# classical that is like pop vs pop that is like classical



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

Which one do you listen to more often?


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Could you give an example or few for either category? 
I am not sure which kinds of music you have in mind.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I don't think I know any of either category. Is this a John Williams thread?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I avoid both "classical that is like pop or pop that is like classical." In fact, crossover styles are toxic music, IMO. They represent a compromise of what is important to each style.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

I think that nobody has done it yet. Could be a great idea in my opinion.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

"Pop that is like classical" seems to me to describe things that are more grandiose, like prog rock or Pink Floyd or Rush, maybe. "Classical like pop" could be some Bernstein, I guess.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

dissident said:


> "Pop that is like classical" seems to me to describe things that are more grandiose, like prog rock or Pink Floyd or Rush, maybe. "Classical like pop" could be some Bernstein, I guess.


I have questions on nomenclature (for you or anyone who wants to answer): Isn't the term "pop" commonly used for a subset of popular music that excludes prog, metal, hip hop, fusion, blues, etc.? And doesn't the global term for all of these genres together commonly include the complete word, as in "popular music?" Finally, isn't jazz commonly classifies outside either the pop or popular categories?


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

In common usage, yes, pop excludes those styles, but in the TC context I think of it as meaning "popular music" as opposed to "art music."


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> I avoid both "classical that is like pop or pop that is like classical." In fact, crossover styles are toxic music, IMO. They represent a compromise of what is important to each style.


Is Penny Lane or Eleanor Rigby considered toxic music?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

mossyembankment said:


> In common usage, yes, pop excludes those styles, but in the TC context I think of it as meaning "popular music" as opposed to "art music."


Yeah, I got the impression it was being used that way. No point in advising against it or hoping for terminological clarity here, I suppose.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Is Penny Lane or Eleanor Rigby considered toxic music?


I don't consider them be "pop that is like classical" just because they incorporate a string quartet. Andrea Bocelli is classical that is like pop. Ludovico Einaudi is pop that is like classical.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> *I don't consider them be "pop that is like classical" just because they incorporate a string quartet.* Andrea Bocelli is classical that is like pop. Ludovico Einaudi is pop that is like classical.


Spot on....................


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> I don't consider them be "pop that is like classical" just because they incorporate a string quartet. Andrea Bocelli is classical that is like pop. Ludovico Einaudi is pop that is like classical.


I'm in agreement about classical lite. It's not my cuppa tea but it provides enjoyment for many people. I suppose it has much to do with marketing to people who can't be bothered to look much further.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

Classical like pop is probably the worst of both worlds.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I really don't understand this thread. Is particularly lyrical, melodic classical like pop? Operas with catchy melodies? Jazz-inspired classical?


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> I have questions on nomenclature (for you or anyone who wants to answer): Isn't the term "pop" commonly used for a subset of popular music that excludes prog, metal, hip hop, fusion, blues, etc.? And doesn't the global term for all of these genres together commonly include the complete word, as in "popular music?" Finally, isn't jazz commonly classifies outside either the pop or popular categories?


Beats me. I just use it as shorthand for "not 'classical'", I guess. Maybe it's full name "popular music" would be better, I don't know.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I do like a lot of popular songs, mostly sentimental old songs and country music; but when it comes to making a comparison with classical, here is the difference: if I really, really like a popular song and decide to binge on it by playing it several times in a row, at some point the song will become boring to me or even annoying so that I won't want to hear it again for a long, long time. With classical music, it's just the opposite; if I play a piece of classical music several times in a row, I seem to get more out of it the more I hear it. Each time around I find new things to like about it; and even after all these years I've never felt as if I out-played the Beethoven symphonies, the late Mozart symphonies, the final Act of Wagner's _Gotterdammurung_; Tchaikovsky's _Symphony #6 "Pathetique"_; the Brahms' _German Requiem_; the Berlioz _Requiem_; Barber's _Knoxville: Summer of 1915_; Britten's _Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings_; and other favorites of mine too numerous to list. One of joys, to me, of classical music is taking pieces that are at first mystifying, such as Schoenberg's _Serenade_, Boulez' _Hammer with a Master_; or the string quartets of Bartok or Carter; and taking the time and effort to understand and enjoy the composer's musical vision. This is something that I don't seem to get much out of pop music.

