# Pop music that rises to the level of great classical music?



## ibrahim (Apr 29, 2017)

Like this _performance_ and _video_ of Johnny Cash covering "Hurt" by the Nine Inch Nails?






Any other examples?


----------



## Sina (Aug 3, 2012)

Classical music is more of a way of making music than this "level" thing.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

I think it depends on what you mean by 'classical music'. I think of classical music as art music. And pop music can rise to art, e.g. The Velvet Underground and Captain Beefheart (and The Beatles). In other words: also a pop artist could have 'composed' Cage's 4'33... Also jazz musicians can be great musicians and in the same way some rock musicians are great musicians who can elevate any piece of music to an enthralling experience for the listener (and some pop singers can touch the heart of the listener because they have a great voice and good performance). But no pop artist has the musical skills to really compose music that has some complexity, originality or depth. In that sense pop music never rises to the standards of classical music. In a musical way every pop artist is just an amateur.


----------



## cimirro (Sep 6, 2016)

Why people insist in speaking about pop music in a classical music thread????
Here is the link for non classical music if you haven't found it yet:
http://www.talkclassical.com/non-classical-music/

Can some moderator please move this thread to the right place?
I find too annoying entering a forum about classical music and reading about Zappa, Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc, etc

Of course, everyone is free to enjoy what they want, but the classical music thread is supposed to be a place to discuss classical music.
Any pops who are "classical wanna-be" or the ones who change the world playing 3 chords are already welcome at: http://www.talkclassical.com/non-classical-music/ - that said, please, let's discuss the things in its right places... I promise i'll not bore you there! deal?


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

With the vast majority of pop music, one is listening to music that limits its potential development and substance and generates usually far less emotional/conceptual depth in the name of gaining familiarity quickly enough to be recognizable to many listeners in the shortest amount of time so it can be sold in volume. On top of that, its expressions are usually derivative, lacking much creativity, and usually lacking a substantial degree of personal conviction and/or experiential expression. All tolled, such a combination of mitigating factors (which is true in probably 99% or more of cases) almost always leads to mediocre emotional/conceptual depth at best (relative to the best Classical works). 

So, I would say it is VERY rare (if ever) that pop music (almost by definition) is as emotionally/conceptually substantial as any of the masterpieces or near masterpieces of Classical. 

I might say that perhaps only Neutral Milk Hotel's In the Aeroplane Over the Sea has ever overcome the genres' emotional, creative and developmental tendencies/limitations enough to do so -- but even in this case it is somewhat dubious to call a pop album (it only partially honors the genre).

Other substantial pop albums are... 

(or that at least have a strong element of "pop" or a strong element of "popular hip hop/R & B/Soul")

It Takes A Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back - Public Enemy (1988)
White Soul - Green (1989) 
The Stone Roses - The Stone Roses (1989)
Taking Tiger Mountain By Strategy - Brian Eno (1974) 
Charm of the Highway Strip - Magnetic Fields (1998)
Return To Cookie Mountain - TV On The Radio (2006) 
Funeral - Arcade Fire (2004) 
My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy - Kanye West (2010) 
What's Going On - Marvin Gaye (1971) 
Skylarking - XTC (1986) 
The Cold Vein - Cannibal Ox (2001) 
The College Dropout - Kanye West (2004) 
Deserter's Songs - Mercury Rev (1998)
Murmur - R.E.M (1983) 
Marry Me - St Vincent (2007) 
If You're Feeling Sinister - Belle & Sebastian (1996) 
The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill - Lauryn Hill (1998) 
Forever Changes - Love (1967) 
Song Cycle - Van **** Parks (1967) 
Bellybutton - Jellyfish (1990) 
They Might Be Giants - They Might Be Giants (1986) 

I don't think any of those (except possibly Aeroplane) are on the level of Classical masterpieces but they are many of the very best examples of the genre.

The likes of Pet Sounds (Beach Boys), Sgt Pepper & Abbey Rd (The Beatles) are excellent too, but I'd rank them a notch below that list.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> With the vast majority of pop music, one is listening to music that limits its potential development and substance and generates usually far less emotional/conceptual depth in the name of gaining familiarity quickly enough to be recognizable to many listeners in the shortest amount of time so it can be sold in volume.


Or, in other words, it's 'pop' music and not meant to be compared with 'classical'.

