does it matter at all? Is a classical musician/composer superior to a rock/pop/jazz one? Is art meant to be compared?


 Of course art is not meant to be compared. Those considerations come after the fact. There can be useful and educational comparisons and analyses when considering the cross pollenation and influences on each of the genres by the other, but there's no use in claiming one is superior to another.

The meaning of music is expression and communication. And it can be accomplished with three chords in two minutes, or a 60 minute symphony utilizing 100 musicians. And sometimes the two minute pop number can sound like a symphony, especially if it's a Beach Boys song with 30 musicians and 5 part vocal harmonies.


----------



## PresenTense (May 7, 2016)

starthrower said:


> Of course art is not meant to be compared. Those considerations come after the fact. There can be useful and educational comparisons and analyses when considering the cross pollenation and influences on each of the genres by the other, but there's no use in claiming one is superior to another.
> 
> The meaning of music is expression and communication. And it can be accomplished with three chords in two minutes, or a 60 minute symphony utilizing 100 musicians. And sometimes the two minute pop number can sound like a symphony, especially if it's a Beach Boys song with 30 musicians and 5 part vocal harmonies.


Nice answer and very true.


----------



## Guest (Sep 4, 2016)

PresenTense said:


> At the end of the day, does it matter at all? Is a classical musician/composer superior to a rock/pop/jazz one? Is art meant to be compared? Classical music is harder to get and that's why popular music is so popular?


Four questions, to which the answers are (at the beginning of the days as well as the end) no (except to those that want to make comparisons); no (because notions of 'superiority' in this context are about as valid as suggesting that air is superior to water); yes or no (depending on whose definition of 'art' you're working with and what is meant by 'meant'); no (because people like 'popular' music - check the definition - independently of a rejection of any other music).


----------



## Iean (Nov 17, 2015)

From the replies above, it seems that members agree that between classical music and pop music, there is no superior genre. I just dont understand why some fans of classical music treat pop music fans as second-class citizens. Based from my personal experiences, people are generally impressed when I tell them I listen to Bach and Wagner. But when I tell them I also listen to Bob Dylan and Rihanna, they always ask "Are you serious?"


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Dedalus said:


> To the extent that all music shares SOMETHING in common (4'33" has sound still right?) then yeah, sure, they can be compared and contrasted. Coming from a rock and metal background and coming to classical music a bit later in life (like when I was 24, 26 now), I find a lot of similarities with classical and metal. Specifically any classical music that is mainly diatonic. Most rock and metal use rather diatonic type things for the most part.


 extreme metal very often does not sound very diatonic to me.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

norman bates said:


> extreme metal very often does not sound very diatonic to me.


You would be right. There are is a lot of metal music that is heavily chromatic to get a dissonant, mean, dark, clashing sound. Much heavier metal uses lots of tritones and stuff like minor seconds along with unconventional rhythms and super loud in your face drums, or even constant blast beats, depending on the exact genre or band. Metal is incredibly diverse though, so it's quite hard to talk about it in generalities. I tend to prefer metal that leans in the prog direction, which I think tends to be more diatonic however still with liberal use of chromaticism.

Edit: To make this post more relevant to the OP I want to make one more point. Classical music runs the gamut from perfectly diatonic to absolutely chromatic, so in any case a comparison between the two is acceptable. Classical music is probably an even more diverse than metal is (hard to believe for some of those who only know metal) given that it spans centuries. So I pretty much maintain my original point which is that _of course_ different kinds of music can be compared and contrasted.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Iean said:


> From the replies above, it seems that members agree that between classical music and pop music, there is no superior genre. I just dont understand why some fans of classical music treat pop music fans as second-class citizens. Based from my personal experiences, people are generally impressed when I tell them I listen to Bach and Wagner. But when I tell them I also listen to Bob Dylan and Rihanna, they always ask "Are you serious?"


