# Classical vs. other popular genres of music



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

This thread is sort of a three part question in terms of what I'm asking.

First, pick which non-classical music genre(s) you have loved in the past or currently love. 

With regards to the genre you picked, do you think classical music is superior in comparison?

Finally, if you do think classical music is superior, explain what aspects of classical music convinced you of its superiority? If you do not think it is superior, explain what aspects of your chosen musical genre make it equal or better than classical music, perhaps something that you can't get from the latter?

If you are a relativist that believes that all music is good in its own way, just think of the word "superiority" and "better" in a subjective way with regards to the question.

If you picked more than one genres, you can answer differently for each.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I like all kinds of modern jazz from bebop to ECM type stuff. I don't believe there is any point in comparing it to classical music. And many of the modern jazz musicians are virtuoso players with phenomenal technique on par with classical musicians.

One aspect of modern jazz or progressive rock music I really enjoy is listening to great trap drum set players. You don't get to experience this much in classical music.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Pop/rock in general, prog in particular. I listened to it before classical music (1970-1986), and still do. Is classical music superior? Not in my book. I like then equally. Sometimes I'm in the mood for Pink Floyd, sometimes Bach. Sometimes Genesis, sometimes Mahler. Sometimes Tori Amos, sometimes Brahms. And so on. I would not want to be without either genre.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I like House music. Its repetitive rhythms and slow chord progressions are addictive to me. I also like some pop and rock, when I'm in the mood for it.

Is classical superior? I guess I'd say so. Though house music is very much like minimalist music, so it's debatable to say on that front. And while there are plenty of pop songs that aren't really creative or innovated, there are some that show great craftsmanship and production. Even more so in rock.

The reasons I would argue classical to be superior are a few things; 
1. Longer development, and really doing a lot with musical ideas. Unless we're talking about a 15min+ prog rock song, not a lot of popular music has this. That's not a bad thing, because different genre have different focuses. There's either a higher emphasis on beat, or on lyrics.
2. Complexity of the music. I personally love listening to polyphonic music, and that is not as common in popular genre than in classical. Though, if someone can show me an example of a song outside of classical music that does have polyphonic texture, PLEASE share with me!!!
3. Higher difficulty level. This is kind of a throwaway reason, b/c there are plenty of popular songs that are hard to play, and plenty of classical pieces that are easy to play, and vice versa, and difficulty =/= better. 
4. More interesting. Similar to 2, classical just tends to be more interesting to my ear than other genre. And most songs are about love, getting together, heart break, etc. And then there's the wave of songs that are just about having fun going crazy. Maybe it's the cynic in me that finds these banal, but it's because there are so many of these kinds of songs that I shrug them off. At the risk of sounding like "that guy", there are no pop songs coming out right now that are very remarkable in terms of subject matter
5. I prefer abstract. Kind of what draws me to house music (with no lyrics) and jazz (with no lyrics). I like paying attention to the music, listening to it evolve, put me in a state of mind. When I put that kind of attentiveness to other genre, it doesn't pay off the same as it does in classical

So yep those are all the reasons I can scrape together. In reality, I don't really think classical as "superior" just because of subjectivity.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Mostly Jazz and Electronic Sound Artist. I use such an open term for the electronica because most of the stuff I like incorporates many different elements, and several of the artists I like call themselves that. I've been fascinated with Tim Hecker's output recently.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Considering jazz, I guess that altough there are examples of large for pieces, classical is generally more complex than a lot of jazz that formally is just a repetition of a chorus. But jazz has an aspect that I really love, and it's its naturalness and informality. It is music where the improvisation develops like an organism around a structure. As I said in a old discussion, to compare classical with jazz it's like to compare a cathedral made of white marble with something like a garden. Also harmonically considering the better jazz composers it's possible to find things that sound like nothing I've heard in classical music.
Considering rock music, the musicians are often a lot less trained than the classical and jazz counterparts, so the music it's often harmonically simple and formulaic, but at its best the lack of a score and academic training translates itself in very original solutions, in terms of sounds and ideas. 
It's often very visceral music (viscerality in the classical world too many times is seen as "something for angry kids"...sometimes I imagine certain users of this board like huge flying brains without a body). And it's also "to the point", while in the classical world simple often is seen just as simplistic and complexity is considered a value in itself.
By the way, while I love the great classical singers like Maria Callas I like also the untrained voices of the non classical world. I consider the singer as an actor, and a great actor is someone who is capable to act, not someone who's beautiful. That's a lesson that many classical composers could learn.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Personally, I love jazz and I like classical music. 
I can't listen to too much jazz, because it gets in my head and I get all wrapped up in it.
Classical music is superior to jazz in my case because much of what attracts me to it is its spiritual/religious aspect. I know jazz aspires to be spiritual, but I get too caught up in the details to see God in it.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Cosmos covered it all for me, and better than I could have done :tiphat:

