# Has pop music made us dumb enough not to be able to appreciate more complex music?



## PresenTense (May 7, 2016)




----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Perhaps the television and it's offsprings has caused people to have too short of attention spans for classical music. Pop music, like television, keeps throwing short bits of stuff in your face at speedy rate.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Much really depends upon what sorts of music one is exposed to in one's youth. In this sense, a love of classical music is often "inherited". I heard many kinds of music at home when young.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Florestan said:


> Perhaps the television and it's offsprings has caused people to have too short of attention spans for classical music. Pop music, like television, keeps throwing short bits of stuff in your face at speedy rate.


You're right on target. Speed is the spirit of our times and is in bed with short attention spans.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Florestan said:


> Perhaps the television and it's offsprings has caused people to have too short of attention spans for classical music. Pop music, like television, keeps throwing short bits of stuff in your face at speedy rate.


Yeah. We are so used to the length, that we forget how tough it would be on the pop culture lovers to listen to something that lasts longer than three minutes.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

A certain approach to classical music can eventually make you too dumb to appreciate pop music.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Barenboim does have a huge reputation. How did that happen?


----------



## Johnnie Burgess (Aug 30, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Much really depends upon what sorts of music one is exposed to in one's youth. In this sense, a love of classical music is often "inherited". I heard many kinds of music at home when young.


I did not grow up listening to classical music growing up. I did not start to really hear classical music till I was in my 20's. But even now I still like to listen to country and rock.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Maybe contemporary pop music is even making people too "dumb" to appreciate older pop music. 

Short melodies consisting of little but repeated "hooks," unvaried drummed-out (synthesized) beats, stripped down (synthesized) instrumentation, alternations of a few chords, lyrics obsessively repeating an illiterate phrase or two, dynamics compressed to a single level... It's music that requires no attention span, in fact doesn't have to be listened to at all, in any active sense of the word "listen," in order to accomplish its purpose, which is apparently to give us earworms. 

There may have been some music fitting this description when I was in high school fifty years ago, but I don't remember it. Kids I knew, fourteen or sixteen years old, were listening to the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, Simon and Garfunkel, and lots of other stuff which, amazingly, I could then scorn in favor of Beethoven and Wagner, but now hear as almost the sound of a Popular Paradise Lost.

So - does music like today's pop actually make us dumb, or do we listen to it because we're dumb already? Chickens produce eggs, and eggs produce chickens. I'm for letting the foxes into the henhouse.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Uh oh, somebody used the word "atonal" in a negative sense--the floodgates have been opened...  

There's much non-classical music that I would listen to over certain classical music. But classical remains the first genre I was exposed to and the largest part of my music collection (over 80%). 

OT: First you'd have to demonstrate that pop music "makes us dumb" in order for this sentence to be true. Then you'd have to define "complex music". Some classical music is not structurally complex, like minimalist music. It fundamentally rejects complexity. Compared to some pop music, it might seem simple. Finally you'd have to demonstrate that not appreciating "complex" music (however it is defined, which need not be limited to classical here--other non-classical genres can be quite complex) is a sign of low intelligence (notwithstanding pop-music-induced low intelligence).

In general, I'm not a fan of categorizing people as "dumb" because they don't like what I like, which seems to comprise a lot of the discussion on this site. But if we're talking about development of taste (i.e. does an affinity for pop music preclude one from enjoying classical?), perhaps it does, though I'm not sure for the lack of intelligence it inspires; it may have more to do with what one is exposed to, what one desires and gets from music listening, and what one is willing to try.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2017)

PresenTense said:


> Has pop music made us dumb enough not to be able to appreciate more complex music?


No. Unless someone is going to argue a properly evidenced case, one word, two letters long is all that is needed in reply.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

No it means I have the choice and the power to listen to what I want to. Modern pop music is largely image driven commercialism . It must be an age thing but I find today's pop music largely sounding the same with images of seminaked men and women suggesting acts of sex in some exotic, sun drenched location .


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2017)

David C Coleman said:


> It must be an age thing but I find today's pop music largely sounding the same with images of seminaked men and women suggesting acts of sex in some exotic, sun drenched location .


What's the problem??


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

David C Coleman said:


> Modern pop music is largely image driven commercialism.


Possible surprise here. Most classical music was written to meet _commercial _requirements, the buyers being either the church, the nobility, or music publishers. Our favorite composers were professionals, writing music for a living and depending on listeners willing to pay. Modern pop music is the most "democratic" music ever conceived, since it aims to sell to the widest audience.


