# Why do many people say that top-selling music is more attractive than classical music?



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

I'm not speaking about people who hate classical music. Many people who listen to classical music say the same thing.

See for example this post I read in this forum.



> No, Classical music is not suffering from bad promotion.
> 
> Pop music is popular because it is designed to appeal to people with catchy and infectious melodies and harmonies, propulsive rhythms meant to get your body moving, and all done to be easily memorable. Most Classical music is nothing like this and requires more work on the part of the listener to appreciate, and even when understood does not offer the same kind of instant gratification that Pop music offers.


The user uses the word pop music, but the best word I can offer for the average top-selling commercial music of today is "supermarket music".
"Supermarket music" doesn't contain only pop music, but also rap music, trap, reggaeton, dance and many other styles of music that the industry of music is pushing today.

Whatever is the style of music, what I think of supermarket music is that it's the equivalent of supermarket food: "plastic" food inside packs with good graphics.

So, first of all, I reject the idea that there is anything appealing in supermaket music and, for sure, such products can not be better in any sense of the word in respect to classical music. The aesthetic of the second is the equivalent of a beatiful child, while the aesthetic of the first, when it's not awful, is the equivalent of a plastic doll which looks like a beatiful child.


Second, I don't agree with the idea that classical music is boring and unappealing. I read a citation that said that popular music is for the heart while classical music is for the brain. It's like to say that supermarket food is for the heart, while the food of a gourmet restaurant is for the brain. If you say such things you are not doing good pubblicity to classical music, because if you say so people understand that classical music is boring while popular music appealing, and so they conclude that they are doing the right choice with popular music.

The idea is that you have to break your brain to understand the artistic value of classical music, but I don't agree with this.
In fact, I believe that if you have to try too hard to appreciate a piece of classical music, it probably means that it's not the right piece for you. You don't have to be ashamed about the fact that you don't like a symphony that is considered great. You have to find YOUR classical music and not trying to like what most people like.

I believe that if a piece is inside YOUR classical music, you can appreciate it immediately.

For example, the first time I heard the "Odense symphony" (which was formerly attributed to Mozart) I only had to listen to the first 20 seconds of the first movement to know that I would have liked the entire movement.






A couple of months ago I was watching the italian music festival called "Sanremo", which is the greatest music supermarket of Italy.
Is this music appealing? Really? I think that most of what I've heard had an awful aesthetic.
Bad melodies, first of all. According to me, much of the supermarket music is terrible from the melodic perspective.
When the melody is not so terrible, there's still the fact that the arrangements have a plastic sound.
Then there are the singers, who further contribute to ruin the piece. Many of them are obviously not well trained. This is because you don't need a prepared singer to sing melodies with 4 or 5 keys all in the same octave.
I'm not able to sing, but I can sing much of the pieces of supermarket music without any problem.
Even if it's easy to sing, many of the singer of supermarket music need autotune in the studio and playback traces in the concert: the first tool contribute in creating the plastic sound in the arrangements, while the second is a scam for people who pay the tickets for concerts.

Now, look at Vivaldi, who was italian like most singers of Sanremo.
How exactly would italian supermaket music of today be more appealing than Vivaldi's music?
Yesterday I was listening to this piece, called "La follia". Beatiful and relaxing melodies alternated with storms. Do you really need the university to understand the melodic inventiveness of Vivaldi in respect to supermarket music and the aesthetic difference between a classically arranged melodies and plastic arrangements of supermarket music? I don't think so.






So, why is supermarket music more popular than classical music? Not because supermarket music is better in any way than classical music, but because all products sold in supermarkets become popular, doesn't matter the quality. They are found on the shelves, ready for the use, and there is a very aggressive marketing.

My home made orange juice is better than the dirty water of supermarkets, but my home made orange juice is not a brand.

The popularity of smoke is a good example of how the marketing can influence the habits of the population.
The first time you smoke a cigarette, you cough and your head spins: your body rejects it, but you don't give up and you go on until you get used to it, because you want to be like the cool guy in the western movie.
This is how the tobacco industry launched the viral fashion of smoke.

The supermarket music is not different. You think it's good because the guy or the woman who sings the piece is cool, and you have to listen to them to be cool. For the music industry a solid technical preparation is not required (as we said above, many of the singers are not really able to sing): the important thing is that you are cool. If you are cool, you can be the next artist.

In the supermarket music the real product is the cool guy, not the music. In classical music the product is the music.

The music of the industry, furthermore, is thought to work in nightclubs. "Can you use this piece to dance in nightclubs?". Classical music would never work in that context, but it's a good quality of it.
An other point is that an empty society where entartainment means to drink in a nightclub until you vomit requires empty music.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> "Supermarket music" doesn't contain only pop music, but also rap music, trap, reggaeton, dance and many other styles of music that the industry of music is pushing today.
> 
> Whatever is the style of music, what I think of supermarket music is that it's the equivalent of supermarket food: "plastic" food inside packs with good graphics.


I don't mean to be difficult, but when you paint all of these other genres with such a broad brush, you lose me with the rest of your argument. 

There is absolutely great "pop" music, and it can happily coexist with the best of classical. 

And don't forget that classical has had a 400 year head start. A lot of the dreck has already been weeded out. Pop is young, and it will take time for the cream to truly rise to the top. 

I don't think a pissing match between pop and classical is beneficial to anyone. As a matter of fact, I think it only serves to drive people away from classical.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

prlj said:


> I don't mean to be difficult, but when you paint all of these other genres with such a broad brush, you lose me with the rest of your argument.
> 
> There is absolutely great "pop" music, and it can happily coexist with the best of classical.
> 
> ...


Said with more elegance and restraint than the post I drafted, then deleted.


----------



## BBSVK (10 mo ago)

Classical music has been already filtered through time. Only good stuff is still played. (Let's ignore the modern classic for now). The pop stuff probably contains valuable pieces too, but I have no energy to look into it.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

There's no reason to dump on supermarket music or food. Fortunately, my local market never plays Vivaldi.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

It wasn't that long ago that "supermarket music" was not at all what is described above. It was a carefully designed and curated soundscape most famously made by the Muzak corporation. It also became known a "elevator music" and throughout the '50s through the '70s was ubiquitous, at least in the USA. Every department store, grocery and shopping mall played it. Many restaurants used the product. There was a lot of intelligence, research and science behind what they did. Then things started to shift to playing pop/rock/country and other music - it was cheaper to pay for a BMI license than purchase the Muzak product. Somehow, in the Muzak era a lot of people came to believe that that was classical music - it was after all orchestral and non-vocal. 

I get why pop music is more liked and classical music is a fringe product. I wish things were different, I wish more people liked classical, but they don't and there's little we can do about it. For the vast majority of the public in every country if all orchestras and classical FM stations disappeared it wouldn't make one iota of a difference in their lives.

I cannot stand today's "supermarket music". One grocery store that I used to be a customer at started playing rap and jazz at a high volume. Now I go elsewhere rather than have that crap assault my ears. It would seem other people would complain if they played Vivaldi and Tchaikovsky, too.

One large movie theater chain in my area has an owner who loves classical and uses his position to promote it: the background music in the foyer, hall ways, restrooms and everywhere else - even the lines outside - play classical and classical only. And a very narrow playlist: Debussy, Ravel, Grieg, Dvorak and little else. And it's the lighter, non-dramatic stuff. So refreshing.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not speaking about people who hate classical music. *Many people who listen to classical music say the same thing.*
> 
> See for example this post I read in this forum.


Many people? Who? Even the one you quoted didn't say that. The thread title is more ridiculous than the incoherent screed it heads.

Supermarkets in my area don't play music.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

The term “supermarket music” which you use derogatorily could equally be applied to highly ornamental Baroque soirée entertainments like Mozart. 

Point two. Original artist background music did not become ubiquitous because it was cheaper than Muzak. Quite the opposite, it’s more expensive (I spent a career at AEI Music Network). However, the Boomer generation was not fond of big band versions of radio hits, so the originals became an alternative. 

Third point. I may be an old fogie (I _am_ an old fogie) but today’s music, with its static drum box rhythms and 4/4 meters and melodies consisting entirely of fifths and thirds, is not very sophisticated. Pop has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator and today’s kids are worse off for it. I pity what they’ll have to be nostalgic about.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

NoCoPilot said:


> I may be an old fogie (I _am_ an old fogie) but today’s music, with its static drum box rhythms and 4/4 meters and melodies consisting entirely of fifths and thirds, is not very sophisticated.


There are more straw men in this whole thread than an Iowa cornfield.


----------



## progmatist (Apr 3, 2021)

My local Fry's/Kroger supermarket currently plays classic rock, with some prog like ELP, Kansas and Yes thrown in. What's not to like?


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

I get the feeling that a large part of the discussion is based on a misunderstanding. The way I read the OP, (s)he uses the term supermarket music as a somewhat derogatory term for music that is popular today, not music that is actually played in a supermarket. If I read that wrong, I blame the OP.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Art Rock said:


> I get the feeling that a large part of the discussion is based on a misunderstanding. The way I read the OP, (s)he uses the term supermarket music as a somewhat derogatory term for music that is popular today, not music that is actually played in a supermarket. If I read that wrong, I blame the OP.


Yes, I think the question is essentially, "Why do most people today prefer popular music to classical music?" I think it's clear that the vast majority of people listen to popular over classical. There likely are several reasons for that - catchy melodies, singable lyrics, sometimes a danceable beat, shorter works, etc.. Those of us who love classical music may also like popular music or, at least, some genres of popular music. The styles are quite different, and we listen for different reasons. I'm not sure it makes sense to disparage popular music, but it's clear that the OP prefers classical.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> The user uses the word pop music, but the best word I can offer for the average top-seeling commercial music of today is "supermarket music".


Your label "supermarket music" is demeaning and exposes your own bias against Pop and other non-Classical genres. Although it is true that supermarkets provide us with the staples of life, and in that regard "supermarket music" can also be viewed as the primary kind of music for a majority of people across the world.

My post, the one you used to spawn this thread, was not meant to contrast Pop vs Classical, but to highlight just one of your misconceptions, namely that the reason more people do not listen to or like Classical music is due to a lack of exposure or promotion. Classical music is a niche taste, it does not appeal to everyone, nor is it as accessible as Pop music, and consequently does not have as large an audience. But within Classical music is some of the greatest music ever written. However, Classical music does not enjoy a monopoly on great music.

Your OP contains so many false premises I will not waste time addressing them, but will only say that there is plenty of quality music being made in non-Classical genres, as well as some exciting new Classical music. 

These threads where there is a competition created between one kind of music and another appear not infrequently on TC. But this will be my last contribution to this one since false premises drive them all, and they do nothing to encourage a love for music, especially Classical music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Just listen to whatever you want, without being insecure about what other people say. Classical music appreciation is a niche interest in the world today anyway. There's so much stuffiness, primitiveness passed off as objective "profundity" today by the nerdy little circles.


> Hector Berlioz
> On Palestrina
> "It is quite possible that the musician who wrote these four-part psalms, in which there is neither melody nor rhythm, and in which the harmony is confined to perfect chords with a few suspensions, may have had some taste and a certain amount of scientific knowledge; but genius - the idea is too absurd!
> There are, moreover, people who sincerely believe that Palestrina deliberately wrote in this way in order that his music might be perfectly adopted to his own pious ideal of the words of the text. They would soon see their mistake if they were to hear his madrigals, in which the most frivolous or gallant words are set to exactly the same music as those of the Bible. For example, he has set the words, _"Alla riva del Tebro, giovainetto vidd' io vago Pastore,"_ etc., to a solemn chorus, the harmony and general effect of which are identical with those of his so-called religious compositions. The truth is that he could not write any other kind of music; and, far from pursuing any celestial ideal, his works contain a quantity of formulas adopted from the contrapuntists who preceded him, and of whom he is usually supposed to have been the inspired antagonist. If proof is wanted, look at his _Missa ad fugam_.
> How, then, do such works as these, clever though they may be as regards to their conquest of contrapuntal difficulties, contribute to the expression of religious feeling? How far are such specimens of the labor of a patient chord-manufacturer indicative of single-minded absorption in the true object of his work? In no way that I can see. The expressive accent of a musical work is not enhanced in any way by its being embodied in a perpetual canon. Beauty and truth of expression gain nothing by the difficulties which the composer may have had to overcome in producing them, any more than his work would be increased in value from the fact that he had been suffering physical pain while he was writing it. If Palestrina had lost his hands, and been forced to write with his feet, that fact would not have enhanced the value of his works or increased their religious merit."


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

1. I don't think many people are saying that and 2. It doesn't matter either way.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> [...] Classical music is a niche taste, it does not appeal to everyone, nor is it as accessible as Pop music, and consequently does not have as large an audience. [...]


I agree with much of this post. One contrary thought occurs to me, which is that there is quite a bit of classical music that is, melodically or rhythmically at least, as accessible as popular music. But it might be 'culturally' inaccessible, in that unless you have some positive exposure to it over time, you are unlikely to encounter it again. I have in mind how many children (7-11 Yr olds) I played classical music to who obviously enjoyed it (eg Mars, William Tell, Lt Kije etc) but I suspect would not hear it again until I next played it in class. It showed me that in the same way that not all Pop is pap, not all classical is complex and inaccessible.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Where I’m from, people just tolerate ‘supermarket’ or store music as a necessary evil. I’ve never heard it compared to classical music and most of the time it doesn’t remind of good popular music.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fun facts
Muzak was introduced to calm people against panicking in the early elevators. 

The term Muzak comes from Kodak, a brand name everyone knew.

Muzak was thought to calm shoppers and employees in stores, cutting down on bickering and aggressiveness. And somewhat increase worker productivity and encourage more purchases. 

In the early days it was called an attempt at distilling the happiness that modern technology had promised.

A large majority of shoppers are adverse to “being sold to”, but a pleasant background of music is more effective and few people notice or respond negatively. 

One strategy was to gradually increase in volume, tempo, and ‘brilliance’ for 10 or 15 minutes, then cut down the effects for 10 minutes, and then repeat. Studies say there’s a 10 to 20 increase in productivity and purchasing results.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Yep, "stimulus progression" was researched to the nth degree, and they had the studies to prove that it worked.








The Science of Muzak


Background music really can influence our buying decisions in a shopping environment.



skeptoid.com






http://www.xenopraxis.net/readings/bluemonday_muzak.pdf







Another fun fact: Lyndon Johnson was a former Muzak distributor, and had it piped into the White House.


----------



## VoiceFromTheEther (Aug 6, 2021)

I wonder what kind of modern update it would need to still have its effect. It sounds VERY dated. Then again, maybe the studies found the effect this music had on classical afficionados to be statistically insignificant in the first place.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Art Rock said:


> I get the feeling that a large part of the discussion is based on a misunderstanding. The way I read the OP, (s)he uses the term supermarket music as a somewhat derogatory term for music that is popular today, not music that is actually played in a supermarket. If I read that wrong, I blame the OP.


It's right, of course. It's clear if you read the text. Some users probably read only the title.

Supermarket music is my personal pejorative word to indicate commercial music, especially the top-selling music of today.

And I didn't wrote that there is not music of quality outside of classical music, but I wrote that the top-selling music of today (which I call supermarket music) has a very low quality in average.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

prlj said:


> I don't mean to be difficult, but when you paint all of these other genres with such a broad brush, you lose me with the rest of your argument.
> 
> There is absolutely great "pop" music, and it can happily coexist with the best of classical.
> 
> ...


It's not a thread against other styles of music. I know that that there is good pop music, but it's usually not the top-selling music (which I call supermarket music) today.

It's a matter of gradations. There is nothing more popular than the top-selling music, so if we want to speak about popular music we have to speak about the most popular music. Okay, there is music of quality, but it's usually less popular than the real popular music.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> It's not a thread against other styles of music. I know that that there is good pop music, but it's usually not the top-selling music (which I call supermarket music) today.
> 
> It's a matter of gradations. There is nothing more popular than the top-selling music, so if we want to speak about popular music we have to speak about the most popular music. Okay, there is music of quality, but it's usually less popular than the real popular music.


Can you give examples? I don't have anyone to ask, but I'm interested to know.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

VoiceFromTheEther said:


> I wonder what kind of modern update it would need to still have its effect. It sounds VERY dated. Then again, maybe the studies found the effect this music had on classical afficionados to be statistically insignificant in the first place.


I would think that today's music is effective as background music for setting a lively, positive mood in stores, if it's not loud enough to be annoying to older customers.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

You're impoverishing yourself if the only classical music you listen to is the stuff that is instantly accessible to you. Lots of CM takes repeated listening to become fully accessible. Some people try occasionally listening to pieces rated by others as "great" for DECADES before finally falling in love with them.

That's just one of the many issues with your post.


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

What I don't get.. _who are those many people._....does people going to supermarkets......
I though we all had delivery services since Covid, in about 6o minutes the frontdoor bell ringing.................and the guy always says. : the house with music.............and he smiles.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

progmatist said:


> My local Fry's/Kroger supermarket currently plays classic rock, with some prog like ELP, Kansas and Yes thrown in. What's not to like?


Would you hate the Christmas music, if you had to work there and hear the same songs played ad nasaeum during the holiday seasom?


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Rogerx said:


> What I don't get.. _who are those many people._....does people going to supermarkets......
> I though we all had delivery services since Covid, in about 6o minutes the frontdoor bell ringing.................and the guy always says. : the house with music.............and he smiles.


In my area (Southern USA), almost everyone including me ignores the pandemic these days. Most people in my ruralish area drive to supermarkets to get food.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> There is nothing more popular than the top-selling music,


Statement of the obvious?



HansZimmer said:


> so if we want to speak about popular music we have to speak about the most popular music.


No, that's _your _choice. "_We" _don't have to. We can speak about popular music in other ways if we wish, including distinguishing between "popular" meaning the most listened to and "popular" referring to a collection of styles that aren't jazz or classical or...(etc)



HansZimmer said:


> Okay, there is music of quality, but it's usually less popular than the real popular music.


Round in circles here. As others have said, some of the most popular music is music of quality - though not to everyone's taste, which is why it is regularly denigrated by some. Equally, some "less popular" (which might refer to comparative sales and/or widespread familiarity) is still "popular".

Current example for me. I recently went to a sold out concert by Elbow, a band from Bury, Greater Manchester. They formed in 1997, but didn't release an album til 2001. Since then, in the UK, they've had 8 singles in the Top 40, they've had three number one albums, they've won the Mercury Prize, they wrote the song of the 2012 Olympics. In my opinion, they write quality music, but despite the level of "popularity" I've just outlined, they're not a household name like Madonna or Michael Jackson.

There's a huge world out there of popular music with thousands of artists worldwide, many of whom are worth listening to. The frequent dismissal of popular music by the ignorant who can only cite what they most hate with no knowledge of what they don't know is both irritating and depressing.



ORigel said:


> You're impoverishing yourself if the only classical music you listen to is the stuff that is instantly accessible to you


If anyone is "impoverished" by _not _listening to music, it's those who insist that there is only one way to make it.


----------



## SoloYH (8 mo ago)

who said that

also pop music is a very broad genre, it just refers to what's popular. Reggae and edm, etc can ALSO be categorized as pop. So can classical.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Beethoven longed for the days he could write a good Muzak tune.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> Okay, there is music of quality, but it's usually less popular than the real popular music.


You're just making up false arguments now. I'm sorry, but continuing to build straw houses using straw men is not going to help your point...which isn't even all that clear to begin with.

Do you want people to agree that classical music is better than (your term) "supermarket" music? Clearly there's no agreement there, as you see from the comments.

There was probably an expectation that posting "pop sucks, classical is best" on a classical forum would result in a lot of agreement. I, for one, applaud the responders here who are pushing back on that. Because it isn't true. Both can coexist peacefully. Each has their place, and no one, not a single person, is wrong for liking one over the other.

I would go so far as to say that I think you aren't even familiar with today's pop music. I have one ask of you...take 12 minutes to watch this video . It's a classical composer looking at the really cool things that today's pop producers are doing. Producers of Billie Eilish, Drake, Dua Lipa, etc. The top of the pops. 

If you're choosing to ignore what's going on in today's pop music, you're really missing out on some truly spectacular musical production.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Not elevator, but “on hold” music. A couple of decades ago, I got to choose the music for my law firm. I chose Haydn String Quartets. I figured they would be pleasant for some, and wouldn’t offend anyone (and never got a complaint). 

