# Popular candidates for classical glory



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

So instead of hijacking the Genesis thread, we could use this thread to nominate popular music songs from all genres, that we believe might measure up with classical music - hence the title of the thread.

This can function as some sort of game as well. At least I hope it will be fun. For example person A nominates a popular piece, they say why and write some sort of intro... and then we discuss it and some people defend the song and its potential for classical glory, while others emphasize its shortcomings, and why it doesn't even come close.

So here's the first candidate:

*1. The Beatles - Strawberry Fields Forever*





why: It's short and to the point (just 1:22), it's rich in sound and haunting, drums are used perfectly in this short piece. EDIT: actually full version is around 4 minutes


----------



## Littlephrase (Nov 28, 2018)

My heart is with The Beach Boys of Pet Sounds and Smile. The most sublime works of pop music ever created. 

Brian Wilson’s compositional chops in comparison with Bach and Beethoven is irrelevant (in my view).

Also Strawberry Fields Forever is a good four minutes, not 1:22 as your comment implies.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Littlephrase1913 said:


> My heart is with The Beach Boys of Pet Sounds and Smile. The most sublime works of pop music ever created.
> 
> Brian Wilson's compositional chops in comparison with Bach and Beethoven is irrelevant (in my view).
> 
> Also Strawberry Fields Forever is a good four minutes, not 1:22 as your comment implies.


Oops you're right. I shared shortened version.

Here is the full version:





It's still kind of short enough.

BTW I agree about Beach Boys... So many good songs on these albums. Any particular you'd like to nominate?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I don't think the Beatles will become classical. According to various sources, there are signs of their rapid popularity decline even though half of their members are still alive.
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/beatles-popularity-decline/
"As sales of music across the board continue to decline in favor of streaming, another manner of determining an act's popularity is by seeing how often people search for them on Google and YouTube. By that metric, it would seem that the Beatles are decidedly less popular than they were a decade ago.
Digital Music News has looked at data provided by Google Trends and concluded that they've had 70 percent fewer searches between January 2004 and the present. The graph includes all searches related to the band. According to the chart, interest has been declining steadily, although there was a major spike -- its highest placing in 13 years -- in September 2009. That corresponds with when the Beatles reissued their entire catalog and released a special version of the Rock Band video game on Sept. 9, 2009."


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

As the people of the Beatle's generation continue to shuffle off their mortal coils, I believe it would be natural to assume that the group's popularity would decline for those who didn't grow up with them. After all, their first hit was 'Love Me Do" in '62! That's almost 60 years ago... But I loathe the idea that they have to be associated with _classical_ music in any way (though there is the reversed finale of Schumann's _Symphonic Studies_ in "Revolution No. 9").  Nevertheless, I can easily imagine that they will still be considered _Classic (no al!) rock _for at least the next 50 to 100 years... They weren't just another group of rock musicians but an astonishing part of global history when they originally happened on the scene, and they were needed when they became huge in fun, astonishing creativity and spirit after the horrors of the JFK assassination in '63. Their presence uplifted the world for those who were then alive, and it was a huge tragedy when the vibrant, outspoken aliveness of John Lennon was later assassinated by a sick individual only seeking fame. The Beatles as 'classic' rock-yes.

Can both classical music and classic rock bring equal enjoyment? I believe _yes_ according to one's mood and inclinations-_Rock and Pop have the uplifting beat, the energizing rhythm-it's far more consistently physical_-that CM has to a lesser extent but is hardly without it. (At least Brahms did let his hair down with a brief _ tango_ in the 1st movement of his 4th Symphony, and I find it hard to sit still when listening to Dvorak, and of course, a vibrant beat can be found in other examples. But it's different than the rock, pop, or jazz rhythm or beat which have their own virtues if one is so inclined.)