I can't add anything significant to what I have voiced many times already on this forum, but trying to be brief... On second thought, I don't think I'll ever master brevity :lol:

CM gives me a lot of variability, different moods, textures, styles, experimentation, tradition, complexity, intellectual appeal, doesn't give up its secrets too easily, enduring appeal, depth, etc. I tend to think that people who have extensive formal training in music will produce a 'better' product than those who don't. Much of popular music is given to marketing, fads, youth appeal, etc., rather than music for the sake of outstanding music. CM is good for the ears, doesn't bore. I am not very much into repetitive rhythms and beats, pop song lyrics with nothing interesting to say... I don't listen to much vocal music anyway, preferring instrumental music with development, where something happens musically that keeps my mind interested, wanting to know more, etc. CM suits my temperament and my interests the best.

Aside from classical music of and derived from the European tradition, I also like classical music of the Greater Middle East (a wonderful term that groups India, Iran, the Turkic and Arab states) and the Far East (for my purposes, pretty much exclusively Japan, China and Korea, and a curiosity, Bali).

As for popular musics, with which we are here concerned, I like/have liked:

Jazz has had some appeal for me, but I find that it wears thin quickly. While I like the saxophone a lot, the squawking can give me a headache after a while. Traditional jazz sounds dated and predictable and the avantgarde jazz of the '70s can be abrasive, although it is the type I still prefer. The classic jazz songs are a lot like Broadway and show music and don't hold much appeal for me, although I do like Billie Holiday a lot. Yes, there is a new breed of non-racial jazz today, too, but I just haven't really warmed to it.

Bluegrass has limited appeal, but I enjoy the banjo a lot and generally like the feeling, but gospel bluegrass has the religious lyrics and so-called newgrass draws from pop culture and seems commercialized. I find little consistency in the genre, unfortunately, as much as I like the 'good' stuff.

Country is so inane most of the time that I can't stand it, but I do like the twangy guitars, when coupled with some hard-driving rock. The lyrics have to be the worst in the music business, though. Still, there's something about the country sound that appeals to me, when I don't listen to the cringeworthy words. I usually follow up with Xenakis: I wouldn't want the neighbours to get a bad impression.

Folk has never had any appeal for me, but I like the Balkan gypsy violin. There is little in folk beyond that that I am interested in, however, unless one can call Steeleye Span folk. I call them rock, but I like the traditional texts.

Rock is the genre that used to be my main genre, before I gravitated to CM. The stock formula of drums, keyboard, guitars and vocals wore out on me decades ago. Mostly, it seems like music for people many decades younger than me... and I don't consider myself old  The lyrics and song structure get tiring quickly, but I still enjoy the exuberance, the thrill, the danceability. The kind of rock that I like best is very wild, outlandish, experimental, boho, cutting edge, artsy, etc. When I want to freak out, I put on some industrial rock or perhaps some old experimental nostalgia rock for 20 minutes or a full CD, and then I've usually had enough for a week. I am not drawn to the contemporary folk sound in some rock, nor rap and hip hop, etc. Yes, that's cliché for the generation of the powerful flowers. Burning Desire pointed me in the direction of some interesting artists, however, but now I digress.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> Personally, I love jazz and I like classical music.
> I can't listen to too much jazz, because it gets in my head and I get all wrapped up in it.
> Classical music is superior to jazz in my case because much of what attracts me to it is its spiritual/religious aspect. I know jazz aspires to be spiritual


a lot of jazz doesn't aspire at all to be spiritual (as for classical music by the way), isn't this a bit reductive?


