# Do you think too much pop/rock music can be a waste of time?



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I have this thought often that by indulging in the kind of "People's Magazine" world of pop/rock music, that I'm wasting my time, or possibly losing out to something that classical music can bring me. Like I'm sure most on here, I would brand my kind of pop/rock music in some way superior to someone elses, but I don't often see it as that. Rock music can be a fairly sordid story, and I find even a prolonged look at progressive rock to be personally regressive for various reasons. How do I bring out the side of me that's naturally interested in classical music more? I think honesty is the first principle. I cannot get myself excited by much of rock/pop music, whatever form it may take. I can't look at Brian Eno as a great intellectual, or find a lot of similarity with the "art" of rock/pop compared to what I find artistic and tasteful. How do people stop wasting their time with this music? Is it like some kind of conditioning which people have limited control over?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

For me it was a general boredom with the music I knew and that made me explore music i didn't know, which was classical at the time. After discovering classical, I have been listening to it 99% of the time I listen to music. I didn't have to force myself to it, though. It was a most natural transition for me.

I should also add that I wouldn't consider it wasting time if you truly enjoy the music you're listening to, no matter what genre.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

regenmusic said:


> How do people stop wasting their time with this music? Is it like some kind of conditioning which people have limited control over?


They like it. They have different tastes than you.


----------



## bioluminescentsquid (Jul 22, 2016)

No.


No music is a waste of time, as long as it is wont to increase the pleasure of the listener.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

I should really listen to more Reggae and rap music


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Does it really matter what people listen to?


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

I love rock and roll. Put another dime in the jukebox


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

D Smith said:


> I love rock and roll. Put another dime in the jukebox


You either live in another country or are seriously stuck in a time warp! :lol:


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Pugg said:


> Does it really matter what people listen to?


could you elaborate on that? what do you mean by saying it? because I hardly ever can believe that you believe it doesn´t matter.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

Pugg said:


> Does it really matter what people listen to?


No it doesn't, but people love talking about it. That's why forums (such as Talk Classical) exist in the first place! 

Am I right or what?


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

helenora said:


> could you elaborate on that? what do you mean by saying it? because I hardly ever can believe that you believe it doesn´t matter.


No it doesn't matter, people are free to listen to whatever they like, as long I also can listen to what I like.
No boundaries for anyone, you , me or Xenaxiboy and special for him, you are almost right, except this belongs in the non classical section.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Pugg said:


> No it doesn't matter, people are free to listen to whatever they like, as long I also can listen to what I like.
> No boundaries for anyone, you , me or Xenaxiboy and special for him, you are almost right, except this belongs in the non classical section.


thank you for the explanation.

yes, that´s it, it doesn´t matter, but it matters for *the one* who listens. let´s say if I as a listener got used to and like classical music, then for me it matters what I listen to, because I physically can´t stand hearing some sort of music. and for other people it matters for them what they listen to


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

helenora said:


> thank you for the explanation.
> 
> yes, that´s it, it doesn´t matter, but it matters for *the one* who listens. let´s say if I as a listener got used to and like classical music, then for me it matters what I listen to, because I physically can´t stand hearing some sort of music. and for other people it matters for them what they listen to


In that case my friend you are also right, I hate heavy metal and whatever but please let other "love" it as long as they are not pushing it trough my throat ( unwanted).


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Pugg said:


> In that case my friend you are also right, I hate heavy metal and whatever but please let other "love" it as long as they are not pushing it trough my throat ( unwanted).


absolutely. free will rules ( here we don´t discuss if free will exist )


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I've never seen Frank Zappa or Robert Fripp in People Magazine, so I guess it's safe to listen to their music. But seriously, if you enjoy any kind of music, that's the reward. Worrying that you should be listening to more Schubert while enjoying a Bob Dylan tune is counter productive.


----------



## jenspen (Apr 25, 2015)

I'm quoting somebody (can't remember who) whose smart-***** response to such a remark was - " too much of anything is not good. That's what 'too much' means".


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2016)

regenmusic said:


> I have this thought often that by indulging in the kind of "People's Magazine" world of pop/rock music, that I'm wasting my time, or possibly losing out to something that classical music can bring me. Like I'm sure most on here, I would brand my kind of pop/rock music in some way superior to someone elses, but I don't often see it as that. Rock music can be a fairly sordid story, and I find even a prolonged look at progressive rock to be personally regressive for various reasons. How do I bring out the side of me that's naturally interested in classical music more? I think honesty is the first principle. I cannot get myself excited by much of rock/pop music, whatever form it may take. I can't look at Brian Eno as a great intellectual, or find a lot of similarity with the "art" of rock/pop compared to what I find artistic and tasteful. How do people stop wasting their time with this music? Is it like some kind of conditioning which people have limited control over?


Too much of anything can be a waste of time. The words 'too' and 'much' are a bit of a giveaway. Personally, I love wasting my time with the non-intellectual Eno - I've probably more music by him than any other nestling on my CD shelves next to Deb, Sib and Beet!

