# Pop musicians today are more mercenary than any other composers.



## LudwigVanBodewes (Jan 3, 2019)

So I had this discussion in another forum where I was stating that contemporary pop-music artists are way more interested in making money than in producing actually good music compared with classical composers. 

This other guy comes in and basically states that it was all the same, Beethoven was just as interested in making a dime out of his pieces than today's pop-artists. I argue that Beethoven tried making money with some ''easy'' pieces in order to buy himself time for some great compositions. He disagrees and says this can't be proven. 

As a Beethoven fan that statement really annoys me, and I'm wondering what other peoples thoughts on this are? 

To rephrase, these are more statements of the person in question, which will provide enough food for discussion: 

''Sure there are differences with respect to how economies work, but what is the same is that composers from Bach to today want to make a good living from their music and they know that they have to write in a certain way in order to make this happen.

I don't see that Bach was more pure than the pop artists of today.''

or 

''Bach, Mozart and Beethoven wrote music entirely familiar to their audiences with any innovation clearly a part of the prevailing paradigms of the day. I still remain unconvinced that pop musicians today are more mercenary than any other composers. I can't imagine how one would even go about proving such an assertion.''

To add, this is not about flaming, I am just really interested in hearing other people's opinions on these matters.


----------



## Apricot (Feb 9, 2019)

I think today most pop stars are just performers. They don't write the songs. I wouldn't even really consider the majority of pop stars as musicians or artist. More like the face of a product produced by a corporation. All they have to do is look pretty, sing, and dance.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

It entirely depends on the composer and entirely depends on the pop artist. There are composers who were hacks and would hire out their services to the highest bidders, seeking steady employment, wealthy patrons, or attempting to appeal to the masses, etc. and desired little more than to please their intended audiences. There are pop artists that care little for fame and success and toil away in niche genres or in experimental styles and sell very few albums/tickets/merchandise/etc. What I MIGHT say is that, today, if one goes into music to make money, then they'd either focus their attention on pop music or composing for films and/or commercials, as that's where the money is. Anyone trying to make contemporary classical/art-music that's heard in concert halls almost certainly isn't in it for the money. 

Of course, trying to make profound art doesn't guarantee success; nor does trying to make popular art (no matter the genre) guarantee that one fails to make profound art. Handel, Haydn, and Mozart were very conscious about trying to please their audiences, and they succeeded in making great art; I'd say the same of The Beatles. Likewise, there have always been avant-garde artists of their time that were never accepted and aren't remembered any better today. 

I think the biggest point to make is that intentions matter far less than creativity, and the latter flourishes or flounders less on intention and more on talent.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Apricot said:


> I think today most pop stars are just performers. They don't write the songs. I wouldn't even really consider the majority of pop stars as musicians or artist. More like the face of a product produced by a corporation. All they have to do is look pretty, sing, and dance.


Depends on the pop artist. Taylor Swift wrote her entire third album by herself; I don't think Ariana Grande has solo-written a single song, just to give two examples. Many pop artists collaborate, and it's always debatable who-does-what in a collaboration; however, a key thing to listen for is a distinctive "sound." Artists whose styles are all over the place probably have less creative input, but are merely the result of other songwriters/producers. You can very much hear that in the two examples I gave: Taylor Swift's albums all have a distinctive style (the country-pop of Fearless, the 80s synth-pop of 1989), while Grande's are all over the place stylistically with no cohesion or overarching vision.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

My opinion on the matter is, if it feels good to you, that's all that matters. Trying to say one art form is objectively more pure than another can be a personally held opinion, but to hold it as fact is indeed pretentious imo.

Your comrade is correct in saying it can't be proven. We all have our tastes, and that is ok. Do I personally think my taste is more pure? Absolutely, but I don't parade it as fact, I just share what I like with people and if they are jealous of my taste it says something. But putting yourself in a holier than thou mindset will do nothing to spread love.

The only way to know the motivation behind a work is to hear it from the composer's mouth himself/herself.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

This topic is complex in the extreme on all levels. In both bygone eras and today you had people who only composed, some who only performed compositions by others, and then there were the composer/performers. In the latter case there were a lot of composers, mostly of 2nd rank, who provided the public great entertainment and made a lot of money doing so. The quality of the music is suspect to be sure. Think of Wieniawski, Paganini, and even Chopin and Liszt. There were many composers who realized that the way to fame and fortune lay in writing successful operas. In a day long before TV and the movies, opera was a great entertainment - it sure made Verdi, Puccini, and others very wealthy. Korngold wrote the way he did and made a fortune on his operas. Beethoven sold some of his works twice: to different publishers to make money. Tchaikovsky wrote a lot of music knowing it would sell well, just as Dvorak did. Of course there were composers who wrote more idealistically, sometimes even having to pay for engraving out of their own pockets like Mahler. But most of the greats were fully aware of their financial situation and wanted to improve it by writing for the crowds. Elgar famously asked why shouldn't he write music that people like.

The real tragedy is that so much of today's pop music - in every genre - is so much lower is musical substance than prior generations. There isn't a song writer today who can touch the likes of Kern, Berlin, Porter, Gershwin or even Jimmy Webb. Listen to some of the great tunes of the '60s; it puts today's Hip Hop and Rap to shame. Yet today's composer/performers are filthy rich. Just last week I had to suffer through the new Mary Poppins Returns movie. There isn't a memorable tune in the whole movie. Compared to the 50 year old original it's musically impoverished in the extreme. Yet I'm sure the composer is making a lot of dough. 

One last thing: it's a good thing that 99.9% of today's classical composers have other jobs like teaching. They'd go broke - the demand for their music is practically nil.


----------



## Clouds Weep Snowflakes (Feb 24, 2019)

Pop and Classics are so different from one another it's hard to compare, and I my opinion pop is an awful thing.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I'd like to comment on this thread, but my monthly check from Talk Classical Forum hasn't yet arrived, so I withhold my observations! After all, we have to make a living, don't we?

If I _were_ to comment on this thread, I would point out that in Beethoven's day one became a composer if one had the talent to do so as a way of making a living. After all, if Beethoven starved to death, he wouldn't have written any more music. So it was important to make money. He could have earned a living in many ways in his day, but I suspect that he wished to pursue music because he liked it and knew he was good at it, and if somebody wanted to pay him to write new pieces, then he was up to doing so because he had to make a living somehow.

Same goes for today. Serious composers often teach in conservatories or play in ensembles while composing on the side, but if given the chance for a paycheck from their compositions, I feel sure they would accept the dough. And to do that full time is likely the dream job of composer-wannabes. Occasionally one hears of a Charles Ives type who composes on the side while earning a living doing something non-musical, such as selling insurance. I do wonder though if Ives would be known today as one who _did _sell insurance if the public of his day had paid him for his music enough so for him to make a good living at it.

Pop "artists" have many motivations, I suspect, earning money being just one of them. The general "lifestyle" draw may be even a stronger motivation for some than just the sense of earning pure money, though the lifestyle itself tends to be expensive. The chances of becoming a high-earner in the field remains a long-shot, and many more pop musicians will likely hold jobs flipping burgers, waiting tables, cleaning cars, or whatever while they pursue their musical dreams. Some of these folks have real talent for performing and/or composing; some are merely dreamers who live in a delusion of possible greatness, unaware, in some cases, of their own lack of talent. Most probably enjoy their type of music. Of course, a performing artist and a song-writer may well be two different things, or the same. And even if a pop performer does _not_ write his/her own songs, such a one may have a true ability for performing in front of a crowd. A theatrical bent, so to speak. That is a specific talent itself. A good actor can believably play a pop/rock performer, as Val Kilmer has done with creating the character of Jim Morrison in a movie. I suspect Kilmer could have been a rock performer as vibrant as Morrison, but perhaps he lacked Morrison's song-writing talent. Each of these men earned a living doing what they were good at. Nothing wrong with that.

If you want to pay your coin to folks pretending to be talented pop artists, that's your business. I prefer to be more selective and issue my hard-earned coin to those with what I consider genuine abilities to produce something vital in the musical field. Vital and of interest to me. I have a large collection of Miles Davis records and none of Britney Spears or Ariana Grande. You needn't ask me why. But in order to be able to distinguish between the deserving of my coin and the undeserving, I have to do some work exploring music, listening, studying, comparing, critiquing, and listening some more. Don't blame someone for pursuing a dream. Don't blame someone for earning a living or wanting to. Blame only yourself if you are wasting precious time and money pursuing worthless creative endeavors and those who perpetrate them. But, if you actually _like_ the stuff, don't blame yourself at all! There are those who actually like tripe and are willing to pay well for it. I'm just not one of them.

And … I sure hope that check comes in soon.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I am not convinced that desire to make money distinguishes between good/great composers and bad ones. What they are willing to do for money might. But to compare "pop artists" (the term suggests _singers _of other people's songs) with classical _composers _is not really a legitimate comparison. Many of Handel's great operas and oratorios were commercial ventures but if you want to compare Handel's motives with today's popular musicians the comparison should probably be with the composers of musicals like Andrew Lloyd Webber, who has made himself very rich but has not yet produced a masterpiece.


----------



## LudwigVanBodewes (Jan 3, 2019)

All very interesting points of view! Thank you all for your contributions.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

LudwigVanBodewes said:


> This other guy comes in and basically states that it was all the same, Beethoven was just as interested in making a dime out of his pieces than today's pop-artists. I argue that Beethoven tried making money with some ''easy'' pieces in order to buy himself time for some great compositions. He disagrees and says this can't be proven.