----------



## Guest (Sep 19, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Modern pop music





David C Coleman said:


> Modern pop music





Woodduck said:


> contemporary pop music


The OP didn't ask specifically about 'modern' pop and used the past tense, so *if *there's been a dumbing effect, it's too late - we're already dumb, and it was pop in the past wot done it.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Please keep on topic and do not keep posting that you dislike modern music whether pop or classical. It adds nothing to the discussion and merely annoys people. Please be polite and respect the opinions of your fellow members.

A number of off topic posts have been removed.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

There is no problem I was just expressing an opinion


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I remember Barenboim's quote was posted before. Classical music is generally more subtle, and requires more concentration to pick out the details, like structural intracacies, reappearances of motifs in a different arrangement, etc. While pop music is generally supposed to be more straight-up, get into the gut of the music as quick as possible. The target audience for pop was always for the younger generation, eg. the 60's girl groups, the hippies / counterculture. Younger people have shorter attention spans, so the music is geared to suit. 

The question in the OP takes off from Barenboim's quote asking for a certain correlation, which I think the answer is no. Those who realize pop music for what it is, can always appreciate more complex music. Especially when some pop (kind of rare) is more classically inspired.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I started out loving classical as a child and hating pop. I had to mature many decades to appreciate the simplicity of some non-classical forms such as pop or folk.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I certainly don't cotton to today's pop music, but I am supposing that it's an Age-thing. I remember how my Dad laughed himself silly at Top of the Pops in the 1960s.

I don't think modern pop music is making people dumber. I think the audiences are different for pop music and classical music, and besides, I am constantly struck by the general intelligence and sensitivity of younger people I meet. Maybe it's because when I was young, many young people (including me) were afraid to say what they thought - so older people never really* knew* what we thought.

Young people today have more confidence - maybe not always a good thing? - But hey, there goes the Age Thing again!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I don't think music makes anyone stupid or dumber or whatever. I remember the old assertions in the '60s that the rock beat does terrible things to brains, but I think we've discovered that music actually does to our brains the same things that drugs and chocolate do to it. So I think it generally promotes pleasure more than destruction. 

As to the statement which Mr. Barenboim made, I agree with Phil. For a majority of classical music, you have to listen to it and pay attention to really appreciate it. Sure, you can put it on in the background, but it will be either tinkling noises or just plain boring, because things like motivic development and interconnections will be missed. 

The majority of pop music is commercially driven, short, and is designed to be reacted to, danced to, or even played in the background, so it doesn't require concentration to get its primary effect. But that doesn't mean you won't be rewarded by close listening, because many times things are going on which are interesting, either in the music, rhythms, or lyrics; it's just that that type of thing just isn't required to get the impact of its basic function.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

PresenTense said:


> Has pop music made us dumb enough not to be able to appreciate more complex music?





Daniel Barenboim said:


> I would say that for classical music, you need to listen to it. Pop music, maybe, it's enough to hear it


But the OP's question and Barenboim's statement are two very different things. Barenboim implies no cause-and-effect. And I note he also says "maybe".

Pop music doesn't "make us dumb", and who the heck is "us", anyway?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Well, there's pop music and there's pop music. Can we really compare the concise perfection of a glory-era Tamla Motown song or the sophistication of something like _Paperback Writer_ or _Good Vibrations_ to the kind of vacuous push-button garbage that fills the singles charts now? In the case of the latter I'd say Daniel Barenboim has a point.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

I'm sure that there was another thread a while back that asked the same question.


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

Bulldog said:


> Barenboim does have a huge reputation. How did that happen?


I will copy/paste my reply from the thread about 'Barenboim as pianist', (although I do enjoy much of his work as a conductor, perhaps more so than many of his pianistic interpretations).

Barenboim, like him or not, is an unassailable pianist. He was one of the greatest child prodigies of all time.

Furtwängler called him a phenomenon, which he was. By the age of 13 he had played across all of Europe, for, and with, all the greatest conductors of the day. By the age of 15 he had all 32 Beethoven Sonatas in his repertoire.