In my experience, a small percentage of “on hold” music seems to be classical. “Four Seasons” seems the most popular.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I’d change the title from supermarkt music to popular music because people don’t really read well it seems


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

EvaBaron said:


> I’d change the title from supermarkt music to popular music because people don’t really read well it seems


Changing the title won't change the quality of the argument in the OP.


----------



## SoloYH (8 mo ago)

why the holy Bach did he not just say pop music. It's definitely interesting choice of words.


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

prlj said:


> You're just making up false arguments now. I'm sorry, but continuing to build straw houses using straw men is not going to help your point...which isn't even all that clear to begin with.
> 
> Do you want people to agree that classical music is better than (your term) "supermarket" music? Clearly there's no agreement there, as you see from the comments.
> 
> ...


Pop sucks, classical is best. People with stronger perceptive structure naturally gravitate to complex musical forms, where is classical music. Equalizing pop and classical is another sign of catastrophic decadence and decline in human spirit and perception. 

How you can compare gift of cm composer and pop composer? How you can compare GM in chess and amateur? It is impossible. Classical is incomparable more imaginative, emotional, adventurous ... Harmonically, melodically way interesting and advanced. Popular music is so boring and predictable, music for mediocrities with poor perception and poor listening skills.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Revised answer: Who cares why many people find pop attractive? Why should anyone on a classical music forum care? Wouldn't this thread be more appropriate on the non-Classical forum?


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I do agree (with the person quoted in the OP) that when you are unfamiliar with classical music or some forms of it, you may have to put in some "work" to really get much out of it and this is not true of commercial music. Perhaps the most extreme example of this is contemporary music where even those with some knowledge and history of classical music are often unwilling to do the "work" that may be needed to get inside it (a difficulty made worse by the fact that there are so many different styles of contemporary music).


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

San Antone, another nihilist, who can equal any great composer with pop clowns.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Calipso said:


> Pop sucks, classical is best. People with stronger perceptive structure naturally gravitate to complex musical forms, where is classical music. Equalizing pop and classical is another sign of catastrophic decadence and decline in human spirit and perception.
> 
> How you can compare gift of cm composer and pop composer? How you can compare GM in chess and amateur? It is impossible. Classical is incomparable more imaginative, emotional, adventurous ... Harmonically, melodically way interesting and advanced. Popular music is so boring and predictable, music for mediocrities with poor perception and poor listening skills.


Bad music sucks. (Not that I listen to it much.)

Great pop is great and so is great classical. I listen to lots of both.

I wonder if this was really a worthwhile exchange?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

I want to ask to the users who say I'm not right to explain how exactly would the most popular music be in any way comparable to classical music or less popular works of non-classical music.

I'll use this list of the most viewed youtube videos: List of most-viewed YouTube videos

Now, some of them are songs for children and I think we can forgive children for not listening to elevated music, although there are many people who write that they used to listen to classical music in prepubertal age.
However, I won't count songs for children.

TOP 5 (excluded songs for children)

Despacito (7.924.134.685 views)







Shape of You (5.771.422.412 views)







See You Again (5.583.892.375 views)







Uptown Funk (4.640.771.344 views)







Gangnam Style (4.494.074.233 views)


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

So more complicated = better???

that's news to me. 

More complicated is just more complicated. This reminds me of something bass players always say, " If you can't play low and slow, you can't play"

There's good and bad in all genres, but thinking that people who like music that you dont like are somehow inferior is just wrong headed. That's not what the art of music is all about.


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> Bad music sucks. (Not that I listen to it much.)
> 
> Great pop is great and so is great classical. I listen to lots of both.
> 
> I wonder if this was really a worthwhile exchange?


It's not only about genre, it's about approach to music.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

say what you want, but Ed Sheeran is a pretty good song writer. Before he got famous, I can imagine he was probably the best coffee shop act since Richie Havens, too


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

Nate Miller said:


> So more complicated = better???
> 
> that's news to me.
> 
> ...


Things are different, but that doesn't mean they are equally.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

And now...

Andrea Boccelli (classically trained singer): Musica è (6.783.647 views).

This piece is an example of non-classical music with a classically trained singer and a melody with more elaboration than average.







Lose Yourself of Eminem (1.228.406.226 views)

This piece is useful to make a comparison with the rap song above.

In this video you can see an analysis of the smart engineering of the lyrics.






The beat of Lose Yourself is more elaborated than average (most rap beats are more repetitive). Eminem's flow is above average.







Finally, Beethoven Symphony 9 (113.257.848 views)







So, as you can see I have no bias towards non-classical music. I can even respect rap music, if it's smart. The point, however, is that what I call "supermarket music" has a low quality. Supermarket rap is nothing like Lose Yourself, supermarket pop is nothing like less popular pop and for sure supermarket music can not in any way be compared to classical music.

What I don't like is not that music of low quality exists, but what I'm saying is that it becomes more popular than music with a higher quality.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

Calipso said:


> Things are different, but that doesn't mean they are equally.


I'm sorry, I dont know what that is supposed to mean

"more complicated" does not mean "more better" when it comes to the art of music


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

1. Fun fact: in my area supermarkets they mostly play highly curated Spotify playlists with pop&rock from 60-ies and 7-ies. Or jingles promoting the supermarket in question.
2. I think the OP is based on a faulty premise. It assumes that people *prefer* modern-day pop music. I do not believe the majourity of modern people have independent preferences. They are gently led along the path where they are feed musical, political and societal choices that other people have for them. 99% of modern literature is awful compared with Trollope, Galdos and Balzac. The current political system in the West can be called elective democracy only as a sad joke, etc. Be happy that CM is still allowed and enjoy while you can.
3. No, pop music will not improve, and the cream will not come to the top. The classical American popular music of 40-ies and 50-ies, itself a simplified version of CM, was charming. It was better than the "classical" rock that followed - from The Beatles to Led Zeppelin to ELP. That music, with its unusual artistic freedom, was better than the "The New Wave" that followed. "The New Wave" was better than the electronic club music that came to dominate the scene, etc. Pop music is degrading, and the notion that there is no progress in art is a trope. Only drek will float to the top in the end.


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

Nate Miller said:


> I'm sorry, I dont know what that is supposed to mean
> 
> "more complicated" does not mean "more better" when it comes to the art of music


I didn't say that. Complexity doesn't mean only " more complicated". It is whole structure, not only technical aspect.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> The point, however, is that what I call "supermarket music" has a low quality. Supermarket rap is nothing like Lose Yourself, supermarket pop is nothing like less popular pop and for sure supermarket music can not in any way be compared to classical music.
> 
> What I don't like is not that music of low quality exists, but what I'm saying is that it becomes more popular than music with a higher quality.


In sum, all you're saying is that music you think is bad...

...is bad.

So what?


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

advokat said:


> 1. Fun fact: in my area supermarkets they mostly play highly curated Spotify playlists with pop&rock from 60-ies and 7-ies. Or jingles promoting the supermarket in question.
> 2. I think the OP is based on a faulty premise. It assumes that people *prefer* modern-day pop music. I do not believe the majourity of modern people have independent preferences. They are gently led along the path where they are feed musical, political and societal choices that other people have for them. 99% of modern literature is awful compared with Trollope, Galdos and Balzac. The current political system in the West can be called elective democracy only as a sad joke, etc. Be happy that CM is still allowed and enjoy while you can.
> 3. No, pop music will not improve, and the cream will not come to the top. The classical American popular music of 40-ies and 50-ies, itself a simplified version of CM, was charming. It was better than the "classical" rock that followed - from The Beatles to Led Zeppelin to ELP. That music, with its unusual artistic freedom, was better than the "The New Wave" that followed. "The New Wave" was better than the electronic club music that came to dominate the scene, etc. Pop music is degrading, and the notion that there is no progress in art is a trope. Only drek will float to the top in the end.


Idiocracy, my friend. Idiocracy.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Calipso said:


> *It's *not only about genre, it's about approach to music.


To what does your 'it's' refer?


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

I would like to see which pop music is equally with classically. Also, I notice often some kind of hypocrisy vibe here. Things are different but equally, everything is cool, but Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are best.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

*Why do many people say that popular music is more attractive than classical music?*

Because non-classical tends to be easier, more direct, and less demanding to listen than classical. People are lazy.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Xisten267 said:


> *Why do many people say that popular music is more attractive than classical music?*
> 
> Because non-classical tends to be easier, more direct, and less demanding to listen than classical. People are lazy.


Many find pop more relevent to their lives.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> *Why do many people say that popular music is more attractive than classical music?*
> 
> Because non-classical tends to be easier, more direct, and less demanding to listen than classical. People are lazy.


Just because more people respond to Pop than Classical does not necessarily mean they are "lazy." It just means Pop music offers them music more to their taste than Haydn or Mozart or Wagner, etc. 

This is not hard to understand, at least not to me, and it is only surprising how often a thread of this sort appears on TC and gets so much attention.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> Many find pop more relevent to their lives.


Because they can't get past an hour long abstract symphony that requires their full attention and whose language is alien to them (because it's from many years before they were even born). Much better is a 3 minute song with a direct tune and lyrics that tell them exactly what it means.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Calipso said:


> I would like to see which pop music is equally with classically. Also, I notice often some kind of hypocrisy vibe here. Things are different but equally, everything is cool, but Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are best.


Pop and classical serve different purposes. They are no more "equal" than a car and a cucumber are equal.



Xisten267 said:


> *Why do many people say that popular music is more attractive than classical music?*
> 
> Because non-classical tends to be easier, more direct, and less demanding to listen than classical. People are lazy.


Please stop insulting those who enjoy listening to pop. We are not lazy.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Xisten267 said:


> Because they can't get past an hour long abstract symphony that requires their full attention and whose language is alien to them (because it's from many years ago). Much better is a 3 minute song with a direct tune and lyrics that tell them exactly what it means.


'aint' nuthin' wrong with 3 chords and the truth. (ok,ok, I've been binging on the series 'Nashville' which I might add has considerably revised my opinion of country music towards a much more favourable light)


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Forster said:


> Please stop insulting those who enjoy listening to pop. We are not lazy.


Lazy as listeners - without the patience to look for details or to follow a big structure. Or to look for different recordings of a same work. Yes, people who think that pop is more attractive than classical tend to be lazy as listeners in my opinion.

P.S.: By the way, I didn't say that just liking pop makes someone lazy as a listener. I meant "people who say that popular music is more attractive than classical music". I enjoy some pop.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

..and we all wonder why classical music is perceived as pearl-clutching and snobbish elitism.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

mikeh375 said:


> ..and we all wonder why classical music is perceived as pearl clutching elitism


Others' prejudice, not mine.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> Because they can't get past an hour long abstract symphony that requires their full attention and whose language is alien to them (because it's from many years before they were even born). Much better is a 3 minute song with a direct tune and lyrics that tell them exactly what it means.


I love Classical music - but I am not a fan of "hour long abstract symphonies" either. I prefer solo piano music, or chamber music, or 20 minute Haydn symphonies. I also enjoy Wagner and Verdi operas, but late Romantic orchestral music is not the only definition of Classical music for even all Classical music lovers, much less the rest of the world.

You have simplistic ideas but express them as if they are universal facts. It is just your opinion.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> I love Classical music - but I am not a fan of "hour long abstract symphonies" either.


It was an example, pal. And you like whatever you want.



SanAntone said:


> You have simplistic ideas but express them as if they are universal facts. It is just your opinion.


Go insult someone else.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> Lazy as listeners - without the patience to look for details or to follow a big structure. Or to look for different recordings of a same work. Yes, people who think that pop is more attractive than classical tend to be lazy as listeners in my opinion.


Well obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but has anyone here, in this thread or any other thread, claimed that "pop is more attractive than classical"?

I don't think we need to consider the misguided opinions of music listeners in the wider world, do we?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> It was an example, pal. And you like whatever you want.
> 
> 
> 
> Go insult someone else.


Pot. Kettle.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Forster said:


> Well obviously you're entitled to your opinion, but has anyone here, in this thread or any other thread, claimed that "pop is more attractive than classical"?
> 
> I don't think we need to consider the misguided opinions of music listeners in the wider world, do we?


Thread title: "Why do many people say that popular music is more attractive than classical music".

I'm taking the OP's premise for granted.



Forster said:


> Pot. Kettle.


Who did I insult? My point is that assimilating classical music requires effort, and that the people referred by the OP don't care so much about CM as they do about non-CM probably because they don't want to make this effort.

"Lazy" means "unwilling to work or use energy" according to Google. I think that it's the proper word in this context.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Maybe they just can't connect with the outdated sentiments from the distant past (hundreds of years from the past). But every now and then there's always a nerdy minority who can (just like other niche interests, like sports, for instance). If "big structure" is the answer to everything, how should we treat things like Opus Clavicembalisticum?
Also, btw, I still haven't heard any convincing argument differentiating "sentimentality" and "profundity" objectively.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

mikeh375 said:


> ..and we all wonder why classical music is perceived as pearl-clutching and snobbish elitism.


As a fanbase, and an industry, we continue to shoot ourselves in the feet, and then wonder why our feet hurt.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> Thread title: "Why do many people say that popular music more attractive than classical music".
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes...and? I already dispensed with the valueless thread title. You think there is some merit in worrying about "people" who allegedly claim that pop is more attractive than classical?


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

Forster said:


> I don't think we need to consider the misguided opinions of music listeners in the wider world, do we?


yes, we do. they are human beings just like you and I. 

we have to face the facts. It is called "pop" music because it is more popular. Clearly, Taylor Swift is more widely known and listened to than even Mozart in today's society

What I really object to is the idea that people who would rather listen to Taylor Swift than Brahms are lesser humans. that is just not true.

People have different tastes. When you are part of a niche audience, you have to accept that most of the world disagrees.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Nate Miller said:


> yes, we do. they are human beings just like you and I.


Er...yes..."they" are...but I'm not required to waste my time considering the alleged opinions of unspecified "people". If the OP would like to give us some more information, such as the name of one of these human beings whose opinion we need to worry about; or a survey of human beings which made the case for pop's superiority over classical, then there might be something to discuss.



Nate Miller said:


> we have to face the facts. It is called "pop" music because it is more popular.


We have to face the facts. Pop is called pop because it is popular. Your point is?



Nate Miller said:


> Clearly, Taylor Swift is more widely known and listened to than even Mozart in today's society


And this is a problem? Who for? Why?



Nate Miller said:


> What I really object to is the idea that people who would rather listen to Taylor Swift than Brahms are lesser humans. that is just not true.


So do I. We agree on something, but I'm sure you already knew that was my opinion?


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> It's right, of course. It's clear if you read the text. Some users probably read only the title.
> 
> Supermarket music is my personal pejorative word to indicate commercial music, especially the top-selling music of today.
> 
> And I didn't wrote that there is not music of quality outside of classical music, but I wrote that the top-selling music of today (which I call supermarket music) has a very low quality in average.


I really did not suspect that top-selling music of today had a very low quality in average. Plse start a few threads about this so that we are fully informed. I am sure this will increase the level of TC content.


----------



## Calipso (May 10, 2020)

Forster said:


> Pop and classical serve different purposes. They are no more "equal" than a car and a cucumber are equal.
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop insulting those who enjoy listening to pop. We are not lazy.





Forster said:


> Pop and classical serve different purposes. They are no more "equal" than a car and a cucumber are equal.
> 
> 
> 
> Please stop insulting those who enjoy listening to pop. We are not lazy.


Wrong analogy.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Calipso said:


> Wrong analogy.


Is it? Why?
Would you prefer...say...a record player and a vacuum cleaner?

Of course, as you don't agree with what I'm saying, you won't be able to come up with your own analogy, so I'm quite happy with mine as it stands. I can explain it further if you're not clear about what I'm saying.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Maybe they just can't connect with the outdated sentiments from the distant past (hundreds of years ago).


As I said in post #58. To connect, they will need to make an effort. This is the key here in my opinion. Many people don't want to make such effort.



hammeredklavier said:


> If "big structure" is the answer to everything,


That's not for me, I didn't say that.



prlj said:


> As a fanbase, and an industry, we continue to shoot ourselves in the feet, and then wonder why our feet hurt.


The true shoot in the feet is to perceive all music as having the same quality, or to believe that music quality doesn't exist or is totally relative. Then, why would one spend time and energy to learn the difficult classical music?



Forster said:


> Yes...and? I already dispensed with the valueless thread title. You think there is some merit in worrying about "people" who allegedly claim that pop is more attractive than classical?


If I decide to participate of said thread, then yes. I have to be consistent with the theme of what's being discussed.



Nate Miller said:


> What I really object to is the idea that people who would rather listen to Taylor Swift than Brahms are lesser humans. that is just not true.


They may have bad taste for music in my view (relativists will disagree with this notion, what is fine), and I may of course be wrong, but I don't think that they are "lesser humans". Different people have distinct aptitudes.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Calipso said:


> Pop sucks, classical is best. People with stronger perceptive structure naturally gravitate to complex musical forms, where is classical music. Equalizing pop and classical is another sign of catastrophic decadence and decline in human spirit and perception.
> 
> How you can compare gift of cm composer and pop composer? How you can compare GM in chess and amateur? It is impossible. Classical is incomparable more imaginative, emotional, adventurous ... Harmonically, melodically way interesting and advanced. Popular music is so boring and predictable, music for mediocrities with poor perception and poor listening skills.


I agree with you.

As I see it, the creeping relativism began in the 1960s when young people began to have money for buying albums and they very quickly became a big target audience. They had more discretionary funds and the time - than their parents AND they had the adolescent interest (peer group) in the new electric sounds and raucous attitudes and leading-edge fashions ….for the groups like the Beatles.
Not surprisingly the Beatles were compared with Beethoven and all that long hair stuff. My friends knew very little about Beethoven etc. but they were very enthusiastic about the rebellious pop groups of the time. They naturally concluded that they were right. We must remember that young people must do this - it's their job at that age to criticize/reject and explore away from their parent’s generation. This rebellion and separation is crucial.
As their buying power grew so did the justifications for relativism.

Later on early rock gave way to sophisticated rock in the 70s and then Disco and Punk Rock and Grunge. They were all the same sort of explorations and rebellions and rejections of what came before. Of course the details are a little bit different each time. These turnovers have been going on since at least the 1920s (but I don't think young people had the purchasing clout before the 60s). I enjoy looking at this phenomenon. I was part of it.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> If I decide to participate of said thread, then yes. I have to be consistent with the theme of what's being discussed.


You can reject the premise of the thread. That's still legitimate participation.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> [...] As I see it, the creeping relativism began in the 1960s


I think you'll find relativism has a much longer history than just back 60 years.

Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 



> despite a long history of debate going back to Plato and an increasingly large body of writing, it is still difficult to come to an agreed definition of what, at its core, relativism is, and what philosophical import it has.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Xisten267 said:


> As I said in post #58. To connect, they will need to make an effort. This is the key here in my opinion. Many people don't want to make such effort.


By a similar logic, Mozart, for instance can be seen as a "crowd-pleaser" compared to the modern avant-gardists, for instance. Maybe 10, or 100, or even 1000 listenings are required for a person to come to appreciate an avant-garde work as much as a Mozart work. How would you know how many listenings you need? We all put efforts into things we're interested in. Just like sports, for instance. But they're really just hobbies and not essential to everyone's life. Not everyone has fetish for ancient relics from the past.
They're all just abstract sounds (heck even AI imitates them these days. Wait till it gets better.), if you connect with them sentimentally, you listen, if you don't connect, you don't listen. You can complain all you want "kids today don't want to learn baseball, cause it takes effort", -in the end, it's meaningless.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Calipso said:


> Popular music is so boring and predictable, music for mediocrities with poor perception and poor listening skills.


Calling people who listen to popular music mediocrities goes way too far. Has anyone on this whole thread actually thought about the idea that not everyone is as passionate about music as you are? Someone who likes music but doesn’t love it won’t make an effort to listen to an ‘hour long, obscure symphony’ and that’s totally fine. There are hundreds of fields where you are the one that is not very passionate about a certain subject. For example wine, would you like being called mediocre by the niche minority that collects the most high quality wine that is 200 years old? Most people get their wine at a supermarket, so what? That is good enough for them. Popular music is good enough for most people, that’s why it’s popular. And you are the lucky individual that took the time to listen to other kinds of music, be happy with that and don’t bring other people down


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> I think you'll find relativism has a much longer history than just back 60 years.
> 
> Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)


Yes, it probably goes back to caveman days, because each generation must explore for relevance anew, for survival reasons. 
In my post I was agreeing about music (and literature), in recent times. 

