# The pop/classical split between vocal & instrumental musics...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I was thinking of these things, after hearing someone talking about them on the radio.

Why is it that people into popular music tend to love music with vocals (eg. "songs") but not purely instrumental "pop" or "rock" music?

& on the reverse side, why is it that most classical listeners like instrumental music more, or at least as much as, classical music with vocals?

My conclusions are based on commonsense with regard to pop or rock, etc., and on anecdotal information about lovers of classical music.

Eg. in terms of the pop or rock genre, how many "big" purely instrumental performers can an average person name? Some like Jimi Hendrix and Eric Clapton come to my mind. I can name dozens of singers of rock or pop, no problem.

Then with classical music, the situation is the reverse. A number of classical music lovers I personally know don't like music with vocals, esp. opera, they prefer instrumental. Or at least a fair amount of their listening would be instrumental. The other online classical forum I left had very few lovers of opera compared to here on TC. The following of vocal music, or opera at least, is more concentrated here on TC. But a fair amount of people who take part in the opera forum also take part on the rest of the forum, & listen to a fair amount of instrumental music.

So I'm wondering, why is it that vocal music is king in the world of pop, rock, etc, while it's kind of like the reverse in classical, which is dominated by instrumental music? In terms of pop, what the guy on the radio was saying was that he's surprised instrumental music hasn't taken off. Eg. far more people hate even the thought of listening to say the Bee Gees than the majority who would find Eric Clapton's guitar playing okay. I think that a particular type of voice can be more annoying or irritating if you hate it than a particular way of playing say a guitar or piano. If this sounds right, then why are things the way they are, the opposite way?

Personally speaking, my parents played mainly classical when I was growing up, but also jazz and classic rock/pop. I mostly liked jazz & classical, so I've focused on those since. I like some rock, pop, techno, hip-hop, lounge, dubstep, etc. but my knowledge of them is nothing compared to the other two, esp. in the instrumental area of classical...


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Both Jimi and Eric sang as well.....

A realted puzzling personal preference: in pop/rock/ballads I love songs where the piano dominates. In classical music, the piano is probably my least favoured instrument.....


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

It's easier today for some singers to dress up like a prostitute, open their mouths and sing "baby don't hurt me no more" in front of her audience, say. Popular culture promotes it.

As for classical music, I wouldn't be naive to believe that classical music appears to be dominated by instrumental music in an overwhelming sense. Classical music grew out of the church - vocal church music, primarily. Though it is the instrumental world that propelled the development of many genres obviously.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I thought about this question I asked...



Sid James said:


> ...
> In terms of pop, what the guy on the radio was saying was that he's surprised instrumental music hasn't taken off. Eg. far more people hate even the thought of listening to say the Bee Gees than the majority who would find Eric Clapton's guitar playing okay. I think that a particular type of voice can be more annoying or irritating if you hate it than a particular way of playing say a guitar or piano. If this sounds right, then why are things the way they are, the opposite way?
> ...


...about which I think the obvious answer is that the human voice can express emotion in a way that resonates with us more deeply on an instinctive level than purely instrumental music. But the downside is what I said as well. Eg. some particular singer's voices, eg. their colours, phrasing, style of delivery or quirks, etc. can irritate us and peeve us of to no end.

In terms of pop, yes some people do like certain singers, but they hate others. For every person who likes say Elton John, there'll be another who hates him & likes someone else in the genre. I don't see the same polarisation with the instrumentalists of this genre, eg. is Eric Clapton similarly loved and loathed, or would most people just say "okay, his music is good, he's a good guitarist?" Eg. they can listen to his music in a neutral way, not massively for or against (but of course Mr. Clapton would have his fans & groupies just like the next guy, this is just taking him as an example).

In terms of classical, there's even a thread open now on how some people can't stand the choral ending to Beethoven's _Symphony #9_, which may be somewhat related to what I'm saying. That choral/vocal ending resonates deeply, but for some people it might be so kind of emphatic or in your face (eg. not as subtle as the other 3 instrumental movements), that they are peeved off big time by it. I myself like it, I'm just guessing, I haven't had time to read that thread as yet. Maybe the addition of vocals adds a layer of complexity to classical, & a lot of classical music is already quite complex as it is?