This is not to say that being a prodigy makes one a great pianist automatically. I am not a huge fan of many of his interpretations, but it is impossible to say that Barenboim is anything but a serious, important, pianist.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Maybe contemporary pop music is even making people too "dumb" to appreciate older pop music.
> 
> Short melodies consisting of little but repeated "hooks," unvaried drummed-out (synthesized) beats, stripped down (synthesized) instrumentation, alternations of a few chords, lyrics obsessively repeating an illiterate phrase or two, dynamics compressed to a single level... It's music that requires no attention span, in fact doesn't have to be listened to at all, in any active sense of the word "listen," in order to accomplish its purpose, which is apparently to give us earworms.
> 
> ...


Well, there's plenty of more sophisticated pop music being made, in many different styles. I think the issue is that younger people listen mostly through online streaming services, where they can explore their particular niches. FM radio is a relic, where you'll find only lowest-common-denominator stuff.

In my experience, people who enjoy mainstream pop radio are people who just don't like music that much. There have always been lots of people like that, and there's nothing wrong with it.


----------



## lextune (Nov 25, 2016)

Listen. Silent.

They are more than just an anagram. And we live in a world now, where silence is much harder to come by, sadly.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I recall with hand-wringing nostalgia the truly great pop music of yesteryear. _How Much is That Doggie in the Window?_, with Patti Page, the Singin' Rage telling us all about it; also the immortal _Abba Dabba Dabba_, Miss Debbie Reynolds, thank you so much. Loads more examples. Pop is so much worse today. And the most destructive aspect of today's pop is that it somehow keeps people from fully enjoying classical music, knowing that it's Out There and others are listening to it. I know it keeps me up at night.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

I don't think listening to pop music is any more likely to make someone too “dumb” to appreciate art music than looking at and enjoying a cartoon (in the modern sense of a relatively simple humorous drawing) is likely to make someone too “dumb” to appreciate a work by, say, Raphael, Turner or Picasso.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Dr Johnson said:


> *I don't think listening to pop music is any more likely to make someone **too "dumb"* to appreciate art music than looking at and enjoying a cartoon (in the modern sense of a relatively simple humorous drawing) is likely to make someone too "dumb" to appreciate a work by, say, Raphael, Turner or Picasso.


A case in point-over the years I have listened a lot to pop music.....


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

We obviously need a poll on the subject:

Poll the regular members of the "Non-classical I am currently listening to now" thread as to IQ distribution. (0-50; 51-76; 77-99; 100-120; etc)

If the IQ average comes up, say, 80-98, then we may have something anecdotal to say about the dumbing down effect of frequently listening to pop music.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I have just returned from the 14th century, and back there the Internet forums are a-buzz with the question _Has the saltarello made us dumb enough not to appreciate isorhythmic motets?_


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Only 2 types of music - music you like and music you don't. Every genre of music has its merits. I don' like some of them but understand why people do. I like bits of others and a lot of certain kinds. As someone with a very eclectic taste in music I am happy to champion the music I like. If others like it, fine - but if not then hey ho. I find the OP condescending and snooty. As for Mr Barenboim's comment....what a tosser!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I have another idea.

Let's form a group of TC participants willing to listen to pop music exclusively over, say, the next 50 years.

Initially their IQ's are measured and then progressively, they are tested once a year over the total time period.

Let's see if there is a trend, higher, lower or no effect.

Then we can mail the results to Barenboim.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Most classical music was written to meet _commercial _requirements, the buyers being either the church, the nobility, or music publishers.


There is much that is commercial about "pop" music, too - arguably far more so than "classical" ever was. That's mainly because the marketing guys got hold of "pop" in a big way, so it's no criticism of pop music in itself, just the commercial machine that thrives on it. (I should be careful what I say, because the manager of Oasis is coming to audition my nephew's band in the next couple of weeks!)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Dr Johnson said:


> I'm sure that there was another thread a while back that asked the same question.


You could use your observation for just about every thread currently on TC regarding classical music.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Woodduck said:


> Maybe contemporary pop music is even making people too "dumb" to appreciate older pop music.
> 
> Short melodies consisting of little but repeated "hooks," unvaried drummed-out (synthesized) beats, stripped down (synthesized) instrumentation, alternations of a few chords, lyrics obsessively repeating an illiterate phrase or two, dynamics compressed to a single level... It's music that requires no attention span, in fact doesn't have to be listened to at all, in any active sense of the word "listen," in order to accomplish its purpose, which is apparently to give us earworms.
> 
> ...


There was a major study back in 2015, I believe, that has empirically shown that pop music has gotten 'worse'. Or, at least simpler, more repetitive, more similar, the hook enters the song earlier, and is repeated more often, than pop of the past.