Compared to the last 60 years, I don't think the waves of relativism in the past had such a dumbing down effect, do you?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Nate Miller said:


> So more complicated = better???
> 
> that's news to me.
> 
> More complicated is just more complicated. This reminds me of something bass players always say, " If you can't play low and slow, you can't play"


I think that some kind of complexities increase the quality of the product, others don't and others decrease the quality.

There is a vertical complexity, and a horizontal complexity.
We can make an example with a film: Titanic.
The vertical complexity is the eleboration of a single photogram. Would the Titanic be a good film if they wouldn't have make sure that any single photogram is prefect? Would the scenes of the sinking of the ship credible without not so much work to make any single photogram perfect?

Then there is the horizontal complexity. Would Titanic be an interesting film if everything it would offer was romanticism and kisses. Kisses, kisses and still kisses? No, of course not. It's interesting because there is an evolution of the story (things change), and the sinking of the ship is the climax of the story.


Now, can we apply the same criteria for evaluating a piece of music?
Vertical complexity: make sure that the melody sounds "full" in any point. Can we say that homophonies and poliphonies, for example, have a more "full" sound than a monophony? Can we say that the usage of more instruments of different kinds can enhance the auditive experience of the single note?

Horizontal complexity: the development of the melody. What's more interesting: a melody that continues to loop a single theme, or a melody that develops and offers a "melodic travel"? There's more variety in a piece where a determined theme is always played with the same instruments, or in a piece with more variations in instrumentation?

Dont' get me wrong: I'm the first who says that a simple melody can have a better aesthetic than a more elaborated melody, but what if two melodies have both a good aesthetic but one of the two is less predictable? Isn't the more complex one better? A melody that it's not simply beatiful, but it also creates "suspence" (I want to see how it develops!!!) is not a greater experience, just like a film with a story that create suprises ("I want to know how it ends!!!").

I have a good example to offer.

In this video you can hear the original theme of a videogame.







For the Classic FM Hall of Fame, the composer created this piece of music based on that theme.







In the second version, the orchestration increases the vertical complexity, so that each single note sounds better than in the MIDI version.

Furthermore, in the second version the melody is further elaborated: instead of looping the theme again and again like in the game, the composer created a new melody where the theme is only the main theme and not the entire melody.

Can we say that the second version has objectively a higher quality than the first?

Can we say that in most popular songs in the first minute you hear almost everything and that the following 3-4 minutes are only repetitions? It's the song format.

So, to conclude, when a pop song has a good aesthetic (and, as I said, I think that the aesthetic of supermarket music is in average terrible) it usually doesn't offer the same experience as a classical music piece with a good aesthetic.
So, unless we want to state that classical music has not a good aesthetic, we can say that its quality is objectively higher in average.

What I think is that not only classical music has more interesting melodies, but it also has a better aesthetic than supermarket music.

So, it's not true, according to me, that popular music is more attractive in any way. It's just that classical music is not pubblicized like popular music because it's not a great business.

To all the users who say that classical could never be popoular: do you know that it used to be the most popular style of music in 1900? This is a demonstration that the preferences of people depend on society and education.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> By a similar logic, Mozart, for instance can be seen as a "crowd-pleaser" compared to the modern avant-gardists, for instance. Maybe 100, or 1000, or even 10000 listenings are required for a person to come to appreciate an avant-garde work as much as a Mozart work. How would you know how many listenings you need?


I believe that it's possible for one to have a notion of when a certain piece has been assimilated by him or not. But I don't really think that it's possible to measure objectively how many listenings will be needed. And in my opinion Mozart is popular among non-casual listeners because his music truly has content, substance.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, it probably goes back to caveman days, because each generation must explore for relevance anew, for survival reasons.
> In my post I was agreeing about music (and literature), in recent times.
> 
> Compared to the last 60 years, I don't think the waves of relativism in the past had such a dumbing down effect, do you?


I think Plato is quite far back enough. I doubt either of us could say what effect "relativism" had in the past. The democratisation of thinking - and the rise of mass communication - means that we can know anyone and everyone's opinion. Back in the day, we just tugged our forelocks and received the Opinions of Important People. I think our freedom today to think and say what we want (within reason) is a good thing.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

advokat said:


> 1. Fun fact: in my area supermarkets they mostly play highly curated Spotify playlists with pop&rock from 60-ies and 7-ies. Or jingles promoting the supermarket in question.
> 2. I think the OP is based on a faulty premise. It assumes that people *prefer* modern-day pop music. I do not believe the majourity of modern people have independent preferences. They are gently led along the path where they are feed musical, political and societal choices that other people have for them. 99% of modern literature is awful compared with Trollope, Galdos and Balzac. The current political system in the West can be called elective democracy only as a sad joke, etc. Be happy that CM is still allowed and enjoy while you can.
> 3. No, pop music will not improve, and the cream will not come to the top. The classical American popular music of 40-ies and 50-ies, itself a simplified version of CM, was charming. It was better than the "classical" rock that followed - from The Beatles to Led Zeppelin to ELP. That music, with its unusual artistic freedom, was better than the "The New Wave" that followed. "The New Wave" was better than the electronic club music that came to dominate the scene, etc. Pop music is degrading, and the notion that there is no progress in art is a trope. Only drek will float to the top in the end.


In 200 years, people will be listening to the best pop music of the last few decades. The quality material will be the only stuff worth preserving.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Forster said:


> I think Plato is quite far back enough. I doubt either of us could say what effect "relativism" had in the past. The democratisation of thinking - and the rise of mass communication - means that we can know anyone and everyone's opinion. Back in the day, we just tugged our forelocks and received the Opinions of Important People. *I think our freedom today to think and say what we want (within reason) is a good thing.*


If this freedom is to be used against science and the arts, then I don't think that it's so good. The feats of humanity should be preserved in my opinion.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> If this freedom is to be used against science and the arts, then I don't think that it's so good. The feats of humanity should be preserved in my opinion.


That's the problem with democracy. We're all entitled to an opinion, to say it, and to act on it - at least at the ballot box, if nothing else. As for science and the arts, sure, let's tell the relativists to hold their tongues while those with legitimate opinions tell us all what's good for us.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> If this freedom is to be used against science and the arts, then I don't think that it's so good. The feats of humanity should be preserved in my opinion.


CM will be preserved barring a catastrophe that ends human civilization. People, including wealthy people, care or pretend to care about it.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

ORigel said:


> CM will be preserved barring a catastrophe that ends human civilization. People, including wealthy people, care or pretend to care about it.


I'm not so sure.

"In 2009, classical music physical album sales had a 3% market share. So in the span of 10 years classical music, for the most part, lost 2% market share. This is not bad compared to rock, which in 2009, along with metal and alternative, had around 50% of the market share compared to 19.8% in 2019." - source here.

If this quote is right, then not only the gems of classical music, but also those of rock and metal, are receiving less and less attention by the new generation. It seems that only what is catchy and simple holds value to many people nowadays. I think that they are getting too impatient to listen to any music that is somewhat demanding. The reason to this, in my view, is that people don't want to spend time and effort in something they don't perceive as being any better than what they already listen to, and total relativism in the arts tells them that they're not losing anything anyway.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> I think Plato is quite far back enough. I doubt either of us could say what effect "relativism" had in the past. The democratisation of thinking - and the rise of mass communication - means that we can know anyone and everyone's opinion. Back in the day, we just tugged our forelocks and received the Opinions of Important People. I think our freedom today to think and say what we want (within reason) is a good thing.


My concern is about children and the quality of their lives at 40 or 50 and beyond. Grownups have already made their choices. Appreciation, continuing education, self-actualization. What they dismiss is up to them. 

Future generations are the future of humanity, obviously.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

something we may be discounting here is the change in how music is consumed. I have seen that change over the course of just my lifetime, but with any change to the medium of performance comes a change in the public conception of music.

for example, today you can order any recording you want online...when I was a teenager, you had to actually go to the record shop and you could only buy what they had on-hand

but there was a time when the you only got to hear music if someone played an instrument for you. Back then, the audience was rivetted. There was no talking while someone played. That was how special hearing music was. 

today, most young people I know (even other musicians) use their phone as their primary device for listening to music. Pull up anything at all and play it, stop it, watch the video, go back and repeat a section, find some silly YouTube lesson on how to play it....hell, modern pop is even mixed to sound good on small speakers. 

so why is pop music more attractive?

well, who knows...but I think there's more to it than just lazy people.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Nate Miller said:


> something we may be discounting here is the change in how music is consumed. I have seen that change over the course of just my lifetime, but with any change to the medium of performance comes a change in the public conception of music.
> 
> for example, today you can order any recording you want online...when I was a teenager, you had to actually go to the record shop and you could only buy what they had on-hand
> 
> ...


Yes, if a youngster could press a button for candy/junk food or for nutritious selections, we can guess what would happen.

IMO, the difference is they're taught about eating healthily, but they're not taught about music that will grow with them through the decades (generally speaking).


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, if a youngster could press a button for candy/junk food or for nutritious selections, we can guess what would happen.
> 
> IMO, the difference is they're taught about eating healthily, but they're not taught about music that will grow with them through the decades (generally speaking).


That’s because if they aren’t taught about eating healthy they will become fat and die in their 50’s. That won’t happen if we don’t teach them about classical music


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

EvaBaron said:


> That’s because if they aren’t taught about eating healthy they will become fat and die in their 50’s. That won’t happen if we don’t teach them about classical music


Hopefully, they'll find other interests that will grow with them.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Luchesi said:


> Hopefully, they'll find other interests that will grow with them.


I hope so too


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

NoCoPilot said:


> The term “supermarket music” which you use derogatorily could equally be applied to highly ornamental Baroque soirée entertainments like Mozart.


Could you give an example of a piece of Mozart that you consider supermarket music?


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

I believe this thread is neglecting a more plausible option: some people prefer pop music over classical because they prefer the sounds of the music. For the same reason people prefer jazz or black metal. I believe it is a gross generalization to project a psychological reason for musical preference, especially when a much more obvious one is available.

The argument has been made that some people prefer pop music over classical music because it is simpler or less complex. Then is was postulated that they may be 'lazy.' If this is true, would that not hold for modern classical music? Are the proponents of the Classical and Romantic eras of music lazy because they are not dedicating their time to understanding and appreciating Shoenberg or Xenakis? This argument does not hold salt.

I will argue there are two major camps, and the majority will fit in one of the two:
1. People prefer the music they prefer because of how the music sounds.
2. People don't have much of a preference and the music is more incidental to their lives, hence what tends to be popular or available.

I like and listen to Taylor Swift. I have an opinion on every one of her albums. Ditto Garth Brooks. Ditto John Coltrane. In the recent past concert tickets have included Stephen Hough with the Oregon Symphony, Alanis Morisette, and Dua Lipa. I enjoy hardcore punk and many subgenres of extreme metal. I love-love-love good twangy country. I also love the string quartets and piano sonatas of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert, the symphonies of Per Nørgård, Arnold Bax, and Jean Sibelius, the piano works of Chopin, Fauré, Ravel, Satie, Janáček, Sorabji, and Ligeti, the recent-ish Cello Concerto from Dobrinka Tabakova. 

My musical opinions are not formed by genre, era, instrument, or cultural association; I judge music by what I hear, and, in all categories, I will find music I enjoy and believe has merit. I will also find music I do not enjoy. Here's the rub - because I do not enjoy a certain music, I will not make the mistake of presuming or accusing the music, or the people that enjoy it, of not having merit, or of being inferior.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> I'm not so sure.
> 
> "In 2009, classical music physical album sales had a 3% market share. So in the span of 10 years classical music, for the most part, lost 2% market share. This is not bad compared to rock, which in 2009, along with metal and alternative, had around 50% of the market share compared to 19.8% in 2019." - source here.
> 
> If this quote is right, then not only the gems of classical music, but also those of rock and metal, are receiving less and less attention by the new generation. It seems that only what is catchy and simple holds value to many people nowadays. I think that they are getting too impatient to listen to any music that is somewhat demanding. The reason to this, in my view, is that people don't want to spend time and effort in something they don't perceive as being any better than what they already listen to, and total relativism in the arts tells them that they're not losing anything anyway.


The CM industry (records, orchestras, opera houses, etc.) still exists and in some cases is getting public funding. CM will be fine, even though only a small proportion of the public will be enthusiastic about it.

To preserve CM, we don't need to win over a portion of the public. We just need to convince some rich people to fund some orchestras and opera houses, and maintain archives of scores, librettos, and recordings.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Selby said:


> The argument has been made that some people prefer pop music over classical music because it is simpler or less complex. Then is was postulated that they may be 'lazy.' If this is true, would that not hold for modern classical music? Are the proponents of the Classical and Romantic eras of music lazy because they are not dedicating their time to understanding and appreciating Shoenberg or Xenakis? This argument does not hold salt.


My point was not only about complexity, but also about style (and other things, like for example performance). The idioms of the music of Mozart and Bach are not immediately accessible to many, I believe, because they are too distinct from what is produced and consumed nowadays, and a listener trying to assimilate them would need to make a substantial effort, not only due to technique, but also due to style. Also, I understand technique in art as a means to expression, and not as an end in itself, so I would argue that many composers, even those who are very demanding in terms of technique, may not be in the same league as, say, Mozart and Bach, not due to objective complexity, but to substance, and, so, that to not dedicate time to them is not necessarily to be lazy as a listener.

I don't think that non-classical has to be bad music - actually, on the contrary, I listen a lot to popular albums and I think that many of them are very artistic and meaningful. But not to the same degree of a St. Matthew Passion or a _Die Zauberflöte, _at least in my opinion. And I suspect that those who dismiss classical music as elitist, boring or unattractive usually don't really understand the genre, and this happens, I think, because they don't really want to make an effort to do so. I know people who think that CM is just about Pachelbel's Canon, Für Elise et al., who never really explored the genre, and that have a negative view of it.



ORigel said:


> The CM industry (records, orchestras, opera houses, etc.) still exists and in some cases is getting public funding. CM will be fine, even though only a small proportion of the public will be enthusiastic about it.
> 
> To preserve CM, we don't need to win over a portion of the public. *We just need to convince some rich people to fund some orchestras and opera houses, and maintain archives of scores, librettos, and recordings.*


Perhaps. But how will we, if everything in art is now supposed to be relative and classical music doesn't sell well?


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Xisten267 said:


> Perhaps. But how will we, if everything in art is now supposed to be relative and classical music doesn't sell well?


Whatever message sways SOME wealthy people. "CM is part of Western cultural heritage [totally true]." "CM is objectively better than any other kind of music [regardless of whether it really is]." "Popular music is for commoners. You are supposed to have sophisticated tastes. [Maybe it's okay for CM to have an elitist reputation if only the elite need to be convinced to support the industry]" "Mozart makes your baby smarter." I don't care about the means as long as I can still buy a variety of CM recordings or attend concerts in 40 years when I am old.

What I am sure of is that there is no miraculous solution for the vast majority of the public barely caring about CM.


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

Xisten267 said:


> My point was not only about complexity, but also about style (and other things, like for example performance). The idioms of the music of Mozart and Bach are not immediately accessible to many, I believe, because they are too distinct from what is produced and consumed nowadays, and a listener trying to assimilate them would need to make a substantial effort, not only due to technique, but also due to style. Also, I understand technique in art as a means to expression, and not as an end in itself, so I would argue that many composers, even those who are very demanding in terms of technique, may not be in the same league as, say, Mozart and Bach, not due to objective complexity, but to substance, and, so, that to not dedicate time to them is not necessarily to be lazy as a listener.


I appreciate your thoughtful post. I disagree with a lot of it. I am only going to speak for myself - I haven't found Mozart to be inaccessible. I was exposed to orchestral and even Classical-era music growing up, as must of us were, through film and television. I would honestly be surprised if someone was to say they found Mozart to be inaccessible.

I believe that substance is _super-duper_ subjective. I really love both Mozart and Schoenberg. Shoenberg believed himself in a direct musical lineage with Mozart. Who is to deem what music has substance? How are we to determine that without first listening to it? Isn't it safe to say that Taylor Swift speaks substantively to the average Millennial more than Mozart would? Someone who relates to their specific era, language, culture, struggle, wants, needs, future, trends (yes trends, Mozart was also trendy); who does so in a poetic manner, sometimes playful, sometimes soulful - that is substance, no?

Mostly, I wanted to push against the idea of a "lazy listener" or institutionalizing hierarchies of objective value based on musical styles.


----------



## Xisten267 (Sep 2, 2018)

Selby said:


> I appreciate your thoughtful post. I disagree with a lot of it. I am only going to speak for myself - I haven't found Mozart to be inaccessible. I was exposed to orchestral and even Classical-era music growing up, as must of us were, through film and television. I would honestly be surprised if someone was to say they found Mozart to be inaccessible.
> 
> I believe that substance is _super-duper_ subjective. I really love both Mozart and Schoenberg.
> (...)
> ...


Now, reconsidering my position, I believe you may be right. I'll need to think about this for some time.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Xisten267 said:


> And I suspect that those who dismiss classical music as elitist, boring or unattractive usually don't really understand the genre, and this happens, I think, because they don't really want to make an effort to do so.


Your post #61 may have attempted to clarify what you meant by your first accusation of laziness, but it seemed to me only to confirm your view, as does this post. Suggesting that listeners are lazy is unlikely to encourage them to believe that CM is NOT elitist. It's as unwelcome a supposition as that CM is elitist. No one need to elaborate hypotheses on why people think these things except that as Selby says, they prefer one type of music over another.



Xisten267 said:


> without the patience to look for details or to follow a big structure. Or to look for different recordings of a same work.


This pop listener _does _look for details in the music, how it is constructed and how this or that element contributes to the overall impact. I'm not sure that "different recordings of a same work" is applicable to much pop. Sure, there are cover versions by different artists of the same song (famously _Yesterday_), as well as different performances by the same artist (I've been looking online for different live performances of songs by Elbow), but I'm not sure that it is relevant in the same way as it is in CM.



Luchesi said:


> My concern is about children and the quality of their lives at 40 or 50 and beyond. Grownups have already made their choices. Appreciation, continuing education, self-actualization. What they dismiss is up to them.
> 
> Future generations are the future of humanity, obviously.


I wish that my sons took a greater interest in CM than they do, but they have other interests than me, and I'm happy that they do. They have been exposed to both popular and classical and since I enjoy both equally, I have no problem with their preferring popular. It may be that they take up serious CM listening when they reach the same age that I did when I first started exploration of Beethoven and Shostakovich (around 43).

I'd like to know whether any of the children I taught over my 13 years in the classroom were in any way influenced by my exposing them to music of any genre. But then, I'd also like to know that I had some influence on their education in total. However, I was only one of seven teachers they would have had in primary school, so I can hardly make any claim to have been the sole influence.

As for future generations more generally, there are rather more pressing worries than whether they will like CM.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> I want to ask to the users who say I'm not right to explain how exactly would the most popular music be in any way comparable to classical music or less popular works of non-classical music.


And this user answered your question. Perhaps you'd like to address the points I raised in my post #29?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> Round in circles here. As others have said, some of the most popular music is music of quality - though not to everyone's taste, which is why it is regularly denigrated by some. Equally, some "less popular" (which might refer to comparative sales and/or widespread familiarity) is still "popular".
> 
> Current example for me. I recently went to a sold out concert by Elbow, a band from Bury, Greater Manchester. They formed in 1997, but didn't release an album til 2001. Since then, in the UK, they've had 8 singles in the Top 40, they've had three number one albums, they've won the Mercury Prize, they wrote the song of the 2012 Olympics. In my opinion, they write quality music, but despite the level of "popularity" I've just outlined, they're not a household name like Madonna or Michael Jackson.


I searched Elbow in youtube.

One of the most popular song, "Grounds For Divorce", has 6 milions views.







Now, could you please write a comparison between the quality of "Grounds For Divorce" and "Gangnam Style" (4,5 billions of views) from the perspective of musical and cultural education? I'm sure that if you'll do this simple exercise you will understand my point.







That said, what I want to say with this discussion is that the most popular music (like gangnam style) is not more popular than classical music because it's better in any way, but only because it has been aggresively pushed by the market.

Classical music would become more popular with more pubblicity.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Many people in this discussion are using words in a wrong way.
I'd like to adress a bit the dictionary.