The difference between today's mainstream pop artists and Beethoven is that Beethoven had skills of craftsmanship such as form, harmony, and orchestration such that they showed even in his lesser works whereas much of today's pop written today requires not much musical talent or skills to write. It's worth noting that even the Beatles and Michael Jackson, the "great forefathers of modern pop" could not read musical notation. That tells something about their general philosophy and attitude with music.

also have a look at these threads:
Popular candidates for classical glory
Are Composers Of Musicals Less Respected


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I believe it is in the target audience that distinguishes between composers. The pop audience only want catchy, repetitive stuff. To cater to that demand, the musical talent is obviously not as great (or sincere) as to cater to those that want quality stuff. The patrons who commission Classical works will definitely have a more refined musical background, and the talent level will need to be up to snuff.


Film and musicals music is probably a bigger market than Classical concert music. I'm sure Hans Zimmer and John Williams makes more dough than more inventive, cutting edge Classical. Films have huge budgets unlike the Classical music connoiseur. Andrew Lloyd Webber is the world's richest composer I read.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> The difference between today's mainstream pop artists and Beethoven is that Beethoven had skills of craftsmanship such as form, harmony, and orchestration such that they showed even in his lesser works whereas much of today's pop written today requires not much musical talent or skills to write. It's worth noting that even the Beatles and Michael Jackson, the "great forefathers of modern pop" could not read musical notation. That tells something about their general philosophy and attitude with music.


I do hope you realize that Roomy guy is a comedian and isn't being serious. He's never written a hit song and nobody would ever write a hit song following his "advice." Of course pop music takes no skill to write or perform, that's why everyone who tries to become a platinum-selling writer and/or performer succeeds.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I agree with the premise of the OP entirely.

The majority of hits these days are written by teams of 'songwriters' in Sweden, mostly by 2 different guys (Lukasz Gottwald and Max Martin) and their teams. And they are written to fit limited formulas. 

There was a time when the songwriters of hit songs would read: Lennon and MccArtney, Carole King, Stevie Wonder, etc. Just a couple of people.

Now, the credits for hit songs read like the credits for a movie.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

LudwigVanBodewes said:


> To add, this is not about flaming, I am just really interested in hearing other people's opinions on these matters.


Your thread title is a sweeping generalization. The "artists" making a lot of money in the pop music market represent a tiny percentage of everyone releasing recorded music. And honestly, the successful few have very little control over this phenomenon. For every Taylor Swift there's fifty thousand other musicians working day jobs and making very little from there music. And it's the same for every other kind of music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I do hope you realize that Roomy guy is a comedian and isn't being serious. He's never written a hit song and nobody would ever write a hit song following his "advice." Of course pop music takes no skill to write or perform, that's why everyone who tries to become a platinum-selling writer and/or performer succeeds.


He is actually being serious in his explanation of deterioration in pop music.
Most of today's hit songs and hit artists become hit not because they're good but because there are media and a whole industry that invest to support them to get them played everywhere.






Beethoven inspired countless other artists through ages with his musical skills and inspirational ideas and justly earned his place in music history. Whereas pop artists did/do not.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> He is actually being serious in his explanation of deterioration in pop music.
> Most of today's hit songs and hit artists become hit not because they're good but because there are media and a whole industry that invest to support them to get them played everywhere.


He's a comedian who's exaggerating/parodying pop music and has never written a hit song. Those videos _are not_ serious. There's been "media" and "a whole industry that invest to support" pop musicians for about as long as recordings have been around; that's by no means a new phenomenon. Allow me to counter that nonsense with actual sense from a genuinely talented, trained musician rather than just YouTube stars:


----------



## sharkeysnight (Oct 19, 2017)

I mean, it's also a hugely different world in terms of music now. Who were Haydn and Bach and Mozart writing for, who was hearing their music, how often did they hear it, how did they get paid for it, how often did they write, etc etc? Compare this today - who is writing music, where is it played, who is it herd by, how do they get paid for it? I think Ed Sheeran is horrible, but I've heard "Shape Of You" piped at me from speakers in so many times and places, and I must assume he receives some kind of pay for that usage. Whatever your opinion of Sheeran or Coldplay or Kanye, I wonder of the market they're playing to is so massively different that a comparison drawn in those terms doesn't really work.

If Bach-to-Beethoven-style music was still the most en vogue, we'd have thousands of people cramming Spotify, Youtube, and soundcloud with mediocre sonatas and quartets and symphonies. On top of that, what _was_ "popular" music in that era? What were the majority of people, people who weren't privy to operas and symphonies and concerts, listening to? Was what they were listening to less valid?


----------



## Guest (Apr 15, 2019)

LudwigVanBodewes said:


> contemporary pop-music artists are way more interested in making money than in producing actually good music compared with classical composers.


And if this is true, so what?


----------



## Flutter (Mar 26, 2019)

Well when it comes to the more mainstream classical composers, there is a tendency (with exceptions of course, like the Grosso Fugue) of composers to keep beating the same tracks over and over again, same harmonies and melodies just changing the form around a little, give or take a little counterpoint.
Same thing with pop music, except the counterpoint part.

Generally the best composers are either the ones who constantly experiment with styles, pitches and forms or are ones that have a sound so distinct that you couldn't even make clones of it.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

Simon Moon said:


> I agree with the premise of the OP entirely.
> 
> The majority of hits these days are written by teams of 'songwriters' in Sweden, mostly by 2 different guys (Lukasz Gottwald and Max Martin) and their teams. And they are written to fit limited formulas.
> 
> ...


You got that right. Go to Wikipedia and check out Cheryl Crow's back ground. She was an honor student, got a music degree and taught school. Voila! She turns into a pop artist. To create good music? No. To make that almighty dollar.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't know about contemporary pop, since the last band I followed to any depth where Blur who later became the Gorillaz. My favourite pop musicians come from an earlier era - Michael Jackson, Elton John and I also like Burt Bacharach. These are examples of musicians who over time developed their talent and not only became popular but earnt the respect of their fellow musicians. Their body of work is no less impressive than anyone with similar stature in the classical realm. Indeed, Elton and Burt where classically trained. What Jackson didn't have in training he had in spades with raw talent, not only as a performer but as a songwriter. 

While it is true that a mediocre pop artist can be made into a star by clever agents and public relations, these type of stars only shine briefly. Something artificially created has no chance of achieving anything significant in the long term. The system can create the next big thing, but genius - or what amounts to it - is different. That involves the slow and gradual process over a lifetime of constant hard work and refinement of craft. It not only involves success but also setbacks.

Over half a century ago, Jean Cocteau said that "the snob in his ivory tower has had his day." If we apply the attitude that musicians should only work and not enjoy the fruits of their labour, it cancels out even the most financially successful classical musicians of history: among those names would be Handel, Rossini, Liszt and (allowing for his crossover appeal) Gershwin. The only reason I can see for not equating talent today in whatever genre with talent in the past is snobbism. I'm afraid that I'm too firm on that point to argue it here.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

MacLeod said:


> And if this is true, so what?


If this is what you want, then that's fine. But history shows that as music becomes more popular it becomes more samey. It stays the same because the bucks are rolling in. I remember bands who actually changed their original sound (Grand Funk) because they were making so much money and the record company made them change their sound to things like the "Locomotion" to make even more money. 'Locomotion' is a long way from 'Inside Looking Out'.


----------



## Guest (Apr 16, 2019)

haydnguy said:


> If this is what you want, then that's fine.


What I want is irrelevant to the question I'm asking and the muddled observation made by the OP, who isn't quite sure whether to compare "contemporary" artists motivations with those of the past, or pop artists motivations with those of classical artists, or present pop with past classical, or...

I don't see how one can deduce someone's motivations simply from circumstantial evidence. Nor can such a sweeping generalisation be made (well, it can, of course, and often is) without some evidence to back it up. Otherwise, it's just hot air.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

One composer whose music and personality intrigue me and who presents a combination of both marvelous invention and veniality is Sergei Prokofiev. Even as a young composer, he resented yet sought to emulate and rival the older, successful Igor Stravinsky in general acclaim, in the favor of the musical elite, and in financial success so he could indulge his taste for travel, cars, fine dining. Even in his Soviet years, he angled for better living quarters, access to a dacha in the country, foreign-run upscale schools for his sons. And in being, always, well-paid. He told his old friend Vladimir Dukelsky (the composer Vernon Duke) that living in Soviet Russia pretty much guaranteed the good life for such as he, allowing him to compose (mostly) free of the financial fetters that bound others, though there later came other and more onerous fetters. And yet out of this strangely banal and mercenary life and personality flowed a torrent of wonderful, remarkable, memorable music that surely will live while CM lives. Just contrast in one's mind his example with that of, say, Anton Bruckner, who also produced wonderful works yet from such a different set of attitudes; such an almost anti-Prokofievan personality and motivation.

One looks for arguments that confirm, maybe, pre-existing biases, so perhaps the same strange duality exists in pop music. I think of the genius of Arthur Lee and _Love_ or of Laura Nyro, both seeking individual expression and hoping to get some perks out of the balancing act also; Amy Winehouse also springs to mind; others will think of others. Composing music: a simple, complex business....