(I don't agree with any aspect of your analysis - but we've been here before.)


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Or, in other words, it's 'pop' music and not meant to be compared with 'classical'.
> 
> (I don't agree with any aspect of your analysis - but we've been here before.)


It doesn't matter. The OP asked, I answered.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> It doesn't matter. The OP asked, I answered.


Indeed you did. I just wanted to acknowledge that you and I have had this debate before and we probably don't need to have it again.

In direct response to the OP, I agree with those who refuse to 'level' music. Pop music neither rises nor falls to the level of classical music. When I go to my desert island, I'll take a mix of pop, rock and classical to suit my needs. This week, Radiohead has been supplying all my needs for 'emotional content'. Last week, it was Sibelius (again!) and before that, it was Bizet fulfilling my need for 'complex' 'story'-telling.

Enjoy pop for what it is, in its own right, and never mind whether it compares with classical.


----------



## Iean (Nov 17, 2015)

As a pop music fanatic, I feel OFFENDED by this thread. How about "*Classical music that rises to the level of great pop music?"*?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Why can't apples be more like oranges? We're having chalk and cheese sandwiches for lunch; bring your hawks and handsaws.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Pop music can give the listener a great aesthetic experience (not to me, but to many others). Classical music can give the listener a great aesthetic experience, too (this I have experienced personally). These experiences *can* be compared. But the ways in which these styles achieve this end are often strikingly different, to the point that the styles themselves should perhaps not be compared.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Indeed you did. I just wanted to acknowledge that you and I have had this debate before and we probably don't need to have it again.
> 
> In direct response to the OP, I agree with those who refuse to 'level' music. Pop music neither rises nor falls to the level of classical music. When I go to my desert island, I'll take a mix of pop, rock and classical to suit my needs. This week, Radiohead has been supplying all my needs for 'emotional content'. Last week, it was Sibelius (again!) and before that, it was Bizet fulfilling my need for 'complex' 'story'-telling.
> 
> Enjoy pop for what it is, in its own right, and never mind whether it compares with classical.


My view can perhaps best be understood by the following points being established:

The fundamental common denominators to all art, music or otherwise, are that it is:

(1) A _creative_ act (to greater or lesser degree).
(2) A conveyance of _emotion(s)_ and/or _concept(s)_ (to greater or lesser degree).

The purpose of all art is to produce an emotional and/or conceptual impact (to greater or lesser degree).

(NOTE: By "emotional", I simply mean a conveyance of emotion, any emotion, whether happy or depressed or any other. By "conceptual", I simply mean an expression of concept, any concept conveyed in the work, whether realistic or imaginary or any other.)

To the degree it is _creative_, the work will stand out among all others. To the degree that the work stands out, the likelihood increases that its qualities were produced by personal (or, if by a group, "collective") conviction, by inspired act(s) of ingenuity, and the less likely that an increase in knowledge and experience with its art form will render it less impressive.

The greater the emotional/conceptual _depth_ of a work, the more sustained and significant the impact will be.

Perhaps an ideal statement of depth could be:

_Exhibiting emotional or conceptual content with extraordinary conviction and singular creativity so as to permanently distinguish itself._

To the degree it accomplishes this, the work is successful. To the degree it does not, it isn't.

The determination of such a success is subjective.

This subjectivity, one's view of how successful a work is in this regard, is largely dependent upon one's knowledge and experience in music/art, and can change (even drastically) with an increase in said knowledge/experience.

_________________

That said, you don't have to agree with me that pop music is generally inferior, and as you said there is no need to argue any further about it, but reading the above points, perhaps the view can at least be understood in that I am looking at how successful pop is in relation to music history and the purpose/ideals of music/art.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm not sure I agree with your art theory, AfterHours. When you say - conveyance of emotions and/or concepts, do you mean concepts that we can put to words? Concepts that can be cognitively understood and analyzed? Because if you mean that, I must disagree. Some art does not convey emotions nor concepts, but rather just some kinds of aesthetic ideas (that we cannot accurately, or at all, break down in language), particularly music.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Xaltotun said:


> I'm not sure I agree with your art theory, AfterHours. When you say - conveyance of emotions and/or concepts, do you mean concepts that we can put to words? Concepts that can be cognitively understood and analyzed? Because if you mean that, I must disagree. Some art does not convey emotions nor concepts, but rather just some kinds of aesthetic ideas (that we cannot accurately, or at all, break down in language), particularly music.