As for other people, stop fretting over their time they're wasting. Let them enjoy what they will (provided they cause no harm to anyone else).


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

My only objection to popular music is when it is played too loudly and stops people talking at social gatherings.


----------



## alan davis (Oct 16, 2013)

I came to the conclusion many years ago that most pop/rock music consists of the same 3 or 4 chords repeated over and over again. After a few minutes there is no where for it to go so (mercifully) it just ends.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Most pop music I've heard in my day is extremely shallow, both musically and lyrically. 

Pop music relies almost entirely on its structural dynamic of "verse vs. Chorus" to attain satisfying musical drama. The chorus is underwhelming to make the chorus stick out as overwhelming, the listener's expectation of the next arrival of the chorus is what creates the musical tension that drives the song. That's pretty much the only technique they have (well, that and the cheap let's modulate up a half or whole step for the last chorus thing), whereas Classical music uses a much wider variety of musical tools to keep music interesting, driving and emotionally satisfying. 

Lyrically, almost every song I've heard is about satisfying desires of excessive greed and irresponsibility or about how they're happy they're together with someone or they're sad or mad that their no longer together with somebody (and not in a poetic "Winterriese" sort of way, but in an obnoxious obvious "I like this girl and now she's gone. I'm sad" kind of way). 

So ya, that's my rant on the pop music of my age at least.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Life's too short to listen to whatever music you do not like. Personally, I love good* pop/rock music as much as good* classical music, and I don't think one of the genres is intrinsically better than the other.

* "good" conveniently defined as anything I like....


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

alan davis said:


> After a few minutes there is no where for it to go so (mercifully) it just ends.


Apparently you haven't heard Hey Jude by the Beatles. It goes on and on and on...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

My theory is that the top ten or twenty percent of anything is the best of the best. So why focus on one thing and get to the point where you have to start digging down into the middle of the middle. A wide range of musical interests is a great thing. Not only can you just focus on the best of the best, you might find that the language of one genre of music helps you to understand the genre of another form better. The blues is at the heart of rock music. That is the place to start. Then branch out from there. Classical music isn't necessarily a higher form of music... there's just more good stuff because it's been going on for hundreds of years. Keep pushing the envelope, listen to people who know about things you don't know about and try to understand what they see in music you aren't familiar with.

By the way, intellectual isn't necessarily better. Complexity isn't either. A lot of people dismiss genres of music they know absolutely nothing about. Country music is the most overlooked genre because of this. Just listen to Were You There with Johnny Cash and the Carter Family. Listen to how they deliver the words of the song. It's like a laser beam straight to the heart. I would put this up with any oratorio or mass for sincerity and beauty.






I know people in their 50s who still listen to the music they listened to in high school. Music is like a familiar piece of furniture to them. They just have it around and don't think about it much. That is very sad.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Do you think too much Rock/Pop music can be a waste of time?
Do you think too much Folk Music can be a waste of time?
Do you think too much Classical Music can be a waste of time?
Do you think too much World Music can be a waste of time?
Do you think too much of The Blues can be a waste of time?
Do you think too much Jazz can be a waste of time?

While it is generally agreed that too much of anything is bad (too much health, too much happiness, too much love--all clearly bad), it is difficult to make a case that too much music that one likes is bad. I generally can't get enough of it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If you are interested in the actual syntax of music, and musical thought itself, then rock music is not the place to go. 

Harmonically, it is usually very simple. But we should approach it for other reasons, as a total art statement. It is a self-contained style which can comment on itself, so that can be interesting.

I don't think of Eno as a typical "rock" artist; I hold him on the same level as classical "art" music.


----------



## Guest (Aug 28, 2016)

bigshot said:


> I know people in their 50s who still listen to the music they listened to in high school.... ... That is very sad.


Sorry, I didn't mean to cause such sadness.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Not if you like it.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

And Brian Eno is a million times more interesting than the average pop/rock artist, for his ambient music.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Is too much pop/rock a waste of time? 

I remember reading old books from around the '40s which would agree with that question, contending that listening to popular music somehow ruins your ears for the more rarefied taste which is cultivated from the works of the masters, I guess in the way drinking cheap wine ruins your palate for the really great ones. 

Personally, I can be sitting on the edge of my seat listening to Boulez or Beethoven and the next minute be swooning to the vocal stylings of a chanteuse like Laura Fygi or caught up in the soul and rhythms of James Brown or Tower of Power. But if I can understand what's going on in each individual genre, I can sense what is good and bad within that genre. I think that's where true good taste lies.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I love the likes of Mendellsohn, Verdi, Rachmaninoff and all the rest. But I'd be sad if I had to give up Rory Gallagher, Lacuna Coil, and Frank Sinatra!