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Okay, yes I do listen to a lot of variety in my music... everything from Suzanne Vega to even She & Him and Taylor Swift (right on eh hahaha). I am appreciative of all types of music.

I am a hard core jazz fan. I think that any album on the Blue Note Connoisseur series or OJC label can compare to the best of Beethoven in terms of harmonic, improvisation, and melodic line easily. On the other hand, there are elements of jazz that go beyond what classical music has done in terms of sonic experimentation such as the Weather Report and late Miles Davis.

I won't mention pop or rock. There are wonderful classics such as Pet Sounds and the Smile album or Sgt. Pepper or Dark Side of the Moon that compares to Brahms or Mozart in terms of thematic unity, composition, and brilliance of instrumental flavoring.

However, I just noticed that no one mentioned hip-hop and its complete ingenuity. Everyone needs to remember the sonic genius of the Bomb Squad on the early Public Enemy albums that did sonic collages with a political thrust and cultural deconstruction to an extent that no one can compare in postmodern classical music composition. The fact that the turntable was brought in as a new instrument that even classical music has not even approached is incredible.

Here is a fine example of this approach:


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

I'm curious about the use of the word "other" in the thread title. 

Anyway, I like Jazz, Rock, Country, and Hip-Hop. For the last three, it would be more accurate to say I like sub-genres of each (e.g., Classic blues Rock, Alt-country, etc.). 

I do not consider any genre superior to the others. It depends on what I'm looking for. 

I would agree that Classical is probably "superior" in the sense that there's more craft behind it, more "genius." But that's not everything. Pop is generally more direct, more in synch with my life. 

One thing I like about pop is the idea that someone who isn't an artistic genius may have a few things to say, and have a handful of great songs in him. I am very anti-canon, and don't care whether a work is for the ages or not. If I get something out of it, that's enough. Even if I come to reject it years later, that's OK.


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

I like music?? ''''''''''''''''''


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

I am definitely adding listening to the album Who's Next made me thinking about the classic nature of its songs .


----------



## Jos (Oct 14, 2013)

Cosmos said:


> I like House music.


That figures, you're from Chicago !! 

View attachment 58053


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Cosmos said:


> .
> 2. Complexity of the music. I personally love listening to polyphonic music, and that is not as common in popular genre than in classical. Though, if someone can show me an example of a song outside of classical music that does have polyphonic texture, PLEASE share with me!!!


do you mean something like this?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Cosmos said:


> I
> 2. Complexity of the music. I personally love listening to polyphonic music, and that is not as common in popular genre than in classical. Though, if someone can show me an example of a song outside of classical music that does have polyphonic texture, PLEASE share with me!!!


Here's a pretty contrapuntal Jazz performance of Moanin by Charles Mingus.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

*Classical not equal*

Comparing classical music to others is a waste of time to me.Classical music has been out for 100`s of years therefore it has something unlike other music forms that is staying power.Some songs only last 16 weeks on the charts.Classical music lasts way after EVEN THOUGH THE COMPOSERS DIES.Other music forms may last like 10 or more years you know.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

mtmailey said:


> Comparing classical music to others is a waste of time to me.Classical music has been out for 100`s of years therefore it has something unlike other music forms that is staying power.Some songs only last 16 weeks on the charts.Classical music lasts way after EVEN THOUGH THE COMPOSERS DIES.Other music forms may last like 10 or more years you know.


this is a pop song composed in 1854. 160 years ago


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

I'd like to post something that I consider completely unique, just to show that non classical music doesn't mean only formulaic or commercial music. 





from the point of view of a classical listener in this piece there's not development, just different sections linked together.
But still this in my opinion is absolutely original art as powerful as a painting of Max Ernst or a David Lynch movie.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> 2. Complexity of the music. I personally love listening to polyphonic music, and that is not as common in popular genre than in classical. Though, if someone can show me an example of a song outside of classical music that does have polyphonic texture, PLEASE share with me!!!