All of the above, any idea/concept ... any emotion ... doesn't matter if it can be put into words or not, or if it's concrete or vague, realistic or imaginary. I can assure you that you will not find a single art work that does not convey this/these. It's not meant as a profound or revolutionary statement. It's utterly fundamental (but accounts for everything).

Aesthetic ideas are concepts too


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

AfterHours said:


> All of the above, any idea/concept ... any emotion ... doesn't matter if it can be put into words or not, or if it's concrete or vague, realistic or imaginary. I can assure you that you will not find a single art work that does not convey this/these. It's not meant as a profound or revolutionary statement. It's utterly fundamental (but accounts for everything).
> 
> Aesthetic ideas are concepts too


Ok, then I do agree with you, with the exception of the usage of the word 'concept' 

I really think that concepts are language-things and aesthetic ideas are not language-things.

But maybe we should leave it at that!


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Xaltotun said:


> Ok, then I do agree with you, with the exception of the usage of the word 'concept'
> 
> I really think that concepts are language-things and aesthetic ideas are not language-things.
> 
> But maybe we should leave it at that!


Ok great. I'm just going with the main definitions of "concept", as in:

1) something conceived in the mind
2) an abstract or generic idea

(Merriam-Webster)


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

How about Love Shack from the B-52's? It addresses the important issues of modern society.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> *To the degree it is creative, the work will stand out among all others.* To the degree that the work stands out, the likelihood increases that its qualities were produced by personal (or, if by a group, "collective") conviction, by inspired act(s) of ingenuity, and the less likely that an increase in knowledge and experience with its art form will render it less impressive.
> 
> The greater the emotional/conceptual _depth_ of a work, the more sustained and significant the impact will be.
> 
> ...


You lose me somewhere around the bit I've emboldened. Without an understanding of 'creative', the rest falls, and even if you supply a definition on which we can agree, there is still the problem of 'emotional depth' which is not something in the music, but may be aroused - subjectively - in the audience. And then there's the idea that subjectivity is somehow dependent on the listener's knowledge and experience, which I would contest too.

Rather than just critique your position, I'll offer a clarification of mine (I'll overlook that you offered no critique of my earlier post!)

Earlier this week, I was driving to a meeting and listening to a 'pop song'. It doesn't really matter which one it was. Suffice to say that it moved me deeply, invigorated me for the rest of the day. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it impacted on my behaviour during the meeting, changed it. I think it required some familiarity - so that I knew to anticipate and savour what was to come next; it also required some context in that I connected the song with a thousand things - what I know, like, dislike about the group, the video that had accompanied it, the way it chimed with me and my state of mind both in the immediate present - prep for a team meeting and all that that entailed, including my role in the team - and in the wider present - my self awareness, my current susceptibility to my sense of my mortality, my family, my relationships etc etc.

I hope you get the picture. Listening to music is, for me, so far from an objective experience that the word 'immersive' is too shallow, literally. If the music you love is like a pebble in a pond, where the ripples ebb away and you can objectify the experience ("deep emotional content - creative") then mine is like a meteorite in an ocean. No amount of weighing pop and classical on your scales will convince me that one is of greater value, more creative, superior than another.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

AfterHours said:


> Ok great. I'm just going with the main definitions of "concept", as in:
> 
> 1) something conceived in the mind
> 2) an abstract or generic idea
> ...


Ok, I'll continue the discussion a bit, even if it's tangential to the thread, and even if I'm a bad internet conversationist (I rarely return to the threads where I talk), because... I feel like it! Art theory stuff is nice!

So, when looking at this definition, it sort of seems to come back again to my own one - language-things. And then I must disagree again, because aesthetic ideas do not fit in there! But lets come at this from a different angle.

When these concepts are conveyed, are they the same concepts all along, in the chain from the artist to the art-work and finally the viewer? What do you think? Never mind little swayings here and there - do you think, in general, does the same concept travel from the artist through the art-work to the viewer?