I do think that classical music is superior to pop music in certain aspects. Classical music in general focuses on musical thought development using relatively complex musical forms whereas pop music relies heavily on lyrics and simple rhythms and melodies within much simpler musical forms.

To me music that develops musical thought relying purely on musical constructs is superior music than music that relies on lyrics, which is non-music, and much simpler musical forms with little to no musical development.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I do think that classical music is superior to pop music in certain aspects. Classical music in general focuses on musical thought development using relatively complex musical forms whereas pop music relies heavily on lyrics and simple rhythms and melodies within much simpler musical forms.
> 
> To me music that develops musical thought relying purely on musical constructs is superior music than music that relies on lyrics, which is non-music, and much simpler musical forms with little to no musical development.


I respect your above assertion that, to you, music that develops musical thought relying on musical constructs is superior music, etc. I lack a working meter that measures superiority, and I suspect that you lack one also, so I think it's best to leave this (superiority) as a pure assertion, without proof. All I can say with accuracy is that there are many pieces of classical music that I like, and many that do not interest me. Ditto for pop music. Depends a lot on my mood.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> I respect your above assertion that, to you, music that develops musical thought relying on musical constructs is superior music, etc. I lack a working meter that measures superiority, and I suspect that you lack one also, so I think it's best to leave this (superiority) as a pure assertion, without proof. All I can say with accuracy is that there are many pieces of classical music that I like, and many that do not interest me. Ditto for pop music. Depends a lot on my mood.


Similarly, there are many classical pieces that I do not like. But there are very few pop songs that I like. However, like has nothing to do with my belief in the superiority of classical music.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Iean said:


> *From the replies above, it seems that members agree that between classical music and pop music, there is no superior genre.* I just dont understand why some fans of classical music treat pop music fans as second-class citizens. Based from my personal experiences, people are generally impressed when I tell them I listen to Bach and Wagner. But when I tell them I also listen to Bob Dylan and Rihanna, they always ask "Are you serious?"


Asking if classical is superior is problematic and makes little sense. But asking if it is better for specific purposes makes perfect sense. I would say that classical music is far superior if one is listening for instrumental music organized as long-term unified expressive experience. And if one wishes to hear complex polyphony with maximal independence of line, then baroque and renaissance music is far superior for that purpose.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

There's lots of non-classical music that isn't necessarily "popular" or very commercial. Other than that, I don't think it makes much sense to compare very different kinds of music.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

It's okay--different music for different moods, situations, etc.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I don't have any strong opinions regarding the general issues here, but I'd be happy to get widespread agreement that people should be allowed to post Bill Evans album covers in the "Current Listening" thread of the main board.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Blancrocher said:


> I don't have any strong opinions regarding the general issues here, but I'd be happy to get widespread agreement that people should be allowed to post Bill Evans album covers in the "Current Listening" thread of the main board.


And I, Blossom Dearie.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Similarly, there are many classical pieces that I do not like. But there are very few pop songs that I like. However, like has nothing to do with my belief in the superiority of classical music.


Question: Is a piece of classical music that you do not like superior to a piece of popular music that you like? Trying to get a handle on this concept.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Strange Magic said:


> Question: Is a piece of classical music that you do not like superior to a piece of popular music that you like? Trying to get a handle on this concept.


It's probably superior in having qualities associated with classical music.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DeepR said:


> It's probably superior in having qualities associated with classical music.


Ahh, all is clear to me now.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Question: Is a piece of classical music that you do not like superior to a piece of popular music that you like? Trying to get a handle on this concept.


Yes. Shostakovich's 13th symphony and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, to give a concrete example.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

DeepR said:


> It's probably superior in having qualities associated with classical music.


But we can discuss musical qualities, regardless of their association with a particular genre.


----------



## Folsom (Sep 4, 2016)

I compare pop to classical, but not classical to pop... Sometimes certain pop music is composed so well that it's on a level that makes you think about classical. For example The Downward Spiral is something else; although the album isn't as consistent as a very good classic album for composure since it wasn't the intention. 