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Is reading sanctimonious claptrap by narrow minded bigots a waste of time? I certainly think so. There is as much boring, mindless music found in the classical world as there is in the pop world or the rock world neither of which, incidentally, should be thought of as at all the same animal. Every genre has it's share of repetitive note spinning and the more popular the genre then the likelihood is that much greater of there being a higher proportion of inconsequential product. No single genre should be considered as greater in appeal to any other. You like what you like and Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell and Frank Zappa are in my eyes the equal of Mozart, Mahler or Wagner or any other "classical" composer you care to name.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

'I know people in their 50s who still listen to the music they listened to in high school. Music is like a familiar piece of furniture to them. They just have it around and don't think about it much. That is very sad.' Bigshot in an earlier post

To dismiss 'familiarity' in this way (ie 'sad') arguably involves a lack of appreciation of the solace and reassurance that many people appear to derive from that which is 'familiar'.Speaking for myself I find that the sense of continuity in having known something (book, painting, piece of music) for a significant part of one's life can often mean that whatever it is provides a point of reference, often in troubling times in particular. I would also argue that this does not preclude continuing to 'think' about 'it'!
I have known Van Morrison's 'It's too late to stop now' since I was 14 and continue to listen to it as is the case with much of the music of Sibelius....but this does not prevent me from investigating new music with the same enthusiasm that lead me to Television's Marquee Moon on its release when I was 18 or last week when I first heard two of Dvorak's Piano Trios.....

I have no intention of causing offence or of even stimulating any argument.....I just believe that this type of judgement appears rather rash!


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Yup, too much of anything (except golf) is a waste of time.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Barbebleu said:


> Is reading sanctimonious claptrap by narrow minded bigots a waste of time? I certainly think so. There is as much boring, mindless music found in the classical world as there is in the pop world or the rock world neither of which, incidentally, should be thought of as at all the same animal. Every genre has it's share of repetitive note spinning and the more popular the genre then the likelihood is that much greater of there being a higher proportion of inconsequential product. No single genre should be considered as greater in appeal to any other. You like what you like and Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell and Frank Zappa are in my eyes the equal of Mozart, Mahler or Wagner or any other "classical" composer you care to name.


Oh, am I a narrow minded bigot now? Sorry. I'm completely open to pop music that I could consider good. As I said my comments were mostly directed at pop music of my time (Nsync, Brittany Spears, now Justin Bieber and Katy Parry and whoever else).

But in my mind, and mind you, this is just my opinion. Classical Music will always be better than almost any genre I can think of, for the mere fact that as a whole it has much more intricate and diverse ways to keep the music interesting, thrilling and expressive.

I guess I could liken it to Olympic Athletes. To me, pop music is like a group of gymnasts that can back flip and do a handstand or two. It's cool for a bit but if that's all they can do then it gets a bit old after a while. Classical Music is like a group of gymnasts that have an amazingly and diversified bag of tricks that can keep an audience wondering what they're going to do for days and days. That's just how I see it.

I don't know, I'm just the kind of person that needs music to be stimulating. A guitar chord progression over a song isn't that stimulating to me, especially compared to something like a Wagner Opera. Again, this is just my opinion.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Sorry V. I wasn't singling anyone out. I just get weary where people trash other people's taste in music and start mentioning things like time wasting and conditioning as if a different taste in music was a product of some sort of brainwashing. Baloney. 

It's called popular music for a reason and it isn't a lesser thing compared to any other genre. Any time spent in pursuing one's pleasurable entertainment is far from being wasted. In my opinion.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> If you are interested in the actual syntax of music, and musical thought itself, then rock music is not the place to go.
> 
> Harmonically, it is usually very simple. But we should approach it for other reasons, as a total art statement. It is a self-contained style which can comment on itself, so that can be interesting.


I personally am grateful to receive the permission of others to enjoy rock music. I also am happy to receive instruction in what I should legitimately expect from this music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Barbebleu said:


> Sorry V. I wasn't singling anyone out. I just get weary where people trash other people's taste in music and start mentioning things like time wasting and conditioning as if a different taste in music was a product of some sort of brainwashing. Baloney.
> 
> It's called popular music for a reason and it isn't a lesser thing compared to any other genre. Any time spent in pursuing one's pleasurable entertainment is far from being wasted. In my opinion.


Alright well, I'm not going to pursue this argument or we''ll be here forever. I wasn't talking about the degree to which someone might be entertained by this or that, but about the musical content itself.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

bigshot said:


> I know people in their 50s who still listen to the music they listened to in high school. Music is like a familiar piece of furniture to them. They just have it around and don't think about it much. That is very sad.


look at my last post on current listening non classical music, music from my childhood. I'm now in my 50s. I don't take offence to the post, I just don't agree.



jim prideaux said:


> 'I know people in their 50s who still listen to the music they listened to in high school. Music is like a familiar piece of furniture to them. They just have it around and don't think about it much. That is very sad.' Bigshot in an earlier post
> 
> To dismiss 'familiarity' in this way (ie 'sad') arguably involves a lack of appreciation of the solace and reassurance that many people appear to derive from that which is 'familiar'.Speaking for myself I find that the sense of continuity in having known something (book, painting, piece of music) for a significant part of one's life can often mean that whatever it is provides a point of reference, often in troubling times in particular. I would also argue that this does not preclude continuing to 'think' about 'it'!
> I have known Van Morrison's 'It's too late to stop now' since I was 14 and continue to listen to it as is the case with much of the music of Sibelius....but this does not prevent me from investigating new music with the same enthusiasm that lead me to Television's Marquee Moon on its release when I was 18 or last week when I first heard two of Dvorak's Piano Trios.....
> ...