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Flutter said:


> Well when it comes to the more mainstream classical composers, there is a tendency (with exceptions of course, like the Grosso Fugue) of composers to keep beating the same tracks over and over again, same harmonies and melodies just changing the form around a little, give or take a little counterpoint.
> Same thing with pop music, except the counterpoint part.
> 
> Generally the best composers are either the ones who constantly experiment with styles, pitches and forms or are ones that have a sound so distinct that you couldn't even make clones of it.


That view (first para) is what I hear most often from people who don't know classical music very well and who believe on the basis of very little listening that they have understood what is there when all they have heard is the stylistic elements of the period. Do give us examples of "mainstream" works that are mere repetitions of music their composers had already written.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

The great thing about all contemporary poop music is that none of it will be remembered.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

haydnguy said:


> If this is what you want, then that's fine. But history shows that as music becomes more popular it becomes more samey. It stays the same because the bucks are rolling in. I remember bands who actually changed their original sound (Grand Funk) because they were making so much money and the record company made them change their sound to things like the "Locomotion" to make even more money. 'Locomotion' is a long way from 'Inside Looking Out'.


What history shows is a pattern of "new style becomes a hit -> dozens/hundreds of bands/artists jump on the bandwagon of said style to cash in -> style loses popularity -> rinse/repeat." There are still bands/artists who change their sound for a variety of reasons.


----------



## haydnguy (Oct 13, 2008)

To the artist it may, MAY be about creating music. To the record companies it's all about the money. Elton John came out when I was in high school (to give you perspective). There were nightclubs in Dallas that were known to be ones that the record companies hung out in to look for talent. Of course those were the ones bands wanted to play at.

IF a band put out a CD and it didn't sell well the record company might give them a second chance with another album (if they really thought the band had a chance to be big). Many bands were like that. In later years (after the baby boomer tsunami of sales) bands only got one chance. I once heard (unverified) that record companies were making so much money off rock music that they partially subsidized some classical music.

But anyway, for most involved in popular music, it's all about the money.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

Everyone has to survive in the system they live and work in. If you were a classical composer in the 18th century, you had to suck it up to the aristocracy to gain patronage. If you're a classical composer in the 21st century, I imagine you have to suck it up to academia and the government programs which support the concert halls and whatnot. Maybe I'm wrong, but then what are the chances of becoming a classical composer today without undergoing the entire institutional process of getting a degree in the field? I mean, suppose your family has the money to afford you in private the best musical education possible and you're a genius and you're willing to continue working in the tradition of Western art music - wherever that's headed - will anyone care for your work when you're not part of the system? I'm genuinely asking, maybe there are plenty examples of successful contemporary classical composers who shun academia.

Anyway, I don't think that has anything to do with whether the music is good or not. The point of music isn't to stroke your nonconformist anti-commercialist ego. All music exists in a context and must be understood in terms of that context (including that context changing, e. g. the meaning of Beethoven's Emperor concerto must be different now than from what it was in 1811). Of course music produced in the context of capitalist industry bears all the signs of that industry. And of course that industry must be criticized and ultimately we have to come up with a better context for popular music to exist in (speaking here from an anticapitalist standpoint; many liberals and conservatives likely don't have the same problems as I do with the music industry). But that doesn't mean that the people working in that industry are hacks, or that their music is necessarily bad - it just means that they work in the capitalist industry, which is an understandable choice given that there aren't that many other possibilities for making a living doing music.

I like plenty of pop music. I certainly like it more than other forms of capitalist art like blockbusters and videogames, both of which I find to be way more decadent, way more stupefying, and made with way more cynical intentions than Ariana singing about shopping. Because I can still separate Ariana's music as a beautiful abstraction from the ugly side of consumerism it exists to support, or look at it as a funny artifact of consumer culture, or just enjoy how creatively the electronics and the pop-song form were put to use, in any case - derive some actual aesthetic joy from it and find something interesting about it. I can still approach it as a free and rational subject. I can still freely transform it and conceptualize it and make of it what I will. 4 hours of morons in colorful suits punching each other and blowing each other up and making trite jokes while my brain goes in overdrive due to the inhumanely rapid succession of flashing crap on the screen though? Now _that's_ bad, I think.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^Poul Ruders was largely self taught as a composer, although he earnt a degree in piano.

Had they kept in the classical realm, those like Burt Bacharach and Elton John would have wasted their natural melodic talents. They where young at a time when melody was much devalued in classical with the dominance of post serialism and avant-garde. Sometimes I think that in some respects at least, classical music dug it’s own grave. 

I also wonder if Nina Simone, had she not been denied a chance at postgraduate study, would have just become yet another classical pianist and not the unique voice in music (jazz and beyond) that she became. She forever remained bitter about this, and it fuelled her participation in the civil rights movement. I think it’s a case of one door closes, another one opens.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Sid James said:


> I also wonder if Nina Simone, had she not been denied a chance at postgraduate study, would have just become yet another classical pianist and not the unique voice in music (jazz and beyond) that she became. She forever remained bitter about this, and it fuelled her participation in the civil rights movement. I think it's a case of one door closes, another one opens.


Possibly many great jazz artists would have been lost to us if they had had better educational opportunities early on. It is _almost _an argument for discrimination.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Red Terror said:


> The great thing about all contemporary poop music is that none of it will be remembered.


On the other hand, history has shown that a great deal of crappical music has long since been forgotten, too.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Enthusiast said:


> Possibly many great jazz artists would have been lost to us if they had had better educational opportunities early on. It is _almost _an argument for discrimination.


I wouldn't go that far, although jazz did come out of a prople's experience with oppression. In any case it has followed the road of classical to being taught at university. Some argue that jazz can't really be taught, but that's another issue.

I once saw Nina Simone in a documentary playing Tchaikovsky with a string quartet. I find it hard to reconcile that with the harrowing rendition of her own songs like Mississippi Goddam. Of course the context was different. One late in life, the other in the thick of things in the '60's.

She was hard to put in a box and her life was complicated by recurring psychological problems. One of those rare people who could have excelled in anything she put her hand to. Only Marlon Brando comes to mind as being similar in character, talent and complexity.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Boychev said:


> I like plenty of pop music. I certainly like it more than other forms of capitalist art like blockbusters and videogames, both of which I find to be way more decadent, way more stupefying, and made with way more cynical intentions than Ariana singing about shopping.


Video gaming has become an incredibly diverse medium, so I the comparison to blockbusters isn't accurate; it would be more like comparing it to cinema in general. There is the decadent, stupefying, and cynical; but much beyond and besides that. I think the medium's potential has only started to be fully tapped. I can't recall the last film or novel that moved me the way The Last of Us did.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

If money is what motivates you, you're better off going into a different line of work than trying to be a pop star.

As others have noted, for every Taylor Swift, there are thousands of others playing regular pop music toiling away in anonymity, partially to make a little money, but mostly because they actually just like doing it. If money were your goal, you're better of being a banker or something.

Of course there are corporate machines behind the biggest pop stars whose interests really are all about the money. But the artists themselves, no, I think that their main motivation really is for the music (even if you think it's insipid).

If classical composers were making the same kind of money as Ariana Grande, oh yeah, I definitely think that would also influence their musical choices.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Video gaming has become an incredibly diverse medium, so I the comparison to blockbusters isn't accurate; it would be more like comparing it to cinema in general. There is the decadent, stupefying, and cynical; but much beyond and besides that. I think the medium's potential has only started to be fully tapped. I can't recall the last film or novel that moved me the way The Last of Us did.


I'm skeptical. I've played some of the supposedly greatest "art" video games out there like Planescape: Torment, and Fallout 1, and Grim Fandango, and Undertale, and Silent Hill 3, and Portal 2, and remain unconvinced. It's the interactivity that's the problem, ultimately it stops me from engaging the work in aesthetic terms and dilutes the power of the experience by including repetitive busywork and puzzles and whatnot. Imagine if before you got to the final movement of a symphony you had to spend half an hour solving a logical puzzle or playing a game of quick reaction and coordination. I'd argue that this interactivity makes games _less_ immersive than other artforms, not more, because they keep reminding you (through your character repeatedly dying, or through a dialog screen popping up, or through getting stuck on a puzzle) that you are indeed playing a game in front of a computer screen, and it does that in a way that clashes with the rest of the experience (unlike films and plays that break the fourth wall where breaking the fourth wall is the entire point).

I know people compare criticism of video games to how cinema was viewed as just another cheap entertainment in its early days, but I still refuse to believe anything serious and truly larger-than-life will come out of this format.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Boychev said:


> I'm skeptical. I've played some of the supposedly greatest "art" video games out there like Planescape: Torment, and Fallout 1, and Grim Fandango, and Undertale, and Silent Hill 3, and Portal 2, and remain unconvinced. It's the interactivity that's the problem, ultimately it stops me from engaging the work in aesthetic terms and dilutes the power of the experience by including repetitive busywork and puzzles and whatnot. Imagine if before you got to the final movement of a symphony you had to spend half an hour solving a logical puzzle or playing a game of quick reaction and coordination. I'd argue that this interactivity makes games _less_ immersive than other artforms, not more, because they keep reminding you (through your character repeatedly dying, or through a dialog screen popping up, or through getting stuck on a puzzle) that you are indeed playing a game in front of a computer screen, and it does that in a way that clashes with the rest of the experience (unlike films and plays that break the fourth wall where breaking the fourth wall is the entire point).
> 
> I know people compare criticism of video games to how cinema was viewed as just another cheap entertainment in its early days, but I still refuse to believe anything serious and truly larger-than-life will come out of this format.