But I will compare sonic qualities of pop albums vs. classical albums because I'm willing to make notes on anything that sounds good.


----------



## PresenTense (May 7, 2016)

Folsom said:


> I compare pop to classical, but not classical to pop... Sometimes certain pop music is composed so well that it's on a level that makes you think about classical. For example The Downward Spiral is something else; although the album isn't as consistent as a very good classic album for composure since it wasn't the intention.
> 
> But I will compare sonic qualities of pop albums vs. classical albums because I'm willing to make notes on anything that sounds good.


Radiohead has that effect on me. When I listen to their albums (From Kid A to A Moon Shaped Pool) I can't help but think of some composers. I think It has to do with the fact that Jonny Greenwood has a classical-music project.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes. Shostakovich's 13th symphony and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, to give a concrete example.


Hang on...I thought we were talking about 'pop' music - I wouldn't include Pink Floyd's output in that category, especially since you already spoke of pop's reliance on lyrics.

Trying to assert that classical is superior to pop is like trying to say that a table is superior to a chair.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes. Shostakovich's 13th symphony and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, to give a concrete example.


Thank you for the example. This leads to the next question: is there any piece of classical music that is inferior to The Dark Side of the Moon?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes. Shostakovich's 13th symphony and Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, to give a concrete example.


Well, it's superior in being a symphony....


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

DeepR said:


> Well, it's superior in being a symphony....


Ahh, again all is made clear!


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I'm sure you get my point that it's pointless to compare different music from different genres like this, unless you want to measure all music against the same standards, whatever those may be. 
How is any symphony superior to Dark Side of the Moon when DSotM isn't a symphony and of a completely different genre of music with different aims, expression, sound, instruments and techniques?


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

For me, no genre of music is 'superior' and I wouldn't even try to compare them. Superiority suggests a snobbish assumption that one style of music is better than another. As I listen to a variety of styles, and find something to love in all of them, that concept seems bizarre to me. Why can't I love the Ramones and Beethoven in equal measure? This morning I played Bachman Turner Overdrive's 'Not Fragile' album on the way to work and Dvorak's 8th by Dorati on the way home.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Merl said:


> This morning I played Bachman Turner Overdrive's 'Not Fragile' album on the way to work and Dvorak's 8th by Dorati on the way home.


da da da da da dah... da dah, da da da da da dah da da dah... Not Fragile Over You!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Hang on...I thought we were talking about 'pop' music - I wouldn't include Pink Floyd's output in that category, especially since you already spoke of pop's reliance on lyrics.
> 
> Trying to assert that classical is superior to pop is like trying to say that a table is superior to a chair.


OK, fine, then substitute "Thriller" for The Dark Side.

And I don't think the table to chair analogy is a good one. They each have a very specific "practical" purpose whereas we're talking about comparing different sub-forms of art.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> Thank you for the example. This leads to the next question: is there any piece of classical music that is inferior to The Dark Side of the Moon?


Very likely, yes.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Merl said:


> For me, no genre of music is 'superior' and I wouldn't even try to compare them. Superiority suggests a snobbish assumption that one style of music is better than another. As I listen to a variety of styles, and find something to love in all of them, that concept seems bizarre to me. Why can't I love the Ramones and Beethoven in equal measure? This morning I played Bachman Turner Overdrive's 'Not Fragile' album on the way to work and Dvorak's 8th by Dorati on the way home.


I don't think snobbery has anything to do with it. I'm just simply asserting that to me a great symphonic piece of music is greater musically than a great pop song because I think it takes much greater skill to create the symphonic piece and as a listener, I have been rewarded both emotionally and intellectually to far greater depths by symphonic music than any pop music.

Why would you say that believe one genre of music being superior to another involves snobbery?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

DeepR said:


> Well, it's superior in being a symphony....


... and a symphony is superior to a song ...