Thoughts?...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I'll read the thread properly later when I have time, but my non-classical friends have repeatedly said to me: "but you can't sing along!"


----------



## Almaviva (Aug 13, 2010)

It's just because many classical music lovers haven't realized yet that opera is the most beautiful of all art forms.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

i think that in the pop/rock music is much more stronger the identification with the singer. The singer is the author of the music and speaks of himself (and also the singing styles are extremely varied), and it's one of the strenghts of the popular music. Extremely banal compositions can be dignified by the personality of the singer, while in classical even when there's a voice it's not the voice of the composer, so it's more impersonal and more about the musical effect.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I like what Norman said and, Sid, you got a little closer on your revisited post.


I think the answer is quite simple. Attention span and timbre. I've been listening to classical my entire life and I'd still (for the most part) rather hear (first to come to mind) Gladys Knight or Celine Dion or Tina Turner than some soprano screeching to no end. Pop actually takes it's time in expressing each individual vocal note while some operatic vocal, it seems, are just rushing to try to get the words in. 

Either way,...to the common folk, opera is way too long and the vocals are for the most part, annoying. I sing hundreds of songs weeks after week and sing harmonies with fellow musicians and it is a wonderful feeling; a feeling almost anyone can attain while driving in their cars and singing along...not everyone can sing like a highly trained tenor or soprano or alto or bass or whatever...but,...anyone can sing Time After Time from someone who one might think should never get behind a microphone named Cindi Lauper...it's simple and it's pretty.


I'm just glad that I enjoy both formats very much although I'd rather hear a pop singer anyday, male or female. Some arias and opera sections I love to no end and will always be cherished works but even then, I'd rather listen to Lotte Lenya sing Mac The Knife or Lost In The Stars.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Sid James said:


> In terms of classical, there's even a thread open now on how some people can't stand the choral ending to Beethoven's _Symphony #9_, which may be somewhat related to what I'm saying. That choral/vocal ending resonates deeply, but for some people it might be so kind of emphatic or in your face (eg. not as subtle as the other 3 instrumental movements), that they are peeved off big time by it. I myself like it, I'm just guessing, I haven't had time to read that thread as yet. Maybe the addition of vocals adds a layer of complexity to classical, & a lot of classical music is already quite complex as it is?
> 
> Thoughts?...


Well, the Beethoven example is a great one, because it illustrates the problem I have with a lot of classical vocals, including much opera - so much of it sounds like the performers are STRAINING. I don't enjoy seeing and hearing people who look or sound like they are going to burst some internal organ any minute.

Classical vocals that sound natural can be tremendous, but in my experience they are few and far between.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Vesteralen said:


> Well, the Beethoven example is a great one, because it illustrates the problem I have with a lot of classical vocals, including much opera - so much of it sounds like the performers are STRAINING. I don't enjoy seeing and hearing people who look or sound like they are going to burst some internal organ any minute.
> 
> Classical vocals that sound natural can be tremendous, but in my experience they are few and far between.


Looks like you are referring to opera/oratorio singing. Most lieder/ 'art songs' aren't yelled.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Further to my brief point above (about being able to sing along), and also in conjunction with norman bates:



norman bates said:


> i think that in the pop/rock music is much more stronger the identification with the singer. The singer is the author of the music and speaks of himself (and also the singing styles are extremely varied), and it's one of the strenghts of the popular music. Extremely banal compositions can be dignified by the personality of the singer, while in classical even when there's a voice it's not the voice of the composer, so it's more impersonal and more about the musical effect.


I think the most important thing is twofold: both the fact that music is at its best when _you're_ the one making it, and also probably that this kind of identification with the singer extends to the listener actually _becoming_ the singer. The whole point of pop music, really, is the singing (not the accompanying music), so the listener is able to engage with the music entirely, even pretending that they are the superstar. Listening to any instrumental ensemble with more than one instrument immediately halts your ability to actively engage with the music making.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Looks like you are referring to opera/oratorio singing. Most lieder/ 'art songs' aren't yelled.