While this is a fine expression of your personal experience with video games I'd caution against projecting it onto the medium. The issue of immersion is a tricky and very subjective one in all the arts. There are those who can't feel immersed in opera/musicals because they find the combination of singing and drama ridiculous; there are those who can't feel immersed in theater because of static backgrounds and typically hokey scenery or (oftentimes) exaggerated performances designed to communicate to a large theater of people.

Of course, interactivity is the thing that distinguishes video games (and other types of gaming, like tabletop RPGs) from the other arts, so if the nature of that interactivity breaks your immersion then, yes, video games are unlikely a medium you will/could be moved by; but that's a you problem, not a problem with video games. I think you'll find that most people, including myself, find that the interactivity creates more immersion because you feel like you are in the world and have some measure of control--sometimes a great deal of control--over what happens and how it happens. This aspect of interactivity/choice makes video games uniquely suitable to addressing themes related to free-will. Bioshock and Metal Gear Solid 2 dealt with this in interesting ways. I'd also argue that, when it comes to the genre of horror, no other medium can touch what can be done in video games. I can/read the supposedly-scariest films/novels and not blink an eye, but playing Silent Hill et al. gave me a sense of dread that was palpable and powerful in a way novels/films aren't and can't be. This makes sense, because one rarely imagines themselves being the character of a film or novel, but because one literally controls the character of a video game that identification is natural and easy, so it doesn't just feel as if you're trying to save them from death, but yourself.

You can still, of course, choose to not believe the medium is capable of anything serious and "larger-than-life;" but it is, and I've seen/experienced it first hand.


----------



## Boychev (Jul 21, 2014)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> video games are unlikely a medium you will/could be moved by; but that's a you problem, not a problem with video games.


I very much disagree with this, since it ultimately shuts down the very possibility for raising objective criticisms against a work of art or in this case a general form of art. I could just as easily say that you being moved by the medium is your own subjective experience, and not some asset of the medium as such, and that leaves us right where we started, "to each their own" and so on.

But this has gone way off-topic, so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Flutter said:


> Well when it comes to the more mainstream classical composers, there is a tendency (with exceptions of course, like the Grosso Fugue) of composers to keep beating the same tracks over and over again, same harmonies and melodies just changing the form around a little, give or take a little counterpoint.
> Same thing with pop music, except the counterpoint part.
> 
> Generally the best composers are either the ones who constantly experiment with styles, pitches and forms or are ones that have a sound so distinct that you couldn't even make clones of it.


As I said in other threads, Popular candidates for classical glory and Are Composers Of Musicals Less Respected even in those works the mainstream composers wrote for the popular audience, there's certain craftsmanship and skills involved. They're not like today's pop. 
And not all 'experiments' lead to development and innovation. There are 'failed experiments' in music. For example, I could write the most crazy 'death waltzes' using all kinds of radically weird dissonances. Would they inspire generations of artists for hundreds of years to come? Just because they're 'new stuff'?



hammeredklavier said:


> Again, the idea of 'pop' music was different back then because there were no TV, radio, internet, media etc, no real form of 'music industry' in the scale we have today. Their 'popular music' was meant for a much smaller range of audience. - they were more like 'classical music fans' of today, rather than 'pop music fans'.
> 
> I like to judge music and its artistic merit based not necessarily on its popularity with the public, but its intrinsic value, (how much inspiration and impact it made to the world of music), how much musical skill (with regards to knowledge of melody/harmony/counterpoint/orchestration/structure/vocal writing) went into writing them. Some people say there's no difference between classical music of the past and today's popular music (and musical, film music), but we got to remember something like contemporary music is also sell-out content. People nowadays pay to attend concerts of music by Schoenberg and Boulez. You could even say classical masters of the past were the Schoenbergs of their time, who at the same time, wrote music with mastery and craftsmanship that made impact on the history of music for centuries.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Boychev said:


> I very much disagree with this, since it ultimately shuts down the very possibility for raising objective criticisms against a work of art or in this case a general form of art. I could just as easily say that you being moved by the medium is your own subjective experience, and not some asset of the medium as such, and that leaves us right where we started, "to each their own" and so on.
> 
> But this has gone way off-topic, so I'll leave it at that.


When your argument is that the fundamental nature of the art breaks your aesthetic immersion, how could that ever serve as an _objective_ criticism of the medium itself? If I say the act of singing in drama breaks my immersion, have I just offered an _objective_ criticism of opera, or have I described how the objective nature of opera (dramatic singing) affects me subjectively? Of course, me saying that I've been moved by the medium is also my subjective experience; how in the world could it not be?

Now, we can drop this tangent if you want, but don't pull the BS argument that I'm "shutting down the possibility for raising objective criticism;" you raised a possibly-objective criticism ("video games are like blockbusters... decadent, supefying, cynical...), I responded to that, and you responded with a completely subjective one having nothing to do with your original one.


----------



## Apricot (Feb 9, 2019)

Red Terror said:


> The great thing about all contemporary poop music is that none of it will be remembered.


I disagree, for example, I will never forget this pop song.


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

Anyone interested in this should read The Song Machine by John Seabrook. I came away from it with both more and less respect for pop music. More because it's obvious that a small number of people are really good at writing hit songs and that doing so isn't easy. Less because the whole enterprise has become really cynical: the business has become too good at grabbing people's attention with what is ultimately shallow junk.


----------



## AnthonyAlcott (May 16, 2014)

I don't think one can understand the phenomenon of modern pop music without also taking into consideration the negative consequences of democracy. Yes, we all understand the benefits of democracy, but no one wants to talk about its drawbacks. As G.K. Chesterton put it somewhere, (and I paraphrase here), the democratic instinct represents an intolerable and unavoidable standardization to a low standard. The plebs, with their poor taste and poor understanding/grasp of culture, the lowest common denominator, by virtue of their vast numbers now dictate the flow of culture generally. And then complicating things further is market capitalism, which perpetuates (in fact encourages) this poor taste and (anti)culture by total investment in it, because more money can be made from the poor taste of the masses because they represent such an absurdly larger target audience than anyone on the margins that exist apart from it.

Democratic ideals obviously have benefits but it is true also that it has given a voice to the average man (who typically also has poor taste, hence average) and what's worse a sense of entitlement to be valued the equal of anything or anyone else automatically, by virtue of just being human. We are supposed to take this uncultivated average man's opinion seriously now, or we somehow offend the spirit of democratic values. Than capitalism comes and exploits this state of affairs and projects out the tastes of these increasingly vulgar and rude masses for consumption, because they represent the vast majority, which maximizes the profit margin. Capitalism appeals to men's baser nature and fetishizes this nature, makes its profit, feeds that base urge, and perpetuates the cycle to ensure future profit will exist safely in the future. Culture suffers as a consequence.

This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Ethereality (Apr 6, 2019)

Another good question is, in what era could you make the easiest living from music compared to other professions?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

fliege said:


> Anyone interested in this should read The Song Machine by John Seabrook. I came away from it with both more and less respect for pop music. More because it's obvious that a small number of people are really good at writing hit songs and that doing so isn't easy. Less because the whole enterprise has become really cynical: the business has become too good at grabbing people's attention with what is ultimately shallow junk.


Sounds like the music machines described in Orwell's 1984. It's certainly not like pop of the past, or at least those musicians who developed a substantial body of work. I think that the late Amy Winehouse, mentioned by Strange Magic, was an exception. I own a couple of her albums, and think her untimely death robbed us of a musician of promise.

Another past great I forgot to mention was Edith Piaf. At the time, to be credited as a composer in France you had to sit an exam with SACEM. She passed the second time. Ironically her biggest hit was La vie en Rose, a song that her collaborator Margeurite Monnot (who had studied under Boulanger) said was unworthy of publication. Piaf took the exam in order to be able to publish it under her own name. Sometimes even the most highly trained experts get it wrong.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

We may find it irritating, but the current style of pop music can be written by somebody with little or no musical education and still be enjoyed by a lot of people. My son's fiancée just posted this song, her first. She wrote the music and words, sings the main line, and had help in the actual production. Sort of Brazilian house music. I don't think she can read music and she knows no music theory.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fliege said:


> Anyone interested in this should read The Song Machine by John Seabrook. I came away from it with both more and less respect for pop music. More because it's obvious that a small number of people are really good at writing hit songs and that doing so isn't easy. Less because the whole enterprise has become really cynical: the business has become too good at grabbing people's attention with what is ultimately shallow junk.


This is more-or-less my position but I come down easier on the "less" side than you. At least, yes, I realize that most pop music is shallow, but it can also be fun. Just as there's nothing wrong with indulging in a sweet after a healthy meal, there's nothing wrong with enjoying the superficial pleasures--hooks, melodies, rhythms--of most pop, as long as it doesn't constitute your entire diet. There's also plenty of music out there that's meant to be very serious, ambitious, and non-shallow but ultimately contains nothing profound and is no fun in the process, which is far worse than most pop. Plus, I do think there's some pop, at least the absolute best that comes along maybe once or twice in a generation, that manages to transcend the money-grabbing cynicism of the industry to create great art that is profound, memorable, and heavily influential to later artists, often across genre-lines, and often in spite of the limited ambitions.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Sid James said:


> Sounds like the music machines described in Orwell's 1984. It's certainly not like pop of the past, or at least those musicians who developed a substantial body of work. I think that the late Amy Winehouse, mentioned by Strange Magic, was an exception. I own a couple of her albums, and think her untimely death robbed us of a musician of promise.