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> ... and a symphony is superior to a song ...


When you listen to inferior pieces, whether classical or popular, how do you feel? Is part of you saying "I really like this!" while another voice whispers "I am wasting my time/demeaning myself/forgetting my standards listening to this stuff." This whole superior/inferior thang is really a game we play to justify our tastes in the arts to ourselves IMHO. As I posted before, my superiority meter broke a long time ago and I am left with: I like it/it doesn't interest me. Obviously I like more and less, but superior/inferior?: not my style.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Maybe a historical view on the matter could also reveal something. 

We seem to be comparing the best of centuries of classical music with a few decades of pop music (in a broad sense). 
How would they compare if we focussed on 1960 and after? Or maybe on what was issued after the year 2000? 
I think many classical music lovers would have trouble naming even one piece of classical music that was written after 2000. So how superior would that be in comparison?


----------



## James Mann (Sep 6, 2016)

I don't think it makes much sense to compare. Classical and popular music are completely different, artistically and aesthetically, though they can both be influenced by shared musical elements.


----------



## Iean (Nov 17, 2015)

Casebearer said:


> Maybe a historical view on the matter could also reveal something.
> 
> We seem to be comparing the best of centuries of classical music with a few decades of pop music (in a broad sense).
> How would they compare if we focussed on 1960 and after? Or maybe on what was issued after the year 2000?
> I think many classical music lovers would have trouble naming even one piece of classical music that was written after 2000. So how superior would that be in comparison?


Very interesting idea. :angel:


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> OK, fine, then substitute "Thriller" for The Dark Side.


Now you're talking. Great pop album, up there with the best. In some ways, incomparable, especially with a symphony, anybody's symphony.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> And I don't think the table to chair analogy is a good one. They each have a very specific "practical" purpose whereas we're talking about comparing different sub-forms of art.


The wonderful thing about analogy is that it only has to have one single point of comparison, and the greater the remove from the original context, the easier the point of comparison becomes. As you correctly point out, a table and chair have specific purposes so neither one has superiority. That's it. It is doesn't fail as an analogy because there are no other points of comparison.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> When you listen to inferior pieces, whether classical or popular, how do you feel? Is part of you saying "I really like this!" while another voice whispers "I am wasting my time/demeaning myself/forgetting my standards listening to this stuff." This whole superior/inferior thang is really a game we play to justify our tastes in the arts to ourselves IMHO. As I posted before, my superiority meter broke a long time ago and I am left with: I like it/it doesn't interest me. Obviously I like more and less, but superior/inferior?: not my style.


Only the voice saying "I like this!". It makes no sense to me to think I'm wasting my time when I'm doing something I like. I am capable of enjoying things I consider inferior to others; it's really easy for me.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Now you're talking. Great pop album, up there with the best. In some ways, incomparable, especially with a symphony, anybody's symphony.
> 
> The wonderful thing about analogy is that it only has to have one single point of comparison, and the greater the remove from the original context, the easier the point of comparison becomes. As you correctly point out, a table and chair have specific purposes so neither one has superiority. That's it. It is doesn't fail as an analogy because there are no other points of comparison.


How about this analogy: a symphony is a cathedral while a pop song is a toolshed. Yes they serve very different purposes but from an architectural viewpoint, isn't a cathedral superior than a toolshed, in terms of complexity, skills needed to build it, ability to give pleasure on multiple levels made possible by the many different building blocks involved and their interaction? That is how I see a symphony vs a song. A symphony is built on musical elements which are developed and woven together in a complex manner which gives a greater depth to the musical creation. It rewards repeated listening to a much greater degree and as it provides the listening with a multitude of musical ideas and their development. It requires a lot more knowledge and skill to write a symphony than a song. That is why I consider a symphony superior to a song.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Casebearer said:


> Maybe a historical view on the matter could also reveal something.
> 
> We seem to be comparing the best of centuries of classical music with a few decades of pop music (in a broad sense).
> How would they compare if we focussed on 1960 and after? Or maybe on what was issued after the year 2000?
> I think many classical music lovers would have trouble naming even one piece of classical music that was written after 2000. So how superior would that be in comparison?