This is a good post, and I agree wholeheartedly.

I know people my age who only know music from their younger days. It's the only thing they listen to. But, compared with me, and all of you, they don't listen to much music through the week, it just isn't that important to them. We here on TC do think music is very important, it plays a bigger role in our lives than many. For many, music is unimportant. Indeed, I know someone my age who can't name Beatles songs, and he didn't recognize Stairway to Heaven when I played it for my students. Is this sad? Who I am to judge? I can't name any hockey players, baseball players etc and I don't care to follow these sports.

Some people don't care about music, so if they only occasionally listen to music that is familiar, that's their business.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

starthrower said:


> Apparently you haven't heard Hey Jude by the Beatles. It goes on and on and on...


It's even longer when Sir Paul does it live. It's like 9 minutes long....


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Centropolis said:


> It's even longer when Sir Paul does it live. It's like 9 minutes long....


It's such a groovy sing along number! And nobody wants to hear McCartney's "classical" music anyway.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

starthrower said:


> It's such a groovy sing along number! And nobody wants to hear McCartney's "classical" music anyway.


I actually have most of his "classical music" CDs. But that's because I am a McCartney fan.....not so much because I am into his classical music that much compared to Chopin or Beethoven or something.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I was thinking along with the ideas of the influence of music, that violent music, like gangster rap, has to take its toll somewhat. 

Oscar Wilde wisely said "Life imitates art." I think since so much rock has been written by addicts, that maybe it somehow contributes to all the addiction we see around us. If you ever hang around people who use pot or even smoke, they don't have the same level of normal "social anxiety" as a non-intoxicated person. Maybe music by addicts creates the same effect. It makes you feel uneasy? 

I am wondering what is to be gained besides enjoyment from listening to more classical than pop music, I guess I'll have to find out because I think I still do listen to more "pop" music, in various forms, I would just call it non-classical music. 

This seems to be part of the age-old question about the value of listening to classical music. If you look at it from a lyrical side, you don't have the party-centric, lust-focused stuff a lot of rock music is based on. And then the idea of complex resolutions in classical music may somehow effect the thinking process, sort of like introducing algorithms into the mind.


----------



## bioluminescentsquid (Jul 22, 2016)

What about Gesualdo? Wagner? Rameau? Beethoven? Does listening to them make us the jerkholes they were?


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2016)

violadude said:


> Most pop music I've heard in my day is extremely shallow, both musically and lyrically.
> 
> Pop music relies almost entirely on its structural dynamic of "verse vs. Chorus" to attain satisfying musical drama. The chorus is underwhelming to make the chorus stick out as overwhelming, the listener's expectation of the next arrival of the chorus is what creates the musical tension that drives the song. That's pretty much the only technique they have (well, that and the cheap let's modulate up a half or whole step for the last chorus thing), whereas Classical music uses a much wider variety of musical tools to keep music interesting, driving and emotionally satisfying.
> 
> ...


As usual, the undefined term 'pop' leads to wide interpretation - and to an unjustifiably dismissive rant (your word, not mine) about a genre of music that brings pleasure to millions - both at the shallow end and the deep end.



bigshot said:


> I know people in their 50s who still listen to the music they listened to in high school. Music is like a familiar piece of furniture to them. They just have it around and don't think about it much. That is very sad.


Another member blind to the courtesy of respecting the tastes of others.

I, in my 50s, still listen to the music I listened to in high school, primary school, and even, god help me, before I was born! In fact this whole Forum is a meeting of people who spend inordinate amounts of time listening to the music of composers who've been dead hundreds of years! How sad is that??


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> As usual, the undefined term 'pop' leads to wide interpretation - and to an unjustifiably dismissive rant (your word, not mine) about a genre of music that brings pleasure to millions - both at the shallow end and the deep end.


You're right. I'm not sure what everyone means by pop, but I did clarify the type of pop I was referring to.

Although I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing up how many people enjoy it, or why that should have any bearing on my opinion of it.

I think I'm at a disadvantage here though. I'm competing against a bunch of old geezers who remember when pop music was actually good


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2016)

violadude said:


> You're right. I'm not sure what everyone means by pop, but I did clarify the type of pop I was referring to.
> 
> Although I'm not sure why everyone keeps bringing up how many people enjoy it, or why that should have any bearing on my opinion of it.


It needn't have any bearing on your opinion, but it might on the manner of expressing it.