Pop music = a style of music (Elton John, Celine Dion, Withney Huston,...)

Popular music = music with a large diffusion


Pop music is not intrinsically bad (it's a style of music that contains also music of a certain quality), but the most popular pop music is very often junk music. It's "supermarket music".


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> I’d change the title from supermarkt music to popular music because people don’t really read well it seems


Done.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Calipso said:


> Idiocracy, my friend. Idiocracy.


I'm not so pessimistic like you. I want to believe that "gangnam style" is one of the most popular songs in youtube (and much more popular than any piece of classical music) only because it has been aggresively pushed by the market and not because people believe that it's the best song ever produced, even better than the best pieces of classical music.

After all, people don't know classical music because is not publicized like other styles of music.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> Can you give examples? I don't have anyone to ask, but I'm interested to know.


Well, after you've listened to gangnam style...






... this piece sung by Andrea Boccelli (singer with a classical formation) and Eros Ramazzotti sounds like good music.
It's not classical music, but it's an example of pop music where you can feel a minimum of musical preparation (the singer, the composer, the arranger) and care for aesthetics.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Selby said:


> I appreciate your thoughtful post. I disagree with a lot of it. I am only going to speak for myself - I haven't found Mozart to be inaccessible. I was exposed to orchestral and even Classical-era music growing up, as must of us were, through film and television. I would honestly be surprised if someone was to say they found Mozart to be inaccessible.


It's because you got a good musical education from your childhood, like many other users of this forum.

In my case, I got a bad musical education because in my family there is no one with a good musical education and I was exposed to the society and the market.
Someone might say that you prefer classical music only because you have been used to it since childhood, but this argument can not be used with me: I had to struggle to go out from the Plato's Cave when I was adult.

Everything started when I realized how the average quality of commercial music was becoming low. The first thing I did was to turn off the radio and listen to outdated popular music. Then I gradually went inside classical music thanks to John Williams et al.
I can say, for my personal experience, that it's not easy to listen to Mozart after you have been educated to the plastic sounds of commercial music: you have to train your ears a lot. John Williams et al. are a bridge between popular and classical: after you've listened to John Williams for hours and hours, you are ready to try the music of Mozart, but you don't have to give up if it sounds a bit "strange" at the beginning.

So, to convert yourself from commercial music to classical music you need a certain amount of cultural motivation that it's not required to people that were used to classical music since childhood.


However, I agree that Mozart is more accessible in respect to other composers: it's because his music it's tonal and melodic, but this is true for music of classical period in general.

To conclude this post, should society expose children to classical music so that the ears of people are well educated since childhood, or it's good if they are *abandoned to themselves and left in the grip of the market and marketing?*


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I suppose I'm in the minority here, but I much prefer listening to the energetic Gangnam Style than the histrionic goo offered up by Bocelli.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Bulldog said:


> I suppose I'm in the minority here, but I much prefer listening to the energetic Gangnam Style than the histrionic goo offered up by Bocelli.


If you're honest, however, you will admit that in the piece of Bocceli there is a greater musical education. Otherwise, a person could say "I prefer gangnam style than any symphony of Beethoven, so Psy is a musical genius and Beethoven is a ****".


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> It's because you got a good musical education from your childhood, like many other users of this forum.
> 
> In my case, I got a bad musical education because in my family there is no one with a good musical education and I was exposed to the society and the market.
> Someone might say that you prefer classical music only because you have been used to it since childhood, but this argument can not be used with me: I had to struggle to go out from the Plato's Cave when I was adult.
> ...


Children are already exposed to CM through soundtracks, commercials, and the like. Some learn about it in music class.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> Children are already exposed to CM through soundtracks, commercials, and the like. Some learn about it in music class.


Yes, but in the future the film producers will be the millennials, who will hire Snopp Dogg to make the film scores. The composers with a classical music background like John Williams will be unemployed. The public of millennials will be happy about it.


----------



## stevechandlermusic (8 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> Could you give an example of a piece of Mozart that you consider supermarket music?


I'm going to start here: Eine kleine Nachtmusik

Okay strap in. The OP rants about quality of music, which completely ignores the question "why do people listen to music?" Sometimes I listen for the thrill of the counterpoint (the Goncz completion of Bach's Contrapunctus XIV being one favorite) or the sophisticated drama of Mahler 5. But other times I just want to get excited and/or have some fun and usually classical is too long winded (and too gentle) to serve that purpose, but Peter Gabriel's 'Sledgehammer' or Bruno Mars' 'Uptown Funk' will do nicely. Yet A Whiter Shade of Pale (giving away my age here) is a real favorite. Yet I don't get the feeling of great emotional involvement from popular music that many get because I don't relate to music that way, but going through my likes on Spotify I found Randall Stroope's Omnia Sol (a piece I've performed) and it brought tears to my eyes. However, that's me, my kids would be a different story.

Young people aren't stupid nor lazy and they care very deeply about their music. As a father of two I know this from experience. The lyrics speak directly to what they're experiencing and the emotions they're feeling. I need to drive this point home, the texts of their favorite songs are relevant to their own lives. Beethoven sounds nice and the drama of the 5th may begin to approximate what they're thinking and feeling (at least the first movement) or Bach's Toccata and Fugue in d minor (the product of an 18 year old) may be somewhat relevant but the order and sophistication of higher level classical doesn't begin to seem relevant in the drama and chaos that is teen life in the 21st century. Their brains are still developing higher levels of processing capability so it's entirely normal. The fact that one of Bach's most popular pieces is the product of a very young man (the above mentioned Toccata and Fugue) means that most people (for whom music is not a central focus in their lives) never progress beyond that stage of music appreciation. I've read that for most people, it's the music they discover at about 14 years of age that they carry with them throughout the rest of their lives.

The OP (whose opinions do a disservice to a great film composer) insists on being judgmental about music appreciation as a "one size fits all" situation. Why can't we just appreciate the great diversity of the music available to us in our present day? I believe there will always be an appeal for classical among those who develop music sensibilities that can appreciate a longer form of musical expression. Personally, there's plenty of classical music that just leaves me cold,... like Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik (to bring things full circle).


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

HansZimmer said:


> If you're honest, however, you will admit that in the piece of Bocceli there is a greater musical education. Otherwise, a person could say "I prefer gangnam style than any symphony of Beethoven, so Psy is a musical genius and Beethoven is a ****".


I would agree that more musical education likely went into the Bocceli work than in Psy's work. Most people don't care. They listen to music because they enjoy it or something in the words or music resonates strongly with them. Some small number of people listen to music because of the perceived quality from a theory standpoint. I agree with Bulldog and enjoy Gangnam Style more than the Bocceli work. I like it more mostly because it's a fairly good dance song. If you really like to dance, you may very well prefer KC and the Sunshine Band to Beethoven. 



HansZimmer said:


> Yes, but in the future the film producers will be the millennials, who will hire Snopp Dogg to make the film scores. The composers with a classical music background like John Williams will be unemployed. The public of millennials will be happy about it.


I highly doubt that Snopp Dogg would have the technical ability to write film music. I think millennials would prefer well constructed film music in movies rather than simply the music they listen to.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I don’t have anything else to add to the above 2 posts since they have said everything I think already but wrote it better than I could have done. I really like the fact that on a classical music forum people that have the opinion of the OP are in the minority


----------



## wormcycle (Oct 14, 2020)

prlj said:


> And don't forget that classical has had a 400 year head start.


400 years ago the only music you could hear is the music you played or when you went to church.
In terms of reaching wider audience through recordings and popular concerts there is not much difference.
There is one critical difference between classical music and pop music: classical music requires attentive listening, at least if you want to have any understanding and appreciation of it. 90% of people are simply incapable of focusing on anything for more that 30 sec
Pop music requires being close enough to the speaker to hear the rhythm and melody.
It is not to put pop and classical on the same scale. It is just different audience. Even if pop had a 400 years of history I do not see myself listening attentively to JayZ for 40 minutes.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

wormcycle said:


> 90% of people are simply incapable of focusing on anything for more that 30 sec


More straw men, but that's fine.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> If you're honest, however, you will admit that in the piece of Bocceli there is a greater musical education.


I have no idea what you're talking about. What I do know is that both pieces lack creativity.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Musical education is not just the kind students receive in music school, where they are taught Classical music and the skills to play it. Mastering _any_ musical style or genre requires intense study and the development of a variety of specialized skills, i.e. musical education.

It is just another bias against non-Classical genres if you only recognize musical education which is primarily relevant only to Classical music.


----------



## Laraine Anne Barker (8 mo ago)

prlj said:


> I
> 
> And don't forget that classical has had a 400 year head start. A lot of the dreck has already been weeded out. Pop is young, and it will take time for the cream to truly rise to the top.


Speaking as someone brought up on "pop" music, I think the best of it has already been and gone. I started getting bored with it at about age 16-17—early sixties. At 17 my mother accidentally introduced me to classical music when she was a bit desperate for something to play on her new (mono) radiogram and came across Barbirolli conducting Swan Lake Suite and one of the L'Arlésienne Suites, at sale price. I remember she also got some Hawaiian guitar music, which we all liked. But in the end the Barbirolli was the only one I wanted to play. Also speaking as one brought up on pop, I can only say that for quite a while classical music was all just sounds to me. I had to listen to an LP about half a dozen times. IOW, I had to train myself to LISTEN as well as understand. There is a downside to this, of course. When I complain about the horrible noise coming over the loudspeakers in a cafe, shopping mall, etc, unless the sound is too loud to ignore, my companion/s claim they didn't notice. When Oxygene first came out, my husband bought the LP. We listened to it together. When it was finished he claimed to be disappointed because the only bit he liked was the most well-known one, whereas I'd figured if he liked that he'd like the rest of it. I think it was only then I realised I'd trained myself to follow any music at all.


----------



## Laraine Anne Barker (8 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> fun facts
> Muzak was introduced to calm people against panicking in the early elevators.
> 
> One strategy was to gradually increase in volume, tempo, and ‘brilliance’ for 10 or 15 minutes, then cut down the effects for 10 minutes, and then repeat. Studies say there’s a 10 to 20 increase in productivity and purchasing results.


Does anyone remember the episode of Pie in the Sky when poor Henry has to visit a hotel where all the food was "boil in the bag"? The hotel had Muzak playing all the time. I bet my husband didn't even notice. Unfortunately, when they play classical music in the background in TV episodes it can distract me from what the characters are saying. If I know the music but can't place it, it drives me bananas.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

stevechandlermusic said:


> I'm going to start here: Eine kleine Nachtmusik


If you call "supermarket music" an orchestral piece of 20 minutes created by one of the most respected composer of the history, and which is played by the Wiener Philarmoniker, then it means that your line to differentiate supermarket music from serious music is much higher than mine.

Here below one of the most viewed perfomances in youtube: 10 players + the director. 11 prepared musicians which perform a piece of a respected composer. I don't know how someone can consider "Eine kleine Nachtmusik" as an uneducational and cheesy piece created by an industry for profit (which is my personal definition of "supermarket music").






What does "supermarket music" mean in your dictionary? If you mean that it's music for entertainment, it's obvious it is. We all know that Mozart earned money to entertain people, but a part from the fact that at the times of "Eine Kleine Nachtmusic" his personal business was going wrong, this is not the point.

The point is the quality, and Mozart is a respected artisan of music (not a factory of music) as well as the musicians who play his pieces today. A piece of Mozart is orange juice, not the dirty water of supermarket.



> The OP rants about quality of music, which completely ignores the question "why do people listen to music?" Sometimes I listen for the thrill of the counterpoint (the Goncz completion of Bach's Contrapunctus XIV being one favorite) or the sophisticated drama of Mahler 5. But other times I just want to get excited and/or have some fun and usually classical is too long winded (and too gentle) to serve that purpose


You are wrong. The symphonies and many type of works are not for dancing, but the germane dances of Beethoven for example are thought to be danceable music.






Many people speak as if the word "classical music" equaled "symphony", but we have to remember that classical music contains many kind of works for different purposes.

No, this is not supermarket music. It's serious music for dancing. And however Beethoven has not composed only music to dance like a great part of the music industry of today.

So, there are two points here.

Psy (author of Gangnam Style) Vs Beethoven:

Psy: he produces only music to dance. Beethoven: the dances are not his only works.
Psy: electronic dance. Beethoven: orchestral dance.



> Young people aren't stupid nor lazy and they care very deeply about their music. As a father of two I know this from experience. The lyrics speak directly to what they're experiencing and the emotions they're feeling. I need to drive this point home, the texts of their favorite songs are relevant to their own lives.


I think this is a good point. When I was 14 years old I didn't complain about the average quality of the music. But growing up, was like if the music was stopped at the level of the 14 years old me, while I was becoming more mature.
In my twenties I lost the connection with industrial music.
So, the music industry makes teenagers happy (they must be the main target), but what about adults?


If Mozart presented his pieces to the musc industry of today, the only one that they would publish is this one (with the title "Lick my ***").
Even if it's a stupid piece he composed for his friends, it still offers something to learn from a technical point of view, so Mozart was smart even when he was stupid.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Many people? Who? Even the one you quoted didn't say that. The thread title is more ridiculous than the incoherent screed it heads.
> 
> Supermarkets in my area don't play music.


I'm in California, and it's rare to _NOT_ hear piped-in music at practically ANY retail establishment, including supermarkets.

A few months ago I was in our local Ralphs (part of the Kroger chain), and was surprised that they were playing *Karn Evil 9, 1st Impression, part 2 *by *Emerson, Lake & Palmer* on the overheads.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

EvaBaron said:


> I’d change the title from supermarkt music to popular music because people don’t really read well it seems


Ahem. Well, the phrase "Supermarket Music" has stronger visceral responses than the simple "Popular Music" or "Pop Music".

This sort of tactic is used in polling (especially political polling) all the time, where "loaded" words and phrases are used in the questions to coerce certain responses. 

But I agree that the OP was using the "Supermarket Music" phrase as "clickbait," and, judging by the number of responses in a rather short time, appears the tactic was successful.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

If anyone wants to know the best song that actually makes a reference to a supermarket, look no further than "Lost in the Supermarket" by the Clash from one of the greatest albums of all time "London Calling".


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Brahms even struggled to get to the Theater an der Wien in Vienna for the premiere of Strauss’s operetta Die Göttin der Vernunft in March 1897 before his death. Perhaps the greatest tribute that Brahms paid to Strauss was his remark that he would have given anything to have written The Blue Danube waltz. An old anecdote recounts that when Strauss’s wife Adele asked Brahms to autograph her fan, he wrote the first few notes of the “Blue Danube” waltz, and then wrote the words “Unfortunately not by Johannes Brahms!” underneath."


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

There's another "Supermarket" song: *Queen Of The Supermarket* from *Bruce Springsteen**. *


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> Yes, but in the future the film producers will be the millennials, who will hire Snopp Dogg to make the film scores. The composers with a classical music background like John Williams will be unemployed. The public of millennials will be happy about it.


Millenials don't like the music of Star Wars?


----------



## dbcrow (Mar 25, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not speaking about people who hate classical music. Many people who listen to classical music say the same thing.
> 
> See for example this post I read in this forum.
> 
> ...





HansZimmer said:


> I'm not speaking about people who hate classical music. Many people who listen to classical music say the same thing.
> 
> See for example this post I read in this forum.
> 
> ...


"So, why is supermarket music more popular than classical music?"

The easy answer is that a lot of pop music is really good. The great Duke Ellington once said that there are only two kinds of music, good and bad. At 55, I'm no longer staying abreast of "pop" music as actively as I did, say, 20 years ago; my teenage sons do that for me, sending me Spotify playists of different genres: pop, singer-songwriters, rap and traps, raggaetón, electronic dance music (EDM). A lot of it's truly awful (the 'Lil Pump song "Gucci Gang" caused me to flirt seriously with anti-natalism as a philosophy), but some of it's really quite good: well constructed, good musicianship, thoughtful lyrics, and, well, downright catchy. 

The more nuanced (and perhaps snobbish) answer is that pop music is more accessible, in several senses. For one, it's easier to listen to. Developing an appreciation for classical music requires patience and effort. Maybe it's just me, but these aren't qualities the zeitgeist seems to be fostering.

Pop is also more accessible culturally and economically. Undeniably, exposure to classical music, and opportunities to listen, know, and appreciate it, are distributed very unequally, associated with wealth, income, advanced education, ethnicity, and all the rest. The classical music world's efforts to reach broader audiences and demystify classical music, in my view, leave something to be desired. I don't know anything about the economics of keeping a symphony orchestra afloat, but you're not going to get a lot of average Americans in the seats at today's ticket prices. 

Relatedly, classical music springs from very specific social, economic, and political contexts that have, at times, excluded and, bluntly, exploited inhabitants of the global South and commoners in Europe. As much as I love, for example, Handel's concerti grossi, truth impels me to acknowledge that they flow from a certain cultural mode of production that required a great accumulation of wealth, concentrated in a kleptocratic aristocracy and fueled by plunder of silver in the Americas by Spanish colonizers, who sent the silver back to the crown, which then promptly sent the bulk of it to German financiers. I don't know how much classical music's difficulty in reaching broader audiences owes to these origins, but to me, at least, it's a question worth pondering. 

Finally, I would note that we listen to music for different purposes; classical music doesn't seem ideally suited for all those purposes. Sometimes we listen to music to move our souls, sometimes to move our booties. For the latter, a gavotte just isn't going to turn the trick as well as a Beyoncé song. 

That's my stab at an answer. Having said all that, there's just nothing as thrilling as hearing, say, the "Finale" from Bartok's _Concerto for Orchestra_ live. Happy listening--to whatever it is!


----------



## dbcrow (Mar 25, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not speaking about people who hate classical music. Many people who listen to classical music say the same thing.
> 
> See for example this post I read in this forum.
> 
> ...


What supermarket do _you _go to? 😉


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

mmsbls said:


> I highly doubt that Snopp Dogg would have the technical ability to write film music. I think millennials would prefer well constructed film music in movies rather than simply the music they listen to.


I watched a new western film yesterday in Netflix: "The harder they fall". There was the tag "famous soundtrack".

The main theme is a piece of Barrington Levy.






This other theme is of Kid Cudy and Jay-z.







A western film would be the right place for a film score with traditional sounds, but the film producer chosed to use the most modern styles of music for the score. So, I think that there will be no problem in using modern music for films that are set in the modern world.
If the soundtrack is famous (as suggested by the tag), then it means that the public like it.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> Millenials don't like the music of Star Wars?


John Williams can do what he does because he works in the film industry and not in the music industry. There is no place for him in the music industry.

The film producers seem to like a certain kind of music and so they buy the music of John Williams for their films. The millennials maybe can see that it's effective inside the film, but doesn't do nothing for them as standalone music.
When the millennials will be the film producers, it's not unlikely that they will hire rappers for creating film scores. In the previous post there's an example.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> John Williams can do what he does because he works in the film industry and not in the music industry. There is no place for him in the music industry.
> 
> The film producers seem to like a certain kind of music and so they buy the music of John Williams for their films. The millennials maybe can see that it's effective inside the film, but doesn't do nothing for them as standalone music.
> When the millennials will be the film producers, it's not unlikely that they will hire rappers for creating film scores. In the previous post there's an example.


The film score of the Original Trilogy is the only part of Star Wars I truly like.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> If Mozart presented his pieces to the musc industry of today, the only one that they would publish is this one (with the title "Lick my ***").
> Even if it's a stupid piece he composed for his friends, it still offers something to learn from a technical point of view, so Mozart was smart even when he was stupid.


I see what you're saying; "old stuff tends to be glorified more".








> "Classical Music is not really supposed to be that popular."
> "I know everyone discusses the Goldbergs as if born from the mind of God in some beautiful Olympian harmony-paradise."
> "The capstone of these is the Quodlibet, with its good humor and generosity of spirit, reenacting (so they say) Bach family parties where they would mash up various tunes, dazzle each other with contrapuntal mastery. Now, the words of the tunes are perhaps jokes, references that we can probably no longer get; everyone has their own idea what it all means. This lost joke which no one agrees about is the last laughing straw for me."


I don't listen to non-classical music, but sometimes I can't help but thinking -
"Old stuff" that has things like form or counterpoint in it (I'm speaking generally, not just about Bach, btw), we tend to look upon it with respect.




But we don't know how much better AI will get at it..


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> I searched Elbow in youtube.
> One of the most popular song, "Grounds For Divorce", has 6 milions views.
> 
> [...]
> ...