It studied over 500,000 pop songs, and in every aspect, the above was found to be true.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2012/jul/27/pop-music-sounds-same-survey-reveals

This is not just a grumpy old person's "get off my lawn" claim that modern pop is worse, it can be shown.

When I started listening to pop when I was young (Beatles, Beach Boys, The Byrds, Simon and Garfunkel, etc), there was a direct line from that stuff, to early hard rock, to prog rock, and a direct line from prog to classical. The Beatles use of strings and other experimentation, Simon and Garfunkel's use of harmonies, The Byrds use of Indian and jazz influences, etc, tended to open one's mind to listen for even more experimentation.

I can not see any direct line, to get to classical from modern pop. There aren't any advanced harmonies, no deviation from 4/4 time, no extended instrumental passages, no allusion to musicianship, experimentation is highly discouraged.

In hindsight, it is possible, even for non Beatles fans, to understand how someone could have become a classical fan, from listening to the Beatles. Specifically late Beatles. But, there is nothing in modern pop, that I hear, that could lead someone to become a classical music fan.


----------



## Dr Johnson (Jun 26, 2015)

Simon Moon said:


> But, there is nothing in modern pop, that I hear, that could lead someone to become a classical music fan.


Except desperation to hear something less annoying and banal.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Simon Moon said:


> ...Or, at least simpler, more repetitive, more similar, the hook enters the song earlier, and is repeated more often, than pop of the past.


Of course, haiku could be criticized on the same grounds. Always the same number of lines and syllables, always that seasonal reference, and so forth. How samey-samey can we possibly get? :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Of course, haiku could be criticized on the same grounds. Always the same number of lines and syllables, always that seasonal reference, and so forth. How samey-samey can we possibly get? :lol:


I bet there are far fewer Haikus coming from the Max Martins of the haiku world though.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

All great music has to be listened to whether it's any form of pop or any form of classical and the two are as enriching as each other. Most great musical interpretations can have the uncanny ability of reinventing themselves before your ears as it were and as time goes on an album can give off many glows and meaning which the listener hasn't heard before.
I simply don't agree with Barenboim's statement and isn't it this elitist type of attitude that has given classical music its stand-offish reputation amongst many and a situation many have also tried to breach over the last couple of decades? However hard you try and categorise it great music is still great music whether it be pop or classical and there will be many on this forum who will have a pop album as one of their all time favourites. I have loved classical music for many years and there is a lot of mediocre classical music out there as well as the masterpieces and the same applies to pop music.
As to whether we listen or hear a piece of music I can honestly say I have had more of a struggle to understand or come to grips with some of Bob Dylan's albums or much progressive rock than I have had with Mozart or Bach for example, and the two forms can mean as much over the years. I tend to take pop music in album form and listen to it as intended, so a Pink Floyd CD can be the same length as a Mahler symphony and require the same listening effort in my option.
For many pop music _is_ the more complex music and though classical music is my favourite genre whatever you find greatness in that is all that matters


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

What I have noticed with the most popular pop music from recent years is that it is either good or bad. It is music one feel indifferent music that works as background music.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

It's not so much a question of intelligence as one of taste, which is more alterable.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Improbus said:


> It's not so much a question of intelligence as one of taste, which is more alterable.


I'd like to know. How does one develop taste? Good taste particularly? Also why _de gustibus non est disputandum_ plays no role in the experience of music?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I don't take the word "dumb" in the OP to mean "having a low IQ." It would be ridiculous to think that anyone's IQ could be determined by exposure to any kind of music, unless they were locked in a cell and forced to listen to it until they were driven insane (sometimes I feel like that while grocery shopping, but I've always managed to escape in time). I take the word "dumb" here in the sense of "dumbed down," which seems a suitable description for the junk food the music industry is feeding our children. 

Pop music is not necessarily "dumb" because it's relatively simple. But relative simplicity is one thing, while sheer poverty is another. The extreme paucity of melodic and harmonic invention, the grinding repetitiveness, and the hectoring dynamic uniformity in so much pop music treat the consumer of the "product" not as an active listener but a thing to be acted upon: a mindless object to be assaulted, grabbed and manipulated, rather than an intelligent volitional agent who comes to music in a mentally active and emotionally receptive state. Certainly, music of all kinds engages us in different ways in different proportions, its various elements affecting us immediately and physically as well as offering more subtle emotional and intellectual qualities for our appreciation. But pop music seems to have nearly dispensed with subtlety in order to maximize its instantaneous impact, and has thereby defined musical perception as an activity in which the brain is largely unemployed. This is supported by the fact that so many popular songs are issued as "sound tracks" for hyperactive videos which seem designed give that unemployed organ something more to do and hold it captive. After all, we wouldn't want our hypnotized consumers' gray matter having subversive thoughts of seeking useful work elsewhere!