The Beatles had 27 #1 hits alone, which I find quite astonishing to capture the public's imagination. They were unprecedented in their degree of talent and popularity, and I still enjoy them being as fresh as ever in honesty, originality, social commentary, and as outstanding musicians. I particularly enjoyed Paul's mastery of the bass and George's mastery of the guitar. I thought they were tops and it immediately captured my attention from the very beginning.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

McArthur Park


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

It’s foolish to compare pop with CM—they are completely different idioms.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

MarkW said:


> McArthur Park


But only in the Richard Harris recording. That's the problem that pop faces - it's too dependent on the performer. The composer is secondary, which is too bad because Jimmy Webb is a genius. Wichita Lineman is a great song, but so far only Glen Campbell was able to make it work, although I would sure like to hear Clay Walker have a shot at it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm not sure what classical glory is or why we would need to call a Beatles song "classical" to emphasise its greatness. Ability to tick a few of the "classical music boxes" is not what is good about Strawberry Fields great.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

If one allows oneself a little independence of mind and lets one's imagination roam, there is little objection to considering Led Zeppelin's amazing _Kashmir_ as a fine [Edit: add adjective "Rock"] Art Song by, say, a Prokofiev having been shown and having heard the kit of a 20th century rock ensemble. The combination of the percussiveness, the instrumental timbres, and the orientalism of the lyrics all combine to render _Kashmir_ as a contender for "classical" glory....


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ I won't argue but I ask _why? _Why would anyone need to take it from the genre it belongs (and perhaps shines) in and place in a different genre with a very different aesthetic? I just don't get it.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

ZJovicic said:


> So instead of hijacking the Genesis thread, we could use this thread to nominate popular music songs from all genres, *that we believe might measure up with classical music* - hence the title of the thread.
> 
> This can function as some sort of game as well. At least I hope it will be fun. For example person A nominates a popular piece, they say why and write some sort of intro... and then we discuss it and some people defend the song and its potential for classical glory, while others emphasize its shortcomings, and why it doesn't even come close.
> 
> ...


If your point is that music of other genres can be _as good as_ classical, I agree with you. Classical is a big genre, and as such, there's great diversity of music in it, and there are composers and compositions of all kinds of quality, some great, others not so much. I believe that the greatest music ever is to be found in classical though, and that the best from other genres cannot top the best of it.

Can _Strawberry Fields Forever_ measure up with _4'33"_? The answer is an "obviously yes, are you kidding?" for me. Can it measure with Bach's _St. Matthew Passion_? Well, I don't think so. For me, not even a full Beatles album comes close.

In my opinion, The Beatles measure up with J. Strauss II. For me, both have well made lightweight entertainment music, both are nice melodists, both enjoyed immense popularity in their time (well, the Beatles still do), both are fun and valued timbristic diversity in their works (for example, The Beatles introduced a sitar in _Love You To_, and Strauss a zither into _Tales From Vienna Woods_), both did amazing dance music. John Lennon did _Imagine_, urging people to live together and in peace, and Strauss created the waltz _Be Embraced, You Millions!_ on Schiller's _Ode to Joy_, that did the same (A request by a certain J. Brahms. The text is the same that inspired Beethoven's Ninth.).


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ I won't argue but I ask _why? _Why would anyone need to take it from the genre it belongs (and perhaps shines) in and place in a different genre with a very different aesthetic? I just don't get it.


I will assume you refer to my post on _Kashmir_. I certainly do not propose redefining Kashmir or any other non-classical song as Classical Music. I merely A) point to an example of where the two circles of the Venn diagram come close enough to be nearly tangential, and B) Kashmir in my view will (or should) be considered a Classic of rock, at the very pinnacle.. Note my edit of my previous post.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> In my opinion, The Beatles measure up with J. Strauss II.


I don't see the Beatles (especially John Lennon) as genuine musical artists of expression as I do for Johann Strauss II.

http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/
_"Talentless
Lennon was remarkably under-talented. First, he was at best an average guitar player, mostly confined to basic rhythm parts, and his piano playing wasn't much better. As for his songwriting, yes he did write a handful of truly inspired songs, but as time passes and the nostalgic hype surrounding the Beatles begins to fade, a lot of his works comes off as silly and dated. Try reading the lyrics to "Strawberry Fields Forever" or "Come Together" sometime. They're pure hippie psychedelic babbling, the kind of thing that passed for profundity in the drug-induced haze of the late 1960s."_














Even Joseph Lamb ragtime pieces are superior in musical quality than pop. Why some people keep bringing pop examples to match with classical is beyond me. I'd say we at least limit our comparisons to 'musical artists' who could actually read 'notes'. (musical equivalence to writers who can read 'letters' in literature.) Not 'musical illiterates' with severe limitations on their ability to express.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ I won't argue but I ask _why? _Why would anyone need to take it from the genre it belongs (and perhaps shines) in and place in a different genre with a very different aesthetic? I just don't get it.