Er, no, I don't need to do that to understand _your _point. You're supposed to listen to it and consider the point I was making by offering Elbow as an example of "pop" music that is of good quality, thereby undermining your claim that all pop should be dismissed as "supermarket music".

It also serves to illustrate the point that if there are any lazy listeners around here, it includes those whose preference for CM renders them incapable and/or unwilling to search out good quality pop, preferring to just dismiss a handful of representative acts that dominate the Top 40.



HansZimmer said:


> That said, what I want to say with this discussion is that the most popular music (like gangnam style) is not more popular than classical music because it's better in any way, but only because it has been aggresively pushed by the market.
> 
> Classical music would become more popular with more pubblicity.


Classical gets plenty of publicity - to its niche market. Gangnam Style wasn't aggressively pushed, it was simply an internet phenomenon, catching on because it was fun.

But this whole thread is depressing in its parochial attitudes to music. I'm tired of feeling obliged to define and defend "pop" music. I don't expect everyone else to enjoy the pop music I like, but I don't expect to be called lazy because I listen to it and love it.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

If one never listen to pop music, one would have missed this:


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> John Williams can do what he does because he works in the film industry and not in the music industry. There is no place for him in the music industry.


Ahhhhh...I get it...You've been trolling us this whole time. Well played. 

Because you absolutely cannot be serious with statements like this. 

Good one. Well done.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Selby said:


> I will argue there are two major camps, and the majority will fit in one of the two:
> 1. People prefer the music they prefer because of how the music sounds.
> 2. People don't have much of a preference and the music is more incidental to their lives, hence what tends to be popular or available.
> 
> ...


You are me, basically. 

I think the OP does a great injustice to the immense variety of ways that people listen to, experience, and appreciate music; and even everything that music is capable of expressing, capturing, embodying... call it what you will. It's abundantly clear that classical music is very different than pop music, and equally abundantly clear that most pop music is different from other pop music. Each genre tends to have its distinctive sounds and styles, and those sounds and styles speak to listeners differently depending on their life experience; and that life experience includes their experience with other music. 

Let's take one key difference between classical and pop music: the latter is dominated by songwriting, while the former is dominated by instrumental composition. Yes, there are exceptions in both cases (much of Schubert's reputation rests on his lieder; plenty of pop acts have written instrumental albums, or close to it). The art of songwriting is fundamentally different from that of instrumental composition because in songwriting the text plays some role; to many songwriters that role is significant, and they compose around the text so that the music helps to express what the text is about. The linking of music to words is, indeed, an ancient art-form that also exists in much classical music, especially opera and lieder (but also much choral music; Handel and Purcell were phenomenal "word painters" in choral music); but the thing is that texts change because language chang, and people's experiences change because of changes in society and culture; not only that, but music changes and opens up new means of capturing the feelings, emotions, and tones of new texts relating new experiences. There are all kinds of emotions and tones that I find pop music much better at capturing than most classical music; though the reverse is certainly true as well. 

Like others have said, I don't know what the purpose is of setting different music genres against each other. Yes, most people have subjective hierarchal values when it comes to everything including music, and this leads many of them to naturally think that their preferred genres are "better;" but even if they could establish as an objective fact (which they can't) that classical music was better, what does it get them besides a sense of superiority, which they probably already have? It's not going to make classical music one iota more popular, nor popular music one iota less popular. All it does is reinforce negative stereotypes of classical fans as being snobby elitists and turn more people off classical music. The reason people like TwoSetViolin have helped to turn so many new people on to classical is because they have held a hand out to younger generations and tried to introduce them to classical in a way that's fun and informative without being dismissive of other music genres (which, btw, a great many of their fellow classical musicians like). It's the old "you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar" aphorism. 

I will address the rather absurd claim put forward that classical music requires more "work" to like than pop. First, there have been studies done that show that there is zero correlation between IQ and musical preferences, so anyone who thinks liking classical makes them smarter can just stop it before they embarrass themselves. Second, I loved classical music long before I knew anything about music. The sounds of violins and pianos are (were made to be) innately pleasing to the ear, and the vast majority of classical music contains consonant harmonies and melodies that are innately likable. There's nothing inherently off-putting about most classical the way there might be with, say, heavy metal. If you want to claim that it requires more work to understand classical, that may be true from a music theory perspective; but music theory, certainly at least in how it's traditionally taught with an almost myopic view on Western concepts of tonality/harmony, is by no means all there is to understanding music. In fact, if you ever find yourself not understanding why any music appeals to other people then you do not understand that music; and if you, in this ignorance, take to insulting such music and the people that like it, that means not only do you not understand it, but you're also rather insecure about it. 

The simple fact is that humanity contains an enormous variety and breadth of experiences, cultures, subjectivities, etc. The tremendous variety of music is a corollary to that variety. To me, the attempt at denigrating other music is little different than an attempt at denigrating the differences in people and their experiences, because different music speaks to different experiences. Yes, we can speak of quasi-objective things like complexity Vs simplicity, but at the end of the day very few like any music JUST because it's complex or simple, they like it because of how it makes them feel, and what music makes people feel good things is hugely dependent upon their subjectivities.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

It seems that many users are good at writing but not so much at reading.

The point of this discussion is not to create a competition between classical music and other styles of music, but to discuss the quality of the top-selling music of any style in respect to classical music and low-selling music of any style.
My point is that it's not true that the most popular music is good music. On the other hand, if classical music suffers of impopularity is not because is boring (infact, it's not boring).

Many users are answering to a straw man.
If someone writes that any style of music except of classical music is bad, then your posts might be the right answers.
However, if I write the top-selling music of any style is bad, you can not answer that I'm wrong because there is good music in any style of music.

I changed the title for the third time. "Why do many people say that the top-selling music is more attractive than classical music?". I hope that with this new title my argument is clear.


Now, many users write that there is music of hight quality outside of classical music.
Are the five top-viewed songs of youtube "the music of quality" about which you are speaking?
If the answer is no, can you give examples of non-classical music that you consider of "high quality" so that we can check how much popularity it has in respect to Gangnam Style and perform a qualitative comparison between the most popular songs and less popular songs?
I don't think that Beethoven is necessary to show how bad is Gangnam Style. Any piece of Elton John has a greater quality than it.


Despacito (7.924.134.685 views)







Shape of You (5.771.422.412 views)







See You Again (5.583.892.375 views)







Uptown Funk (4.640.771.344 views)







Gangnam Style (4.494.074.233 views)


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Bulldog said:


> I have no idea what you're talking about. What I do know is that both pieces lack creativity.


Don't you know what I'm talking about, or are you pretending to not understanding what I'm talking about?

Psy is one the many electronic music creators.


Andrea Bocelli is a credited tenor who has been hired to register nine operas. He's a serious singer who doesn't sing only operatic pop and traditional pop, but also classical music.
Piero Cassano, the composer of the piece, has no particular credits: he's one of the many songwriters and he used to be the pianist of the italian group Matia Bazar.
What we can say about him is that he is able to play an instrument and to compose and arrange a piece in the old and good way: without a computer.
Infact, to conclude this paragraph, what you listen in "Musica è" is a chamber ensemble who accompains a credited singer.

In the music there is an objective quality and a subjective quality. No one knows how to measure subjective quality because it's completely emotional (what's a "nice melody"?), but what I wrote here above is enough to show that "Musica è" has a greater objective quality than Gangnam Style.
It gives a hope to people who are seriously able to sing, to people who can play an instrument in a chamber ensemble and to people who can compose and arrange a piece without a computer.

I don't have to go further because we are not doing a comparison between MUSICIANS (including a credited singer) with other MUSICIANS, but a comparison between MUSICIANS and an electronic music creator.
To say that the electronic music creator is better than the team of musicians of "Musica è" only because Gangnam Style is fast and loud means to disrespect people who study music, which is inacceptable in a classical music forum, because the music we listen to here exists because there are people who STUDY.


However, if I'm asked to go further, I can add that the melody is through-composed (it doesn't follow the typical "song format"), which means that it's free to go where it wants. When 99% of pop songs follow the song format, the 1% which don't, have a greater objective quality.

Finally, there is the subjective quality: is the melody good or not? I don't think it would be useful to argue about this, as this is the pure emotional aspect of music. The only thing I can say is that many people (me including) are able to perceive the subjective quality of the melody, but it's completely normal that not all people can connect with a melody.

However, what I think is that music without objective quality is junk music. Firs of all, in the piece there must be at least a minimum of objective quality. Once we have a basket of pieces with an objective quality, we can argue about what is the best piece in it, but it doesn't make sense to do any comparison between a piece inside the basket and a piece which is outside.
This is why when I listen to a piece of classical music that I don't like I simply say "I don't like it", but when I listen to a piece which is obviously outside of the basket of objective quality I say that it's junk music.

I was trying to save non-classical music by showing that it's not true that there can not be professionality and objective quality in a pop song, but you basically wrote that even if a pop song has an objective quality is still **** only because it's pop. Yes, because the audience of a pop music piece doesn't expect "creativity", nor a complex melody. The goal is simply to compose a simple and fluid melody to give pleasure to the ears.
The team of "Musica è" simply accomplished this with professionality.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> It seems that many users are good at writing but not so much at reading.
> 
> The point of this discussion is not to create a competition between classical music and other styles of music, but to discuss the quality of the top-selling music of any style in respect to classical music and low-selling music of any style.
> My point is that it's not true that the most popular music is good music. On the other hand, if classical music suffers of impopularity is not because is boring (infact, it's not boring).
> ...


I notice you are only using Gangnam Style as an example, the other four songs which have more views btw are actually good songs, so yes, that is the music I’m talking about to answer your question. Also Gangnam style is a good song because of the way it makes people feel. It introduced that silly little dance that I always liked to do with my little sister when this song came out. So you can keep bashing top-selling music but it’s because of people like you that classical music has the snobbish reputation it has. As already said by @Eva Yojimbo, Twosetviolin manages to introduce a lot of people to classical music because they do the exact opposite of what you are doing. I have also never heard anyone say anything resembling the title of this thread


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> I notice you are only using Gangnam Style as an example, the other four songs which have more views btw are actually good songs, so yes, that is the music I’m talking about to answer your question. Also Gangnam style is a good song because of the way it makes people feel. It introduced that silly little dance that I always liked to do with my little sister when this song came out. So you can keep bashing top-selling music but it’s because of people like you that classical music has the snobbish reputation it has. As already said by @Eva Yojimbo, Twosetviolin manages to introduce a lot of people to classical music because they do the exact opposite of what you are doing. I have also never heard anyone say anything resembling the title of this thread


First of all, remember that I used to listen to non-classical music, as I wrote in this discussion. Unlike some users, I am not grown up with classical music.
I was already bashing top-selling music when I used to listen to non-classical music, so I was the kind of person who was honest enough to admit that the persons of his family are bad persons.
Once you admit that your family is bad, you maybe look for better companies.
You can not say that I can not judge people who don't do what I did.
I'm not an aristocrat who judge poor people, but a poor person who has worked hard to get out of poverty. Is it elitism if a person who used to be poor say to the poor people that they have to study?

That said, I focus mostly on Gangnam Style because it's the worst of the five pieces.
The other four may not be terrible, but the point is not to discuss if it's terrible or not, but if it is the best music ever produced and deserves so much popularity.

I can speak about Despacito if you want.
From the pure technical perspective is not as bad as Gangnam Style, but I see it as junk from an artistic perspective.
First of all, the lyrics are junk. If you have nothing to say, it's better that you say nothing.
If you look at the live concerts you immediately understand what is the cultural background of this music: the woman who dances half naked is totally useless for the perfomance. It's just pure marketing.






This piece is nothing more than "music for parties for people with a low culture", which for me is worse than a piece with a bad melody.

No, I don't need classical music to show an example of more serious music.

From an artistic perspective, this piece of Marco Masini for example is much better. It's called "Dal Buio".






I suppose that most people in this forum don't know italian, so I'll have to explain the content. It's about a blind man who must cross the street: all persons ignore him, until, after a while, a woman takes his hand and helps him to cross the street.
While crossing the street, the blind man feels the scent of the woman and tries to imagine her. After they have crossed the street, he tries to start a conversation, but the woman has already gone away.
The blind man is happy for that "nothing".

Of course this description can not transmit the actual lyrics, which are a poetry. It's not a literary work, but I don't need a masterpiece to demolish a cultural junk like Despacito.

You will maybe say that the melody of "Dal Buio" is not catchy like the one of Despacito, but this is exactly the point: making art in music doesn't mean to always write catchy melodies, but to write music that expresses something.
The melody of "Dal Buio" this piece is a good soundtrack for the story, it follows very well the lyrics.


Despacito is the equivalent of the film "How High" in the cinema.
There's nothing wroing in doing a stupid comedy for laughing, but what if people would treat it like if it was the best film ever produced and even better than a serious film like Schindler's List?


----------



## stevechandlermusic (8 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> If you call "supermarket music" an orchestral piece of 20 minutes created by one of the most respected composer of the history, and which is played by the Wiener Philarmoniker, then it means that your line to differentiate supermarket music from serious music is much higher than mine.


I should have been more specific, the 2nd movement (the Andante) is what bores me silly and it doesn't matter who performs it.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Let's take one key difference between classical and pop music: the latter is dominated by songwriting, while the former is dominated by instrumental composition.


not to extrapolate based on a single line in a long post, but one of the big differences isn't just songwriting - it's performance. _popular_ (not necessarily _pop) _music tends to be categorized and evaluated based by performer - even in cases like the Byrds covering Dylan where the songwriter has a lot of import, most people would consider a cover version a new, or at least a derivative work than the original version (or the most well-known version in some cases) - whereas Berlin or the Concertgebouw doing Mahler 2 wouldn't really be considered separate, derivative works my most people, even allowing for the conception of interpretation - instead we'd more consider them two performances of the same work. 

This is a generalization and not true in all cases, but in a broad sense, we listen to popular performers, but listen to classical composers.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> First of all, remember that I used to listen to non-classical music, as I wrote in this discussion. Unlike some users, I am not grown up with classical music.
> I was already bashing top-selling music when I used to listen to non-classical music, so I was the kind of person who was honest enough to admit that the persons of his family are bad persons.
> Once you admit that your family is bad, you maybe look for better companies.
> You can not say that I can not judge people who don't do what I did.
> ...


People don’t treat it like it’s the best thing produced ever, they just listen to it. No one is saying that their music is better than classical music, because 90% don’t even know any classical music. Trust me there is a very low percentage of people that thinks that Gangnam style is the 5th best ever pop song. Maybe you somehow forgot that most views doesn’t equal ‘best’. I believe the most viewed classical music piece on YouTube is the four seasons by Vivaldi. And I don’t see classical music listeners treating the four seasons as the best music ever produced. You really don’t understand how snobbish you act like


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

HansZimmer said:


> Don't you know what I'm talking about, or are you pretending to not understanding what I'm talking about?


I don't pretend, so please stop that line of thought. I find your musical taste and views on music strange.


----------



## Laraine Anne Barker (8 mo ago)

I think Eine kleine Nachtmusik sounds best played one instrument to a part.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

HansZimmer said:


> ...I was already bashing top-selling music when I used to listen to non-classical music, so I was the kind of person who was honest enough to admit that the persons of his family are bad persons.


I'm not sure if these two clauses are causally related. Are you saying that being a bad person is related to the music one listens to? If not, what does the sentence mean?

I think, overall, your argument seems to select the metrics where classical music excels as the proper metrics to evaluate all music. Many people prefer singable melodies, shorter works, and dance music to classical music. On those metrics, popular music would tend to be preferable to classical music. 

Not everyone wants to study the activities they choose. If they did, everyone would spend hours a day learning the most beautiful, interesting, and powerful subject of all - physics.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Nate Miller said:


> *we have to face the facts. It is called "pop" music because it is more popular. Clearly, Taylor Swift is more widely known and listened to than even Mozart in today's society*


What is your basis for this assertion? What statistics are you compiling and how? Thousands upon thousands of people, if not millions, hear Mozart performed live every year, as they have for centuries. His music is a standard part of the repertoire of thousands of ensembles and soloists. Are you asserting that the numbers of people hearing Swift live approach this? Have you compared the number of recordings in use and circulation featuring Mozart's music to those by Swift? What about musical scores and parts? Mozart sells lots of those. In short: I'd be interested in seeing any evidence for your assertion.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> What is your basis for this assertion? What statistics are you compiling and how? Thousands upon thousands of people, if not millions, hear Mozart performed live every year, as they have for centuries. His music is a standard part of the repertoire of thousands of ensembles and soloists. Are you asserting that the numbers of people hearing Swift live approach this? Have you compared the number of recordings in use and circulation featuring Mozart's music to those by Swift? What about musical scores and parts? Mozart sells lots of those. In short: I'd be interested in seeing any evidence for your assertion.


Well you know, actually I think at the very least more people globally at least know who Mozart _was_ than have even heard of Taylor Swift. Now it might be "iffier" when it comes to Elvis or the Beatles or Michael Jackson. I don't quite understand the reflexive underselling and underestimation of classical music. I actually _don't care_ if Taylor Swift or Beyoncé or whoever is more popular _now_. Bing Crosby was pretty huge in the 30s.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

@HansZimmer,

I don't know if you had me in mind when you wrote your recent post about many users not being good at reading, but I wrote my post after reading this entire thread, and much of my post was bouncing off the general theme of the thread as well as the post I had quoted/was responding to. I may be bad at many things, but reading is not one of them given that I actually spent years studying how to read and comprehend literature, much of which is far more difficult to do than reading/comprehending your posts. No offense, but your posts don't have the depth of a Joyce or Shakespeare.

First, you're wanting to compare the "top-selling" popular music, yet you're really just using as examples music that has the most views on YouTube. I'm sure there's some overlap there, but "best-selling" may not 1:1 correlate with "most-viewed," unless you're counting views as sales. "Most-viewed" can become most viewed for reasons not having to do with most people even liking it. You then want to compare that to "classical music," which right there is a problem: how does one compare the tiniest selection of popular music to ALL of classical music? Classical music encompasses hundreds of years and thousands of composers and millions of works from hundreds of countries. It's far too diverse a genre to make a comparison with almost anything. It would be like if I said, "let's compare the best-selling novels with poetry." What is the purpose of that?

The next issue is that I do not believe "good music" is a thing objectively speaking. I think "good" and "bad" are labels humans put on objective things based on standards and values that we ("we" as in individuals and "we" as groups of people) invent based on what we like and don't like. People like an immense variety of things, including different musical genres so there are almost as many standards/values (and music judged "good" on those standards) as there is music itself. There are dozens of threads on this site on this very subject if you care to read them. My post was trying to get to the idea that popular music is popular because it succeeds on the standards/values that the most people happen to have/share. We can say that classical music is liked based on different standards/values, but unless you're going to argue that some standards are better than others (and then based on what if not your preferences?) there's nothing much more to be said.

I agree classical music isn't boring (obviously most everyone here would agree), and its lack of popularity is multifold involving a lot of subjects like history, culture, psychology, and the general and unstoppable force of change. Nothing remains popular forever... except maybe sex, and even it has its detractors.

If you want to discuss WHY the most popular music is popular, that will depend on the music being discussed. Even the songs you've linked to show a pretty diverse range of styles and the reasons people like them would be equally as diverse. The Ed Sheeran features a really sparse production that supports a very catchy, rhythmic vocal hook, and the song gets the most out of minor changes in the production that adds/subtracts musical elements while maintaining the consistency of others to give both a sense of coherency and change/evolution so the ear doesn't get too bored, and its general tone tone given the lyrics are interesting, at times laid back but also at times swelling into something more; the general feeling is one of a really cool guy telling a girl he finds her attractive, but without diluting his coolness. It's not a favorite song of mine, but I can absolutely see why it's loved. Something like Gangnam Style is one of those novelty dance songs that have been massively popular in almost every era of popular music. In my generation it would've been Macarena. Such songs are meant as goofy, dancy fun. That particular video is also pretty funny, with Psy performing like a confident superstar despite looking like a thoroughly average Joe. Don't underestimate the impact that a good music video has on the popularity of some of these songs.