As a genre, my experience with jazz seems to also be along the lines of classical, where some jazz artists such as Sun Ra, Charles Mingus, Roland Kirk, or Cecil Taylor, have a musical vision that can be challenging but very rewarding once we take the time to know them.

As for "Pop that is like classical and classical that is like pop" I guess there are some light classics that that awful typewriter thing by Leroy Anderson or that _Country Gardens_ by Percy Grainger that could be used as a form of torture by some sadist running a prisoner of war camp. On the other hand, there is some pop music (very little) that is along the lines of classical music in that there is shading and texture to it that remains interesting or even becomes more interesting upon several minds. Here, Frank Sinatra comes to mind; not so much his songs such as _That's Life_ or _New York, New York_; but in some of his ballads such as _You Will Be My Music_; or _Send In the Clowns_; Sinatra's phrasing is really beautiful, comparable, in a way, to a great classical or jazz musician such as Mstislav Rostropovich or Yo-Yo Ma; Miles Davis or John Coltrane. .


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Pop composers focus on the object. John Williams is probably the best at it.

Whereas Classical composers focus on the subject. Uematsu is a great Classical composer, but it's tough competition on the Classical side.

The former however doesn't _sound_ like pop. He's very expressive, he masks the object with rich details. But in the end he's not prioritizing the musical subject, he's weaving together images and emotions.

The latter on the other hand often sounds like (some form of uncommon) pop, not rococo pop but pretty close to Beethoven, but on closer inspection, each track is incredibly layered with the form of the musical subject matter. Some of this takes a trained ear in Classical to distinguish.

I still think as a whole, Final Fantasy IX or Star Wars Original Trilogy, are better works of art than say, Beethoven's 9th. But they're also longer.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> I still think as a whole, Final Fantasy IX or Star Wars Original Trilogy, are better works of art than say, Beethoven's 9th. But they're also longer.


They don't come even close to Beethoven's 9th in my opinion. And I _like_ Williams and Uematsu.



SanAntone said:


> I don't consider them be "pop that is like classical" just because they incorporate a string quartet. Andrea Bocelli is classical that is like pop. Ludovico Einaudi is pop that is like classical.


Both Bocelli and Einaudi are very popular, but I don't see much similarity between the classical-oriented style of what they sing/play with the _genre_ pop of a Michael Jackson, Madonna, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga etc.

I agree with you about _Penny Lane_ and _Eleanor Rigby_.



Xisten267 said:


> I think that nobody has done it yet. Could be a great idea in my opinion.


On second thought, probably there are many examples of mixes between classical and pop, and I just don't know them yet. Maybe a track such as this may qualify.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

To an extent classical period music is probably the most similar to chart pop, with the emphasis on a basis of rules designed to produce music pleasing to the ears of those buying/commissioning it.


----------



## Marcos (May 3, 2021)

Is this what you're talking about?





Or maybe this...





Pop musicians aiming for the stars are usually better than classical composers aiming for the gutter.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^
I've loved both of those pieces from the first time I heard them. But Frank Zappa was not a pop musician. And Mason Williams was a comedy writer for the Smothers Brothers TV show in the 1960s.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

I think Jeff Buckley with his 1994 release 'Grace' (where he covers Britten's version of Corpus Christi Carol) might be seen to have some classical leanings (as well as punk). 'Mojo Pin' is profound imo.