Well, I am not saying it IS classical music... I am wondering if it can *measure up with* classical music in terms of artistic merit.

So, if "classical music" is just another genre of equal importance as other genres, no need to take such song from its genre (psychedelic rock) to another genre (classical music).

But if you define classical music as "real art music", the type of music that is timeless, that can become canonical, that has lasting value and importance, the music that can find its place in textbooks and that has its place in "history of music"... well then perhaps it needs to include music from other genres and traditions that are of exceptional merit and quality, and not only music that is specifically rooted in the tradition of Western music conservatories, etc.

In visual arts it's much simpler. There's no "classical art". There is only art. And various styles and traditions are given pretty much equal treatment. Even naive art is not looked down upon, if it's good. But to enter art history textbooks your art needs to be exceptional. But it doesn't need to belong to any specific scholastic tradition.

*So the point of this thread is actually testing if there's place for popular music in history of music, not just as an episode, a passing trend, a footnote, an entertainment, or cultural phenomenon (such as Beatlemania), but as a valid musical tradition that has produced some real art music of lasting value.
*


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Another reason why I am kind of obsessed with thinking about things like that is because I have seen so much originality, freshness and new trends in popular music, which has produced some concrete results, i.e. songs, albums, that are considered by rock critics and general public alike as "classic", "iconic" and at the same time contemporary classical musicians didn't pay much attention to what's happening in other genres. They didn't ignore it completely, but they didn't consider it very seriously either.

At the same time, they failed to produce truly iconic works that would enter collective consciousness (at least since 1940).

Well actually some of them did... composers of film music... but such music was denigrated by the rest of classical establishment as not being real classical music, and therefore its inferior and whatnot. The main argument is that it wasn't composed with the intent to be listened to as a standalone piece, but just to accompany movie, provide background... But then by the same logic we could denigrate a large bunch of classical music, all program music, potentially also religious music, operas, as they all have some other function, rather than just to be listened on their own. Opera is composed for the theater and it's not exclusively musical art, etc...

While I agree there's a lot of film music that is reprocessed second-hand romanticism, I am quite sure that there are also many original and musically innovative film scores that classical establishment doesn't want to accept in canon without any justification, besides prejudice, conservatism or elitism.

Why the kind of musical experimentation that CCM composers did since 1940s did not produce *fruits *such as those that can be found in the gardens of Pink Floyd, the Beach Boys, Joni Mitchel, Frank Zappa, Kraftwerk, Metallica, Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Kate Bush, PJ Harvey and many others?

How come these guys produced such a wonderful music even if they were without formal musical education, yet those highly schooled composers couldn't do it?

How come "4'33" can be considered serious art and valid artistic expression, and Joni Mitchell stuff is just entertainment?
How come you can put a label art to "Structures" by Boulez which are just kind of formalized randomness, and yes it did require a bit of brains to come up with such an idea, and some other parts to actually publish it, but it didn't require true musical inspiration or talent. (Not saying that Boulez lacks it, just saying that it isn't required for this specific piece)

While this, definitely requires it:


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

And finally... yet another reason is that *I am not really sure if I am right*.
I can find arguments to defend merits of some types of popular music, but there's one part of me that's telling me that it might all be just wishful thinking. Perhaps there are indeed deeper, musical reasons, why 20th century popular music didn't actually produce, in purely musical terms, results of outstanding significance. Or it did? I really don't know

I know for example that a masterpiece such as this, can't be found in popular music - at all:






Perhaps heavy metal isn't that musically innovative after all, besides being louder, faster and using different instrumentation?

I'm wondering if there was a classical composer in 1960 who would compose "Master of Puppets", exactly the same song as the one by Metallica... only published in a written form, as a score and through the regular publishing avenues of classical music, would he be considered genius or would the piece receive harsh criticism as being kitsch, junk...