Of those songs, I actually adore Uptown Funk. I think it's one of the most ridiculously catchy songs ever written with one of my favorite lines ("I'm too hot, hot damn, make a dragon wanna retire man") ever that I still love saying when I need a little boost of confidence. What amazes me about that song is that almost every element in it is catchy enough to have been the feature in its own song, from the horn melodies, to the verse rhythms, to the bass lines... yet Ronson put them all in the same song, and they all compliment each other without crowding for attention, and Bruno Mars is the best modern performer I've found in the James Brown/Michael Jackson mode. I think it absolutely deserves every bit of praise/attention it got, including its Grammys. It's one of those "if you don't like this song, you probably don't like pop (or maybe pop-funk)," which is fine, but I will gladly take Uptown Funk over a lot of classical music because it's a much better pop song than most classical music is great classical music.

I still wonder who these people are that are saying popular music is more attractive than classical. In my experience people don't even think about classical music enough to say anything is/isn't better, more attractive/appealing, etc. to it. Most people just listen to what they like and leave it there. It's only us music nerd that sit around and debating meta-questions like this; or, if regular folks do it, it's mostly quickly in passing and probably doesn't make it past a paragraph or so.

Much of my own favorite pop music isn't necessarily popular, though some of it is/was. In current times, like the post I'd previously quoted, I love Taylor Swift and think she has a preternatural gift for hooks/melodies and a sense for how to write dramatic pop songs and pair her lyrics with the most effective music for it. Maybe no Swift song is in the "most viewed YT music," but she's massively popular. I also think trying to compare the virtues of a Taylor Swift song to Beethoven is just being obtuse about how art fundamentally works. Why not compare William Carlos Williams's Red Wheelbarrow to Homer's Odyssey because, hey, they're both poems, right?


----------



## Rogerx (Apr 27, 2018)

Laraine Anne Barker said:


> I think Eine kleine Nachtmusik sounds best played one instrument to a part.


Post of the day


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

EvaBaron said:


> I’d change the title from supermarkt music to popular music because people don’t really read well it seems


I "read well" the title is poor communication of the argument. The argument is poorly communicated. The whole thing itself is rather silly and unfounded. You and the op and other defenders need to start over and state a sensible premise and not blame readers when they read nonsense.


Time wasting.


----------



## Oldhoosierdude (May 29, 2016)

Unintentional............


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Bulldog said:


> I don't pretend, so please stop that line of thought. I find your musical taste and views on music strange.


If it's strange to evaluate the quality of the music according to the intent of the author and not only in the most superficial and visceral way (I like how it sounds/I don't like how it sounds) then my tastes are strange.
Your evaluations are obviously visceral: if you viscerally like a piece, then it's good music, if you don't viscerally like it, then it's ****.

This is a superficial way to evaluate music. You can not like how a piece sounds and still recognize that the author is professional and wants to express something.
Of course my favourite music is the one that has not only a serious intent, but the music that I also like viscerally.

On the other hand, if everything that a piece of music can offer is only a catchy melody and there is nothing else (this is what I think of Despacito and Gangnam Style), then for me it's bad music and I will evaluate pieces of music that I don't viscerally like but with a more serious intent in a more positive way.

For example, I didn't post the song "Dal buio" because I like it viscerally (I don't like it, to be honest), but I just can see that the intent of this song is more serious than the five most popular songs of youtube, and this is why "Dal buio" is better from an artistic perspective.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Laraine Anne Barker said:


> I think Eine kleine Nachtmusik sounds best played one instrument to a part.


What does it mean "played one instrument to a part"?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> Maybe you somehow forgot that most views doesn’t equal ‘best’.


Right! This is the point!
Why do you pretend to disagree with me, if you agree with me?

I want to remember what is the point of this discussion. The popular songs are not popular because they are better in any way than classical music, but only because there is an aggresive marketing and publicity to orient the attention of people towards a determined product.
The most popular songs don't offer better music than less popular music of any style: they have only a better marketing.

I bet that if the states took the control of all the radios and internet websites to relaunch classical music, pieces like "Le claire de Lune" would become popular and the summer hits like Despacito would disappear.
Infact, classical music used to be popular when it was a standard of the western society.








> I believe the most viewed classical music piece on YouTube is the four seasons by Vivaldi.


The Four Seasons of Vivaldi are a masterpiece of classical music, to be honest, so I think that their popularity is deserved. I'm not saying that there are not other pieces that deserve as much popularity as them, but there is nothing wrong if they were elected to be the face of classical music towards the great public.

It's not like Despacito and Gangnam Style, which make non-classical music look dumb so that people who know only classical music think that popular music is dumb.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> if you viscerally like a piece, then it's good music, if you don't viscerally like it, then it's ****.


Again with your straw men. No one is saying this. No one. If I don't "viscerally" like something, it doesn't meant it's s***. It just means I don't like it.

However, I am still 100% convinced you are trolling at this point. You can't possibly be serious with these "arguments."


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> If it's strange to evaluate the quality of the music according to the intent of the author and not only in the most superficial and visceral way (I like how it sounds/I don't like how it sounds) then my tastes are strange.
> Your evaluations are obviously visceral: if you viscerally like a piece, then it's good music, if you don't viscerally like it, then it's ****....


You seem to constantly take issue, not with what people actually say, in this case Bulldog, but with your interpretation about the meaning of what they say. Too often, as here, your interpretation is inaccurate. 

I encourage you to stop creating straw men. Perhaps ask more questions to genuinely understand what others mean. You'll find you have a better experience of the discussion.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> Right! This is the point!
> Why do you pretend to disagree with me, if you agree with me?
> 
> I want to remember what is the point of this discussion. The popular songs are not popular because they are better in any way than classical music, but only because there is an aggresive marketing and publicity to orient the attention of people towards a determined product.
> ...


I don’t pretend to disagree with you, I disagree with you. You act like these songs are dumb but they are not, with the exception of maybe Gangnam style but that’s just good fun. And the popular music of a style sometimes does offer more than the less popular music of a certain style. There’s a reason it’s popular. It’s not just marketing


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> @HansZimmer,
> 
> I don't know if you had me in mind when you wrote your recent post about many users not being good at reading, but I wrote my post after reading this entire thread, and much of my post was bouncing off the general theme of the thread as well as the post I had quoted/was responding to. I may be bad at many things, but reading is not one of them given that I actually spent years studying how to read and comprehend literature, much of which is far more difficult to do than reading/comprehending your posts. No offense, but your posts don't have the depth of a Joyce or Shakespeare.


My post is AFTER yours, but it's not FOR you. It's for all the users, because all users here are replying to straw men.



> First, you're wanting to compare the "top-selling" popular music, yet you're really just using as examples music that has the most views on YouTube. I'm sure there's some overlap there, but "best-selling" may not 1:1 correlate with "most-viewed,"


It's not that the most selled music of today in the western countries is in any way better than the most viewed in youtube.
It's always the same kind of products: dumb music with catchy melodies and no real artistic substance.

In Italy the situation is even worse than youtube, because the new Jesus Christ of music (according to data regarding most selled albums) is this guy. He has even been elected as a judge in the italian TV program "X-Factor", which means that he has the power to decide what are the good artists.








> If you want to discuss WHY the most popular music is popular, that will depend on the music being discussed. Even the songs you've linked to show a pretty diverse range of styles


Yes, different styles, but all the pieces have a common denominator: they have catchy melodies and no real artistic substance.
I know that not everything must be done with the same seriousness. There is a time for studying, and a time for relaxing. However, a serious society would consider "good music" the music with a real artistic substance and the rest as "b music for simple entartainment".



> Of those songs, I actually adore Uptown Funk. I think it's one of the most ridiculously catchy songs ever written with one of my favorite lines ("I'm too hot, hot damn, make a dragon wanna retire man") ever that I still love saying when I need a little boost of confidence.


From a visceral point of view, I prefer Uptown Funk than other four pieces, but it's not that it has more artistic substance than Despacito.

I have a simple question for you. If you wanted to show to a person who listen only to classical music that there is smart music in popular music too, would you give him Uptown Funk, Despacito or Gangnam Style?

Come on! In 30 seconds I can think of examples of smarter music than this.
For example, this piece of the group Blind Guardian: "Mirror Mirror".






First of all, the melody of the five pieces are only catchy, not good. The melody of "Mirror Mirror" is good. It's good because it's not only a banal melody that gives you a visceral pleasure, but a melody in which you can see a certain amount of work, creativity and originality.

Second, there is a place for instrumentation. The players have the space to show that they are able to master their instrument. It's inspiring for people who are learning to play a guitar or a battery.

Third, there is a place for the singer. I can not sing, but I'm able to song Despacito. "Mirror Mirror" requires much more vocally. It's inspiring for people who are learning to sing.

Fourth, the lyrics are very abstract. There is creativitity and imagination in them. Nothing like Despacito. "I want to **** that girl and I will" is the idiocy that a man of the street would write. I write lyrics for songs and I can say that the lyrics of "Mirror Mirror" are beyond my level, while I'm sure I've already written much better things than the idiocy of Despacito.


Maybe someone will say that it's not a so great song, but it doesn't matter, because I don't need a masterpiece of classical music to show how bad is the most popular music from an artistic perspective. I just have to show a piece which is better, and I can put my hand on the fire about the fact that "Mirror Mirror" is more creative and yet not boring. It has the viscerality of popular music, but there is not only simple viscerality in this piece.
So, if someone tells me that popular music serves different purposes than classical music, I can reply that I agree, but this doesn't mean that popular music must be dumb. Viscerality can be combined with art.

If Despacito was really the best that popular music could offer, the classical music lovers who say that popular music is dumb would be right.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Did a pop star steal your girlfriend or something?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I've always thought that a more productive way to discuss the difference between popular music and art/classical music isn't to focus on relating two forms of music which have vastly different aims.


Instead ask what it is about classical music that makes it _unique_. Try doing so without value statements - not because of any message of relativism, but because it'll get you to think about different forms of music from a formal perspective.

and yeah, pop can be stupid. Sometimes you want stupid, especially when it comes to activities like dancing in public.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> My post is AFTER yours, but it's not FOR you. It's for all the users, because all users here are replying to straw men.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So, what if pop music is dumb? What if there are people who say that pop music is more attractive than classical?

Why does it matter so much to you?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

prlj said:


> Did a pop star steal your girlfriend or something?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

fbjim said:


> I've always thought that a more productive way to discuss the difference between popular music and art/classical music isn't to focus on relating two forms of music which have vastly different aims.
> 
> 
> Instead ask what it is about classical music that makes it _unique_. Try doing so without value statements - not because of any message of relativism, but because it'll get you to think about different forms of music from a formal perspective.
> ...


If there is art in the popular music, it's probably not in the stupid songs for dance. This is the point.

My question is quite simple: if you had to show to a person who thinks that there is no art in popular music that he/she is wrong, would you choose Gangnam Style or are there better examples of art in popular music?


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

The overwhelming preference for pop music over classical has to do, in part, with ignorance. Most people are simply unfamiliar with the classical 'language' and don't know what they're listening to—if they listen at all. Furthermore, there's no obvious, quick pay-off with classical—it requires a certain amount of time and effort, which makes no sense to a culture that values money and quick pleasures above all else. Decadence isn't a suitable environment for demanding art-forms.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> [edit]
> 
> . . . the woman who dances half naked is totally useless for the perfomance. It's just pure marketing.
> 
> ...


I've been staying out of the fray, as I can see merit even in musical genres I don't enjoy. Music is subjective, and different types of music serve different types of purposes. *Gangnam Style* is just pure Pop "fun". Yeah, it's pretty simple, dorky and stupid, and people love it. And it was one of the "Here's a new dance!" songs, like all the *Twist* songs from 1962, or when some director tried to make the *Varsity Drag *a new dance craze.

But these particular two sentences stood out like a boil on someone's nose, as they sound horribly elitist. It's looking down on people that enjoy things you don't, like partying, and simpler cultural things. Dragging out a live version of *Despacito* and insulting the song AND the live presentation, as well as the audience that think it's "nifty" is low. I saw the cutaways to shots of the audience singing along joyfully. It's not always all about the complexity of the melodic and harmonic structure. 

And to insult a _live show_ having a _dancer_? You must really hate *Ballet*, with all those barely clothed skinny girls, and guys with bulgy crotches. Many of the most popular Pop acts have stage shows that integrate dancing and other media (video screens, props, sets, lighting, fog, pyrotechnics, etc.)

It's _ENTERTAINMENT_. 

The "Pop" style of music is just as much an art form as Classical Music. Sure, successful Pop songwriters usually cannot write excellent Classical Music (although some have tried, to varying degrees of success), but I doubt how successful Classical composers would be creating Top Ten Pop hits. True, many Top Ten Hits _HAVE_ come from songs created for film and stage, but that was mostly decades ago (with some notable exceptions). 

You can exalt Classical Music without _so much_ elitist bashing of Popular music. Music has become MORE than just the audio component. They are accompanied by creative packaging, and clever live presentations, and music videos. Many artists are fashionistas (and some are pointedly anti-fashionistas). Country singers wear cowboy hats, Rappers wear their pants under their buttocks, Metal musicians dress in black leather and chrome trim, Classical musicians wear tuxes and ball gowns.

Experiencing live music engages senses other than just your hearing. I'm astonished that you're picking on them having a _dancer_, especially when you originally were only comparing the audio components. How is having a dancer any different than a Classical concert with fireworks, fancy lighting, sets, and video? Let the audiences have their fun.

By the way, just because I'm picking on you for this minor issue, DOESN'T mean that I don't appreciate your musical perspectives. In fact, I'm usually inclined to agree with your observations and opinions almost ALL of the time.

Just not _this_ time. I _get_ your point, but I think your point is narrow, exclusive, and elitist.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> I've been staying out of the fray, as I can see merit even in musical genres I don't enjoy. Music is subjective, and different types of music serve different types of purposes. *Gangnam Style* is just pure Pop "fun". Yeah, it's pretty simple, dorky and stupid, and people love it. And it was one of the "Here's a new dance!" songs, like all the *Twist* songs from 1962, or when some director tried to make the *Varsity Drag *a new dance craze.
> 
> But this particular two sentences stood out like a boil on someone's nose, as they sound horribly elitist. It's looking down on people that enjoy things you don't, like partying, and simpler cultural things. Dragging out a live version of *Despacito* and insulting the song AND the live presentation, as well as the audience that think it's "nifty" is low. I saw the cutaways to shots of the audience singing along joyfully. It's not always all about the complexity of the melodic and harmonic structure.
> 
> ...


The woman in the live perfomance of Despacito is dressed like a porn star. It's obvious that it's not only a ballet. She is there to be sexually desired by men.

It's just like the woman of the videoclip: the close-ups on his butt and so on. She looks like she's imploring all the men of the earth to **** her all together.






I don't know what ballets of classical music have to do with a porn masked with music.

The videoclip is a cliché. The perfomance is a cliché.
It looks very much to the american low-alloy action film where there is a macho who kills everyone alone without ever being hit accompained by a sexy woman who pick it up somewhere. Of course, between one shootout and another, the super hero will succeed in ******* the woman, who at that point has already launched various love arrows to the public

After a while, you learn the clichés of "supermarket music" and of "supermarket movies". They are the seasoning that is put in products without artistic substance to fill the void.


Why shouldn't I say the truth? There is supermarket products, and there are art products. I've never said that there is not art outside classical music, but I think that much of the top-selling music is a supermarket product that can claim little or nothing in the field of the arts


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

Deleted.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> The woman in the live perfomance of Despacito is dressed like a porn star. It's obvious that it's not only a ballet. She is there to be sexually desired by men.
> 
> It's just like the woman of the videoclip: the close-ups on his butt and so on. She looks like she's imploring all the men of the earth to **** her all together.
> 
> ...


Dancers, whether they be a dancer dancing a popular song, or a ballerina in a skin tight leotard, are often baring all. I'd guess that in previous centuries men attended the ballet as it was an acceptable way to view women virtually naked. 

Still, calling _THAT_ being dressed like a "porn star", and that she's "asking for it", is a pretty twisted interpretation of this. You have crossed over from mere *elitism* to some astonishing *misogyny*. *"She was dressed like she was asking for it"* was a defense that used to get men found *"Not guilty"* on Rape charges. 

In any event, you might consider switching to decaf.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> It's obvious that it's not only a ballet. She is there to be sexually desired by men.


Ballet dancers have typically been dressed to be sexually desired by men.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

*Moderator note: posting complete song lyrics (or large excerpts) is a breach of copyright and is not allowed at TC. The posts have been deleted.*


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> @HansZimmer,
> 
> I don't know if you had me in mind when you wrote your recent post about many users not being good at reading, but I wrote my post after reading this entire thread, and much of my post was bouncing off the general theme of the thread as well as the post I had quoted/was responding to. I may be bad at many things, but reading is not one of them given that I actually spent years studying how to read and comprehend literature, much of which is far more difficult to do than reading/comprehending your posts. No offense, but your posts don't have the depth of a Joyce or Shakespeare.
> 
> ...


I think about all the ingredients and factors that make Uptown Funk an effective and attractive offering. 

I went back to listen to The Lonely by Christina Perri. Her whiny voice (like Bruno Mars) brings the humanness to the listener and evokes the empathy, along with the images and dramatic crescendos. Good stuff. It's my current earwig! 'Can't shake it..

CM has tried to be whiny in a good way too. Yet, it won't come close to the immediacy.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

The top music videos on YouTube will give a misleading impression as to what people are actually listening to musically. Those videos are popular because of the content of the videos and their associations in addition to the music. Also, there is no way to easily add up the views of all of the different performances of something like Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 to compare them with pop songs that have a single official video.

I like classical and multiple non-classical genres. The appeal of non-classical music over classical music in some situations may include brevity, instrumentation, words that are in someone's own language, etc.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

bharbeke said:


> The top music videos on YouTube will give a misleading impression as to what people are actually listening to musically. Those videos are popular because of the content of the videos and their associations in addition to the music. Also, *there is no way to easily add up the views of all of the different performances of something like Beethoven's Symphony No. 9 *to compare them with pop songs that have a single official video.
> 
> I like classical and multiple non-classical genres. The appeal of non-classical music over classical music in some situations may include brevity, instrumentation, words that are in someone's own language, etc.


I can go to *Amazon* and find dozens of recordings of Beethoven's 9th. Dozens and dozens. It's been performed in concert hundreds, probably thousands, or tens of thousands of times. The "Joy" theme has been used in countless films and TV shows for decades, making it heard by millions of people, none of which "bought" the song. How do you count all that?

You're right; it cannot be counted in the same way as *Youtube* views, or radio plays, or units purchased.

Here's another: *Wedding music.* How many weddings have had *The Bridal Marches* and that damned *Pachelbel Canon in D *played during the Wedding service? How does one count _those_?

Still, to go by *Youtube* "views", *Beethoven's 5th*, performed by Klaus Tennstedt with the London Philharmonic Orchestra has had *21,778,300 views* in only ten years (I don't know . . . is that a lot? Maybe not - Christina Perri's The Lonely has 39 million views.). What if there'd been Youtube in 1825? And even 21 million is not really a good measure, that's just the views of the first "hit" when I searched for Beethoven 9th. *Iván Fischer's* version has *425K views* after only 2 years. *Andrés Orozco-Estrada's* version has *450K* views in 6 years. *Bernstein's* live version has *1.2 million views*, yet the studio release has only *6K* views. 

*Youtube* simply isn't a good measure either, Videos and accounts vanish all the time, along with the 'views' and 'Likes'.

Even a monster popular song like the *Beatles' Yesterday* is kind of hard to track: On Youtube the 2009 remaster has 39 million views, and the 2015 remaster has 15 million views. There's also videos of McCartney performing it live, with the Beatles, Wings, and as a solo performer. In addition to that, there are a likely a hundred cover versions on Youtube.

How many copies has *Yesterday* sold? Well, there's the singles, and the different albums on which it has appeared, and the hundreds of cover versions. And how many times was it played on the radio, and how many people heard it each time it got airplay?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I think about all the ingredients and factors that make Uptown Funk an effective and attractive offering.
> 
> I went back to listen to The Lonely by Christina Perri. Her whiny voice (like Bruno Mars) brings the humanness to the listener and evokes the empathy, along with the images and dramatic crescendos. Good stuff. It's my current earwig! 'Can't shake it..
> 
> CM has tried to be whiny in a good way too. Yet, it won't come close to the immediacy.