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

I will respond to both of you, but I doubt I will have enough time to do so for the next few hours or so -- but I do have answers to what you're asking and will gladly do so.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> You lose me somewhere around the bit I've emboldened. Without an understanding of 'creative', the rest falls, and even if you supply a definition on which we can agree, there is still the problem of 'emotional depth' which is not something in the music, but may be aroused - subjectively - in the audience. And then there's the idea that subjectivity is somehow dependent on the listener's knowledge and experience, which I would contest too.
> 
> Rather than just critique your position, I'll offer a clarification of mine (I'll overlook that you offered no critique of my earlier post!)
> 
> ...


Creative means: "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work."

In the exact context of what I wrote I would probably add "...especially to facilitate the emotional/conceptual impact of the work." (instead of "in the production of an artistic work").

So: _"relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially to facilitate the emotional/conceptual impact of the work."_

The rest does not fall if you do not know the definition of creative (if that's what you're saying) or even if now you disagree with it. It is not my concern whether or not you agree. I stated my point of view so perhaps it would make more sense to you why *I* (not you) would not consider the vast majority of pop music on the same level as the great works of Classical. It is not an attempt to persuade or argue for you to feel the same way.

In regards to "emotional/conceptual depth", I defined this in the original post. It is most definitely something in the music (first), from the artist in his/her work, relayed, then received by the audience. Of course, once the audience has received it, they determine its success/value/what it is, etc. If you don't agree that how this is assimilated by the audience isn't largely (not wholly) determined by one's knowledge & experience in music/art then I don't know what to tell you except that you're welcome to think that if you want. There are simply too many times when someone has come to me with difficult assimilating an album/work and I pointed out key elements of what to look for, why it is significant, recommended some historical precedents, and so forth, and their whole view and experience changed when they revisited it. This sort of thing has happened to me hundreds of times (both in my own listening and others).


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

Xaltotun said:


> Ok, I'll continue the discussion a bit, even if it's tangential to the thread, and even if I'm a bad internet conversationist (I rarely return to the threads where I talk), because... I feel like it! Art theory stuff is nice!
> 
> So, when looking at this definition, it sort of seems to come back again to my own one - language-things. And then I must disagree again, because aesthetic ideas do not fit in there! But lets come at this from a different angle.
> 
> When these concepts are conveyed, are they the same concepts all along, in the chain from the artist to the art-work and finally the viewer? What do you think? Never mind little swayings here and there - do you think, in general, does the same concept travel from the artist through the art-work to the viewer?


What do you mean? How is an aesthetic idea not "conceived in the mind" or "an abstract or generic idea"? Right now in this conversation you yourself are thinking about and discussing it and making assertions about it, so I really don't know what you mean.

My answer to your last question(s) comes back to this:

_It is largely dependent upon one's knowledge and experience in music/art, and can change (even drastically) with an increase in said knowledge/experience._

I would say I doubt they're ever exactly the same conception. People are individuals and even thinking about the same "thing" will not lead to exactly the same picture in one's mind as the source of the idea, for instance.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> *Creative *means: "relating to or involving the imagination or original ideas, especially in the production of an artistic work."
> 
> In the exact context of what I wrote I would probably add "...especially to facilitate the emotional/conceptual impact of the work." (instead of "in the production of an artistic work").
> 
> ...


I know how the dictionaries define the word 'creative'. I should have been more careful and referred to its application in this context. What does it mean to be 'creative' in music (pop or otherwise)? The song I listened to in my car was no less 'relating to the imagination' than Beethoven's 9th.

Emotion cannot be 'in' the music. Music, creative or otherwise (not defining it here in all circumstances, we know what music we're talking about) is just sound and sound cannot 'contain' emotion, deep or shallow. It can stimulate feelings in the listener, but that's not the same thing at all.

I think two of the most 'successful' pieces of music I encountered were Mars (Holst) and Symphony No 9 (Dvorak). They were an instant hit with me when I was about 6.

I'll let xaltotun reply to your post about aesthetics, but I think he's right to distinguish between consciously formed thoughts, ideas, concepts, and an unconscious aesthetic response to art.

(I notice you have nothing to say about my post again - no acknowledgement of my experience as an indicator of the value of pop music.)