Here's one from (gasp) Rock and Roll: the song at the beginning (vocals start at 0:24) called "No Sugar Tonight" and the song midway (vocals start at 2:34) called "New Mother Nature" are *sung simultaneously* at 3:54. Very cool contrapuntal effect for counterpoint lovers.






Also, if you are familiar with the prog rock band YES, they use that kind of counterpoint (two songs together) and imitative counterpoint (canonic imitation) quite often.


----------



## Torkelburger (Jan 14, 2014)

> 2. Complexity of the music. I personally love listening to polyphonic music, and that is not as common in popular genre than in classical. Though, if someone can show me an example of a song outside of classical music that does have polyphonic texture, PLEASE share with me!!!


And here's some YES samples:

There are two canons in this tune, a shorter one at 2:17 and a longer one at 2:57.






At about the 3 minute mark this song famously mergers the John Lennon song "Give Peace a Chance" with its own outro.






In this tune the chorus heard throughout the song is then sung as a canon at the 4:04 mark. At 4:31 the pre-chorus heard throughout the song is then sung simultaneously with the chorus instead of simply preceding it. Very cool effects.


----------



## Dasein (Dec 14, 2014)

Some of you might be interested in reading this small essay.

http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/SWA/On_popular_music_1.shtml


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

*Hiphop*

I used to listened to a lot of underground Hiphop a couple of years ago. It is almost impossible to compare to classical music because the lyrics and flow are more important than the actual music. I still quite like it but I'm much more aware of the underlying problems of glorification of violence, misogyny and homophobia.

*Jazz*

I spend around 6 years trying to be a jazz musician and I was completely obsessed with jazz during that time. Jazz is also hard to compare to classical music but I'll try. The thing that makes jazz more interesting than classical in some aspects is the individualism and the improvisation. Classical music is very hierarchical; a composer dictates what musicians should play while jazz is more a collaboration between musicians. I listen to jazz occasionally because classical music sometimes tend to miss the rhythmic drive of jazz.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Piwikiwi said:


> *Jazz*
> 
> I spend around 6 years trying to be a jazz musician and I was completely obsessed with jazz during that time. Jazz is also hard to compare to classical music but I'll try. The thing that makes jazz more interesting than classical in some aspects is the individualism and the improvisation. Classical music is very hierarchical; a composer dictates what musicians should play while jazz is more a collaboration between musicians. I listen to jazz occasionally because classical music sometimes tend to miss the rhythmic drive of jazz.


it must be added that in jazz the personality and originality of the tone has a big value, while in classical music musicians tend to an "ideal" perfect and standard tone. It's difficult to imagine a classical musician making the screeches of Pee Wee Russell, the vibrato of a Sidney Bechet or the breathy sound of Ben Webster.


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

norman bates said:


> it must be added that in jazz the personality and originality of the tone has a big value, while in classical music musicians tend to an "ideal" perfect and standard tone. It's difficult to imagine a classical musician making the screeches of Pee Wee Russell, the vibrato of a Sidney Bechet or the breathy sound of Ben Webster.


Good point. I used to be a saxophonist so sound is actually the first thing I listen to. If I don't like a player's sound I will probably never like his playing.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Dasein said:


> Some of you might be interested in reading this small essay.
> 
> http://www.icce.rug.nl/~soundscapes/DATABASES/SWA/On_popular_music_1.shtml


If it could have sense as a big generalization, but there is so much music in the non classical field that does not correspond to the description of standardization made by Adorno (I wonder how much he actually knew of popular music) that if you've posted this to demonstrate that there's nothing of value outside the classical world you're missing a lot of great things.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

norman bates said:


> If it could have sense as a big generalization, but there is so much music in the non classical field that does not correspond to the description of standardization made by Adorno (I wonder how much he actually knew of popular music) that if you've posted this to demonstrate that there's nothing of value outside the classical world you're missing a lot of great things.