1960s allowed some highly controversial classical pieces to be taken seriously. Would it be open minded enough to accept Master of Puppets? Let's say if Boulez composed it in 1960, how well would it be received?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

^^^ But does it have to be about value? What if the song doesn't "measure up" to classical music? How much classical music "measures up" to having what it takes to be a pop classic? It may be that classical music is "better than" other forms of music but I suspect the debate to establish that would be a long one! What _is _clear - or so it seems to me - is that the genres are different and fulfill different purposes for us.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> I don't see the Beatles (especially John Lennon) as genuine musical artists of expression as I do for Johann Strauss II.
> 
> http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/
> _"Talentless
> ...


It should be noted that The Beatles were quite influential in their time, not only as musicians but also as a cultural phenomenon, and that their compositions experimented a lot with recording technologies and techniques, bringing a fresh breath to the pop rock genre. This makes their existence quite relevant in terms of music history, what in my opinion suggests that they aren't going to be forgotten for their contributions. Also, although perhaps in decline, their popularity is still amazing in absolute terms, greater than that of other famous bands such as Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, for example, and much greater (more than thirty times, according to *this graph*) than that of an important romantic composer such as J. Strauss II.

It should be noted that The Beatles worked in colaboration with a classical trained musician, George Martin, "the fifth beatle", and that their work was quite innovative for their time and genre. Part of the classical establishment approves them. Read for example the text below, which I found on Quora, about quotes of classical composers about the music of them:

...In 1968, the composer Ned Rorem wrote an article for the New York Review of Books called 'The Music of the Beatles', in which he called them 'one of the most healthy events in music since 1950.'

Leonard Bernstein made a TV programme in 1967 called Inside Pop: The Rock Revolution, in which he talked about his enthusiasm for what he regarded as the best popular music, and he leads off with a discussion of the rhythmic irregularities in 'Good Day Sunshine' and 'She Said She Said'.

"Now, the point I want to make is that such oddities as this are not just tricks or show-off devices. In terms of pop music's basic English, so to speak, they are real inventions." - Bernstein

John Cage wrote a work called The Beatles 1962-1970 which consists of fragments derived from Beatles songs.

On the other hand, the Dutch composer Louis Andriessen has said that he doesn't like the Beatles, but prefers Janet Jackson...

Source: https://www.quora.com/What-did-classical-composers-say-about-the-Beatles


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

The Beatles were a great pop band—nothing more, nothing less. I agree with Bernstein's assesment.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

I do not care for most pop music and do not care if it dissapears forever from history. What troubles me more is that original folk music dissappears all over the world - the kind of music that Dvořák, Janáček or Bartok were inspired from. And besides, there are some projects to save rock, such as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame etc.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Enthusiast said:


> ^^^ But does it have to be about value? What if the song doesn't "measure up" to classical music? How much classical music "measures up" to having what it takes to be a pop classic? It may be that classical music is "better than" other forms of music but I suspect the debate to establish that would be a long one! What _is _clear - or so it seems to me - is that the genres are different and fulfill different purposes for us.


Agreed. But the problem with value is that it's often used as a basis for not considering the "other type of music" seriously. And it goes in both directions. By classical standards popular music is "inferior, repetitive, unintersting", by pop standards classical music is "boring, dead or pretentious" ("Roll over Beethoven"). I think it's pity that there's such a sharp division in music. Wouldn't it be better if receiving classical education wasn't frowned upon or considered pretentious in pop circles as well? Wouldn't it allow them to produce better pop music? At the same time, wouldn't it be cool if the greatest classical composers, if they are indeed that great after all, used all their musical powers to make significant contributions to the world or rock music as well?