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> I know how the dictionaries define the word 'creative'. I should have been more careful and referred to its application in this context. What does it mean to be 'creative' in music (pop or otherwise)? The song I listened to in my car was no less 'relating to the imagination' than Beethoven's 9th.
> 
> Emotion cannot be 'in' the music. Music, creative or otherwise (not defining it here in all circumstances, we know what music we're talking about) is just sound and sound cannot 'contain' emotion, deep or shallow. It can stimulate feelings in the listener, but that's not the same thing at all.
> 
> ...


Sorry, not interested in discussing this any longer. Your comments about emotion not being in the music from the artist to begin with (the people playing the instruments, how they are being played, the effort put forth, the conviction they are being played/articulated, the vocals if any, etc) is so fundamentally incorrect that it creates a domino effect of misunderstandings about what I'm talking about and this conversation is simply going to take way too long and will not be worth whatever it might accomplish. My original post is my complete statement on the matter, provided creativity is now understood as defined in the later post. If you disagree, that's fine.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> Your comments about emotion not being in the music [...] is so fundamentally incorrect


Well there've been a number of threads discussing this idea, so it's certainly contestable, but...'fundamentally wrong'? I guess, given your thorough objective analysis about how to grade music, I can see how my more subjective responses might be an irritant.

But 'fundamentally wrong'?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Pop music, popular music, and pop art in general have a different set of aesthetics than Classical Music, just as the music of Beethoven and Stravinsky have different aesthetics. It only ocurred to me recently that pop music, derived from rock'n'roll, and in turn from Blues, is actually *Minimalistic*. Having been born in a well-advanced popular music period already, I took that for granted rather than arriving at it from first principles. A common criticism of rock is the repetitive use of the same chord progressions. But that is the unit, like in minimalism, and there is always something building throughout (at least in the good songs).

Another concept that is not in Classical, is the idea in pop art of collages, and the juxtaposition of vastly different types of musical fabric. Classical does juxtapose within the writing in the music, but not in the recording. The recording studio became a powerful tool in composition, where purely acoustical fabrics get sewn together with electronic, and could have different reverbs like music by the Beatles, and the Dust Brothers.

One more concept that is in pop music is the formation of moods in electronic music using different timbres, like the music of Brian Eno and his followers. Varese and Stockhausen used electronics, but for a different purpose than Eno.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Iean said:


> As a pop music fanatic, I feel OFFENDED by this thread. How about "*Classical music that rises to the level of great pop music?"*?


Same for me, the assumption that classical music is automatically good quality music is rubbish


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

*Bohemian Rhapsody* of course. Why, the name alone . . .


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

This is great.


----------



## AfterHours (Mar 27, 2017)

MacLeod said:


> Well there've been a number of threads discussing this idea, so it's certainly contestable, but...'fundamentally wrong'? I guess, given your thorough objective analysis about how to grade music, I can see how my more subjective responses might be an irritant.
> 
> But 'fundamentally wrong'?


No worries, all I originally intended was giving you the fundamental reasons why I feel most (maybe all) pop music is inferior to the great works of Classical (not all works of Classical btw). Not interested in arguing about it as I dont have the extra time right now and it doesn't particularly interest me (though perhaps another time it might). Ive already worked it out for myself over years of experience (and arguments/discussions) and don't have the extra time to apply to backtracking and discussing much further the properties of art, plus the inevitable additional users it would attract to make the discussion even more time consuming (though probably interesting too). Any lack of acknowledgement of your experiences and with pop were because I wasnt discussing that or challenging your views, even if my original statement seems to have been received as such.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

David OByrne said:


> Same for me, the assumption that classical music is automatically good quality music is rubbish


Just as much rubbish that pop music will reach / rises the level of the great composers.


----------



## Guest (Jul 4, 2017)

AfterHours said:


> I wasnt discussing that or challenging your views, even if my original statement seems to have been received as such.


Telling me I'm fundamentally wrong is clearly challenging my views - it's not just about how "it seems to have been received".

But apology accepted.


----------



## David OByrne (Dec 1, 2016)

Pugg said:


> Just as much rubbish that pop music will reach / rises the level of the great composers.


Who are the great composers?


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

It isn't classical. It isn't musically profound. It moves me, anyway.