Not all pop - of your day (or mine, or the days in between, or beforehand, or to come, I'm sure) are about love, lust and greed - which is one reason for checking what 'pop' you're referring to. However, bear in mind that love won and lost has been a theme for both pop and classical since man first opened his vocal chords to sing. Here's an example of such a song...



> Once I hoped, lamenting so justly
> 
> making such fervent verses heard,
> that pity's warmth might be felt
> ...


Slightly old-fashioned expression, and probably sung without grunting or moaning, yet James Blunt might recognise the theme and update it.

It's a sonnet by Petrarch, set to music by that well-known shallow popster Arnie Schoenberg, who kept the hits coming in the early part of the 20th C!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> It needn't have any bearing on your opinion, but it might on the manner of expressing it.
> 
> Not all pop - of your day (or mine, or the days in between, or beforehand, or to come, I'm sure) are about love, lust and greed - which is one reason for checking what 'pop' you're referring to. However, bear in mind that love won and lost has been a theme for both pop and classical since man first opened his vocal chords to sing. Here's an example of such a song...
> 
> ...


Were any of the claims I made that could be classified as somewhat objective untrue? If not, then I don't see why I should change how I express my views. Was I mean or rude or something? I didn't think so.

Anyway, maybe you should give me an example of good pop, because in my mind, and in my life, pop has always meant the Nsync, Britney Spears types.

As for the poem Schoenberg set to music, my problem isn't so much the subject matter as the way it's expressed...

Compare that poem with:

Yeah, yeah
It don't make no sense unless I'm doing it with you
It don't make no sense unless I'm doing it with you

The sun don't set the same as you're watching it go down with me
And I won't sleep the same unless you're waking up in here with me
Oh, my heart's a vacant house when you're gone away, it's so empty
And love don't make no sense when it's empty (Oh no)
I've driven almost every car
It ain't the same when I'm without you, boo
Been around a million stars
None of 'em shine brighter than you
The sky be so dark now without you
Yeah, ooh, baby

etc....


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2016)

violadude said:


> Were any of the claims I made that could be classified as somewhat objective untrue?


Yes, in that sweeping generalisations about 'pop' being 'shallow' won't be true for all people everywhere (which is surely what 'objective' implies). You might use the term 'shallow' to express some kind of dissatisfaction with it, but others would reject the relevance of the term to music at all, never mind its application to 'pop'.

I don't know enough about what is in the charts today to offer current examples of 'worthy' pop, but I find 'Happy' quite irresistible. Perhaps a look at the Top Forty for 2012 - where there are some songs I recognise - might help...

http://www.officialcharts.com/chart...gest-selling-singles-of-2012-revealed-__2689/

I like the number 1 by Gotye and Skyfall isn't bad, but of course, what I like isn't as important as pointing out that whilst it is true that the Top Forty does seem to be full of the kind of music that you object to, doesn't mean it must all be shallow etc etc.

Bear in mind that these songs lyrics are best served with the music.

And that the Top Forty of 1964 contains some of the songs guilty of exactly the same 'shallow' but which are pop/rock standards.

http://www.musicoutfitters.com/topsongs/1964.htm


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2016)

violadude said:


> I think I'm at a disadvantage here though. I'm competing against a bunch of old geezers who remember when pop music was actually good


Then do the same research you would expect others to do if they were dissing your favourite composer!


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> Another member <Bigshot> blind to the courtesy of respecting the tastes of others.
> 
> I, in my 50s, still listen to the music I listened to in high school, primary school, and even, god help me, before I was born! In fact this whole Forum is a meeting of people who spend inordinate amounts of time listening to the music of composers who've been dead hundreds of years! How sad is that??


Ha! Until I realised that you'd misunderstood Bigshot's point I thought you were saying that you were still listening to music that you'd heard in the womb!

In fact, most here have misunderstood it, I think. He means that it is sad that some folk still listen to their favourite music as teenagers, decade after decade, without the curiousity to listen to different types, whenever it was composed.

It is sad, in the sense that not everyone can experience the pleasure many of us here get from listening to fresh sounds. That is what I think he means!


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2016)

Wood said:


> Ha! Until I realised that you'd misunderstood Bigshot's point I thought you were saying that you were still listening to music that you'd heard in the womb!
> 
> In fact, most here have misunderstood it, I think. He means that it is sad that some folk still listen to their favourite music as teenagers, decade after decade, without the curiousity to listen to different types, whenever it was composed.
> 
> It is sad, in the sense that not everyone can experience the pleasure many of us here get from listening to fresh sounds. That is what I think he means!


I did wonder if he actually _meant _"I know people in their 50s who _only _still listen to the music they listened to in high school" - but he didn't _say _that, so he'll have to come back and clarify.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Yes, in that sweeping generalisations about 'pop' being 'shallow' won't be true for all people everywhere (which is surely what 'objective' implies). You might use the term 'shallow' to express some kind of dissatisfaction with it, but others would reject the relevance of the term to music at all, never mind its application to 'pop'.
> 
> I don't know enough about what is in the charts today to offer current examples of 'worthy' pop, but I find 'Happy' quite irresistible. Perhaps a look at the Top Forty for 2012 - where there are some songs I recognise - might help...
> 
> ...