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

The band 'Sky': classical musicians playing 'pop', sometimes using their own arrangements of classical pieces and themes. Their piece 'Toccata' led to an appearance on 'Top of the Pops' in 1980.
ELP did a similar thing of arranging classical pieces (not exclusively), though the only 'pop' chart success they had in this vein was 'Fanfare for the Common Man', which is again an arrangement of a classical work.
Rick Wakeman fused classical and rock styles with his 'Journey to the Centre of the Earth' and 'Myths & Legends...' albums.
Andrew Lloyd Webber kind of does it all the time (bleeuurgh!)
The band 'The Enid' has made a long career out of creating classical-sounding music using guitars, drums and keyboards and some orchestral percussion. It's not fusion nor cross-over, but it is unique and worth exploring if you want to dip your toe into this sort of thing.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

starthrower said:


> ^^^
> I've loved both of those pieces from the first time I heard them. But Frank Zappa was not a pop musician. And Mason Williams was a comedy writer for the Smothers Brothers TV show in the 1960s.


Just to be sure, if Zappa is not pop what is he? Are you objecting to the use of the word pop for rock music or are you saying something more shocking?


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Coach G said:


> here is the difference: if I really, really like a popular song and decide to binge on it by playing it several times in a row, at some point the song will become boring to me or even annoying so that I won't want to hear it again for a long, long time. With classical music, it's just the opposite; if I play a piece of classical music several times in a row, I seem to get more out of it the more I hear it.


In other words, there are only two genres : Pop and Sizzle. We've been saying it for years, some musicians pop, and others like Bach, Mozart, they sizzle. However I don't think this 'sizzling classical' is a genre. It's not a category, but a spectrum, where some works sizzle better to certain people than others.

I do think there's a correlation here to the above mentioned subject-focused music. Unfortunately, much of this subject sizzling music is not of the greatest quality: enter hundreds of forgotten composers.



Xisten267 said:


> They don't come even close to Beethoven's 9th in my opinion. And I _like_ Williams and Uematsu.


I can't say I relate to the ancient mentality, though his symphonies are also examples of the very greatest quality. But I'd put many gaming scores, some full scores of Uematsu, Mitsuda, Sakuraba, above even Beethoven's best work, his Pastoral  There's just way more clever content to work with. But unlike Beethoven, these composers haven't had the time to be sorted by best quality, many weaker works and movements are listed as popular like as would've been Beethoven's time.

In my experience, Classical for most people is highly correlated to instrumental music, any instruments featured in orchestras, like piano and violin. The problem is a lot of Classical music is not pure like Bach or Uematsu are, it's puffed up with fake emotion like string concerti that predictably folds in on itself, and enunciated powerful opera, that when you grind them down to theory, are vapid. Second but more importantly, most Classical music supposes there has to be smooth flow and consistency in a composition. This oftentimes totally ignores and ruins the more profound creative process of musicians like Tchaikovsky or Liszt. A piece doesn't need to be all tied up and powdered like a tight bow, like even a Mahler symphony is. It can very frequently change its characterization, its key and theme, and retain the same momentum and flow.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fbjim said:


> To an extent classical period music is probably the most similar to chart pop, with the emphasis on a basis of rules designed to produce music pleasing to the ears of those buying/commissioning it.


Except the degree of "craftsmanship" involved in the idiom isn't quite like [How To Make a #1 Song - WITHOUT TALENT] and the strict adherence to those rules can sound "alien" or "archaic" to the modern ears. The best attempt was done by Prokofiev and even that one sounds "modern".

No one would be this pedantic




 (0:43~1:22)
"For modern listeners, one of the hardest things to grasp about the Classical style is its unabashed reliance on predictability. Before Beethoven at least, Classical composers simply didn't put much of a premium on innovation for its own sake. Unlike artists today, they weren't usually out to shock, or provoke, or to challenge their audiences. Their aim was to create music that was easily accessible and which honored what they thought of as the rules of good taste and propriety. This led to a heavy reliance on the conventional, and, thus, on the predictable. And one of the most predictable aspects of the style is its use of cadences. Simply put, if you know the classical style, it's often possible to anticipate when a cadence is coming."
and expect to be popular today.