The writers of that article certainly seem to have a tin ear for popular music. They approvingly quote an article which cites the song 'Trees', with its amusingly McGonagall-esque lyrics, as an example of a 'serious song'.* ('I think that I shall never see/ A poem lovely as a tree... Poems are made by fools like me/ But only God can make a tree!' :lol The difference between the pop music the authors regard as offensively formulaic (Benny Goodman, Guy Lombardo etc) and that which is 'serious'- the Peter Dawson repertoire, if you will- is that the latter was already old and reassuringly familiar in 1941, with the additional advantage for pop-phobes of being written for trained voices, whereas the former was of more recent origin and featured the microphone singing which would have sounded strange to an older generation of listeners, the authors probably included. In fact, Carmen Lombardo's vibrato and bizarre accent was probably an acquired taste for many younger listeners at the time as well!

* Adorno and his source do approve of some better songs of that sort as well, such as '(The Road to) Mandalay'. I can't identify the song 'Sylvia' they mention.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I have loved, and currently still love, progressive music, especially the more avant-garde varieties. I also still love some forms of jazz, mostly fusion and ECM.

I do not consider classical to be superior overall. In some ways, yes. But then, I find the above musical forms superior to classical in some ways, too.

From my point of view, classical and the above forms of music are superior to most other forms of music, but this is based on what I subjectively value n music: Musicianship, complexity, emotion, imagination.



Art Rock said:


> Pop/rock in general, prog in particular. I listened to it before classical music (1970-1986), and still do.


Why the 1986 ending date?

There has been a major prog "revival" going on starting in the early 90's and continuing to present day. Much of it of the same quality as the originators of the 70's.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Piwikiwi said:


> *Hiphop*
> 
> I used to listened to a lot of underground Hiphop a couple of years ago. It is almost impossible to compare to classical music because the lyrics and flow are more important than the actual music. I still quite like it but I'm much more aware of the underlying problems of glorification of violence, misogyny and homophobia.
> 
> ...


I agree with you on Hiphop... I am more into the beats... the cultural and musical sampling and political lyrics.

Nothing compared to the complex Bomb Squad shebang with early Public Enemy. So complex and beautiful!


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

albertfallickwang said:


> I agree with you on Hiphop... I am more into the beats... the cultural and musical sampling and political lyrics.
> 
> Nothing compared to the complex Bomb Squad shebang with early Public Enemy. So complex and beautiful!


What, all that stuff with the 'Parental Advisory' stickers on? You jest, surely?!


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

The subject of this thread is rather silly. Good music is good music regardless of genre. Of course, 99% of pop music is trash.


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2014)

1. Rock
2. Relativist. Different, not superior/inferior.
I love curry and I love cake. When I want curry, cake isn't right. When I want cake, curry isn't right. There are a small number of aspects universal to all music, but no single approach can have them all equally. Cake is low on the spice, curry is low on the sweetness.


----------



## Guest (Dec 26, 2014)

Some forms of non-"western classical" (eg traditional) predate it (eg gagaku), not that age is an indicator of anything.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> What, all that stuff with the 'Parental Advisory' stickers on? You jest, surely?!


This is all you need: http://www.mtvhive.com/2012/11/07/the-bomb-squad/


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

The question is hard to answer because classical musical for me is so vast and isn't a genre with clear boundaries. It's easier to say what it isn't than what it is; other genres seem easier to define, but that may just be my ignorance of their diversity. 

In non-classical music I like the classical music of India, specifically north Indian instrumental music for the sitar/sarod/surbahar family of stringed instrument. Occasionally I like jazz which is harmonically subtle and not frantic or noisy (can't stand screaming jazz trumpet and wild, tuneless improvisation). Certain ethnic musics delight me; I have Hungarian blood and it pulses to some gypsy violin stuff. I like instrumental-only bluegrass in small doses, but hate country-western. I love old recordings of popular songs of earlier times when sung by great singers of the past (back when you really needed to be able to sing!), whether it's Stephen Foster sung by Adelina Patti or Irving Berlin sung by Jane Froman (who, come to think of it, was also classically trained). Popular music - rock, rhythm and blues, reggae, rap, whatever they're churning out now - I've never had any use for since the purple people eater stopped eating purple people.