After all the best classical music was often also pop(ular). Which symphonies are considered the best by classical music scholars?
Which symphonies are well known by pretty much everyone (at least the most famous passages), even by kids?
There's a lot of overlap between those 2 groups.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Allerius said:


> It should be noted that The Beatles were quite influential in their time, not only as musicians but also as a cultural phenomenon, and that their compositions experimented a lot with recording technologies and techniques, bringing a fresh breath to the pop rock genre. This makes their existence quite relevant in terms of music history, what in my opinion suggests that they aren't going to be forgotten for their contributions. Also, although perhaps in decline, their popularity is still amazing in absolute terms, greater than that of other famous bands such as Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, for example, and much greater (more than thirty times, according to *this graph*) than that of an important romantic composer such as J. Strauss II.


Again, this brings me back to the things I've been saying in the last thread. Just because pop artists are popular among masses (who aren't really interested in "music"), it doesn't mean they're 'musically influential' in the sense classical music is. A 'singing clown' can have a lot of influence over the world with 4-chord songs (that not only require no musical talent or skills to write, he himself didn't even write) aided by lip-synch, and autotune, backed by media coverage and multi-billion dollar industry support. In addition, having positive extra-musical attributes such as good looks and sexy voices, dancing skills helps immensely with his/her road to fame. In many cases, they're in fact the most valuable assets to success for a pop artist.
You got to ask yourself the questions, "to what extent is he/she a real musician?", "How much of his/her influence musically significant?", "how much is he/she musically talented or skilled?"

*"How To Make a #1 Song - WITHOUT TALENT"*













The classical music tradition has inspired creation of great music. Mahler, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Shostakovich are all 'descendants' of great classical masters of the past, the tradition still continues on with today's contemporary classical composers, film composers like John Williams. 
Whereas in pop, the descendants of the Beatles and Michael Jackson are Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga etc. Before jumping to the conclusion pop is more relevant due to pop's superiority in popularity, you must ask the question. "How are 4-chord songs of today's pop going to be exemplary examples of leading musical art, to inspire future generation of music-makers."
This is why you can't directly compare classical music with pop music in terms of popularity without ever asking yourself the question, "how much of that popularity really meaningful, musically speaking?"


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

hammeredklavier said:


> The classical music tradition has inspired creation of great music. Mahler, Schoenberg, Stravinsky, Shostakovich are all 'descendants' of great classical masters of the past, the tradition still continues on with today's contemporary classical composers, film composers like John Williams.
> Whereas in pop, the descendants of the Beatles and Michael Jackson are Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga etc. Before jumping to the conclusion pop is more relevant due to pop's superiority in popularity, you must ask the question. "How are 4-chord songs of today's pop going to be exemplary examples of leading musical art, to inspire future generation of music-makers."
> This is why you can't directly compare classical music with pop music in terms of popularity without ever asking yourself the question, "how much of that popularity really meaningful, musically speaking?"


There's no arguing about the merits of the masters of the past. It would be silly to compare any pop artist to Bach or Beethoven. My attention is more focused in merits of exceptional popular musicians (so not Justin Bieber) of the 20th and 21st centuries with classical music composers who lived at the same time.

You say film composers are descendants of past masters. Perhaps some of them really deserve this title: I think film music too, is underrated in classical circles.
Regarding other classical composers of today... IMO it's a mixed bag. I've come across some pleasant surprises! Perhaps with more exploration I will find more gems. But in general so far, I've been underwhelmed.


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

I find classical tendencies, whatever that means, in Rush's epic pieces, e.g. Xanadu, Hemispheres, La Vila Strangulation.


----------



## drmdjones (Dec 25, 2018)

I wrote Strangiato, my app changed it. Technology can be so helpful.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> It's foolish to compare pop with CM-they are completely different idioms.


Exactly. I routinely speak with young adults today who have never even heard of the Beatles. But in my opinion that does not diminish their significant accomplishments.

As I keep saying, the popular artist tries to capture the zeitgeist, or the popular imagination, of a particular time and place. The classical artist worries less about immediate popular acceptance and appeal and tries to create something more lasting and universal.

These categories are not absolutely devoid of common material, though. The best popular artists often do have more lasting and universal appeal than is typical, and classical artists often refer to and rely on the popular art of their time in their own work. (Bach and Mozart certainly did. Bartok devoted much of his career to working with the indigenous folk music of Eastern Europe.)