Ironically "just throw away the rulebooks and write whatever you feel" is what the public really wants from the composers today:




Yuhki Kuramoto (a self-proclaimed heir of Rachmaninoff) is immensely popular in East Asia (especially in his homeland, Japan)


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fbjim said:


> To an extent classical period music is probably the most similar to chart pop, with the emphasis on a basis of rules designed to produce music pleasing to the ears of those buying/commissioning it.


Btw, your constant attacks on certain specific periods of the common practice in various threads are baffling. Opera had its low point in the baroque period with repetitive recitatives and da capo arias (basically "singing contests" for the famous singers of the time) before Gluck came along and revolutionized it, J.A. Hiller invented the singspiel. Repetitive, generic, uninspired, music existed in every period.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Btw, your constant attacks on certain specific periods of the common practice in various threads are baffling. Opera had its low point in the baroque period with repetitive recitatives and da capo arias (basically "singing contests" for the famous singers of the time) before Gluck came along and revolutionized it, J.A. Hiller invented the singspiel. Repetitive, generic, uninspired, music existed in every period.


You're overstating it as an attack. Like any music with very specific conventions and styles, part of the artistic appeal is seeing how great artists can work their creative voice into the work while still operating within an expected practice.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> Just to be sure, if Zappa is not pop what is he? Are you objecting to the use of the word pop for rock music or are you saying something more shocking?


Frank Zappa was a serious composer. Anyone familiar with his music knows this. Of course he had many other talents which he was famous or notorious for depending on your point of view. Does Peaches En Regalia sound like a typical pop song to you? I've never heard anything else that sounds like it. And it's just the tip of the iceberg compared to the 1000 plus pieces he wrote.

One thing that San Antone pointed out is the reason he doesn't like this crossover stuff is because it sounds half baked or maybe generic. Zappa never sounds like that. Everything he did bears his musical identity and is very strong and solidly constructed from a musical standpoint. It's good stuff!


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> I still think as a whole, Final Fantasy IX or Star Wars Original Trilogy, are better works of art than say, Beethoven's 9th. But they're also longer.





Ethereality said:


> I can't say I relate to the ancient mentality, though his symphonies are also examples of the very greatest quality. But I'd put many gaming scores, some full scores of Uematsu, Mitsuda, Sakuraba, above even Beethoven's best work, his Pastoral  There's just way more clever content to work with. But unlike Beethoven, these composers haven't had the time to be sorted by best quality, many weaker works and movements are listed as popular like as would've been Beethoven's time.


No way. There's no comparison between, for example, Uematsu's _Final Fantasy_ IX OST and Beethoven's _Ninth_ in terms of artistic merit in my opinion. The Uematsu work is comprised of small tracks that never develop, is poor in contrasts of dynamics and tempi, generally don't make much great use of counterpoint, don't have an overall architecture, don't have clever formal interplays in each of it's movements (the 2nd movement of the Ninth plays simultaneously with sonata form, scherzo and the fugue for example), almost don't modulate, don't have powerful and electrifying rhythms, etc., contrary to the Beethoven work that not only is superb in all these features and details but also is unique in many ways, for example in it's intro that would influence later composer's such as Bruckner, in the tone clusters in the beginning of the finale that were totally uncommon for the symphonies of it's time, in the use of voices in the last movement (it's the first vocal symphony ever), in the very unorthodox style of vocal writing etc. According to this site, the Ninth was the single work of art that inspired the methodology of musical analysis. Great composers such as Wagner, Mahler, Bruckner and Brahms were deeply influenced by it and had their own ways of responding musically. It was revolutionary, a true game changer in the world of music in ways that Uematsu's work is not. Also, Beethoven's Ninth is deeply expressive, an ode to freedom and joy of all of humanity, while the Uematsu work is just entertaining.