I enjoy Winehouse, but I'm not sure how "exceptional" she was and tend to feel that she got a bit overhyped because of her early death (everyone loves a tragic story; but I felt her potential was less than, say, Hendrix). At least, even among female artists I hear similar artistry in a range of artists from Kate Bush, to Bjork, to Janelle Monae, to even Taylor Swift


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

KenOC said:


> We may find it irritating, but the current style of pop music can be written by somebody with little or no musical education and still be enjoyed by a lot of people.


I find far more irritating the notion that music education somehow bestows a gift of greater artistry onto those who have it. It doesn't. Education in the arts is nothing more than a set of ideas and tools that, at best, can help spur, inspire, or guide creativity; but creativity is neither beholden to nor bound by any of them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I enjoy Winehouse, but I'm not sure how "exceptional" she was and tend to feel that she got a bit overhyped because of her early death (everyone loves a tragic story; but I felt her potential was less than, say, Hendrix). At least, even among female artists I hear similar artistry in a range of artists from Kate Bush, to Bjork, to Janelle Monae, to even Taylor Swift


You're setting a high bar by comparing Winehouse to Hendrix. Doesn't everyone since pale compared to the Woodstock generation? You may as well talk of the last classical piece to get the attention of the whole world (Shostakovich's Leningrad) and compare everything since to that. I'm sorry your line of thinking just doesn't wash with me.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

”So I had this discussion in another forum where I was stating that contemporary pop-music artists are way more interested in making money than in producing actually good music compared with classical composer.”

Maybe. But there’s no way of guessing how much. If Mozart, Mahler, and Muhly were offered the same kind of money that most rock musicians are, I doubt if they would turn it down. Would you? It’s the demands of the marketplace that dictate the income and everyone starts out just trying to survive, whether it’s as a classical composer or rock musician. But in either case, the musicians have to offer something that the public wants... and if you can’t do it then you’re out of luck and it doesn’t matter what kind of music you write.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

How much money does anyone need? And when the cost is a total lack of privacy it amazes me that anyone with a life is ever up for becoming a popstar. I think being known for quality, talent and intelligence, and getting sufficient income for a comfortable life, is going to be the stuff dreams are made of for anyone with a love of art.


----------



## fliege (Nov 7, 2017)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> This is more-or-less my position but I come down easier on the "less" side than you. At least, yes, I realize that most pop music is shallow, but it can also be fun. Just as there's nothing wrong with indulging in a sweet after a healthy meal, there's nothing wrong with enjoying the superficial pleasures--hooks, melodies, rhythms--of most pop, as long as it doesn't constitute your entire diet. There's also plenty of music out there that's meant to be very serious, ambitious, and non-shallow but ultimately contains nothing profound and is no fun in the process, which is far worse than most pop. Plus, I do think there's some pop, at least the absolute best that comes along maybe once or twice in a generation, that manages to transcend the money-grabbing cynicism of the industry to create great art that is profound, memorable, and heavily influential to later artists, often across genre-lines, and often in spite of the limited ambitions.


I would agree with this. I sounded a little harsh because I was making a statement about what I feel is the general state of pop music. However, there is a sub-set of good pop music that's worth hearing for the reasons you describe. I'm a little more partial to music that is artist-written, as it tends to be quirkier and more interesting, but the industrial strength stuff (to quote Seabrook) can be good too.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I enjoy Winehouse, but I'm not sure how "exceptional" she was and tend to feel that she got a bit overhyped because of her early death (everyone loves a tragic story; but I felt her potential was less than, say, Hendrix). At least, even among female artists I hear similar artistry in a range of artists from Kate Bush, to Bjork, to Janelle Monae, to even Taylor Swift


One reason I find Winehouse strangely compelling is her ability to project the core of her song successfully through the miasma/mediocrity of her backup band and singers, themselves the product of her own lack of either experience or of self-confidence in her talent. She manages to transcend her musical companions like a diamond set in a cheap plastic ring. I agree that her tragic early loss, like Janis, adds peripheral poignancy to her art. I think she would rank even higher than she does had she had the inherent confidence and savvy of a Taylor Swift and been able to fashion a self-knowledge strong enough to allow her art to flourish (better dress, better backup). But being wounded or overwhelmed or used is part of the Winehouse legacy, and maybe Swiftian resilience could never be part of the real Amy Winehouse.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Larkenfield said:


> "So I had this discussion in another forum where I was stating that contemporary pop-music artists are way more interested in making money than in producing actually good music compared with classical composer."
> 
> Maybe. But there's no way of guessing how much. If Mozart, Mahler, and Muhly were offered the same kind of money that most rock musicians are, I doubt if they would turn it down. Would you? It's the demands of the marketplace that dictate the income and everyone starts out just trying to survive, whether it's as a classical composer or rock musician. But in either case, the musicians have to offer something that the public wants... and if you can't do it then you're out of luck and it doesn't matter what kind of music you write.


Just because an artist is motivated by monetary interests it doesn't necessarily make his art bad. Perhaps the most important question to ask about any classical art is "is it something that can be replicated easily today?" The reason why classical music has inspired for ages and has become valuable is because it can't be replicated easily. With the artisans gone, all the craftsmanship, and sense of form and structure, and inspiration that went into writing the works are now "lost technology". We only have the products in the limited amount they produced and cannot get them replicated or reproduced any more. 
If you could easily replicate Beethoven's works in the same quality, why do we still revere him and appreciate, study his works today? Just because he was commissioned to write works, were/are they easy for common people of lesser talent to write? 
Most pop musicians have this mentality, "popularity is all that matters, as long as I'm popular I don't need to learn music theory, I'll just hire a song-writer and use autotune. Popularity is all that matters." This is something great classical masters of the past never had.



hammeredklavier said:


> I don't see the Beatles (especially John Lennon) as genuine musical artists of expression as I do for Johann Strauss II.
> 
> http://listverse.com/2012/05/12/top-10-unpleasant-facts-about-john-lennon/
> _"Talentless
> ...


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Sid James said:


> You're setting a high bar by comparing Winehouse to Hendrix. Doesn't everyone since pale compared to the Woodstock generation? You may as well talk of the last classical piece to get the attention of the whole world (Shostakovich's Leningrad) and compare everything since to that. I'm sorry your line of thinking just doesn't wash with me.


I don't know about "pale in comparison," (many would say Kurt Cobain's death was as tragic as Hendrix's, though I wouldn't agree), but yes, that's probably setting the bar too high. I wouldn't object to putting Winehouse near the Jim Morrison level of "tragic early losses."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> One reason I find Winehouse strangely compelling is her ability to project the core of her song successfully through the miasma/mediocrity of her backup band and singers, themselves the product of her own lack of either experience or of self-confidence in her talent. She manages to transcend her musical companions like a diamond set in a cheap plastic ring. I agree that her tragic early loss, like Janis, adds peripheral poignancy to her art. I think she would rank even higher than she does had she had the inherent confidence and savvy of a Taylor Swift and been able to fashion a self-knowledge strong enough to allow her art to flourish (better dress, better backup). But being wounded or overwhelmed or used is part of the Winehouse legacy, and maybe Swiftian resilience could never be part of the real Amy Winehouse.


I wholly agree with your assessment here, especially with your astute observation that her talent shown even more brightly in contrast to the lesser-talents of her band/singers. It definitely would've been interesting to hear what she could've done with more experience, confidence, and more talent around her to fully show off her talents. In that sense, the comparison to Hendrix was unfair as Hendrix had not one, but two great bands behind him during his short career, and as great as Hendrix was he was partially allowed his flights of expressive guitar fancy because of the solidity of his rhythm section.

Perhaps an even closer comparison to Winehouse was Eva Cassidy. Now, there's some major differences there in that Cassidy only did covers, and in contrast to Winehouse's world-wearied attitude Cassidy seemed almost naively innocent; but they shared an old-soul spirit of interpretation that incorporated many diverse styles and influences. Cassidy was also backed by a band of lesser talents that really allowed her voice to soar and shine far above it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't know about "pale in comparison," (many would say Kurt Cobain's death was as tragic as Hendrix's, though I wouldn't agree), but yes, that's probably setting the bar too high. I wouldn't object to putting Winehouse near the Jim Morrison level of "tragic early losses."


Thank you and your description of Winehouse's music in your reply to Strange Magic resonates with me, that "old-soul spirit of interpretation that incorporated many diverse styles and influences."

I'm not in for comparing and ranking musicians who died prematurely. Its natural to wish that those who died before their time at whatever age had lived on to create and enjoy life. I'd say that about Michael Jackson and Edith Piaf too, but at least they reached middle age.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Flutter said:


> Well when it comes to the more mainstream classical composers, there is a tendency (with exceptions of course, like the Grosso Fugue) of composers to keep beating the same tracks over and over again, same harmonies and melodies just changing the form around a little, give or take a little counterpoint.
> Same thing with pop music, except the counterpoint part.
> 
> Generally the best composers are either the ones who constantly experiment with styles, pitches and forms or are ones that have a sound so distinct that you couldn't even make clones of it.


He may have been an extreme case, but Carl Czerny came nearest to mechanical production of music. He had an assembly line system of composition, composing four different pieces on four desks simultaneously. As soon as he finished one page he'd go to the next desk, and upon reaching the fourth desk he'd go back to the first and start a new page (the ink had dried).

This had the effect of diluting his output, although a number of pianists (including Horowitz and more recently Howard Shelley) have recorded some of it.

