# Does 'If I had words' prove that pop and classical are essentially the same?



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Scott Fitzgerald & Yvonne Keeley's 1978 UK hit 'If I Had Words' is based on the finale of Camille Saint-Saëns's Organ Symphony. Similarly, Eric Carmen's 'All by myself' is lifted from the slow movement of Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concert. Notwithstanding the fact that these songs don't have much (or anything at all) to say developmentally, shouldn't we conclude that the only real difference between pop and classical is arrangement?

If not, why not?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

No. Is classical music just a tune? No. Are these songs more than just a tune? Yes. And is that "more" something you expect to find in classical music? No, I don't think so.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> No. Is classical music just a tune? No. Are these songs more than just a tune? Yes. And is that "more" something you expect to find in classical music? No, I don't think so.


I didn't follow your reasoning Enthusiast.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

janxharris said:


> I didn't follow your reasoning Enthusiast.


I didn't follow yours... what do the pop songs in your OP "prove" exactly?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

flamencosketches said:


> I didn't follow yours... what do the pop songs in your OP "prove" exactly?


That symphonies can and have been turned into pop songs and that the converse is true. I sense that many members somehow consider classical music as being 'above' non-classical. Certainly, my favourite pieces are all classical, but I don't think it's wrong to see the parallels between the genres.


----------



## flamencosketches (Jan 4, 2019)

If the two genres were "essentially the same", one wouldn't have to "turn a symphony into a pop song", as they would already be pretty much the same thing, right? Of course there is nothing wrong to see parallels between the genres. There are parallels between classical music and folk music too. That doesn't mean they are the same thing. Whether one puts one genre above the other is personal preference. I'm sure there are many in this world who put pop music above classical music.


----------



## infracave (May 14, 2019)

janxharris said:


> That symphonies can and have been turned into pop songs and that the converse is true. I sense that many members somehow consider classical music as being 'above' non-classical. Certainly, my favourite pieces are all classical, but I don't think it's wrong to see the parallels between the genres.


Well, a brick can be used to build a house and a house can be turned into bricks. Doesn't mean that brick = house.

Classical is generally superior to pop music (as a genre). It doesn't mean that every classical piece is superior to every pop song.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

janxharris said:


> I didn't follow your reasoning Enthusiast.


You asked



> Notwithstanding the fact that these songs don't have much (or anything at all) to say developmentally, shouldn't we conclude that the only real difference between pop and classical is arrangement?


I answered



> No. Is classical music just a tune? No.


The only thing the song has in common with classical music is a tune.

You also asked



> If not, why not?


I answered



> Are these songs more than just a tune? Yes. And is that "more" something you expect to find in classical music? No, I don't think so.


The songs are not just a tune but the things they add to the (classical) tune - rhythm, swing - are not hallmarks of classical music.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

The >>general<< rule is that classical pieces go somewhere (even those in binary form), whereas most pop songs just repeat the same verse/tune several times in a row and then fade out.


----------



## infracave (May 14, 2019)

MarkW said:


> The >>general<< rule is that classical pieces go somewhere (even those in binary form), whereas most pop songs just repeat the same verse/tune several times in a row and then fade out.


Well to be fair, the general form of a pop song (Verse-Chorus-V-C-solo/bridge-V-C) is really close to the classical sonata form, wouldn't you agree ?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

janxharris said:


> Notwithstanding the fact that these songs don't have much (or anything at all) to say developmentally, shouldn't we conclude that the only real difference between pop and classical is arrangement?
> 
> If not, why not?


No. Don't be ridiculous. The songs have almost nothing to do with the works they rip off. The overall structures are missing. The counterpoint and countermelodies are missing. Three quarters of the principal melodies are missing.The rhythms are distorted, the harmonies are dumbed down. The Rachmaninoff has thematic links to other movements, including development of material from the introduction to the first movement. All of this is missing. That you are asking this question makes me wonder if you actually know the classical works you're citing.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think this may be a better example of what you're illustrating, Janx. For the first 4 minutes it's basically a rock arrangement of the work. What difference is there between a rock, piano or string quartet transcription of the work? The piano and string quartet captures a certain essence of the work. From 1:00 to 1:13, I do feel it is almost a pure arrangement for rock. What "corrupts" or mutates it are the heavy drums beats and the groove of the keyboards. It's up for interpretation. I think it is possible to make performance more true to the original with rock instruments, but it probably wouldn't be rock anymore.