I just listened to a Delos recording of songs by Borodin, and although nothing was exactly yelled, most of the vocals sounded strained and uncomfortable to my ears.

On the other hand, I've heard a good bit of vocal music, including a good number of Brahms' larger and smaller works (like part-songs, and other a capella music) that is natural sounding and pleasant.

In part, some operas are also unstrained sounding (I can think of a number of arias from The Magic Flute, or The Daughter of the Regiment, off the top of my head).


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

Polednice said:


> The whole point of pop music, really, is the singing (not the accompanying music), so the listener is able to engage with the music entirely, even pretending that they are the superstar. Listening to any instrumental ensemble with more than one instrument immediately halts your ability to actively engage with the music making.


umm...air guitar? Steering wheel drumset?

My classically-oriented son air-conducted all the time, from when he was a little kid. He's now away at conservatory.

In another forum I frequent we got into an extensive discussion on whether video games like Rock Band actually encouraged anyone to learn an instrument for real. Most of us were already in bands so it was difficult to get an neophyte's opinion.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Lunasong said:


> umm...air guitar? Steering wheel drumset?
> 
> My classically-oriented son air-conducted all the time, from when he was a little kid. He's now away at conservatory.
> 
> In another forum I frequent we got into an extensive discussion on whether video games like Rock Band actually encouraged anyone to learn an instrument for real. Most of us were already in bands so it was difficult to get an neophyte's opinion.


The air-guitar thing is practically the same with regards to being involved with the music making - it's about having the _feeling_ of creating music, even if you're not. Air conducting is not an appropriate analogy; playing 'air orchestra' would be. Obviously, that's impossible, hence the lesser popularity.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Interesting replies, guys.

I esp. agree with Norman Bates' point about the author of the music as well as the deliverer, if you like, being the same in pop/rock/etc. I'd say that for example most Beatles fans would have all their albums, maybe this is part of the reason. Not a lot of classical fans would have all of a composer's or performer's albums/works (although the more hard-core fans of say Beethoven or Martha Argerich would do that, I'm talking more of the average classical listener in the middle of the "fandom" spectrum).

So in pop, it's the singer, not necessarily the song that interests the fans, in classical, it's more the song itself, so to speak.

As for Vesteralen's & kv466's description of opera vocals as sounding like "screeching" & "straining," I can empathise with that. Opera is more of an "artificial" way of singing, or whatever you'd call it, than pop, rock, jazz, country, blues, etc. Opera is closer to that kind of Central Asian throat singing than to the popular styles of singing. If someone from another planet came here and had never heard opera, they'd probably find it bizarre.

Polednice's point about "identification with the singer" also makes sense to me. In my school days, I remember that the girls went apesh*t over boy bands like Bros. This is dating me big time, it was like the late 1980's. But I doubt if it's the music of those guys would have been the focus of those young teen girls with their hormones, it was definitely something else! They imagined these guys to be their boyfriends or something. & it's been the same going way back, right to guys like Elvis and Buddy Holly. I think classical also had that kind of thing, but by the Modern era, it was largely over. Liszt, Chopin and Paganini were quite handsome and/or charming, they had charisma and good vibe, sex appeal, whatever. But I don't think that the c20th virtuosos really had the hots in that way. It's kind of coming back in the other way with the women, for example Hilary Hahn and Anne-Sophie Mutter are being marketed in a kind of sexy way, but I'm not sure if this is a "real" phenomenon like those three guys in the Romantic era, to me it appears to be artificial/plastic PR waffle.

Some of these ramblings explain, in part, how with non-classical the focus is strongly vocal, but with classical it's the other way, instrumental. I guess in things like folk music and music of tribes, etc. it's also vocal and rhythms (eg. African musics), so that's where we're coming from. With classical, the vocal form becomes controlled and artificial, with the other genres, the links to the "primitive" origins of humanity's earliest ways of music making are more present, they are not wiped out by the pyrotechnics of bel canto or coloratura singing, for example...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> With classical, the vocal form becomes controlled and artificial, with the other genres, the links to the "primitive" origins of humanity's earliest ways of music making are more present, they are not wiped out by the pyrotechnics of bel canto or coloratura singing, for example...