I like the song Happy, it's pretty catchy. But for me, the problem is I always find myself saying "Ya, this is pretty good, for a pop song". For me, the fact that the qualification seems so necessary to add indicates something about my feelings toward it in relation to the other music I listen to. I guess what I'm saying is, I don't think all pop music is bad per se, but I don't see what it has to offer that Classical or some other genre doesn't already add 10X more effectively. As far as I can tell, most people I talk to go to pop for the catchy melodies. Classical music not only has catchy melodies, but sublimely beautiful catchy melodies that are just as lyrical if stripped completely from their context.

Is there something that you think pop offers that Classical can't? I'd be curious to hear. Thanks.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

violadude said:


> Is there something that you think pop offers that Classical can't? I'd be curious to hear. Thanks.


More individualistic, and just plain better singing.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2016)

violadude said:


> Is there something that you think pop offers that Classical can't? I'd be curious to hear. Thanks.


Well if we're sticking to 'pop' and not extend to 'pop/rock' or 'rock', I'd say that I've not come across 'classical' (itself a broad genre) doing what 'Happy' does.

If I invite a hall full of children (7-11, as I have done) to stand up and dance to The Lightning Seeds or Moby, they are much more inclined to do this than when I play the William Tell Overture, although many cannot resist jigging around to the gallop.

Pop does 'catchy' and 'rhythm' supremely well. I realise the thought of 'Dad dancing' is offensive to some, but if I get the chance to go to a dance (last time was last November, the let-your-hair-down evening at a conference for headteachers) and, for example, Bryan Ferry's _Lets Stick Together _comes on, it fills the floor. I can't think of any classical you could put on that would have the same effect.

As for your qualification 'for a pop song', I don't see a problem, except that you're even attempting the comparison. They are different musics for different purposes. What would be the point of saying that classical is rubbish to dance to?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> More individualistic, and just plain better singing.


In what way is it more individualistic? If it were, wouldn't it be more diverse? The opposite seems to be true to me.

As for better singing, I guess that's just a matter of taste. Most pop singing sounds really whiny to me. Give me a rich baritone any day


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

violadude said:


> In what way is it more individualistic? If it were, wouldn't it be more diverse? The opposite seems to be true to me.


Well to me classical singers sound clearly more homogenous. And I have definitely tried to learn to appreciate it. The classical singing styles don't use amplification which limits what kind of singing styles are practical to be heard over an orchestra. Also because of the emphasis on formal training, there's a more limited idea what is considered "correct" technique.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

If someone thinks anything is a waste of time, then the best approach is for _them_ not to bother with it. If others "waste their time" with it, that's their affair.

The opportunities for listening to music (and the sheer amount of music of all kinds) have never been greater. To my mind the real waste of time is wrangling over the quality of different genres when one could be listening to something one likes or discovering something new.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Dr Johnson said:


> If someone thinks anything is a waste of time, then the best approach is for _them_ not to bother with it. If others "waste their time" with it, that's their affair.
> 
> The opportunities for listening to music (and the sheer amount of music of all kinds) have never been greater. To my mind the real waste of time is wrangling over the quality of different genres when one could be listening to something one likes or discovering something new.


'Bang on' Dr J........wish I could have expressed myself so succinctly.......some would argue that I am wasting my time today, reappraising my opinion of Elgar, listening to Michael Brecker,looking at a book about urban planning in Central Europe in the first part of the 20th century and reading match reports from the weekend but there is a major part of me that is thankful that unlike a lot of people I even have the opportunity!


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

You can't have too much first rate Stravinsky _or_ Beatles - or too little Shostakovich or Springsteen.


----------



## Guest (Aug 29, 2016)

Jim "Life on the Edge" Prideaux said:


> urban planning in Central Europe in the first part of the 20th century


I feel quite giddy!


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

jim prideaux said:


> 'Bang on' Dr J........wish I could have expressed myself so succinctly.......*some would argue that I am wasting my time today,* *reappraising my opinion of Elgar,* listening to Michael Brecker,looking at a book about urban planning in Central Europe in the first part of the 20th century and reading match reports from the weekend but there is a major part of me that is thankful that unlike a lot of people I even have the opportunity!


Some might, but I definitely wouldn't be one them.

As for esoteric reading, later on, I may be continuing to peruse my The Pimlico Encyclopedia of Western Gunfighters, while listening to Shostakovich or Steely Dan, Delius or Deep Purple, Mahler or John Martyn.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

"If a little is great, and a lot is better, then way too much is just about right!"


----------



## Heliogabo (Dec 29, 2014)

Any kind of music can be a waste of time, if you don´t like it.
On the other side, while a listen to music I don ´t have the purpose to do something profitable, but something enjoyable.