I shouldn't be promoting my music here, but I made a spoof on R&B/rap here:


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

All art is the expression of being, and if it does this, it is good art. This is as true for Blind Willie McTell as it is for Mozart.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> No. Don't be ridiculous. The songs have almost nothing to do with the works they rip off. The overall structures are missing. The counterpoint and countermelodies are missing. Three quarters of the principal melodies are missing.The rhythms are distorted, the harmonies are dumbed down. The Rachmaninoff has thematic links to other movements, including development of material from the introduction to the first movement. All of this is missing. That you are asking this question makes me wonder if you actually know the classical works you're citing.


Yes, but janxharris is trying to get us to see the_ similarities_ instead of the _differences_. He wants us to see that classical and pop are essentially the same, except classical tends to "develop" ideas more.

I see what he's saying, because I choose to play along with his premise. Others here find such a premise somehow 'insulting.' I see it as just an exercise, because I don't really have "an exclusive horse in this game." I have different sets of criteria for different genres, as I am appreciative of ALL ART as a manifestation of being.


----------



## Hiawatha (Mar 13, 2013)

Could It Be Magic?

Howard Goodall is undoubtedly a Joybringer with his documentaries but is he right?

I might see some commercial distinctions between the largely imaginative late 20th Century and the disappointing 21st Century in this respect. Too often it's the same old song, now formula equals sales. 

BBC Howard Goodall's Story of Music 1 of 6:






Manilow and Manfred:

(both from the 1970s, almost obviously)


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

I prefer to note the similarities that are fundamental to the music (melody, chord sequence) being developed, while noting how much variety can go into the development. That's how composition and improvisation create differences from similarities and that is of more interest to me. The tendency to say that two things which are quite different are "the same" in some general way can be useful but it is their differences that really make them interesting.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

infracave said:


> Well to be fair, the general form of a pop song (Verse-Chorus-V-C-solo/bridge-V-C) is really close to the classical sonata form, wouldn't you agree ?


That's not really a yes/no question. "Close" is too much a weasel word.  What actually drives me craziest is that over the last 50 years, pop music composers have largely forgotten how to write cadences.


----------



## infracave (May 14, 2019)

MarkW said:


> That's not really a yes/no question. "Close" is too much a weasel word.  What actually drives me craziest is that over the last 50 years, pop music composers have largely forgotten how to write cadences.


What do you mean they can't write a cadence ? They sure can write a V-I... not sure what you're refering to.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, but janxharris is trying to get us to see the_ similarities_ instead of the _differences_. He wants us to see that classical and pop are essentially the same, except classical tends to "develop" ideas more.


That is not what Janxharris is trying do. That is what YOU are trying to do. What Janxharris asks is: "Notwithstanding the fact that these songs don't have much (or anything at all) to say developmentally, shouldn't we conclude that the only real difference between pop and classical is arrangement? If not, why not?"

EdwardBast and others explain why not.



> I see what he's saying, because I choose to play along with his premise.


It isn't his premise, it's yours.



> Others here find such a premise somehow 'insulting.'


Who's claiming to be insulted by your premise (which is not in the OP)?



> I see it as just an exercise, because I don't really have "an exclusive horse in this game." I have different sets of criteria for different genres, as I am appreciative of ALL ART as a manifestation of being.


It's very impressive that you have such special insight into so many matters about which the rest of us haven't a clue. Perhaps you could start another thread in Area 51 proving this to whoever would find it worth reading.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Another day at the fish pond...