*The Most Beautiful World in the World - Harry Nilsson*






You come to the end
And the light there is dimmer
And chances are slimmer
Of findin' your way
You find that you stay out
Of trouble and danger
'Cause everything's stranger
Than it used to be

You're a scary old place out there world
But I couldn't be happy without you
And I swear all my thoughts are about you
The most beautiful world in the world

Well the light can be bright there
And everything's right there
The end of the night there might be a big band
Or a heavenly choir--Or it might be the fire
But no matter what happens
I bet it's OK

You're a scary old place out there world
But I couldn't be happy without you
And I swear all my thoughts are about you
The most beautiful world in the world

Your mountains when you're mad
Your rivers when your sad
And those deep blue seas
I love you for your snow
Your deserts down below
I love the way you wear your trees

The most beautiful world in the world
And though there are times when I doubt you
I just couldn't stay here without you
So when you get older
And over your shoulder
You look back to see if it's real
Tell her she's beautiful
Roll the world over
And give her a kiss and a feel.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

most definitely fits the OP.... for me at least.


----------



## 38157 (Jul 4, 2014)

Agamemnon said:


> In a musical way every pop artist is just an amateur.


Reading this thread for the first time, and this quote jumped out at me particularly, even though it's almost two months old. This is not so much a response to this post in particular, but an attempt to address the attitude this quote encompasses, which I have observed in some musicians both on and offline.

Often pop music doesn't seem concerned with the minutiae of harmony or even seem to focus on the full possbilities of rhythm, but it is a foolish mistake to chalk this up to pop musicians being "amateurs". Like a good deal of contemporary classical music, it's more that in order to achieve the aesthetic goal, extensive employment of harmony is pretty irrelevant. Within popular music, there processes of layering and production techniques which focus much more on the sound in a more abstract sense, and in fact, this is much more modern than trying to blow everyone away with out-there harmonies (actually, sound and harmonies aren't all that separate, as Jacob Collier is most definitely aware, all though I'll differentiate for the sake of this discussion). Attention is instead placed on how the sound affects the listening experience, and the actual harmonic and rhythmic elements of a pop song (which some might term the "composition") are merely materials which are exploited as vehicles to achieve a more profound sonic goal.

Personally, I like classical music, jazz and am partial to some styles of popular musics (I love reggae, ska, funk, etc). I don't find myself drawn to popular music, because it doesn't excite me, but that's my own personal issue (I like to hear lots of stuff happening at once, and I like the fact that there's lots of stuff happening to be pretty obvious. Maybe I'm quite brutish in that sense....). However, it's vital it is appreciated for what it is, and it's important to a classical/jazz musician and a listener's own development that they don't take the attitude of "bless them, they're trying their hardest, the cute little pedestrians".

Read Bourdieu - "tiers" in art don't exist due to aesthetic complexity being the factor that distinguish styles, they exist as a means of distinguishing social class, so it's important not to get too haughty about the fact that maybe Adele can't write a massively complex piece of European art music.


----------



## Guest (Aug 30, 2017)

****** said:


> Reading this thread for the first time, and this quote jumped out at me particularly, even though it's almost two months old.


Thanks to ******, I revisited the post s/he quotes.



Agamemnon said:


> But no pop artist has the musical skills to really compose music that has some *complexity*, *originality *or *depth*. In that sense pop music never rises to the standards of classical music.


So here we have some criteria on offer by which to judge both classical and pop.

Before deciding whether pop 'rises to the level' of classical, we should ask ourselves whether 'complexity', 'originality' and 'depth', are the distinguishing qualities of classical. If we did so, we would instantly come up against the problem of selecting from the wide array of classical pieces, some which might be regarded as representative of the genre that we could use to test the hypothesis. Having made that selection, you'd have to do the same for 'pop'. After all, I see no advantage to classical in comparing Beethoven's 5th Symphony with _Sugar Sugar_ by The Archies. (And I fail to see any advantage to lovers of classical in asserting that the former is more complex, original and deep than the latter!)

It seems to me that whilst any such attempts at comparison are doomed not just to failure, but risible and absurd failure, there is some merit in debating the qualities on offer. Yet I can't recall any thread since I've been posting here which has yet done so. The advocates of the superiority of classical fail every time to put forward a cogent argument to support their theory, resorting instead to asserting self-evidence: no-one need advance any evidence in favour of LvB's 5th's superiority over _Sugar Sugar_ because you just have to listen to the two and any true Scots- sorry, classical fan will know.

I had been willing to accept that 'complexity' is something that is easy enough to establish and exemplify, but across the centuries there have been pieces composed whose simplicity is as beguiling as any symphony by Mahler or opera by Mozart.