I'm not going to say that classical music on the whole is superior to other kinds of music. But the greatest masters of it created works that for me are unequaled - in intellectual complexity and in depth and variety of expression - by any other music I know. There's plenty of "classical" music I don't care for, but 95% of my listening has been classical, and that's good enough for one lifetime.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Just about all of my non-classical listening taste centers upon the classical or traditional / classical musics of China, Indonesia (primarily Gamelan music), Japan, and less so (but with no less liking / admiration for) East Indian classical / traditional musics.

I generally find in those a level of refinement and depth of purpose (successfully met, imho) quite equal to the best of Western classical (keep in mind my western classical taste runs from the earliest musics to the more current, and I do not at all think that one very polished master of 18th century north European counterpoint is in any way the particular apex of man's cultural achievements, while after that is said, there is _such a vast difference in the fundamental aesthetics between the two that I could not parallel them further_.

I'm so used to western classical, for the longest time, that I cannot imagine my polarity switched, i.e. preferring the Asian musics over the western rep, while that does not mean I especially evaluate one as 'superior' to the other, so different are they.

Putting them 'on the scales of balance,' and regardless of personal opinion or taste, the musics I have named each have long and antique histories of development (often over a millenium, some established earlier than the western classical tradition!) and refinement that I find it more than irritating when some slight these other musics simply because they are not western classical -- a huge mistake, imho, borne via ignorance more than due to any other criteria of measure or judgment as to 'their worth.'

Whatever the cultural source, I take folk, pop and the most commercial of pop music as _what it is,_ and since the best of that in intent is without pretense to being anything else, I judge it more for what it is than what it isn't. What it isn't, by content and intent, without pretense, is not 'classical', either western or eastern -- it is a sub-set / other genre best weighed and measured within its own context vs. comparing it to some other genre.

I love and truly admire some Jazz, and am quite in awe of some Jazz musicians to a similar degree I am in awe of some classical virtuosi, but the basic harmonic premise, modal to the nines (and elevenths, if I may make a kind of pun) after only a brief bit of time rings as constantly harmonically vague to my ears, that my listening there never lasts very long, no matter how good / great it is.

To heat up the discussion a bit:
My _personal_ evaluation, very much on a case-by-case basis, would place some of the ancient (ca. 470 - 200 B.C.E) written rep for the Chinese _Guqin_ as being of much greater 'worth' than any music penned up to the present by Arvo Pärt, and unless Pärt is struck by a divine lightning bolt and comes up with something radically different hereafter, his music will never 'come up' to the musical / aesthetic value of those antique Chinese pieces.

Likewise, a recorded virtuoso performance of an improvised Raga as performed by Nikhil Banerjee, the least of them, even, far outweighs any and all music ever penned by Nikolai Medtner. Too, Banerjee's playing to me is a complete parallel in 'value' as the best of anything as performed by Sviatoslav Richter.

 _Discuss!_


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB, you're pretty much on key with what I would consider a highly refined taste-bud, or ear-bud... but I don't want to get to "uppity," as people seem to be touchy about that sort of thing around here. 

I will say that I wouldn't shy away from the electronic persuasion... the evolution of electroacoustic is quite impressive. 

Oh, and hats off to you for the Banerjee mention. I've considered him to be the epitome of the sitar player.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blake said:


> PetrB, you're pretty much on key with what I would consider a highly refined taste-bud, or ear-bud... but I don't want to get to "uppity," as people seem to be touchy about that sort of thing around here.
> 
> I will say that I wouldn't shy away from the electronic persuasion... the evolution of electroacoustic is quite impressive.
> 
> Oh, and hats off to you for the Banerjee mention. I've considered him to be the epitome of the sitar player.