It's fine to argue that there's nothing wrong with enjoying the simple, visceral pleasure of dumbed-down music. But the dumbed-down manner in which it's enjoyed - or not enjoyed, as it assaults us in every public space - is a modern phenomenon. In the course of the 20th century, music as a part of everyday life went from being something you made (by singing or playing an instrument) to something more passive which you nevertheless made time to listen to (by purchasing and putting on a record) to something that's just part of the atmosphere, an ever-present ambient noise which you tune out when you can and grimly endure when you can't. Grateful as I am for recording and broadcasting technology, I can see in the decreasing degree of volitional participation required to hear and enjoy music an expression of a culture of instant gratification and shrinking attention spans, a setup for the production of a musical "product" that's designed to be impactive rather than edifying, and a recipe for the dumbing down of our our expectations of what music can be and what we need to do to appreciate it.


----------



## Botschaft (Aug 4, 2017)

eugeneonagain said:


> I'd like to know. How does one develop taste? Good taste particularly? Also why _de gustibus non est disputandum_ plays no role in the experience of music?


I have never heard of nor could I easily imagine anyone fully appreciating classical as well as pop music but prefer the latter, and I do think some things are richer and more rewarding than others by virtue of quality to whoever understands them. Apart from generally being more complex the reason why many abstain from classical music is that they consider it outdated or fear that it's too difficult, but shunning pop in favor of classical would easily remedy this, exposure and habit being key. I don't think the preference of pop music could be due anything other than either inexperience or stupidity, but the former is more prevalent and therefore more significant.


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> Well, there's pop music and there's pop music. Can we really compare the concise perfection of a glory-era Tamla Motown song or the sophistication of something like _Paperback Writer_ or _Good Vibrations_ to the kind of vacuous push-button garbage that fills the singles charts now?


No, we really can't. To elaborate on your comparison just a bit: can we compare anything that came out of Motown or Muscle Shoals with Justin Bieber and his ilk? Only in a very negative sense (toward Justin Bieber).

But bad pop music doesn't make us dumb (unless we let it), and it's pretty easy to avoid - once you get out of the supermarket. Then you can go home and listen to the good stuff.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Pop music is simply program music that is able to tell its story more efficiently through vocals in the vernacular. 

It's very possible to prefer both pop and classical music in different circumstances without denigrating either form of music. There are times when I want the chorus-verse-bridge structure or want to sing along to something, and the pop music forms provide those things.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I can only speak for myself.

I can listen to some pop music and then go right into comparative listening of Ives Concord Sonata.

Listening to pop has no effect on me regarding classical listening.

In the car I prefer "adult contemporary pop". It's relaxing.

At home, nothing but classical.

As far as I am concerned, there is no correlation, either positive or negative, as far as listening to one genre affecting the other, in either dumbing me down or smartening me up.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

hpowders said:


> As far as I am concerned, there is no correlation, either positive or negative, as far as listening to one genre affecting the other, in either dumbing me down or smartening me up.


I agree with hpowders here. Many TC members seem to enjoy both popular and classical in the same way I might read an occasional sci-fi novel and then macroeconomics analysis.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

mmsbls said:


> ...n the same way I might read an occasional sci-fi novel and then macroeconomics analysis.


Those two activities are increasingly starting to overlap.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

I can juggle whilst holding a red fan...... But the lot is not all, no that is not all!


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2017)

I'm struggling to find the source for the OP's quote...a similar thread by the same member back in March, and a silent gif on the Tumblr account - but nothing else. I'd like to understand what Barenboim meant by checking the context.

[add]
Soz. Found the Youtube clip. No mention of dumbing down!


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Might the people here consider for a minute that perhaps the people who listen to pop music love listening to it dearly but don't _mind_ that it's repetitive - although they probably don't even realize it nor care to know - because they are only concerned with being entertained? That their day is better than it was? They feel rejuvenated. Not everyone wants music to be an intellectual exercise. Not everyone wants to sit down and unravel the overwhelming complexity of a Mahler symphony or a Bach... piece. And that does not make that dumber. Their needs are simply different.