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

I think this is a recurrent topic. But as also Wikipedia acknowledges, the difference between classical (or art) music and pop/jazz is that classical music basically is all music that is written down first before it is played (or not played). Pop and jazz have their basis in playing/jamming looking or a nice tune or groove (and is later written down or not).


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

janxharris said:


> Notwithstanding the fact that these songs don't have much (or anything at all) to say developmentally, shouldn't we conclude that the only real difference between pop and classical is arrangement?
> 
> If not, why not?


No. Because of the fact that these songs don't have much (or anything at all) to say developmentally.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I would suggest that not all art music is written down. Some, like Indian ragas or cante flamenco, occupy perhaps an intermediate space between written art music and less formal or folk musics.


----------



## philoctetes (Jun 15, 2017)

Many musicians function in a realm without scores but with concise and meaningful verbal terms - modes, chords, cadences etc. But to function this way a musician should be self-disciplined to understand and respond to those terms on the fly, often without a conductor. 

In this comparison where there is a big difference in the approach to performance, the skills required are also different but one is not necessarily superior to the other. I think this is another common battleground where I simply refuse to pick sides, both are valid and enrich the world of music in their own way.


----------



## Haydn70 (Jan 8, 2017)

infracave said:


> Well to be fair, the general form of a pop song (Verse-Chorus-V-C-solo/bridge-V-C) is really close to the classical sonata form, wouldn't you agree ?


No I wouldn't. You are incorrect.

I am guessing you think that the two sets of verse/chorus and a closing set of verse/chorus bracketing the solo/bridge section creates an A-A-B-A form or, to boil it down further a rough A-B-A form…otherwise known as ternary form.

Well, ternary form and sonata form are not the same…or, to stick more closely to your example, a piece of music in A-A-B-A is not the same-not nearly the same-as sonata form.

Ternary form is much simpler than sonata form. (That doesn't mean every piece in ternary form is simple.) I'll quote Wikipedia: "In ternary form each section is self-contained both thematically as well as tonally (that is, each section contains distinct and complete themes), and ends with an authentic cadence. The B section is generally in a contrasting but closely related key, usually a perfect fifth above or the parallel minor of the home key of the A section (V or i); however, in many works of the Classical period, the B section stays in tonic but has contrasting thematic material. It usually also has a contrasting character; for example section A might be stiff and formal while the contrasting B section would be melodious and flowing."

Yes, there are exceptions and permutations and one can quibble a bit with the quote but it focuses on the crucial factor: for the most part, the B section is a CONTRASTING section, melodically and harmonically.

In sonata form, and this is central to the form, melodic material introduced in the exposition section is manipulated in various ways in the development section. The development section is not a contrasting section the same way the B section of ternary form is.

In sonata form the harmonic procedures are much more complicated than a pop song. And, to state the obvious, there is NO DEVELOPMENT of thematic materials in pop songs.

The compositional procedure in constructing a sonata form piece is distinctly different from that of composing a work in ternary form and EXTREMELY different than writing a pop song.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

^ The recap of the B theme in home key and development are the most interesting parts to me. Pop songs don't have that.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

There's a BIG difference between Classical and Pop that hasn't been mention: In Classical, it's the music that takes priority; in Pop, it's the performer.

Classical, since it is written down, can be replicated and performed by anyone, anytime and it comes out basically the same. Just Beethoven's 5th - how many hundreds of recordings have been made? Yet whether you listen to Szell, Reiner, Toscanini, Maazel, Karajan, Solti, Abaddo, Wand, Dorati....they all are Beethoven's 5th. 

Pop on the other hand is more dependent on the performer. "Yesterday" is owned Paul McCartney. Glenn Campbell is the only "Wichita Lineman" that anyone would accept. Some songs become almost unrecognizable because some pompous, egotistic pop singers want to make it "their" version. I heard an abominable version of "Over the Rainbow" by some new hack that was just awful. Some pop songs, like "White Christmas" become classic songs, and alternate versions are generally accepted. But no one goes to a record store (remember them?) and looks under Allen Shamblin to find the song "Live, Laugh, Love". No, you find it under the performer's name: Clay Walker.