----------



## Truculence (Aug 29, 2016)

Preconceptions and the attitude behind them is the the number one stumbling block is failing to appreciate any genre of music. Attitude based on a very small sampling of songs of modern music and perhaps a distaste towards certain principles behind them and a mis-characterization of what "classical" is. There is always something, "unacceptable", about some sort of music, or the name associated with the music. Typically, the music is assumed to be unmoving, banal, for a certain "crowd", and often, because the human lacks much critical thought, sputters the phrase "it's not 'REAL' music" to express poorly in words such thought. No, in fact you are just a ignorant listener with no sense of how the composition works and are already biased against it. The sound created may not be likable, but it is not any less music than likable sounds. 

"Classical" is a mere categorization, but spans over five hundred years with significantly different "principles" behind the compositions whereas even something like jazz has been around for much less time. But people have come to associate intellectual sophistication with it and stroke their own egos unconsciously that they themselves are better people or more sophisticated. No, you are not. 

There are gems of music that are crafted for video games, but people think video games and write it off because it is for a video game, actual notes be damned. In actuality, the music in video games is just like the incidental music of old, but through a different medium. Or perhaps, because it is mechanical and synthesized through a computer. But Yasunori Mitsuda is incredible in Chrono Trigger and Chrono Cross has a huge amount of quality musical works in those games, and is a classical-esque style. The opening to Chrono Trigger is symphonic but interesting in that it employs a synthesized saxophone.

Or Disney's Frozen. Merely because it is a children's movie with a insufficiently fleshed out plot for adults, and because it is "Disney-made", some people dismiss it. But,the music there is about as appropriate for the scenes in there as Mozart set his music to Figaro. Or in other words, incredible. 

Perhaps another excellent work, Robert Lopez's "The Internet is for Porn", is an extremely crafty composition that gets its point across exceptionally well, and even uses a rest to superb effect(the audience is given an irresistible urge to involuntarily participate). But, given that it is about watching porn, that it is commonly used in parodies on the internet, and has become a meme, no one has bother to appreciate that the music itself is effective at hammering the point it asserts. That there is masterful use of instrumentation and rhythm to make a conversation that ultimately has the debate won by Trekkie and the bass instruments. 

Some of the songs I like I stumbled across purely by chance. Eminence Front from a TV commercial for GMC. "Payphone" from the The Voice. "American Pie" and "The Boy is Mine" from summer camp radio when I was a 4th and 5th grader.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> Well to me classical singers sound clearly more homogenous. And I have definitely tried to learn to appreciate it. The classical singing styles don't use amplification which limits what kind of singing styles are practical to be heard over an orchestra. Also because of the emphasis on formal training, there's a more limited idea what is considered "correct" technique.


Alright, I get what you mean. I agree, the singing style is more individualistic in pop music, but not the musical content, I assume.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

I think the musical content of the following "pop" songs written by two of "pop" music's finest singer/songwriters might stand up to some scrutiny.


----------



## jim prideaux (May 30, 2013)

Barbeleu-coincidence!....

while reading your post regarding Joni M I am listening to her singing 'The man I love' from Herbie Hancock's album 'Gershwin's World'.....now ain't that a thing!

and if we really want to scrutinise your assertion regarding the musicality of the version of Amelia we need to take heed of the presence of not only P. Metheny but also a certain Jaco!


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Long live Jaco Pastorious for re-defining the electric bass!

Popular music can be a potent social force. It can disrupt things on a social level that classical music perhaps cannot; but when a phenomenon like Glenn Gould comes along with his re-defined Goldbergs, then the world takes notice! Van Cliburn shook up the world, too. Dudamel…affecting large numbers of youth, perhaps starting a social force which will lift third-world countries out of the poverty that are in…who knows? See the "music genres" thread.

In other words, as Jim Prideaux was saying, music should be a vital and meaningful part of our identity. It can be.

Any music genre has a life cycle, where is starts out viable and relevant, and then eventually becomes just another consumer item. The Sex Pistols became Nirvana, became REM became Green Day, and the cycle is complete. The Beatles became the more mature, artistic Beatles, and that became The Doobie Brothers and Iron Butterfly. The cycle of life/death continues.

Classical music is perhaps a "holding area" which is immune to genre and shifting taste, and industry assimilation. Or perhaps not.


----------



## Magnum Miserium (Aug 15, 2016)

millionrainbows said:


> Any music genre has a life cycle, where is starts out viable and relevant, and then eventually becomes just another consumer item. The Sex Pistols became *Nirvana, became REM *became Green Day, and the cycle is complete.


I guess _Monster_ shows some direct or indirect Nirvana influence, but everybody hates that record; anyway, Nirvana influencing REM before _Out of Time_ is chronologically impossible.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Magnum Miserium said:


> I guess _Monster_ shows some direct or indirect Nirvana influence, but everybody hates that record; anyway, Nirvana influencing REM before _Out of Time_ is chronologically impossible.