Sometimes it's all about the effect, folks.

Of course, it's all about impatience sometimes. And those individuals must be made listen to the glorious climaxes for them to realize what majestic power classical music is capable of unleashing.

If they still don't like it, hey, what can you? Jazz isn't for everyone either.

Most importantly, why would you want to spend so many hours of your life_ trying_ to like a genre than simply listen to something that you enjoy.

Not everyone wants to expand their boundaries or challenge themselves.

We all have our pros and cons, people.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I'm struggling to find the source for the OP's quote...a similar thread by the same member back in March, and a silent gif on the Tumblr account - but nothing else. I'd like to understand what Barenboim meant by checking the context.
> 
> [add]
> Soz. Found the Youtube clip. No mention of dumbing down!


I made no real connection between the thread title (and post) and the quote in the photo. The quote was clearly included to add 'weight' to the opinion. The Barenboim quote is far less loaded than a great deal of commentary about pop music appearing here on this site daily.


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

Also, guys and gals, why do you feel the need to be 'better' or 'more cultured' or 'more advanced' than other people? Seems like a case of inadequacy.

Don't compare. Live and let live.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2017)

Herrenvolk said:


> Might the people here consider for a minute that perhaps the people who listen to pop music love listening to it dearly but don't _mind_ that it's repetitive - *although they probably don't even realize it nor care to know *- because they are only concerned with being entertained? That their day is better than it was? They feel rejuvenated. Not everyone wants music to be an intellectual exercise. Not everyone wants to sit down and unravel the overwhelming complexity of a Mahler symphony or a Bach... piece. And that does not make that dumber. Their needs are simply different.


I would agree, and add (not for the first time here, as this topic crops up quite often) that not only might the listener's needs be different, but the music's "purposes" (if indeed the writers and players of "pop" have any explicit purposes in mind) might be different too.

Where I would raise an eyebrw at your post is the part emboldened. In the same way that there is no typical CM listener, there is no typical pop listener, and a number of TC members have, over time (not just in this thread, but in similar) made clear that they listen to, enjoy, understand, even 'find something in' pop as well as they do in CM. They also don't feel compelled to ask redundant questions about which is better, does one make us more clever or more dumb than the other does, why would anyone dream of listening to X (insert pop artist you most loathe) etc etc.



eugeneonagain said:


> I made no real connection between the thread title (and post) and the quote in the photo. The quote was clearly included to add 'weight' to the opinion. The Barenboim quote is far less loaded than a great deal of commentary about pop music appearing here on this site daily.


Indeed. However, whilst you may have made no real connection, the OP invites us to make one, between the question and either the Barenboim quote, with him ("serious and important in the CM world so his view will be more valid than others") or with what he talks about, the business of 'listening and hearing'.

Having now heard the whole piece from which the extract is drawn, it seems clear to me that DB was not embarking on a thesis about pop, but offering a throwaway comment which said more about pop's ubiquity than its quality.

So, setting aside the DB quote as a distraction, my earlier answer to the OP's substantive question is unchanged, though I've elaborated a little here.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Just because classical and pop are yoked together into the category "music" doesn't mean they are part of a meaningful either/or binary opposition or that they are different choices in the same human endeavor. They represent different worlds, different purposes, and serve different needs; not really two different types of the same thing at all. One who listens only to pop music isn't doing it instead of listening to classical. They are engaged in an entirely different activity.


----------



## Timothy (Jul 19, 2017)

If by "pop music" you mean Mozart, Vivaldi, Beethoven, Wagner and by "complex music" you mean Modernism et al, then yes absolutely but I would switch dumb for closed-mindedness aka, completely shutting a whole century out for benign reasons


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

EdwardBast said:


> Just because classical and pop are yoked together into the category "music" doesn't mean they are part of a meaningful either/or binary opposition or that they are different choices in the same human endeavor. They represent different worlds, different purposes, and serve different needs; not really two different types of the same thing at all. One who listens only to pop music isn't doing it instead of listening to classical. They are engaged in an entirely different activity.


I read this post earlier and thought about it for a while. I want to compare it to literature. Let's say a person reads romance novels (of the Mills & Boon type) and they say: 'I read a lot of novels' and you ask: 'Oh, what do you read?' When you get the answer there is very likely some sort of judgement that will be made. At the least that perhaps 'novels' has a rather broad interpretation.