One current popular artist who at this point in my opinion qualifies as a successful classical artist as well is the violinist Laurie Anderson. She just won her first Grammy award after four nominations (the first in 1984), and it was in a classical music category: best chamber music album, for her collaboration with the Kronos Quartet.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Again, this brings me back to the things I've been saying in the last post. Just because pop artists are popular among masses (who aren't really interested in "music"), it doesn't mean they're 'musically influential' in the sense classical music is. A 'singing clown' can have a lot of influence over the world with 4-chord songs (that not only require no musical talent or skills to write, he himself didn't even write) aided by lip-synch, and autotune, backed by media coverage and multi-billion dollar industry support. In addition, having positive extra-musical attributes such as good looks and sexy voices, dancing skills helps immensely with his/her road to fame. In many cases, they're in fact the most valuable assets to success for a pop artist.
> You got to ask yourself the questions, "to what extent is he/she a real musician?", "How much of his/her influence musically significant?", "how much is he/she musically talented or skilled?"
> 
> *"How To Make a #1 Song - WITHOUT TALENT"*
> ...


I don't claim that popularity means musical relevance, as I really don't believe in that. My point is that due to the Beatles popularity, it's unlikely that their music will be forgotten anytime soon, as a part of the new generations of relevant artists will probably still be influenced by them (because their music is not only popular but also relevant, and this relevance is due to their conceptual, stylistic and technical musical advances in the 60s, as I suggested on my previous post, and not due to their popularity).

Also, the fact that something is popular among the masses doesn't necessarily mean that it does not hold artistic value or that that it can't be popular among the intellectuals. Or do Bernstein and John Cage represent the masses now? It's said that Stravinsky had a good opinion on James Brown. Is the russian a representative of the masses?

Songs like _A Day in the Life_, _I am the Walrus_, _Helter Skelter_ and _Revolution 9_ are much more than what the average crowd-pleaser pop artist would be willing to do, and deserve recognition as having their artistic merits in my humble opinion.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

fluteman said:


> Exactly. I routinely speak with young adults today who have never even heard of the Beatles. But in my opinion that does not diminish their significant accomplishments.
> 
> *As I keep saying, the popular artist tries to capture the zeitgeist, or the popular imagination, of a particular time and place. The classical artist worries less about immediate popular acceptance and appeal and tries to create something more lasting and universal.*
> 
> ...


I disagree with the statement in bold. Haydn is a classical artist in all it's senses and he was always trying to please his patrons, the Esterházys, in his time and place. Robert Fripp, the leader of King Crimson, has always tried to produce daring, experimental albums that connected with his artistic values and ideals, and never seemed to be that much worried about popularity, as his band has been faithfully attached to progressive rock, which is unpopular, since like... ever.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Allerius said:


> Songs like _A Day in the Life_, _I am the Walrus_, _Helter Skelter_ and _Revolution 9_ are much more than what the average crowd-pleaser pop artist would be willing to do, and deserve recognition as having their artistic merits in my humble opinion.


To these I would add: Eleanor Rigby, *She's Leaving Home*, *In my life*, Come Together, Within You Without You, Yesterday, Let It Be, *Norwegian Wood*, *Girl*

these in bold I am particularly fond of.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Nah.
I think that trying to elide some Beatles (or Stones, Pink Floyd, whoever) tracks into CM is a category error. Whatever their qualities (and the Kinks were, clearly, head and shoulders beyond their contemporaries), we're dealing with different musical ontogenies and languages. 
That said, I think Freddy Mercury had one of the finest tenor voices of his generation.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Allerius said:


> I disagree with the statement in bold. Haydn is a classical artist in all it's senses and he was always trying to please his patrons, the Esterházys, in his time and place. Robert Fripp, the leader of King Crimson, has always tried to produce daring, experimental albums that connected with his artistic values and ideals, and never seemed to be that much worried about popularity, as his band has been faithfully attached to progressive rock, which is unpopular, since like... ever.