I am a big fan of Christina Perri also. Jar of Hearts and A Thousand Years are 2 of my favorite songs. I know you meant this as a positive post regarding her, but the term ‘whiny’ is defined with some fairly negative terms which I know you didn’t intend.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> It seems that many users are good at writing but not so much at reading.
> 
> The point of this discussion is not to create a competition between classical music and other styles of music, but to discuss the quality of the top-selling music of any style in respect to classical music and low-selling music of any style.
> My point is that it's not true that the most popular music is good music. On the other hand, if classical music suffers of impopularity is not because is boring (infact, it's not boring).


You say "my point" but you make several "points", though all aimed at making the same point you made here and in your OP. Beside the "point" you want to make, you say a great many things that members here have rightly objected to, for a variety of reasons. Four examples:

_"I reject the idea that there is anything appealing in supermaket music"
"The supermarket music is not different. You think it's good because the guy or the woman who sings the piece is cool, and you have to listen to them to be cool."
"An other point is that an empty society where entartainment means to drink in a nightclub until you vomit requires empty music. "
"There is nothing more popular than the top-selling music, so if we want to speak about popular music we have to speak about the most popular music. Okay, there is music of quality, but it's usually less popular than the real popular music."_

You accuse others of not reading, but it seems clear to me that you too are selective in your reading. You repeat the points you want to make about marketing; and about the poor quality of the best-selling music, but pay no attention to the posts that challenge you on these points.

You select a handful of songs - in some posts, just one song - and use it to represent the entirety of "best-selling music" (whatever that is - at what point in your listing of best sellers do they become "not-best"?) which you dismiss completely as unworthy.

And in any case, what if I were to say that Beethoven's 9th sucks and Gangnam Style is tops - what of it?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> It's not that the most selled music of today in the western countries is in any way better than the most viewed in youtube.
> It's always the same kind of products: dumb music with catchy melodies and no real artistic substance.


My point was simply that you don't really know what the best-selling music is, and trying to compare the best-selling pop music with all of classical music is a fool's endeavor for many reasons I gave that you ignored. 

What makes for "dumb music" and "no real artistic substance?" Your say so? To me, the artistic substance is in the craft, and if you think it's easy to craft "catchy melodies" and music to support them then you're talking out of your behind and have no idea of why people like Max Martin has dominated the pop songwriting charts for 20 years. 



HansZimmer said:


> However, a serious society would consider "good music" the music with a real artistic substance and the rest as "b music for simple entartainment".


A society can be serious about other things, like business, and primarily use art for entertainment, which is precisely what most of the western world does; and even much of the eastern world, hence the rise of things like K-pop and J-pop. Most people spend the vast majority of their lives working either stressful or mind-numbing jobs, and when they come home they want to be entertained, they don't want to be bored for the sake of what HansZimmer considered artistic substance. This also still ignores the point of what "good music with real artistic substance" even is. 



HansZimmer said:


> If you wanted to show to a person who listen only to classical music that there is smart music in popular music too, would you give him Uptown Funk, Despacito or Gangnam Style?


It would entirely depend on what's meant by "smart music." You keep saying these things like it's obvious. As someone who's aware (somewhat) of the craft behind pop music, I actually do think Uptown Funk is smart; not because of its content (which is light fun/entertainment), but because of its craft. 



HansZimmer said:


> Come on! In 30 seconds I can think of examples of smarter music than this.
> For example, this piece of the group Blind Guardian: "Mirror Mirror".


Believe it or not I'm very familiar with Blind Guardian and have listened through their entire discography. I'm a fan of power metal in general. You know why I love power metal? Guess.... it's because of all the metal genres it's the genre that put the most emphasis on CATCHY MELODIES! Of course, all power metal descended from the models of Judas Priest and Iron Maiden, and all of them were bands in opposition to the more rhythmically aggressive, complex, (some would say "smarter") thrash and prog metal music of the 80s and early 90s. When I listen to something like Mirror Mirror I hear areas where it's both more and less smart than the pop music we're talking about, it just depends on what areas we choose to focus on. Production wise it's nowhere near as smart. Rhythmically and instrumental technique-wise, it certainly is; but like with classical and pop, most metal and pop has different values and goals; and if we're talking "smart" metal Blind Guardian wouldn't even have been in my top 50 choices compared to, say, Dream Theater, Atheist, Cynic, Meshuggah, Gorguts, Queensryche, etc. 



HansZimmer said:


> It's good because it's not only a banal melody that gives you a visceral pleasure, but a melody in which you can see a certain amount of work, creativity and originality.


This I'm interested in: please tell me by what criteria you use to judge a melody as requiring a certain amount of work (how do you know how much work went into it?), creativity, and originality? I suspect your criteria for judging these things is nothing beyond your personal preferences. 

As for the rest, as I said all you're doing is swapping the apple and orange for an apple and a pear, and it's still the same problem. I also don't compare metal to pop, as their aims are also very different from most angles. The one thing power metal and pop music has in common is their emphasis on melody, but the similarities end there. Pop is actually much more tonally (as in emotional tone, not harmony tone) complex and much more complex from a production perspective. Metal is usually either very rough or monotonous from both perspectives.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DaveM said:


> I am a big fan of Christina Perri also. Jar of Hearts and A Thousand Years are 2 of my favorite songs. I know you meant this as a positive post regarding her, but the term ‘whiny’ is defined with some fairly negative terms which I know you didn’t intend.


It's very effective. Many singers project a sense of mournfulness (even Bruno Mars, listen to his control) which would have seemed overly exaggerated or corny or even unprofessional in the 50s, 60s and 70s. They use the sounds of human interactions (extra-musical stretchings, in addition to all the added notes and inventive vocal twists). It communicates on a deep level. It sells.

When Perri is rhyming "shell" with "well", I suspect she doesn't want it to sound trite, hackneyed/too predictable. I think it's excellent. To me, it shows awareness, experience and artistry.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

One of the aspects of pop music that gets overlooked by many goes back to what Sam Cooke said of Bob Dylan: "from now on, singing isn't going to be about sounding beautiful, it's going to be about believing the voice is telling the truth." I'm a big believer in the fact that artistic craft always necessitates some amount of artificiality, some exaggeration that moves us away from our experience of how things are; and within that artificiality there will always be tensions created by artists who try to bring things back down to Earth, and those trying to push it more into the stratosphere. One thing I often pay attention to in pop vocalists is what "truth" they're telling with their style, what kind of person, personality, or, at the very least, persona are they projecting, what is the tone behind the tone, so to speak. Not long ago I was very struck by a performance by Chance the Rapper on Colbert's show, because the voice sounded like that of a prophet come to guide the lost souls beaten down by life. I'm not even a fan of hip-hop, but I was in tears after watching this:


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> "from now on, singing isn't going to be about sounding beautiful, it's going to be about believing the voice is telling the truth."


What a beautiful quote. It perfectly encapsulates a singer I've been following lately...(a total tangent from this thread)...who's voice and sincerity are overpowering (to me).


----------



## SoloYH (8 mo ago)

My dad doesn't know jack anything about music but he loves Love You Like a Love Song by Selena Gomez. It's so cute to see him who doesn't speak English to sing along with it.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Sam Cooke said of Bob Dylan: "from now on, singing isn't going to be about sounding beautiful, it's going to be about believing the voice is telling the truth."


Excellent quote. It's why some people hate Radiohead's Thom Yorke; they're looking for beauty - while others love him (including me); they're looking for truth. There are many other artists whose voice does not conform to typical expectations, though there is still room for personal preference. I like Stina Nordenstam's distinctive voice, but Joanna Newsom's less so.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Forster said:


> Excellent quote. It's why some people hate Radiohead's Thom Yorke; they're looking for beauty - while others love him (including me); they're looking for truth. There are many other artists whose voice does not conform to typical expectations, though there is still room for personal preference. I like Stina Nordenstam's distinctive voice, but Joanna Newsom's less so.


I'm not the biggest fan of Joanna Newsom's voice, but her songwriting and lyrics saves it for me. Besides, who else is writing contemporary folk music for harp? Another song that always makes me tear up:


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> And in any case, what if I were to say that Beethoven's 9th sucks and Gangnam Style is tops - what of it?


A person can have a VISCERAL preference for Gangnam Style, but if he/she is smart enough, he/she will admits that the objective quality of the two pieces is incomparable. It would be embarassing just to try to do a similar comparison.

We can't control emotions, but a smart person also has a rationality.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> A person can have a VISCERAL preference for Gangnam Style, but if he/she is smart enough, he/she will admits that the objective quality of the two pieces is incomparable. It would be embarassing just to try to do a similar comparison.
> 
> We can't control emotions, but a smart person also has a rationality.


Why would you be embarrassed about my music preferences?


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> but if he/she is smart enough, he/she will admits that the objective quality of the two pieces is incomparable


Your gatekeeping is doing nothing to help anyone get more deeply into our little niche world of music. It's precisely statements and attitudes like this that keep newcomers from immersing themselves in CM. 

Someday, you'll stop comparing apples to couches, and realize that there's a huge world of music out there with something for everyone to enjoy.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

prlj said:


> Your gatekeeping is doing nothing to help anyone get more deeply into our little niche world of music. It's precisely statements and attitudes like this that keep newcomers from immersing themselves in CM.
> 
> Someday, you'll stop comparing apples to couches, and realize that there's a huge world of music out there with something for everyone to enjoy.


I don't need classical music to show how bad is Gangnam Style. I can provide many examples of more serious music inside the galaxy of popular music. 

Instead of worrying about the reaction of a person who doesn't like classical music, you should think about how to convince someone who only listen to classical that there is serious music in popular music too. I think that if you use Gangnam Style and Despacito as an argument, not only you won't convince that person that there is serious music in popular music, but you will reinforce his prejudice about the dumbness of popular music.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> ...you should think about how to convince someone...


*I *don't have to do anything. I'm not the one with an issue here.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What makes for "dumb music" and "no real artistic substance?" Your say so? To me, the artistic substance is in the craft, and if you think it's easy to craft "catchy melodies"


I've never said that it's easy to write catchy melodies, but this only the MINIMUM QUALITATIVE REQUIREMENT for any composer.
Just because the engine of a car doesn't explode when you turn on the car and the car moves (which is the MINIMUM QUALITATIVE REQUIREMENT for a car) doesn't mean that the car is good if compared to other models of cars.

All films have MINIMUM QUALITATIVE REQUIREMENTS: good acting, good pictures, and so on.... Just because the film "How High" reaches the MINIMUM QUALITATIVE REQUIREMENTS like Schindler's List doesn't mean that the former has the artistic seriousness of the latter.

A real ARTIST in music goes beyond the simple catchyness, which is only the MINIMUM REQUIREMENT.
First of all, a catchy melody is one thing, while an excellent melody that communicates, creates suspense and climaxes is an other thing.

For example, this melody in the Lion King communicates.






There is an evolution in the melody and in the instrumentation: you feel like the melody is telling you a story or a message, whose climax is reached at 1:18.
Of course the melodies in film scores must always communicate something, so the MINIMUM QUALITATIVE REQUIREMENTS for film scores composers is to be able to compose melodies which speak, and not simply catchy melodies. This is why the score composers who emerge from the crowd are usually very skilled.


Now, look at the piano version of Despacito.






The right hand, which plays the melody, remains always in the same octave. The melody might be catchy, but it's easy to sing, flat and boring to hear. Inexpressive!

In good pop songs, the emotional tension of the melody is usually increased thanks to jumps in higher octaves: the tonality of the melody becomes higher and higher, until it reaches, at the climax, the highest notes of the vocal register of the singer, so that you can feel the sufference in the voice of the singer.
Good pop songs are challenging for the singer and impressive for the public, because they can admire the potential of the voice of the performer and feel the energic emotions provided by the piece.

In the case of the Lion King, the emotional tension is not only created with the melody which goes in higher octaves, but thanks to the nice orchestration.


The problem is that in Despacito there is no message and no story, so a more complex melody wouldn't serve any purpose.
Not only you could remove the singer without losing any useful information or any interesting technical aspect for singers, but it would even be a good idea to do so, because that silly lyrics only serve to lower the cultural and artistic level of the piece.
You could for example replace the singer with a guitar (a guitar plays the accompainment and other guitar plays the melody). Once you have transformed the song to an instrumental piece, what do you have? Elevator music. Well, it's still better than a silly song.

However, we were speaking about Despacito vs Mirror Mirror.
Why is the melody of Mirror Mirror better? Because the song provides more different themes and the themes are not flat like the ones of Despacito. It's more challenging for the singer and more exciting for the public.

You can simply watch the piano version of the Mirror Mirror to see that hands of the pianist must work much more than in piano version of Despacito to chase the score.






The lyrics of Mirror Mirror are smart and abstracts, nothing like Despacito.If you'd ask to a man in the street to write a lyric, he would write a lyric about ******* a woman. He would write Despacito.

So, is Depacito a good song, when compared to the many other songs and pieces? No, it's just a song with the MINIMUM REQUIREMENT of having a catchy melody. There's nothing more. Every year many songs with a catchy melodies are produced, but only some of them are really good and distinctive from an artistic perspective.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Melody isn't necessary in music, and isn't even necessary in popular music.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> Dancers, whether they be a dancer dancing a popular song, or a ballerina in a skin tight leotard, are often baring all. I'd guess that in previous centuries men attended the ballet as it was an acceptable way to view women virtually naked.
> 
> Still, calling _THAT_ being dressed like a "porn star", and that she's "asking for it", is a pretty twisted interpretation of this. You have crossed over from mere *elitism* to some astonishing *misogyny*. *"She was dressed like she was asking for it"* was a defense that used to get men found *"Not guilty"* on Rape charges.
> 
> In any event, you might consider switching to decaf.


Elitism?? Why?? If someone writes a review which concludes that a film is bad, is he an elitist?

Why can't I write a negative review of Despacito? What's wrong with this? I have arguments: Why do many people say that top-selling music is more attractive than classical music?
Is there a new form of political correctness which says that you have to pretend that everything has the same artistic value because if don't do so you offend someone?

In Debaser (website of music reviews) the album Despacito has an average of 1.5 stars on 5 for good reasons: Despacito - Daddy Yankee - recensione (debaser.it)


Misogynist?? Why?? Because I don't pretend to not understading what the videoclip of the song wants to suggest at 0:44? I can't post the lyrics, but it's easy to find them: maybe they will help you in understading what's the song about.






Instead of blaming me of misogyny, you should blame the persons who objectify women to fill the void of products with no artistic substance. The feminists agree with me.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> I don’t pretend to disagree with you, I disagree with you. You act like these songs are dumb but they are not, with the exception of maybe Gangnam style but that’s just good fun.


Despacito is dumb too: Why do many people say that top-selling music is more attractive than classical music?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fbjim said:


> Melody isn't necessary in music, and isn't even necessary in popular music.


A strange comment in a classical music forum.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

DaveM said:


> A strange comment in a classical music forum.


How? 

Of course classical music and popular music are associated with melody as an element of composition. This doesn't mean that it is _necessary_.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fbjim said:


> How?
> 
> Of course classical music and popular music are associated with melody as an element of composition. This doesn't mean that it is _necessary_.


When it comes to the subject of melody, lumping classical music and popular music together makes no sense.

If CP era CM hadn’t had melody, there would be, among other things, no TC forum. The pithiness of that comment with no qualification IMO diminished the importance of melody in classical music. And yes, I know that some contemporary music that is said to be classical music has no melody, but then it doesn't appear that that kind of music is what is keeping classical music ‘alive’.

As for popular music, depending on one’s taste, perhaps your comment is true. Personally, the music of some of the most popular groups has depended heavily on melody.

Edit: Is it really the opinion of a prevailing number of people here that regarding the core classical music that occupies so much of the subject matter on TC that when it comes to melody, it is nothing more than ‘an element of composition‘, but isn’t necessary?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The post was in response to another post saying that melody was the "minimum requirement" for music composition and referred both to classical and popular music. I'm not sure where the argument is.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

fbjim said:


> The post was in response to another post saying that melody was the "minimum requirement" for music composition and referred both to classical and popular music. I'm not sure where the argument is.


The Prelude of the Bach first cello suite and the first prelude of WTC I have no real melody at all. I think harmony's where it's at.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Even in some music with melodies the "catchiness" or the melody itself is not the focus. A lot of fugual pieces could qualify here, where what's done with the melody is more important.


Anyway this is not to mention stuff like _Vorspiel_ in Das Rhinegold or a great deal of the minimalist rep.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> The Prelude of the Bach first cello suite and the first prelude of WTC I have no real melody at all. I think harmony's where it's at.


Gounod adapted the Bach WTC Book 1 Prelude 1 for use in his Ave Maria. Pretty hard to sing or play an Ave Maria with an amelodic accompaniment.
One example of many available:





And another:


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

@HansZimmer 

First, as @fbjim said, melody isn't required in music, and "catchy melodies" certainly aren't required, and aren't even all that common in a lot of music, including a lot of classical music. If was a "minimal requirement" to write catchy melodies then more classical composers would moonlight as pop songwriters and be making far more money than most of them do. Anyone who thinks it's easy to be a Max Martin is fooling themselves. 

Second, there IS more to pop music than melody as I mentioned when I was talking about the production quality and tone of some of the pieces you posted and then I posted. Literally all you're doing is trying to define what a "real artist" is by the standards that YOU think are most valuable in music. You're free to have your own standards/values, but please don't pretend as if they're universally applicable. Further, it's quite clear that many catchy melodies in pop very much communicate, given that a huge amount of people like them. They're clearly communicating with people or else people wouldn't like them. Just because you don't like what they communicate doesn't mean they aren't doing so. The Despacito melody is certainly simpler than The Lion King melody, but as many have said: "complexity doesn't automatically mean better." Of those two melodies I prefer The Lion King one, but I'm not trying to universalize my preference among those two specific examples as you seem to be. Your whole "a good melody jumps to higher octaves reaching a climax" is great for some pop songs that do that; it also isn't a universal standard for what makes a good melody or a good pop song. I'm not a big fan of Despacito either, but, again, the difference between us is I'm content in saying I'm not a fan of this particular melody even though I see the appeal, and go on loving many other very simple melodies I simply think are better. 

Third, even FILMS don't have the "minimal requirements" you suggest. There's plenty of great films with bad acting, or no acting at all, with an intentionally rough visual aesthetics. Many of film's most influential films were made by intentionally violating most of the traditional standards of "good filmmaking." 

The lesson to be learned here is that, for many people, a good, simple, catchy melody is enough to make for a good song. You disagree. You're free to disagree, but your problem is that you're trying to make your preference out to be some objective standard for judging good and bad and not many are going to be convinced unless they're already biased to agree with you.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Gounod adapted the Bach WTC Book 1 Prelude 1 for use in his Ave Maria. Pretty hard to sing or play an Ave Maria with an amelodic accompaniment.
> One example of many available:
> 
> 
> ...


Eeeeeesh. Yeah.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Prelude 1 IS melodic


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

pianozach said:


> Prelude 1 IS melodic


It's "melodic" in the way that the cello suites are "harmonic". Implied. All the above examples are "filling in the blanks".


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> It's "melodic" in the way that the cello suites are "harmonic". Implied. All the above examples are "filling in the blanks".


The melody in the Bach WTC Bk1 Prelude 1 is very real and is not implied. ‘Filling in the blanks‘ makes no sense. Give it up.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

DaveM said:


> The melody in the Bach WTC Bk1 Prelude 1 is very real and is not implied. ‘Filling in the blanks‘ makes no sense. Give it up.


So what did Gounod superimpose on it?


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

............d...e...l...ee...te....d


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)




----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

DaveM said:


> The melody in the Bach WTC Bk1 Prelude 1 is very real and is not implied. *‘Filling in the blanks‘ makes no sense.* Give it up.


"Filling in the blanks" as @Yabetz says, is not so far from the truth though. The choice of notes and their linear movement does have some limitations when conforming to a tonal harmonic sequence if overall consonance is sought. In fact one hears that the choice of melodic note is restricted even more so when the harmony is in 1st inversion because Gounod adheres to what is considered good practice in avoiding the 3rd in the melody whilst it is in the bass (as indeed does Bach's harmonic spacing and in scrupulous manner).

This adherence does contribute much to the sonorous beauty of the melody, highlighting the clarity and musical quality of a well thought out 1st inversion harmony and melody. In fact as I listen again, I notice the determination in the melody to also work in harmony with the bass alone and to not double it, which again, although excellent practice, limits and determines note choice or 'destination' notes for the melody. To some extent in so far as actual composing is concerned, this kind of best practice can be seen as akin to filling in the blanks and to an academically trained composer, some of these notes are obvious melodic choices. However realising as such does not detract from the beauty of Gounod's melody.