People reading these books, or perhaps throwaway sci-fi stories in magazines, are _reading_ just as much as someone reading a Philip Roth or a Martin Amis novel, it's all literary composition of fiction. So do we separate these as discrete versions (of the same sort of thing) or actually admit that they do come under one umbrella and have varying levels of: artistic quality; complexity; more or less of a relationship with deeper ideas?

To avoid the objection of this being different from listening to music, I'd argue that this is actually completely analogous. That people make almost identical judgements based upon an idea of a scale of aesthetic and technical quality and they do so because they see all musical activity as springing from the same source and existing as varieties of the same activity. Of course there is crossover and eclecticism, but a scale of quality nonetheless.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Even the smartest people may listen to the dumbest music and while they might be able to appreciate "smarter" music, let's say, classical music  the very thought of listening to it may have never crossed their minds. People simply have varying levels of interest in music. It is what it is.


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I'm struggling to find the source for the OP's quote...a similar thread by the same member back in March, and a silent gif on the Tumblr account - but nothing else. I'd like to understand what Barenboim meant by checking the context.
> 
> [add]
> Soz. Found the Youtube clip. No mention of dumbing down!


Thanks for taking the time to find this.


----------



## Rys (Nov 26, 2016)

One of the flaws of classical listeners is their hipocratical ignorance. Yes, Pop music isn't as complex, but is still worth exploring to some extent.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Rys said:


> One of the flaws of classical listeners *is their hipocratical ignorance.* Yes, Pop music isn't as complex, but is still worth exploring to some extent.


You are referring to classical listeners who were never pop listeners? Many classical listeners have experienced both to a great extent and still do listen to pop occasionally, when the mood suits it.


----------



## Alydon (May 16, 2012)

bharbeke said:


> There are times when I want the chorus-verse-bridge structure or want to sing along to something, and the pop music forms provide those things.


You are obviously listening to the wrong type of pop music. Try Talk Talk's Spirit of Eden for something that would be termed 'pop music' but doesn't adhere to the popular notion running through this thread.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Herrenvolk said:


> Also, guys and gals, why do you feel the need to be 'better' or 'more cultured' or 'more advanced' than other people? Seems like a case of inadequacy.
> 
> Don't compare. Live and let live.


I'm with you there. Personally, I have little use for pop music, past or present, and would take Shostakovich over Showaddywaddy every time. That doesn't make me a more complex, cultured, intelligent or better person. Just different.

I also like beer and pizza.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Alydon said:


> You are obviously listening to the wrong type of pop music. Try Talk Talk's Spirit of Eden for something that would be termed 'pop music' but doesn't adhere to the popular notion running through this thread.


Thanks for the recommendation, but there's no such thing as the "wrong type of pop music." If it speaks to you or provides enjoyment, it is the right kind. I am no more bothered by familiar structures in pop music than most TC members are bothered by sonata form.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Pat Fairlea said:


> I'm with you there. Personally, I have little use for pop music, past or present, *and would take Shostakovich over Showaddywaddy every time*. That doesn't make me a more complex, cultured, intelligent or better person. Just different.
> ugh
> I also like beer and pizza.


You have to admit it's a tough decision though, right? Who doesn't like a bit of 70s doo-***?


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

MacLeod said:


> I would agree, and add (not for the first time here, as this topic crops up quite often) that not only might the listener's needs be different, but the music's "purposes" (if indeed the writers and players of "pop" have any explicit purposes in mind) might be different too.
> 
> Where I would raise an eyebrw at your post is the part emboldened. In the same way that there is no typical CM listener, there is no typical pop listener, and a number of TC members have, over time (not just in this thread, but in similar) made clear that they listen to, enjoy, understand, even 'find something in' pop as well as they do in CM. They also don't feel compelled to ask redundant questions about which is better, does one make us more clever or more dumb than the other does, why would anyone dream of listening to X (insert pop artist you most loathe) etc etc.
> 
> ...


I said what I did because it is my perception that the percentage of pop listeners who listen to it simply and casually compared to western classical music is more.

Of course, it is my 'perception' and not fact. Concert audiences might simply go to concerts and not remember any of it.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Comericalised throw away pop music has a lot to answer for - they should be made to pay a polution tax


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Comericalised throw away pop music has a lot to answer for - they should be made to pay a polution tax


What I don't understand is why so many stores and doctor and dentist offices will play that rot. Do they get paid to play it? Surely they would not pay for it.