I don't blame Czerny for doing this, this was the era before copyright and composers had to churn out music so they could eat. However I will never accept the dichotomy which is being made on this thread between classical and everything else.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Amy Winehouse had a tremendous voice, something raw and primal. But IMO, she was simply too personally messed up and emotionally dysfunctional not to end in total self-destruction and tarnish her legacy. To say that she had a poor choice in lifestyle, partners and friends is an understatement, and that counts for something too. It’s hard not to think of the waste of talent and opportunities when listening to her, and that sense of total self-destruction, the brevity of her life and career, is not something that’s particularly uplifting and inspiring in what one might expect of a great singer though there have certainly been other breathtakingly self-destructive artists, but few in as self-destructive a downward spiral as hers.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Mussorgsky died in his early forties but his life was made just as undignified by alcohol. Imagine him being found in the gutter by Borodin and Rimsky-Korsakov. You know how the poor man ended his days? In a hospital bed losing most of his bodily fluids. It’s the nicest way I can put it. 

Nothing nice about addiction. Others like Ray Charles, Johnny Cash and Elton John survived to tell the tale. Sibelius too, pickling himself to survive to a grand old age, much like the Queen mother.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Larkenfield said:


> Amy Winehouse had a tremendous voice, something raw and primal. But IMO, she was simply too personally messed up and emotionally dysfunctional not to end in total self-destruction and tarnish her legacy. To say that she had a poor choice in lifestyle, partners and friends is an understatement, and that counts for something too. It's hard not to think of the waste of talent and opportunities when listening to her, and that sense of total self-destruction, the brevity of her life and career, is not something that's particularly uplifting and inspiring in what one might expect of a great singer though there have certainly been other breathtakingly self-destructive artists, but few in as self-destructive a downward spiral as hers.


True, but Janis is an obvious parallel, though she seemed to be getting her **** together before dying of a heroin overdose. Other parallels suggest themselves (Phil Ochs). I was thinking the other day about dead rock and pop artists who fell to substance abuse, suicide, accident, murder, and wondering whether their rates mirrored those of the general public but we just focus on them because of the stereotype.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2019)

Why do I suspect that the majority of folks* here discussing this are too old to know very much about the pop musicians of today? 

Could it be that their only points of reference are either the "Woodstock generation" (or earlier) and the most successful of the youngest of today?

The most frustrating aspect of the constant dissing of "contemporary pop" is that hardly anyone listens to it or knows anything about it.

I don't profess to know much about it either, but even a cursory glance at the top 10 artists ranked by Metacritic over the past dozen years will show how much pop/rock/alt etc there has been, and how much is of better quality than the old dads and the classical naysayers will allow.

https://www.metacritic.com/browse/a...d?view=condensed&sort=desc&year_selected=2010

I've just picked one year out of the list which goes back to 1995. My point is not the ranking itself, merely the show of artists that many here will have never heard of, let alone heard.

*I include myself in this definition.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^All true. I referred elsewhere about "drinking from a fire hose", or attempting to, as a metaphor for trying to stay current with contemporary anything. I freely confess to being profoundly unfamiliar with the vast bulk of the listed albums, though I certainly did not miss Janelle Monàe's mighty _The ArchAndroid_, an album that I added to my "top dozen" list as soon as I heard it. We can only audit and absorb so much from an infinite stream of endlessly flowing and increasing content.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Why do I suspect that the majority of folks* here discussing this are too old to know very much about the pop musicians of today?
> 
> ...


Excellent post! Yes, between the majority of folks here being "too old" to care about current popular music, or just disinterested in popular music at all because of their interest in classical, it's largely just an echo chamber of "Kids these days and that dag-blasted noise they call music!" that's been uttered by parents of every generation probably going back to the beginning of human culture when Grog started trying to hum, upsetting the parents who preferred their generation's smooth grooves of instrumental tree-stump rhythm.

Thankfully, I do not include myself in that category. I'm 33, but being a musical omnivore I try to keep up with popular music while also listening to popular music of the past, jazz, and, of course, classical (it helps that I can listen all day at work, and sometimes for a few hours at home as well; so I have lots of time to explore different genres). Of course, it's impossible to hear everything, but I try to at least give cursory listens to the big names to see if I find them worth exploring (which I know is deceptive because you never know if your selections are the best representatives, or even representative at all). I've heard a handful of albums from that list you posted--and I concur with Strange Magic regarding Janelle Monae's The ArchAndroid being a standout near-masterpiece--but there are many names I haven't heard or even heard of; it's just the nature of things.

What strikes me most about that list is how diverse it is: the top several artists cover the range of rap/hip-hop, r&B/funk/soul/experimental, African blues, and folk (ol' Bob Dylan!). Digging around I also see a range of pop, electronic, indie rock, and others. Unless you just have no interest in popular music (as distinct from jazz/classical) at all, or you're one of those people whom your interest in pop is/was only connected to your teenage identity, then it'd be strange to me for someone to hate all of that.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

MacLeod said:


> My point is not the ranking itself, merely the show of artists that many here will have never heard of, let alone heard.


Who do you think are to blame for their lack of popularity?

Watch from 13:40


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Youth!- Household luxuries, school-room steam-press systems, and, above all, the mad spirit of the times, have not come to us without a loss more than proportionate... [a young man] rushes headlong, with an impetuosity which strikes fire from the sharp flints under his tread... Occasionally, one of this class... amasses an estate, but at the expense of his peace, and often of his health. The lunatic asylum or the premature grave too frequently winds up his career... We expect each succeeding generation will grow "beautifully less." -1856 issue of _The National Era_, Thrace Talmon


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2019)

hammeredklavier said:


> Who do you think are to blame for their lack of popularity?


Lack of popularity? Who said they were not popular?

Your choice of video critic is poor. "How did we get from The Beatles to Justin Bieber?" is a crude analysis, not comparing like with like. If it's true that The Beatles were groundbreaking in 1966/7, you would need to find someone comparably groundbreaking for 2010.

Or, alternatively, find a young pop performer comparable to Bieber.

How about Gary Lewis?


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2019)

Today the situation is different than in Beethoven's day. Beethoven didn't sign up to a label dictating what he will write and record and what he won't. Beethoven may have written on commission but still produced great art while doing it. But all composers wrote for money and yet worked on pieces no one was paying them for, they just had this idea that they needed to write down. Later, they might produce it as something they wrote on commission or they might use parts of it. If the patron wanted something specific then the composer had less freedom to experiment but other patrons would tell them to wow their socks off with something no one's ever heard the likes of before.

With labels, they want to make money and they tell the bands what to record and how to record it. Bands usually have to turn their recordings into the label for review and then the label tells them what changes to make and re-record and submit the new version which the label puts out so the artist gets little to no say in how it works. That's often why you liked a certain band when they first came out but didn't like their later stuff as they became more famous. The label told them how to record it for mass appeal and that was why they now garner a larger audience but they gave up their uniqueness to attain it. But the artists get very little say in it unless they were like the Beatles who were so big that they could tell the labels to stuff it. Anything they made was guaranteed to sell millions even if most of their fans didn't like it--it still would sell millions of units. Labels though had to read changes in the wind and take chances. That's how great bands find their way in who change the industry and even the culture and the labels reap the reward and that's what they count on happening.

As for today's pop stars (I won't use the term "artists"), if we talk about giving them the freedom to do what they want, what do we think we're going to get? Great art? In my opinion, no. Most probably would feel lost without the label telling them what to do. Would Beethoven have that problem? Definitely no.

So even if Beethoven was only interested in making money from his music that does not preclude his ability to make great art in the process.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2019)

I can agree with you to some extent. Musical education does not mean you magically have great musical talent because of it. But i also disagree because I used to write songs without a musical education and I cringe when I play some of them now. After learning to read music, my ability to put ideas together is far superior. Moreover, by learning to play classical music from the sheet music, I can bring in other concepts that I NEVER would have had any idea of how to do before assuming I was even capable of seeking to do it. Yes, so-and-so couldn't read music and made great songs but I often wonder how much greater their songs would have been if they could read music.

20-some-odd years ago, I was recording some avant-garde pieces and I was using chords that had wrong notes in them. I like the way they sounded and they were unusual sounding. A little later, I was reading an interview with Brian Eno who was touting the merits of being a non-musician by stating that he was playing a chord he made on tape for Robert Fripp as something they could build a piece with. He said that Fripp told him it was an interesting chord because it had a wrong note in it. Eno used this to justify being non-musically trained because musical training would have told him it was a wrong chord and he might not have used it as a result. But I disagree. I was already doing the same thing KNOWING I had wrong notes and used them anyway BECAUSE the wrong notes made them interesting and I knew which note or notes were wrong, Eno didn't. He couldn't pick it out by ear nor could he have wrote the chords on manuscript paper and pointed to the wrong note. I see no advantage to that. To me, that's like not being able to write in cursive--I just can't imagine having that kind of deficiency and touting it as any kind of an advantage. As much as I admire Eno--a big musical hero--I think he was wrong on that count.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> Why do I suspect that the majority of folks* here discussing this are too old to know very much about the pop musicians of today?
> 
> Could it be that their only points of reference are either the "Woodstock generation" (or earlier) and the most successful of the youngest of today?
> 
> The most frustrating aspect of the constant dissing of "contemporary pop" is that hardly anyone listens to it or knows anything about it...


Most people get to know the popular music of their youth and there's nothing wrong with that. The music that came out of Woodstock focussed the attention of a whole generation in a way that would be impossible today.