Well, even classical artists need to put food on the table. And wealthy patrons back then played the same role that wealthy patrons play today in supporting classical music when millions are not willing to wait in line all night to pay insanely high prices for tickets. David Geffen Hall, anyone? As for Robert Fripp, he is one of those highly imaginative and talented popular music artists I was talking about. But progressive rock is 'unpopular' only in comparison with other forms of rock, not in comparison with Anton Reicha's woodwind quintets.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Jacck said:


> I do not care for most pop music and do not care if it dissapears forever from history. What troubles me more is that original folk music dissappears all over the world - the kind of music that Dvořák, Janáček or Bartok were inspired from.


And why are you "troubled"? There is no way musical styles to continue to exist when the culture has changed or vanished. 
These days the global modern simplistic electronic dance/pop/rock is the new type of folk music.
Local "fakelores" (pastiches of the original folk styles) are always going to be sponsored by the cultural institutions of different countries, so ethnic music is not going anywhere in theory. Classical music is in the same spot.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

BabyGiraffe said:


> And why are you "troubled"? There is no way musical styles to continue to exist when the culture has changed or vanished.
> These days the global modern simplistic electronic dance/pop/rock is the new type of folk music.
> Local "fakelores" (pastiches of the original folk styles) are always going to be sponsored by the cultural institutions of different countries, so ethnic music is not going anywhere in theory. Classical music is in the same spot.


because genuine music is replaced by garbage pop. I uploaded some Czech folk music for you
https://ufile.io/d2tys
the kind of music that Dvořák and Janáček were inspired from. It is this CD, though long out of print

This will disappear. And this happens to folk music all over the world. All original cultures get assimilated into this consumerist global culture and ceise to exist. That is sad. The dissapearence of modern pop is not sad to me.


----------



## BabyGiraffe (Feb 24, 2017)

Jacck said:


> because genuine music is replaced by garbage pop. I uploaded some Czech folk music for you
> https://ufile.io/d2tys
> the kind of music that Dvořák and Janáček were inspired from. It is this CD, though long out of print
> 
> This will disappear. And this happens to folk music all over the world. All original cultures get assimilated into this consumerist global culture and ceise to exist. That is sad. The dissapearence of modern pop is not sad to me.


I am sorry, but the culture that created this type of music is already gone. I hope you don't suggest that we should isolate villagers in some kind of "reservations" to conserve their original lifestyle and culture...
Noone is stopping composers and listeners to explore different types of music.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

BabyGiraffe said:


> I am sorry, but the culture that created this type of music is already gone. I hope you don't suggest that we should isolate villagers in some kind of "reservations" to conserve their original lifestyle and culture...
> Noone is stopping composers and listeners to explore different types of music.


Yes, it is gone. And many more things will disappear too. The rainforrests will go. Almost all big mammal species will go - rhinos, elephants, tigers, whales, orangutans etc. All the original local cultures will go. It is inevitable, but it is sad. I am not suggesting anything, because I don't think anything can be done to save it.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I've already posted that I don't think that anyone gains anything by classing a pop song as classical or vice versa. One thing that strikes me is that the type of popular music that does get recommended on a classical music forum is often popular music I don't like very much. I tend to like quite earthy and raw popular music - OK, I also have a soft spot for the song writing of the Beatles - which tends to be music that has obviously never tried to be classical and could never be mistaken for classical music. But such music can unambiguously be profound - think Dylan, think Nick Cave ...


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist (Jan 13, 2019)

ZJovicic said:


> To these I would add: Eleanor Rigby, *She's Leaving Home*, *In my life*, Come Together, Within You Without You, Yesterday, Let It Be, *Norwegian Wood*, *Girl*
> 
> these in bold I am particularly fond of.


She's Leaving Home is a terribly underrated song.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> She's Leaving Home is a terribly underrated song.


My favourite Beatles song actually. Yet many people list it as one of their worst. Oh well. Hey, that's a great Fleetwood Mac song!


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> She's Leaving Home is a terribly underrated song.


I don't know if She's Leaving Home is underrated, but it is an example of Paul McCartney at his best. Other great McCartney songs include Blackbird and The Fool on the Hill.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Indeed excellent song, She's Leaving Home...

Now here's another candidate, It is beautiful, though I can't decide if it's a little cheesy though, but a lot of people have been impressed by this song's beauty:


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> She's Leaving Home is a terribly underrated song.


I think it's a terrible song along with Yesterday.


----------