The chronological veracity of that sequence did cross my mind.

You sound like a believer.

BTW, Steppenwolf also made an album called Monster. I'll be toddling off, now...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

1. "Who is Nirvana?"

2. "Somebody get me a Nirvana!"

3. "Somebody get me something that sounds like Nirvana!"

4. "Who is Green Day?"

5. "Somebody get me a Green Day!"

etc…..


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> 1. "Who is Nirvana?"
> 
> 2. "Somebody get me a Nirvana!"
> 
> ...


Nice Ricardo Montalban reference there!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Barbebleu said:


> I think the musical content of the following "pop" songs written by two of "pop" music's finest singer/songwriters might stand up to some scrutiny.


Wish pop music today came anywhere close to Baker Street. Lyrics and memorable theme(that saxophone riff) are top notch.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Wish pop music today came anywhere close to Baker Street. Lyrics and memorable theme(that saxophone riff) are top notch.


When it's good, it's very good. Al Stewart's _The Year of the Cat_ falls into that category--a near-perfect song.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Wood said:


> In fact, most here have misunderstood it, I think. [Bigshot] means that it is sad that some folk still listen to their favourite music as teenagers, decade after decade, without the curiousity to listen to different types, whenever it was composed.


Indeed, and there are some who have not had much real opportunity to be exposed to different types of music, whether due to lack of exposure (e.g. in the media) or because of inverted snobbery imposed on them by similarly unenlightened parents or peer groups. You know the kind of thing: "Classical music isn't for the likes of me", "Ballet is for cissies", or "Punk is for foul-mouthed sociopaths", etc.

To me, I find this censorship/groupthink/whatever deeply saddening, like feeding a child exclusively on takeaway food or microwave meals. There are other experiences out there, which people may accept or reject once they've tried them, but they should at least be given a fair opportunity to try.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Strange Magic said:


> When it's good, it's very good. Al Stewart's _The Year of the Cat_ falls into that category--a near-perfect song.


Yep. I've been on a non-classical mini binge on YouTube. All the songs I listened to have in common great lyrics and/or memorable themes, which are two almost essential ingredients for me in "pop/rock" music.

Simon and Garfunkel - The Sound of Silence
John Lennon - Imagine
Bill Withers - Ain't No Sunshine When She's Gone
Ben E. King - Stand By Me

Was definitely not a waste of time


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

Too much of anything can make you sick
even the good can be a curse... :devil:


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Perhaps one can venture to, say, pop music outside developed economies, and then pop music across nearly a century, then folk and traditional music from different parts of the world and historical periods, etc.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yep. I've been on a non-classical mini binge on YouTube. All the songs I listened to have in common great lyrics and/or memorable themes, which are two almost essential ingredients for me in "pop/rock" music.


Exactly my sentiments and those 2 ingredients are getting harder to find in pop/rock music of the last few years. Off the top of my head, here are some examples of songs that fill the bill for me from the last 5 years (full disclosure: I define pop/rock broadly). None of these are heavy rock songs, but for me I have to go back further than 5 years to find heavy rock songs that appeal to me.

Christina Perri: Jar of Hearts






Christina Perri: The Words






Rachel Platten: Fight Song






Linkin Park: Iridescent






Bruno Mars: Just The Way You Are


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Here is an example of a classic song with a good melody and lyrics. However, it turns out that I really didn't know the lyrics that I've been singing along to all these years:


----------



## EarthBoundRules (Sep 25, 2011)

Pop is just as much of a waste of time as classical music is. It just depends on whether you think listening to music is a waste of time or not. I don't.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

What is your goal in listening to music? What should listening to music do for you? Why do you do it? What do you want music to do for you?

These are all questions which will determine whether or not music is useful to you or not.

Pop/rock music are not "wastes of time" simply because they are popular, and classical music is not "better" because it has different rewards.

Many younger people listen to music in a desire to establish identity; they either want to "belong" and be a part of something larger, or the "bad boys" use metal music to establish a distance from the norm by becoming a member of a "subculture."

Much of popular music is a socially-driven quest for identity, or to be part of society, or a race, culture, ethnicity, or to oppose "assimilation" by corporate entities, to be "independent", or to seek God, or simply for pleasure.

Classical music can also be a quest for national identity and cred, as Gustavo Dudamel is doing for his country.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

millionrainbows said:


> What is your goal in listening to music?
> 
> Many younger people listen to music in a desire to establish identity; they either want to "belong" and be a part of something larger, or the "bad boys" use metal music to establish a distance from the norm by becoming a member of a "subculture."
> 
> Much of popular music is a socially-driven quest for identity, or to be part of society, or a race, culture, ethnicity, or to oppose "assimilation" by corporate entities, to be "independent", or to seek God, *or simply for pleasure*.


Put me down for Simply for Pleasure. I'm looking first for Ecstasy; failing that, I'll go for Euphoria. Next comes simple happiness (often joy through tears)......


----------