Some really do seem to get their knickers in a twist when it comes to electronica, or the integration which is now, I guess, "electro-acoustic." Certainly, people did not get so upset, or turned away from the newer version of a clarinet post Basset Horn, or when, say, the Saxophone came into being. That leaves, I guess, the rep in the electro-acoustic arena, which of course is wildly varied from major 'classical' symphonic works with electronics to alternate pop... but again, I don't see what the near automatic rejection of this 'additional set of sound-makers' is about. The piano came along and developed relatively quickly, and again, not too many average classical listeners were frightened off by that, or valve horns, or.... lol.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Some really do seem to get their knickers in a twist when it comes to electronica, or the integration which is now, I guess, "electro-acoustic." Certainly, people did not get so upset, or turned away from the newer version of a clarinet post Basset Horn, or when, say, the Saxophone came into being. That leaves, I guess, the rep in the electro-acoustic arena, which of course is wildly varied from major 'classical' symphonic works with electronics to alternate pop... but again, I don't see what the near automatic rejection of this 'additional set of sound-makers' is about. The piano came along and developed relatively quickly, and again, not too many average classical listeners were frightened off by that, or valve horns, or.... lol.


I'm mainly pointing to guys like Bayle, Parmegiani, Ferrari, Dhomont... basically - refer to some guy's thread, haha. Pretty much any audible sound on Earth is fair game... pushing a bit beyond the limitations of traditional instruments. Even the more ambient guys like Hecker I think are excellent.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Blake said:


> I'm mainly pointing to guys like Bayle, Parmegiani, Ferrari, Dhomont... basically - refer to some guy's thread, haha. Pretty much any audible sound on Earth is fair game... pushing a bit beyond the limitations of traditional instruments. Even the more ambient guys like Hecker I think are excellent.


It is really the same point around those arguments of tonal vs. atonal, et alia. i.e. it is neither the musical 'system,' scale, tuning -- and in this case, the sound sources -- but the composer, and what the composer has done with them that make a piece interesting, good, valid, etc. it is not the system or the instruments, but the composer... period.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> It is really the same point around those arguments of tonal vs. atonal, et alia. i.e. it is neither the musical 'system,' scale, tuning -- and in this case, the sound sources -- but the composer, and what the composer has done with them that make a piece interesting, good, valid, etc. it is not the system or the instruments, but the composer... period.


Certainly. I'm aware of such systems, and you're not seeing me come up with anything too interesting... haha


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

In honor of the non-western classical music traditions of the world, I present (to the uninitiated) the music of Pandit Pran Nath:


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

PetrB said:


> To heat up the discussion a bit:
> My _personal_ evaluation, very much on a case-by-case basis, would place some of the ancient (ca. 470 - 200 B.C.E) written rep for the Chinese _Guqin_ as being of much greater 'worth' than any music penned up to the present by Arvo Pärt, and unless Pärt is struck by a divine lightning bolt and comes up with something radically different hereafter, his music will never 'come up' to the musical / aesthetic value of those antique Chinese pieces.
> 
> Likewise, a recorded virtuoso performance of an improvised Raga as performed by Nikhil Banerjee, the least of them, even, far outweighs any and all music ever penned by Nikolai Medtner. Too, Banerjee's playing to me is a complete parallel in 'value' as the best of anything as performed by Sviatoslav Richter.
> ...


I'm very ignorant about chinese music (I think I've heard just a couple of cds of ancient chinese music), so I'm curious to listen something of those pieces you're mentioning.


----------



## GhenghisKhan (Dec 25, 2014)

I've been introduced to classical at a fairly young age(7). I listen to:

Ska
Hip-hop/rap
Alternative
All kind of pop
Nobuo Uematsu(I`m not sure which category he belongs to, lol)

There was more to the music then this. It was a statement. It was a rebellious phase, and to admit I liked classical music would have been an admission of defeat (and to this day, I wouldn't want to tell my father I like this stuff because he would enver let me live it down). 

I largely listenned to whatever my friends were listenning to at the time because it proved to be a bonding experience. I would not be able to describe the obscure underground groups of each genre or their merits beyond "Meh, it sounds good. I like." 

I do not even have a problem with amoral themes or lyrics as this is what I've listenned to most of my youth. It simply has a way to easily uplift the spirits of an otherwise fairly depressed youth. To decry it now would be hypocritical, but popular music has a bombastic way to tell you things. It's like it's ordering me around. 