I like Uematsu, you do too, and that's OK, but we're not going to agree that the japanese is a better composer than Beethoven, nor that any Final Fantasy soundtrack is a better work of art than famous symphonies such as the _Pastoral_ or the _Choral_. I think that you're severely underestimating one of the brightest minds of classical music.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The only work that comes to my mind that crosses over astonishingly well is William Bolcom's mammoth setting of Blake's "Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience."


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Xisten276:

BUT, and there's always a but, since FFIX is objectively better (and it is--but let's pose for an argument that it is), then it suffices to say these elements you list are indeed what make the _9th_ a good piece of music, not what make other works great. But I partially agree on some of your points about the 9th, I would just add better points. I don't think those points capture some of the more beautiful and (as you added) "entertaining" features of the work.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> Which one do you listen to more often?


Which one do _you _listen to more often?


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Ethereality said:


> Xisten276:
> 
> BUT, and there's always a but, *since FFIX is objectively better (and it is*--but let's pose for an argument that it is), then it suffices to say these elements you list are indeed what make the _9th_ a good piece of music, not what make other works great. But I partially agree on some of your points about the 9th, I would just add better points. I don't think those points capture some of the more beautiful and (as you added) "entertaining" features of the work.


Good luck finding musicologists or other intellectuals who share your opinion.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

starthrower said:


> Frank Zappa was a serious composer. Anyone familiar with his music knows this. Of course he had many other talents which he was famous or notorious for depending on your point of view. Does Peaches En Regalia sound like a typical pop song to you? I've never heard anything else that sounds like it. And it's just the tip of the iceberg compared to the 1000 plus pieces he wrote.
> 
> One thing that San Antone pointed out is the reason he doesn't like this crossover stuff is because it sounds half baked or maybe generic. Zappa never sounds like that. Everything he did bears his musical identity and is very strong and solidly constructed from a musical standpoint. It's good stuff!


Thanks. Hot Rats aside I never warmed to Zappa. I know he had something but that something is not for me. I had not been aware that he wrote classical music (examples?) although I do know that there was a minor baroque composer called Frank Zappa. I don't see him as a crossover artist, though, so I agree with you there.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I wouldn't call Zappa's orchestral music classical if only referring to the term generically. It's all very modern sounding. Examples would be a number of CDs released including two volumes recorded by the London Symphony under Kent Nagano, The Perfect Stranger album with Pierre Boulez, Orchestral Favorites recorded in LA in 1975 which was reissued in an expanded 3 disc set, and The Yellow Shark recorded live in Frankfurt 1992 with the Ensemble Modern conducted by Peter Rundel. There was a multi media chamber orchestra concert from 1963 that was up on YouTube but I don't know if it's still there? And there's the Sinister Footwear ballet performed by the Berkeley Symphony in 1984 which is on YouTube. I'm not sure Frank considered it a good performance because it was never released. But all of the official stuff on CD is high quality music in great sound. I realize Zappa music is not for everyone. Some folks love it and others just scratch their heads but I'm in the former camp.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Zappa is a unique artist/composer. I know he had aspirations of being a Classical composer, in the style of Varese or Stravinsky, and the record of his music by Boulez is probably the closest he ever achieved. I greatly admire Zappa, his discipline, the devotion to his vision, his abilities as a band leader, and of course his amazing talent, not least of which were his guitar playing and lyric writing.

I've not heard anything by him that did not exhibit the highest artistic values and in many ways his achievement is among the greatest of the last half of the 20th century.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

> Zappa is a unique artist/composer. I know he had aspirations of being a Classical composer, in the style of Varese or Stravinsky, and the record of his music by Boulez is probably the closest he ever achieved.


I wish he had recorded a few more pieces with the Boulez ensemble. I hear quite a strong Boulez influence in some of the Synclavier pieces he composed. And of course Varese is a big influence. But he has his own unique Zappa sound in those nested rhythmic groupings and chordal intervals he preferred. The Black Page really should be viewed in light of his very serious writing even though all released versions are featured on rock albums. It's an ingenious piece of complex percussion writing that also contains a beautiful melody.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Pop that is like classical: Most of Morricone's output.


----------