Yes, there is that as well but I am talking about the symphony in general.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

I understand but for a fair comparison I suppose the historical time frame matters. If classical music (e.g. symphonies) is superior than it would be easy to name say a dozen pieces of classical music written after 2000 that would surely be judged higher from a purely musical viewpoint than the best pieces of popular music written after 2000.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> How about this analogy: a symphony is a cathedral while a pop song is a toolshed. Yes they serve very different purposes but from an architectural viewpoint, isn't a cathedral superior than a toolshed, in terms of complexity, skills needed to build it, ability to give pleasure on multiple levels made possible by the many different building blocks involved and their interaction? That is how I see a symphony vs a song. A symphony is built on musical elements which are developed and woven together in a complex manner which gives a greater depth to the musical creation. It rewards repeated listening to a much greater degree and as it provides the listening with a multitude of musical ideas and their development. It requires a lot more knowledge and skill to write a symphony than a song. That is why I consider a symphony superior to a song.


The architecture of a cathedral may be more complex than a toolshed, but I know what I'd rather have at the bottom of my garden when I need a wrench or a hammer. I could also use my shed as a place of worship, though admittedly, the congregation would be quite small.

I agree all your points about complexity and scale, but 'superior' is simply the wrong word to use about the whole (form, purpose, impact) of both (song and symphony). They are different types of music written for different purposes. I am as happy to listen to a pop song as a symphony - depending on my mood - and have returned to the work of The Beatles as often as I've listened to my favourite symphonies. I've chatted up more girls at discos listening to "2,4,6,8 Motorway" than to "Eroica".


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

A dedicated Rationalist, entirely eschewing belief in the supernatural, might judge a cathedral a vast and expensive heaping up of resources to the worship of Folly; whereas a sturdy, functional toolshed is a temple of practicality and usefulness. A small village library versus the Hagia Sofia: which is superior? I like MacLeod's analogy. Then we can turn to the issue of a vast, interminable, gaseous symphony (unnamed, I hasten to add), much sound and fury signifying nothing, and _Good Vibrations_.

My apologies to MCL for fiddling with his metaphor.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I prefer _A Day in the Life _to many more "serious" compositions. If nothing else, it doesn't bore me.


----------



## Guest (Sep 7, 2016)

Compare and contrast cathedral and tool shed:

View attachment 88528


http://www.countryliving.com/gardening/garden-ideas/g1895/garden-sheds/

View attachment 88529


http://www.123rf.com/photo_12567507...-in-nin-croatia-built-in-the-9th-century.html


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I used to enrage my wife by referring to Beethoven's symphonies as mansions, and Haydn's as primitive outhouses, two-holers at best. She has not forgotten, 40 years later, to my chagrin.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I think that it has perfectly sense comparing two pieces of music. The "apples and oranges" argument does has a sense to a certain degree, but one can evaluate how much the music is successful. 
So I can say without a doubt that a pop standard like Stardust, composed by Hoagy Carmichael is a great piece of music, while a classical piece of music like For the beauty of the earth composed by John Rutter is crap worth of the worst Britney Spears (let's say a song like Work b**ch, truly one of the most horrible songs I can think of).

On the whole, comparing classical music with popular music like two soccer teams does not have any sense at all, because we're talking of two universes too big. For instance if one consider many modern classical composers (Stockhausen, Cage, Reich, Ligeti, Partch, Parmegiani, Scelsi etc) they have more in common with a lot of popular genres (industrial, electronic music, new wave, pop, ambient etc) than with Mozart.
The only thing that it's possible to say is that on the average the quality of classical music is definitely higher, probably because even when it was produced for commercial reasons there was very often the desire to produce something that had a artistic value.


----------