As for 'depth', when you can explain and exemplify that term, get back to me. In the meantime, I'll ask again why anyone wants to make the fruitless comparison in the first place

In fact, perhaps someone would like to advance the prior argument as to why we should want to make the comparison before we actually try to do so.


----------



## asiago12 (May 2, 2019)

cimirro said:


> Why people insist in speaking about pop music in a classical music thread????
> Here is the link for non classical music if you haven't found it yet:
> http://www.talkclassical.com/non-classical-music/
> 
> ...


I agree 90% with you..


----------



## Guest (Dec 17, 2019)

asiago12 said:


> I agree 90% with you..


Just as well, as this thread has been put in the non-classical section.

Hang on though...what is the 10% you _disagree _with?


----------



## Disco (Mar 19, 2020)

There are a lot of great pop groups, like, Savage Garden, Lighthouse Family, Simply Red, etc


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Well . . . 

First off . . . it depends on your definition of "Pop" music. I'll have to assume that you're simply lumping all non-Classical music into the Pop ('popular') music genre category, and that would include Rock, country, R&B, punk, disco, hip-hop, rap. And probably jazz.

Rock has many sub-genres, but there's a few of them that certainly aspire to the level of greatness at which you're hinting, some even succeed: Progressive Rock, Prog, Symphonic Rock, Art Rock, Fusion.

Rhapsody in Blue. Gershwin. Classical/Jazz Fusion

But I'm more familiar with Prog . . . 

Without referencing any sources, off the top of my head:

Yes: Tales From Topographic Oceans, The Gates of Delirium
Jethro Tull: Thick As a Brick, A Passion Play
Pink Floyd: Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here (notably - Shine On You Crazy Diamond parts 1-9)
The Who: Tommy, Quadraphenia
Mike Oldfield: Hergest Ridge, Tubular Bells
Todd Rundgren: A Treatise on Cosmic Fire, The Ikon
Emerson, Lake, and Palmer: Tarkus, Trilogy, Karn Evil 9
Crosby, Stills, and Nash: Suite: Judy Blue Eyes
Iron Butterfly: In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida
Queen: Bohemian Rhapsody

And after 10 seconds of Googling:

Yes: Awaken, And You and I, Close to the Edge, Heart of the Sunrise, Roundabout, Talk
Pink Floyd: Echoes, Atom Heart Mother suite
Rush: 2112
Emerson, Lake, and Palmer: Take a Pebble, Toccata
U.K.: U.K.
Kansas: Leftoverture
Alice Cooper: Halo of Flies
Queen: The Prophet's Song
Moody Blues: Days of Future Passed
Jimi Hendrix: Electric Ladyland

I'll wager there's someone else here than could produce an even longer list off the top their head as well.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The whole premise of the OP postulates that there is some way that the depth or the authenticity of one's emotional/esthetic response to music (or any art, for that matter) can be not only measured, but it can be defined by _a priori_ assertion. Hence my reaction to my favorite rock, pop, flamenco, folk, Latin, etc., etc. musics cannot be--certainly ought not be--a true, meaningful, profound response matching a response to classical music.

I utterly reject this assertion.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

cimirro said:


> Why people insist in speaking about pop music in a classical music thread?????


no good, huh?

damned, people are intolerant


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

eljr said:


> no good, huh?
> 
> damned, people are intolerant


Purists.

Funny how much Classical music has liberally 'borrowed' pop (folk) music for centuries

You cannot simply say Classical music is here, and pop music is there.

There's an overlap, and always has been.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Implying that classical music exists on a higher level totally misses the aesthetic differences between "classical music" and "pop music." While they both contain similar elements like the overlap in a Venn diagram, they are essentially *two different art forms.*

Few classical works hit me at a *level* like Beethoven's _Opus 131_.

Few pop songs hit me at a *level* like Gabriel's _Mercy Street_.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

pianozach said:


> Purists.
> 
> Funny how much Classical music has liberally 'borrowed' pop (folk) music for centuries
> 
> ...


Mozart was the pop music of his day.

It's all so silly.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

eljr said:


> Mozart was the pop music of his day.
> 
> It's all so silly.


Gilbert & Sullivan were the Monty Python of their day.


----------