For me, it's like listening to a movie, vs. being engrossed in a great book.It is like playing Starcraft vs. Hearts of Iron II. Due to its complexity, classical blanks out most everything else yet unlike playing a strategic game, I am not exhausted (or at least I am less exhausted) by the end of it. 

Having played the piano for a number of years, I can also appreciate the sheer effort that goes into a classical performance.

So for me, the short answer would be that it can express a greater range of emotions and ideas.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

violadude said:


> With regards to the genre you picked, do you think classical music is superior in comparison?


The question was posed to Frank Zappa in 1983 while he was in London recording with the LSO.
He gives his answer at the 4:20 mark.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

GhenghisKhan said:


> It is like playing Starcraft vs. Hearts of Iron II.


Rather off topic, but this is not a good comparison.  StarCraft (I or II) multiplayer played on its highest level is actually an extremely demanding and complex game. So much that the best 30 year old-something cannot keep up anymore with the best 19 year old-something, for all the micro vs macro managing and strategic vs split second decisions that have to be made + the required reflexes and being able to control all of it with mouse and keyboard.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

To the OP, ambient is one of my favorite non-classical genres. If I had to compare, classical music is superior in every basic musical aspect I could think of, except that ambient music is not about those aspects. So there you have it.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

The problem with this question is that "classical music" is not a genre the way rock, hip-hop, country, etc. are genres. Classical music is an umbrella term encompassing written music from Europe for the last thousand years or so, and more recently music made by people who consciously associate themselves with a "classical" tradition. Machaut and Mahler do not belong to the same "genre" in the sense that Chuck Berry and the Beatles belong to the same genre. If I compare country music to the entire classical repertoire, country music is going to come out looking very limited - but it's not a fair comparison.

Instead we could look at, e.g. African-American music, which would include blues, jazz, rock, R&B, funk, soul, gospel, hip-hop, etc. - a diverse set of genres that that spring from a common tradition, like classical music. You could even argue for including musics from the Caribbean or from West Africa itself under that umbrella. Now we have a category that can fairly be compared to "classical music."

My answer is, I don't think either one is better or worse. If you had to point to one distinguishing feature of the classical tradition, it's that the music is written down. This makes possible very sophisticated development of melody, counterpoint and harmony over time. It also entails sacrifices, however - less improvisatory freedom, more homogenous performance practices. There were also several hundred years of classical music in which there was virtually no interesting rhythm of any kind. And other traditions often excel where classical music is weak.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

isorhythm said:


> The problem with this question is that "classical music" is not a genre the way rock, hip-hop, country, etc. are genres. Classical music is an umbrella term encompassing written music from Europe for the last thousand years or so, and more recently music made by people who consciously associate themselves with a "classical" tradition. Machaut and Mahler do not belong to the same "genre" in the sense that Chuck Berry and the Beatles belong to the same genre. If I compare country music to the entire classical repertoire, country music is going to come out looking very limited - but it's not a fair comparison.
> 
> Instead we could look at, e.g. African-American music, which would include blues, jazz, rock, R&B, funk, soul, gospel, hip-hop, etc. - a diverse set of genres that that spring from a common tradition, like classical music. You could even argue for including musics from the Caribbean or from West Africa itself under that umbrella. Now we have a category that can fairly be compared to "classical music."
> 
> My answer is, I don't think either one is better or worse. If you had to point to one distinguishing feature of the classical tradition, it's that the music is written down. This makes possible very sophisticated development of melody, counterpoint and harmony over time. It also entails sacrifices, however - less improvisatory freedom, more homogenous performance practices. There were also several hundred years of classical music in which there was virtually no interesting rhythm of any kind. And other traditions often excel where classical music is weak.


If you are very tightly categorizing 'rock' as 3-4 minute songs, in 4/4, using 3 chords, and verse, chorus, bridge structure, yes it is a genre.

But IMO, rock is no more a genre than is classical, for the same reasons you mention.

I can list hundreds of bands that fall under the 'rock' category that are just as different from Chuck Berry and the Beatles, as Machaut is from Mahler.


----------