I will say this: there are some pop songs that are in no way inferior to the "art songs" of serious, classical composers. Some of the writers of pop music were classically trained and it shows.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

mbhaub said:


> There's a BIG difference between Classical and Pop that hasn't been mentioned: In Classical, it's the music that takes priority; in Pop, it's the performer.


Some clarification: pop music exists definitively as recordings of performances.
In classical, musical ideas can be "recorded" as scores, but in unrealized form.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

A while ago another member here made the comment that it is pointless to compare pop to classical because they have different goals, it is like comparing a minivan to a Ferrari. This makes sense to me because yes the two things are similar, in a sense in the same category as they are both automobiles, but they are designed for different purposes. The question in the OP is equivalent to asking "If I take the Ferrari symbol off a Ferrari and stick it on a minivan, is the minivan now essentially a Ferrari?" 

No.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

janxharris said:


> Scott Fitzgerald & Yvonne Keeley's 1978 UK hit 'If I Had Words' is based on the finale of Camille Saint-Saëns's Organ Symphony. Similarly, Eric Carmen's 'All by myself' is lifted from the slow movement of Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concert. Notwithstanding the fact that these songs don't have much (or anything at all) to say developmentally, shouldn't we conclude that the only real difference between pop and classical is arrangement?
> 
> If not, why not?


In cases like this, I agree there is no difference. A good example is Della Reese's _Classic Della _album from 1962, where famous tunes by Schubert, Chopin, Puccini and others where transformed into popular songs of the day. _Don't You Know _ (its tune taken from _Musetta's Waltz_) hit the charts and was Della's biggest success. Surprisingly they even included a Debussy tune (and _My Reverie _is probably my favourite song on the album).

I think that a strong case could be made how since the 1960's barriers between classical and other genres, if not fully broken down, have become much less marked. Some contemporary classical composers like Philip Glass and Eric Whitacre have clearly pitched their music to mainstream listeners. Others who where classically trained - e.g. Burt Bacharach and Elton John - established careers in pop.

I don't have a purist view because I think that classical was never really pure. It was constantly being enriched by music coming from the vernacular. Come to think of it, I think that a lot of classical music which I really like wouldn't exist had it not been for composers developing interests and in turn being inspired by folk and jazz.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Perhaps it would have been more accurate if I had said that certain classical melodies translate well when arranged as pop songs and that the more complex, contrapuntal and developmental elements of classical music can be found in the progressive rock genre.

Personally speaking, I haven't heard any rock/pop etc songs that compare with my favourite classical pieces, but they're not far behind.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> The only thing the song has in common with classical music is a tune.


Not forgetting the harmony.



> The songs are not just a tune but the things they add to the (classical) tune - rhythm, swing - are not hallmarks of classical music.


Okay, I'm not disagreeing.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

EdwardBast said:


> No. Don't be ridiculous. The songs have almost nothing to do with the works they rip off. The overall structures are missing. The counterpoint and countermelodies are missing. Three quarters of the principal melodies are missing.The rhythms are distorted, the harmonies are dumbed down. The Rachmaninoff has thematic links to other movements, including development of material from the introduction to the first movement. All of this is missing. That you are asking this question makes me wonder if you actually know the classical works you're citing.


#31

I've not noticed the thematic links you speak of. Could you elaborate?


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

Is it true that members are somewhat aggrieved that whilst popular music enjoys sumptuous feasts in the banquet hall, classical music starves on meagre scraps outside in the cold?

If so, I can relate to that.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2019)

Enthusiast said:


> The songs are not just a tune but the things they add to the (classical) tune - rhythm, swing - are not hallmarks of classical music.


Rhythm is not a hallmark of classical?

I beg to differ.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Rhythm is not a hallmark of classical?
> 
> I beg to differ.


I think Enthusiast is defining 'rhythm' as what one would hear a from traditional rock/pop drum kit. I assumed that anyway.


----------