----------



## IllBeBach (Sep 23, 2017)

To an extent. Sometimes classical is hard for some people to listen to because classical music seems to work with more complex structures and rhythms. 

You shouldn't worry about this, though. A few people who are incapable of understanding this music won't destroy classical music's iconic legacy. There will always be people who get it.

There is also room for opinion. I like Beethoven. I also like Metallica. But would I compare them to Beethoven? I would say no.

There are also morons who simply equate good music with "new" music. This shows they never truly liked the music in the first place. Remember, after the thrill of pop music fades off, what are you left with? How good the music ACTUALLY is.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Florestan said:


> What I don't understand is why so many stores and doctor and dentist offices will play that rot. Do they get paid to play it? Surely they would not pay for it.


They definitely pay for it. All business have to pay 'performance costs'' which means having the radio on in a public place. In my brother's barber shop he foiled the inspector by having his radio in the private WC at the back of the shop and the door ajar.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

eugeneonagain said:


> They definitely pay for it. All business have to pay 'performance costs'' which means having the radio on in a public place. In my brother's barber shop he foiled the inspector by having his radio in the private WC at the back of the shop and the door ajar.


That may explain it. Perhaps there is a limited and shabby selection of readily available musical choices that are easily paid for. As one cannot just spin any disk they please, it would be near impossible to pay performance costs for an eclectic selection from ones own collection.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

eugeneonagain said:


> I read this post earlier and thought about it for a while. I want to compare it to literature. Let's say a person reads romance novels (of the Mills & Boon type) and they say: 'I read a lot of novels' and you ask: 'Oh, what do you read?' When you get the answer there is very likely some sort of judgement that will be made. At the least that perhaps 'novels' has a rather broad interpretation.
> 
> People reading these books, or perhaps throwaway sci-fi stories in magazines, are _reading_ just as much as someone reading a Philip Roth or a Martin Amis novel, it's all literary composition of fiction. So do we separate these as discrete versions (of the same sort of thing) or actually admit that they do come under one umbrella and have varying levels of: artistic quality; complexity; more or less of a relationship with deeper ideas?
> 
> To avoid the objection of this being different from listening to music, I'd argue that this is actually completely analogous. That people make almost identical judgements based upon an idea of a scale of aesthetic and technical quality and they do so because they see all musical activity as springing from the same source and existing as varieties of the same activity. Of course there is crossover and eclecticism, but a scale of quality nonetheless.


I feel that comparing romance novels (and other genre fiction) to literary novels is probably more like comparing pops (and popera and Broadway) to elite classical music (Ligeti and so on); a comparison of classical music as a whole to popular music is probably more analogous to novels and television (and film and even youtube-style videos). And in the case of the latter comparison, I think it's worth considering whether some pop music might be better than some classical music, just as some television or films aren't actually better than a lot of novels. Of course "better" is dependent on the values of the judge.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Rys said:


> One of the flaws of classical listeners is their hipocratical ignorance. Yes, Pop music isn't as complex, but is still worth exploring to some extent.


I agree, too many classical listeners ignore that oath.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

eugeneonagain said:


> You have to admit it's a tough decision though, right? Who doesn't like a bit of 70s doo-***?


Me. I don't.

............................


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> You have to admit it's a tough decision though, right? Who doesn't like a bit of 70s doo-***?


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Me. I don't.
> 
> ............................


There must be higher culture on the wrong side of the Pennines.


----------



## Gaspard de la Nuit (Oct 20, 2014)

I don't think modern pop music is necessarily democratic as much as it is corporatized and focus-group tested (like movies and candidates for national office)....the corporate anti-creative-impulse way of doing things makes everything worse.

Plenty of pop music from before everything became massively corporatized was pretty decent, I listen to the throwback station in the car with my mom and it's better than the pop music we have now.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: I would say the reverse is true. Over-exposure to atonal music by composers other than Schoenberg, has made me appreciate the gorgeously melodic pop songs of the 1950's-1970's, so much, much more.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

eugeneonagain said:


> You have to admit it's a tough decision though, right? Who doesn't like a bit of *70s doo-****?


What* is* it???


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I just noticed this: OP: "Has pop music made *US....* dumb....."

Since you are speaking for yourself and you alone, why did you write "us"? Curious....as if we all are influenced alike.

I used to tell my students that all the time, sitting there so bravely in a group, when one of them would tell me, "WE don't think so." "Say I. Not we." They squirmed.

To quote my father, "You were born dumb and pop music had nothing to do with it."


----------