Are you suggesting that classical instrumental music is more "natural" in the sense that that's what the caveman might have been performing with his stones and sticks just because they may not have used their voice? 

Your reference to pyrotechnics of bel canto or colorutura singing don't really hold water either, considering the equalling if not more, dazzling instrumental virtuosity of contemporary reports we read of early violinists and keyboard players, or any instrumental virtuosities for example. I don't suppose the cavemen would have been dazzingly each other with their stones and sticks to the same extent.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think Sid was suggesting that pop singing is more 'natural' than classical singing, not that classical instrumental is more 'natural'. It makes sense because classical music is more consciously wrought to be intricate and interesting, whereas, while there is still a compositional process with pop singing, it is meant to be fairly simple and easy.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice explains it well (whatever HC is saying, he's currently on my ignore list). To expand, in pop/rock/jazz there definitely aren't as many singers with huge vocal ranges as in classical. Of course you have examples of singers who did have pretty big vocal range - eg. Elvis, Freddy Mercury, Roy Orbison, Sarah Vaughan, etc. - but in classical a fairly large vocal range is a necessity. Of course, things vary, not everybody is a Cecilia Bartoli or Joan Sutherland, but on the whole an opera singer has to be able to handle the roles he/she is singing in the repertoire he/she chooses, none of which sounds easy to me compared to the average non-classical things. In any case, it is quite common for opera aficionados on these forums to poo-poo opera singers with limited/medium range vocal range - eg. Kiri Te Kanawa or Jose Carerras. It might also have to do with the fact that these singers "crossed over" to non-classical (a cardinal sin among the purists). 

I agree with what Hilltroll said earlier that art-song (lieder) is not as technical or convoluted, "shouting," usually, like opera, the nature of that medium is it's intimacy. But when most people think of classical music with vocals, they think of opera (unless say they have a huge art-song tradition like the Germans). It is interesting to note that the "three tenors" concerts in the 1990's which kind of made some aspects of opera mainstream, was not "screeching" voices of sopranos, but the more mellow sounds of the guys. I think there is something to this as well?

So I think it's fair to say that for some of the reasons we discussed, there is this "split" between what pop/rock/jazz/country fans like - which is vocal - & classical fans mostly like - which is instrumental. A thing that falls out of this divide is things like electronica, techno, dubstep which is kind of neither strictly vocal or instrumental, it's a thing of itself. But most people don't just listen to this music, they dance along to it, esp. in nightclubs, parties, etc., so it's kind of another category which cannot be as easily pinned down as the other two, & it's more recent as well...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Sid James said:


> But when most people think of classical music with vocals, they think of opera (unless say they have a huge art-song tradition like the Germans). It is interesting to note that the "three tenors" concerts in the 1990's which kind of made some aspects of opera mainstream, was not "screeching" voices of sopranos, but the more mellow sounds of the guys. I think there is something to this as well?
> 
> ...


Well, your reference above to bel canto and colorutura were obviously referring to opera as the basis for your reasoning. So I'm not sure why you backtracked. Lieder has been mentioned, and church music often lends itself to a more "natural" type of singing than opera, which largely due to its idiomatic and dramatic requirements, and to convey the plot and emotions of the characters, almost necessitates it. I'm sure you have seen theatrical plays where actors' speech are no more natural than daily conversations, precisely because they need to act out the parts in a non-natural way (but good enought to convince us it is natural, hence "good acting"; equivalent to bel canto in opera).

As to whether or not I am ignored, I couldn't care less. I'm more interested in the discussion of this thread.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I don't suppose the cavemen would have been *dazzingly* each other with their stones and sticks to the same extent.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

kv466 said:


>


:lol: Funny.


----------



## CountessAdele (Aug 25, 2011)

"Screeching"  If an opera singer is talented and in control they should never sound strained or screechy. I'm getting a little muddled on what your point is. Is the split between classical instrumental music, and vocal pop music? Or between the more natural pop singing, and the more instrument-like opera singing? I thought there was a broader split between all classical and all non classcial. Or am I just way off base altogether?


----------