It's not only in terms of it being unrealistic to keep up with all the genres and sub-genres of music now. It's also what music means. Even the definition is fuzzy "pop/rock/alt etc" as you later describe. Same can be said of classical, which has always fed off and been enriched by the vernacular.

Theres been a change in what music represents. I see the 1960's as being the bubble that burst modernity. In classical that process started earlier, Shostakovich's music being the endpoint of the Enlightenment narrative stretching back a couple of hundred years. All those old certainties disintegrate.

As to the listeners, what are we? Are we at the barricades like former generations, at the forefront of change? No, I think that in one way or another, we're consumers. Perhaps music has become the most disengaged from broader concerns than it ever has been?

I'm not reflecting on some supposed golden age, and I see little use since Hendrix is just as fossilised as Shostakovich. They're talismans of a bygone era, of modernism. I'm not trying to define what we have had since (e.g. postmodernism)by comparison, but it certainly is different.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

hammeredklavier said:


> Who do you think are to blame for their lack of popularity?
> 
> Watch from 13:40


For the love of Pete, please stop posting that clip. The part you're pointing to is pure nonsense. Record labels have always been adverse to risk, and there's always been more indie labels taking chances on more "out-there" artists that sometimes happen to break through the mainstream and happen to set a new trend. The stuff that guy's talking about is not a new phenomenon, and pop music today is nowhere near as homogenized as he suggests.

Much of what he mentions isn't even true. EG, the notion of the "public not deciding on talent" and "labels reducing risks by signing pretty faces and brainwashing the public to like them" describes neither the careers of Taylor Swift or Adele, arguably the two biggest female acts of the last decade. Swift was a 100% homegrown singer/songwriter who got popular the exact way that guy describes old bands/artists: by a label taking a chance on her, putting out a few songs (without much promotion), and audiences liking it so much they kept requesting more and more until she became the industry she is. Adele, meanwhile, is hardly a pretty face from a talent show, and her music is 100% old-fashoned blue-eyed soul, hardly something that was popular on the radio when she broke through and managed to sell 31-friggin-million copies of _21_. Hell, even Justin Bieber started out just writing/recording songs in his bedroom on YouTube, and gained an enormous following on there before he was ever signed to a label. The same thing is true of an up-and-comer like Billie Eilish.

Yes, there are SOME artists that fit his description, but not nearly as many as that video would suggest. In fact, the "brainwashing people to like pretty faces from talent shows" is pretty funny considering I can only name two major pop-stars that ever came from talent shows--Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood--despite labels trying very hard to "sell" every single one that wins (and many that didn't). It's abundantly clear that being on talent shows is hardly any guarantee for success or "minimizing risk."

More nonsense about "that song follows you everywhere you go." For one, I noticed that phenomenon far more in the 90s before the internet/internet radio and stuff like iPods were a thing. Now, people have so many outlets for listening to/finding new music that the radio doesn't dominate what people hear, no matter where they are. The lunacy of suggesting that a song can "follow you online." No, it can't. You choose what you listen to online, and what you encounter online is heavily influenced by what you search for. If you spend all your time searching for/listening to classical music online, you aren't going to be bombarded by videos from Ariana Grande. That's not how suggestion algorithms work. The only point I'll give him there is, yes, it's not uncommon to find such songs in TV shows and movies, but even then I'm just as apt to hear obscure indie stuff as anything that's popular.

Finally, can we just end on the utter nonsense that he suggests great songs should be liked on a first listen. Can you imagine if we treated all music like that? You know a piece that I hated the first time I heard it but have come to love it? Beethoven's Grosse Fugue. That's not an easy piece to like on a first listen! It takes some "repeated exposure" to get used to its harsh dissonances. In fact, I'd say a great many of my favorite pieces, songs, composers and artists are those I didn't immediately come to love, but came to after repeated exposure. It's not about being brainwashed, as he suggests, it's called acquired tastes. There's just as many songs that I've come to hate the more I heard them (like Black Eyed Peas's My Humps).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Victor Redseal said:


> With labels, they want to make money and they tell the bands what to record and how to record it. Bands usually have to turn their recordings into the label for review and then the label tells them what changes to make and re-record and submit the new version which the label puts out so the artist gets little to no say in how it works.


This just isn't how things work, with very few exceptions. With the exceptions, what happens is typically the "stars" are pitched a set of songs that have already been written, or mostly written to where they have minimal input. The stars aren't forced to record/sing anything they don't want to, but they don't have much creative input either beyond recording the vocals. However, this is, again, nothing new. Before Dylan ushered in the age of the singer/songwriter, the role of songwriters and singers were separate. So the exceptions I mentioned aren't so much controlled by the labels and told what to record and how so much as they are guided, often as much by producers as by anyone.

As for everyone else, very few bands/artists are unwilling to sign control over to anyone. A great many disputes have arisen between bands/artists and labels when the former have recorded things the latter didn't like but refused to change it. Prince was so stubborn he refused to record anything new for the last few years of his Warner Bros. (IIRC) contract and just released old material that wasn't received well, but fulfilled his contract for so many releases. The label couldn't force him to record anything he didn't want to. Most contracts don't dictate label control, but merely dictate that an artist can't record/release for anyone else until they've released X number of albums for that label.

As for artists/bands changing their sound and going more commercial, that happens for a variety of reasons: changing members, changing trends, changing moods/interests of the artists, or, yes, bids for mainstream success. I think the latter happens far less than you imagine, and the opposite happens as well. Talk Talk went from an extremely popular new wave band to the pioneers of post-rock. I'm sure the label execs nearly pooped themselves when Hollis & co. walked in with Spirit of Eden, but it still got released, and they managed to release another album, just as daring and avant-garde, after that.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

When a conductor or an orchestra records yet another Beethoven symphony cycle, is that not also a money grab? I simply cannot believe that the hundreds of other recordings of Beethoven's symphonies (or Brahms, or any number of other warhorses) just do not suffice and the world needs yet another interpretation. At the very least, there are many, many more fruitful avenues of exploration with less familiar works.

Perhaps record companies realize that the well known works sell better and influence musicians to re-record them ad nauseam, but that's a similar dynamic that exists with pop music too.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

When I was younger, met a few pop stars and looking back, found most of them were just full of themselves and not very nice. (Went off pop music when I took up classical seriously). I've since met a few classical musicians and they were much nicer and seemed more genuine


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2019)

Sid James said:


> Most people get to know the popular music of their youth and there's nothing wrong with that. The music that came out of Woodstock focussed the attention of a whole generation in a way that would be impossible today.
> 
> It's not only in terms of it being unrealistic to keep up with all the genres and sub-genres of music now.


It was not easy keeping up when I read NME every week, actually went to pop concerts and bought vinyl as often as my UB40 would allow!

If keeping up with it all is unrealistic, it behoves the critics to acknowledge that fact as they make sweeping generalisations based on the 0.01% of pop they've actually heard.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

From my own experience, I would say the last time I was reasonably current with the very widest spectrum of popular music was in the late 1950s/early 1960s, as FM radio began to supplement AM. One then was able to hear new material if one accessed an AM station playing "race" music: blues, Doo-***, R&B; another playing Top Forty; and FM and AM stations offering short, specialized DJ segments on C&W, jazz, Afro-Latin pop (Mambo, Cha Cha Cha, Calypso, etc.).


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2019)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> This just isn't how things work, with very few exceptions. With the exceptions, what happens is typically the "stars" are pitched a set of songs that have already been written, or mostly written to where they have minimal input. The stars aren't forced to record/sing anything they don't want to, but they don't have much creative input either beyond recording the vocals. However, this is, again, nothing new. Before Dylan ushered in the age of the singer/songwriter, the role of songwriters and singers were separate. So the exceptions I mentioned aren't so much controlled by the labels and told what to record and how so much as they are guided, often as much by producers as by anyone.
> 
> As for everyone else, very few bands/artists are unwilling to sign control over to anyone. A great many disputes have arisen between bands/artists and labels when the former have recorded things the latter didn't like but refused to change it. Prince was so stubborn he refused to record anything new for the last few years of his Warner Bros. (IIRC) contract and just released old material that wasn't received well, but fulfilled his contract for so many releases. The label couldn't force him to record anything he didn't want to. Most contracts don't dictate label control, but merely dictate that an artist can't record/release for anyone else until they've released X number of albums for that label.
> 
> As for artists/bands changing their sound and going more commercial, that happens for a variety of reasons: changing members, changing trends, changing moods/interests of the artists, or, yes, bids for mainstream success. I think the latter happens far less than you imagine, and the opposite happens as well. Talk Talk went from an extremely popular new wave band to the pioneers of post-rock. I'm sure the label execs nearly pooped themselves when Hollis & co. walked in with Spirit of Eden, but it still got released, and they managed to release another album, just as daring and avant-garde, after that.


The label fronts all the money. The artist has to pay them back. Under contract, the artist is beholden to the label and they have to do what the label tells them to do. When I got signed, we gave them demos and they picked the songs we were going to do and how we were going to do it--right down to the key and the chord progression. A great many of the songs didn't sound like what we had written. Nor did I like the sound. Fortunately, I hadn't signed anything yet so, at that point, I backed out. I left the band. I wasn't going to to be told what to do. The last I heard from my ex-bandmates (and this was 15 or so years ago), they were re-recording submissions for the first album while already working on the second album and the first album wasn't even released yet. They were destitute and deeply unhappy with their musical direction. But they owed the label (distributor) two albums and couldn't back out until they had finished them. As far as I know, they went nowhere and were dropped.

When you hear Billy Preston's "I Wrote a Simple Song" that's what he was talking about. You give the label your heartfelt music and they turn it into over-produced sh-t. There's that other song "Look What They've Done to My Song" that describes the same thing. I thought they were just songs about nothing and then I realized WHY they were written and I know exactly what they are talking about. One of my old bass instructors was signed to a big label in the 70s. It was so traumatizing that he never signed another contract. He puts out a few CDs every few years but they are small-time (besides the music being superb) and they get no exposure and he makes no money from it. He told me, "I don't make anything but at least I do what I want."

Occasionally, a label will let a band do what they want because they see something in them--a chance for growth which needs a period of nurturing--but they will eventually sell out.

The only time you can stick it to the label is when you can garner a large following or you are a major artist going label-shopping. Some labels are better than others but ultimately the distributor owns your azz. And don't tell me about people not willing to sign all that away. I've seen people sign anything for the chance to become famous--anything. I've played with people like that. When you get signed and you're straight out of the bar scene, you are NOT going to get the advantage. Take that from someone who was there.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2019)

apricissimus said:


> When a conductor or an orchestra records yet another Beethoven symphony cycle, is that not also a money grab? I simply cannot believe that the hundreds of other recordings of Beethoven's symphonies (or Brahms, or any number of other warhorses) just do not suffice and the world needs yet another interpretation. At the very least, there are many, many more fruitful avenues of exploration with less familiar works.
> 
> Perhaps record companies realize that the well known works sell better and influence musicians to re-record them ad nauseam, but that's a similar dynamic that exists with pop music too.


With classical music, the labels want their artists to become household names like Yo Yo Ma. He is that rare classical musician who transcends genres and a major money-maker (for a classical musician, that is). Most classical albums are recorded with money the label's more popular artists bring in. You may hate Justin Bieber or Arianna Grande or Taylor Swift or Kanye or whoever but the money they make for their labels is what the labels use to record less popular music as classical, jazz or blues.

The label has to sell the classical music its demographic studies have shown to be the most popular among their buyers. What they hope is that just one of these artists will become a star. That's why classical labels sign so many child prodigies. They hope you'll become a faithful follower throughout this artist's career. They are looking for the next Yo Yo Ma, the next Luciano--someone whose talent makes them one of the biggest names in music. It's hit-and-miss and mostly miss. If this artist gets enough of a following and brings in enough money, they start having this person record more of the obscure but rewarding pieces of classical because they are confident it will sell. They hope it sells like hotcakes and makes this old little-known piece hugely famous as a result. It never happens but they keep trying.

Occasionally, they are helped out by a popular movie. Remember when Amadeus came out? I remember going into record stores and there are all these Salieri recordings being promoted. A lot of people had never heard of him before and suddenly he's a rock star now. Salieri was very difficult to find and then suddenly there are all these recordings for sale at special discounts! The label execs must have loved it!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

MacLeod said:


> It was not easy keeping up when I read NME every week, actually went to pop concerts and bought vinyl as often as my UB40 would allow!
> 
> If keeping up with it all is unrealistic, it behoves the critics to acknowledge that fact as they make sweeping generalisations based on the 0.01% of pop they've actually heard.


I accept your point, however not everyone on this thread is making sweeping generalisations. There's a difference between over generalising and just generalising. The former leads to black and white thinking (dichotomy) and conclusions which have no relation to any kind of logic (reductio ad absurdum). The latter, while not perfect, involves the speaker being open about the extent of their knowledge and experience and then making an argument based on that. Of course, its best to demonstrate general points with some concrete examples.

This forum will never be like a panel of experts as assembled in some conference at a university. That's less likely in other genres, but not even in classical. Here, I guess most will be listeners with day jobs unrelated to music, and a small amount might be or have had experience working in music or in something closely related to it. There's probably a good amount of members who have learnt an instrument not taking it much further than a hobby.

While I was reticent about entering this thread, I think that its gone well with many viewpoints being offered and discussed. We don't have to agree on everything, in a topic like this its probably better if we don't. Even if people do over generalise, so what? Its not my job to tell them not to, in any case it doesn't violate the rules of the forum. Its my choice whether I want to respond to what others say, and in topics like this I am more conservative doing that than with less controversial ones.


----------



## Guest (Apr 27, 2019)

Sid James said:


> Mussorgsky died in his early forties but his life was made just as undignified by alcohol. Imagine him being found in the gutter by Borodin and Rimsky-Korsakov. You know how the poor man ended his days? In a hospital bed losing most of his bodily fluids. It's the nicest way I can put it.
> 
> Nothing nice about addiction. Others like Ray Charles, Johnny Cash and Elton John survived to tell the tale. Sibelius too, pickling himself to survive to a grand old age, much like the Queen mother.


That reminds me of Tom Waits who, at some point in his career, decided to consciously cultivate the image and persona of the loveable, witty, drunken lounge pianist. One morning he realized that he was well on his way to achieving this aesthetic and he knew he had to give up drinking. "Not a damn thing funny about being a drunk," he said.


----------



## paulbest (Apr 18, 2019)

LudwigVanBodewes said:


> So I had this discussion in another forum where I was stating that contemporary pop-music artists are way more interested in making money than in producing actually good music compared with classical composers.
> 
> This other guy comes in and basically states that it was all the same, Beethoven was just as interested in making a dime out of his pieces than today's pop-artists. I argue that Beethoven tried making money with some ''easy'' pieces in order to buy himself time for some great compositions. He disagrees and says this can't be proven.
> 
> ...


Well yes, pop music is trash. Its all fake. As it has tons of electronic addiitives, its not pure at all, well , yes its pure trash. 
Just as Rock music was mostly, 90%+ all made up. w/o the joice , most rock music was garbage,,take away the electronics, electricity, its all gommicks. 
Trust me, I wasa die hard late 60's, early 70's rock fan. I know how that stuff was concocted.
Pop music is all electronic hype stuff. 
Michael Jackson w/o the voice accentuators can not sing like that, Its all hyped 
. Now classical comes from deep within the creative imagination, it is the real deal.
However, as the original post mentions lets not flame anything. 
But to me, Beethoven is like pop classical.
Now don't get all in a tizzy, 
Wait
Here is why, Beethoven LP's flooded everyones homes back in the late 50's, Look at how mnay records of Beethoven syms in print, About 200+.
If that's not pop classical , then what is IT?
I've never was a Beethovenian, he and I never could get along. His music just turns me off. 
Although his 4th sym, did hold some interest, that's all water under the bridge. Bach too, is none of my business. I'd say bach as well is so promoted, propagandized, tahts its become pop classical as well. 
Mozart has his *Mozart for babies* cds, which I guess is OK, as Mozart's music is the best thing a pregnant mother could do for her baby. Mozart brings happiness anda good mind to the baby. Babies jump in the womb at the sounds of Mozart. So although Mozart too has been *pop*ed classical, there is redeeming values for the popular culture.

Great modern calssiacl is so far away superior to anything jazz, pop, rock etc etc ETC, is pointless to even consider a discussion. 
Modern classical is the finest achievement of man's creative impulse to create soul healing sounds in music. 
Will be another 100 years before a significant group of folks make this discovery. 
But come it will, in The Brave New World.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

The other genres of music are necessary unless one wants to listen to modern classical music 24/7… and I don’t particularly care to. I find little value in the opinions of those who have never realized that genius can be found in any field, any genre. The advantage of classical, whether the traditional or the modern, is that there’s a certain density about it that can be greatly appealing and satisfying. But no one is going to rob me of my Bill Evans jazz albums which are full of improvisational genius. Maybe somebody would like to point out the spontaneous improvisation in a Pettersson symphony. Well, there isn’t any, is there? And that’s why a harmonic and technical genius like Bill Evans was born, and he still sounds great with his exquisite harmonic voicings in the evening with a nice glass of wine to dispel some of the terror, the gloom and doom of some of the modern classical composers, no matter how great they might be or seem. But dismissive arguments of other genres, whether related to financial greed or not, when even the person himself enjoyed them at one time, really illuminates nothing other than suggesting that every other genre is trash. The opinions of those I value most are the ones whose understanding is lateral (wide) and not just vertical (trying to rate one thing objectively over another) ... Never trust anyone who can’t play or appreciate the blues.


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Victor Redseal said:


> Some labels are better than others but ultimately the distributor owns your azz.


I checked out my albums on Spotify _et al._ a few weeks back and there to my surprise was an album I had recorded back in '87 - large as life. It had been up-loaded for streaming by the label. Naturally as they hold the copyright to the sound recording I do not get so much as a bean for the down loads.

I wrote, performed and recorded the songs - I get nothing.

The music business is apalling in its dishonesty!


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

KRoad said:


> I checked out my albums on Spotify _et al._ a few weeks back and there to my surprise was an album I had recorded back in '87 - large as life. It had been up-loaded for streaming by the label. Naturally as they hold the copyright to the sound recording I do not get so much as a bean for the down loads.
> 
> I wrote, performed and recorded the songs - I get nothing.
> 
> The music business is apalling in its dishonesty!


Addendum: To be fair, perhaps I should say _transparency_ rather than dishonesty. I suppose I did after all sign on some dotted line. Though thirty odd years later it strikes me as being, at the least, of questionable ethics...


----------