What's much more free is the melodic contour and rhythmic variety although they too would have to conform stylistically to a certain extent in order to make sense.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mikeh375 said:


> "Filling in the blanks" as @Yabetz says, is not so far from the truth though. The choice of notes and their linear movement does have some limitations when conforming to a tonal harmonic sequence if overall consonance is sought. In fact one hears that the choice of melodic note is restricted even more so when the harmony is in 1st inversion because Gounod adheres to what is considered good practice in avoiding the 3rd in the melody whilst it is in the bass. This adherence does contribute much to the sonorous beauty of the melody but make no mistake, it limited the choice of notes and the direction of travel leading to such 'destination' notes for Gounod's aesthetics.
> 
> What's much more free is the melodic contour and rhythmic variety although they too would have to conform stylistically to a certain extent in order to make sense.


I’ve been playing this work for years. It has been analyzed as not only a study in the genius of Bach’s use of harmony, but also as the clever application of melody within the harmony. Some have even found melody within the notes of the individual chords.

Your analysis is interesting and I would suggest somewhat more profound than ‘filling in the blanks’, a term which to me is superficial and diminishes the complexity of what is going on in this magical piece.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

DaveM said:


> I’ve been playing this work for years. It has been analyzed as not only a study in the genius of Bach’s use of harmony, but also as the clever application of melody within the harmony. Some have even found melody within the notes of the individual chords.
> 
> Your analysis is interesting and I would suggest somewhat more profound than ‘filling in the blanks’, a term which to me is superficial and diminishes the complexity of what is going on in this magical piece.


I've edited the post above. Re-read for more clues re melodic choice of notes concerning the bass line. The melody _is_ in the harmony, that's part of my point, it's kind of latent and brought out by contour and rhythm as much as the chosen notes. There are passing notes in the melody, but the destination notes are consonant - pre-determined if you like - and often limited to 1 of only 2 notes if one factors in the melodies careful relationship to and with the bass.

'Filling in the blanks' is an expression an academically trained composer will understand well enough, even if it sounds superficial or mechanical to others. A phrase like that doesn't detract from the artistry of the end result for a composer because it also implies best practice imv, which is a given, a means to an end and in constant use where appropriate....and all for good, refined musical reasons as Gounod shows us.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

mikeh375 said:


> ...
> 'Filling in the blanks' is an expression an academically trained composer will understand well enough, even if it sounds superficial or mechanical to others. A phrase like that doesn't detract from the artistry of the end result for a composer because it also implies best practice imv, which is a given, a means to an end and in constant use where appropriate....and all for good, refined musical reasons as Gounod shows us.


I think it's essentially similar to what's done (ill-advisedly imo) when someone transcribes the cello suites for guitar and fills in the implied harmonies. I don't like the Gounod treatment.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Yabetz said:


> I think it's essentially similar to what's done (ill-advisedly imo) when someone transcribes the cello suites for guitar and fills in the implied harmonies. I don't like the Gounod treatment.


There are similarities for sure, but if I where to transcribe, my thought process would be entirely different to the way I'd think and go about adding a melody to a pre-existing harmonic sequence. As you know, transcription is more a matter of musically appropriate and idiomatic translation whereas the addition of a tune is a far more expressive, unique and creative venture.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Yeah and then again Bach himself did adapt the 5th cello suite for "lute" so I guess there is a sort of template as to how he might've gone about it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

On the subject of melody, I believe Pop and Classical have melodies. But for example, Mozart and Bach have way more melodies than a typical pop song in terms of number of melodic sequences per unit of time. When you get to more modern music, there are still melodies, but they are less 'harmonious'. I just heard Shania Twain's 'You're Still the One' on the radio this morning. Nice melody, catchy, but kind of repetitive and is not much developed compared to Classical. All depends on what you're looking for in music.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> @HansZimmer
> 
> First, as @fbjim said, melody isn't required in music, and "catchy melodies" certainly aren't required, and aren't even all that common in a lot of music, including a lot of classical music.


The most appreciated classical music composers wouldn't probably agree with you, because not only they wrote melodic music, but their melodies were excellent: much better than "supermarket music" of today like Despacito!

I have to agree with DaveM: many persons, including me, think that the melody is an essential ingredient in music. To throw away melody and harmony is a good way to move away people from classical music, as if it wasn't already unpopular enough.



> If was a "minimal requirement" to write catchy melodies then more classical composers would moonlight as pop songwriters and be making far more money than most of them do. Anyone who thinks it's easy to be a Max Martin is fooling themselves.


Pop music is born in 1950, so Mozart couldn't be a pop songwriter, but he was already able to write better melodies than supermarket music like Despacito as a child and as a teen.
Furthermore, the arrangements of the melodies are aesthetically refined and elegant, not vulgar and rude.

If Mozart was alive today, what would he do? He would be probably treat like an idiot, because the music industry has educated people to the idea that making music means to write porn songs for the bars and that melodies must consist of looped themes of four notes that you can easily memorize.

So, the right question is: can Mozart exist today? I read of kids that are bullied at school because they listen to classical music and not to supermarket music, so the today society doesn't encourage people with such interests. Mozart was born in the right society.



> Third, even FILMS don't have the "minimal requirements" you suggest. There's plenty of great films with bad acting, or no acting at all, with an intentionally rough visual aesthetics. Many of film's most influential films were made by intentionally violating most of the traditional standards of "good filmmaking."


I was simply saying that most people expect that a film is made with a professional camera and credible actors.

The fact that "How High" has been made by a professional team doesn't mean that it's a good film, or even a film that can claim anything in the field of arts.



> The lesson to be learned here is that, for many people, a good, simple, catchy melody is enough to make for a good song. You disagree. You're free to disagree, but your problem is that you're trying to make your preference out to be some objective standard for judging good and bad and not many are going to be convinced unless they're already biased to agree with you.


Not good songs, but the best songs, according to the popularity of Despacito, Gangnam Style and other songs.

I have a doubt about the fact the people really think that this is the BEST music. What I think, as I've already written, is that they are so popular only because the market push them aggresively. I've learned at school that the companies have a social responsability ("great power, great responsability"), but it's obvious that the music industry only wants to make a profit: the musical education and the art is not a value for the people who control it. Their only value is money.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> .... it's obvious that the music industry only wants to make a profit: the musical education and the art is not a value for the people who control it. Their only value is money.


At last! You've said something I agree with. Today's music "Industry" is primarily motivated by what can be monetised. Quality in modern music is a balance between investment and return.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Chilham said:


> Today's music "Industry" is primarily motivated by what can be monetised.


If you think this isn't true for Classical Music, too, you are sorely mistaken.


----------



## Chilham (Jun 18, 2020)

prlj said:


> If you think this isn't true for Classical Music, too, you are sorely mistaken.


I don't think that.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> I have a doubt about the fact the people really think that this is the BEST music. What I think, as I've already written, is that they are so popular only because the market push them aggresively. I've learned at school that the companies have a social responsability ("great power, great responsability"), but it's obvious that the music industry only wants to make a profit: the musical education and the art is not a value for the people who control it. Their only value is money.


I have spent the majority of my professional career in the world of classical music, and I can assure you that everything you wrote in this paragraph applies directly to the CM industry just as it does to the world of pop music. You would be ignorant and foolish to think otherwise.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Phil loves classical said:


> On the subject of melody, I believe Pop and Classical have melodies. But for example, Mozart and Bach have way more melodies than a typical pop song in terms of number of melodic sequences per unit of time. When you get to more modern music, there are still melodies, but they are less 'harmonious'. I just heard Shania Twain's 'You're Still the One' on the radio this morning. Nice melody, catchy, but kind of repetitive and is not much developed compared to Classical. All depends on what you're looking for in music.


It's because the music industry, like all modern industries, produces a high quantity of products with a lower quality in respect to artisans. It's like an assembly line with composers who must compose many pieces in a short time. With the time they have to compose one piece they can only write a simple and catchy theme that it's used as a chorus and repeated many times.
Melodies with only a few notes are also easy to sing so prepared singers are not required.

In pop songs with more notes than Despacito you need a trained singer like Celine Dion, but why should you compose things like that if the "Despacito formula" (flat melodies with no progression) has been shown to work well for making money?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

just for fun, how melodic is this section?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

prlj said:


> I have spent the majority of my professional career in the world of classical music, and I can assure you that everything you wrote in this paragraph applies directly to the CM industry just as it does to the world of pop music. You would be ignorant and foolish to think otherwise.


It's probably an other kind of business, however. A gourmet restaurant also makes a profit, but the director knows that the customers expect food with a high quality.

Many users here didn't understand the meaning of "supermarket music". It's like "supermarket food": food of low quality produced in factories. Pizzas you find in supermarkets are nothing like the pizza you can eat in an italian restaurant. An italian restaurant is also a business, but it serves different purposes than supermarkets.

A film like Schindler's List is also a business, but films like that are produced to be timeless and not a temporary fashion. I wouldn't be surpirsed if people of 2200 would still watch Schindler's List while the action films with The Rock would be lost because they can easily be replaced by the next action film without any artistic substance.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

mikeh375 said:


> I've edited the post above. Re-read for more clues re melodic choice of notes concerning the bass line. The melody _is_ in the harmony, that's part of my point, it's kind of latent and brought out by contour and rhythm as much as the chosen notes. There are passing notes in the melody, but the destination notes are consonant - pre-determined if you like - and often limited to 1 of only 2 notes if one factors in the melodies careful relationship to and with the bass.
> 
> 'Filling in the blanks' is an expression an academically trained composer will understand well enough, even if it sounds superficial or mechanical to others. A phrase like that doesn't detract from the artistry of the end result for a composer because it also implies best practice imv, which is a given, a means to an end and in constant use where appropriate....and all for good, refined musical reasons as Gounod shows us.


Yes, young pianists play this and there's so much opportunity for self expression they really take to it in my experience. And then it's a shock that the other preludes are quite challenging to conceptualize, by comparison. ha

Here's a quiz. For people with very clever musical brains (scanning for patterns). I'm not one of them heh. But try to determine how these notes come out in this sequence. Just like with those math sequences when you try to determine the simple pattern and the next number, it's very simple when you understand what's going on.

tonic
fifth
ninth
sixth
third
major seventh
flat fifth
flat ninth
augmented fifth or flat sixth
sharp ninth
seventh
eleventh or sus4
and then the tonic again


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> Pop music is born in 1950, . . .


So . . . I don't think that's correct.

*I Can Dream, Can't I? (1949)*
_*I'm Looking Over a Four Leaf Clover (1948)
Peg o' My Heart (1947)
The Old Lamplighter (1946)
Sentimental Journey (1945)
Swinging On a Star (1944)
Brazil (1943)
(I've Got a Gal In) Kalamazoo (1942)
Chattanooga Choo Choo (1941)

Tuxedo Junction (1940)
Over the Rainbow (1939)
Bei mir bist du schön (1938)
The Merry-Go-Round Broke Down (1937)
Pennies From Heaven (1936)
Cheek to Cheek (1935)
All I Do Is Dream Of You (1934)
You're Getting To Be a Habit With Me (1933)
Brother, Can You Spare a Dime (1932)
Just a Gigolo (1931)

Happy Days Are Here Again (1930)
Tiptoe Through the Tulips (1929)
I Wanna Be Loved By You (1928); My Mammy (1928)
My Blue Heaven (1927)
Baby Face (1926)
Tea For Two (1925)
Doo Wacka Doo (1924)
Yes! We Have No Bananas (1923)
April Showers (1922)
Second Hand Rose (1921)

Down By The O-HI-O (I've Got The Sweetest Little O, My ! O ! ) (1920)
I Wish I Could Shimmy Like My Sister Kate (1919)
After You've Gone (1918)
I'm Always Chasing Rainbows (1917)
Good-bye Broadway, Hello France (1916), Ireland Must Be Heaven For My Mother Came From There (1916)
Belgium Put the Kibosh On the Kaiser (1915)
The Aba Daba Honeymoon (1914)
Ballin' the Jack (1913)
Everybody Loves a Chicken (1912)
Let Me Call You Sweetheart (1911)

Come, Josephine, In My Flying Machine (1910), Down By the Old Mill Stream (1910)
From the Land of Sky-blue Water (1909)
All She Gets From the Iceman is Ice (1908)
Will the Circle Be Unbroken? (1907)
Stop Your Tickling Jock (1906)
In the Shade of the Old Apple Tree (1905)
Meet Me In St. Louis, Louie (1904)
I Could Love You In A Steam Heat Flat (1903)
In the Good Old Summertime (1902)
Hello, Central, Give Me Heaven (1901)

A Bird in a Gilded Cage (1900)*_
*Hello! Ma Baby (1899)*

Should I go on?

1890 - Listen to the Mocking Bird
1880 - *Funiculì, Funiculà
1870 - Just Touch the Harp Gently, My Pretty Louise
1860 - When the Corn Is Waving, Annie Dear
1850 - Camptown Races
1840 - The Old Arm Chair
1830 - There's Nothing True but Heaven
1820 - The Crimson Banner
1810 - Believe Me, if All Those Endearing Young Charms

1793 - Schenectady
1790 - Yankee Doodle
1770 - Chester *

Popular Music


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> So . . . I don't think that's correct.


Agreed. The staggering display of a lack of basic musical and music industry knowledge contained in certain posts knows no bounds.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, young pianists play this and there's so much opportunity for self expression they really take to it in my experience. And then it's a shock that the other preludes are quite challenging to conceptualize, by comparison. ha


I would say that, while it is a work that is easy to memorize and the fingering, per se, does not appear difficult, the shock comes when the ’young pianists’ find that it is not easy to play well.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

pianozach said:


> So . . . I don't think that's correct.
> 
> *I Can Dream, Can't I? (1949)*
> _*I'm Looking Over a Four Leaf Clover (1948)
> ...


I would be willing to bet hard cash that Zach can sing the lyrics of every single one of these songs by heart and, and much like Ginger Rogers ,while dancing backwards in high heels.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> So . . . I don't think that's correct.
> 
> *I Can Dream, Can't I? (1949)*
> _*I'm Looking Over a Four Leaf Clover (1948)
> ...



Pop music and popular music are two different things: the first one is a style of music born around 1950, while the second word is used to indicate commercial music with a large diffusion.

Pop music - Wikipedia

Popular music - Wikipedia

Some of the songs I see in your list are not pop songs, nor popular songs, but folk songs.

Folk music - Wikipedia


I've already written in this discussion that many people confuse pop music with popular music and the post to which I replied speaks about pop music, not popular music. I understand what I read.

To further clarify, pop music is popular music, but not all popular music is pop music. Popular music include many different styles, including rock, rap, dance, and so on...


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

prlj said:


> Agreed. The staggering display of a lack of basic musical and music industry knowledge contained in certain posts knows no bounds.


I think that we should speak about your lack of dictionary, instead.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

prlj said:


> I have spent the majority of my professional career in the world of classical music, and I can assure you that everything you wrote in this paragraph applies directly to the CM industry just as it does to the world of pop music. You would be ignorant and foolish to think otherwise.


When I first heard Gangnam Style my thought was about how difficult it is to come up with a HUGE hit like that. The ingredients that make it effective are both obvious and subtle ..and very primal. 

It reminds me of another surprisingly big hit, Hanky Panky from the 1960s. If you look at the song sheet it is so very simple, but so effective for the casual listener. Why don't we get tired of those two (and others)? They stir us, but it's puzzling (or not PC) to put into words specifically why.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> Why don't we get tired of those two (and others)? They stir us, but it's puzzling (or not PC) to put into words specifically why.


If we had the capacity to put these feelings into words, then we wouldn't need music.  That's what makes all of this so much fun...from Stravinsky to Bach to Coltrane to Taylor Swift. It's all fun.

(Except for those who take it too seriously.)


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DaveM said:


> I would say that, while it is a work that is easy to memorize and the fingering, per se, does not appear difficult, the shock comes when the ’young pianists’ find that it is not easy to play well.


Yes, evenness and control and smoothness might be goals. Or there are other ways of interpreting it.

I immediately disliked the way Glenn Gould recorded it. He said that he had 5 or 10 different ideas about pieces before he came into the studio and then he would decide later which one he wanted to 'represent' him. He actually wanted his listeners to have 10 interpretations that they could pull apart and reconstruct at home, but the technology wasn't available yet.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

prlj said:


> If we had the capacity to put these feelings into words, then we wouldn't need music.  That's what makes all of this so much fun...from Stravinsky to Bach to Coltrane to Taylor Swift. It's all fun.
> 
> (Except for those who take it too seriously.)


I agree, but it would be difficult for me to put into words how (even pop) music can be taken too seriously. I mean, compared to what other technical subject? 
You're fairly new to this forum and I don't want to sound like I'm badgering you. I'm not, I just have a clumsy, off-putting style of posing questions (compared to mikeh375 and DaveM).


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, evenness and control and smoothness might be goals. Or there are other ways of interpreting it...


Yes, all that. Changing tempo and emphasizing certain notes can substantially make a difference.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> You're fairly new to this forum and I don't want to sound like I'm badgering you.


No offense taken. I'm about as new as the person who originally posted this thread, but I've been "in the industry" for decades. 

I've found comparisons like what the OP attempted here to be cumbersome, unnecessary, and ultimately damaging to CM in the long run as we try to attract new people to our little niche spot in the global world of music. Comparisons of one style to other to determine which is "better" may make for fun barroom banter, but when it's taken too seriously, like it has been here, all it does is drive a further wedge between us and new audiences, as "we" come across as elitist and condescending. 

So I don't have an answer for your question, as I simply don't think it's worthwhile to try to ascribe vocabulary to something that is impossible to describe with words. "Dancing about architecture" and all that. I hope that helps!


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> Pop music and popular music are two different things: the first one is a style of music born around 1950, while the second word is used to indicate commercial music with a large diffusion.
> 
> Pop music - Wikipedia
> 
> ...


Now you're just splitting hairs. The two phrases are OFTEN used interchangeably. 

Fine, you want to narrow your discussion to the diverse "Pop Music" subgenre of "Popular Music". But that's a mighty fine distinction, with a very broad area of overlap.

And Pop Music has roots in Folk, Rhythm & Blues, Gospel, Classical music, and other random genres. 

Every song I randomly chose was a _POPULAR_ song. If a song listed was a *Folk Song*, it was still *popular*. There were popular Folk Songs in the 1920s, and popular Folk Songs in the 1960s: Are you saying that the 1920s Folk song was "Popular Music", but the 1960s Folk Song is "Pop Music"?

Besides, *Folk Music* _IS_ *Popular Music (or Pop Music)* - it sure wasn't *Classical Music*, whether it came from 1920 or 1960. 



HansZimmer said:


> To further clarify, pop music is popular music, but not all popular music is pop music. Popular music include many different styles, including rock, rap, dance, and so on...


As I interpret your last sentence, it appears that you are attempting to exclude particular styles of music ("rock, rap, dance, and so on...") from Pop Music. 

But many of your examples you've used to denigrate "Pop Music" have been of these "styles": Despacito, Gangnam Style, etc.

You yourself seem to confuse your precious separate "Pop" and "Popular" music when making your points. Styles are "Pop" for you when convenient, and "Popular" when not.

Moreover, if you want to use *Wikipedia* as your go-to source, you may want to read a bit more in-depth. From the *Wikipedia* page for "*Pop Music*": _"Although much of the music that appears on record charts is considered to be pop music, the genre is distinguished from chart music" _And you've been making hash of Pop Music that's is popular, that is, songs that have charted. "Popular" songs. It goes on: _"The term *"pop song"* was first used in *1926*, in the sense of a piece of music "having popular appeal . . . many events in the history of recording in the 1920s can be seen as the birth of the modern pop music industry, including in country, blues, and hillbilly music."_

But wait, there's more_; "From about 1967, the term "pop music" was increasingly used in opposition to the term rock music, a division that gave generic significance to both terms." _So . . . Rock Music ISN'T "Pop Music", at least according to your sources.

So, as I understand it, you are excluding Folk Music and Rock Music from your definition of Pop Music. So . . . is Hip Hop and Rap "Pop Music"? Does your definition of "Pop Music" include House, Reggae, Zydeco, Blues, or Country?

Your parameters seem rather fluid.



> You've had to change your thread title twice already. Now it's "*Top Selling Music*", so you're no longer actually talking about "*Pop Music*", but about "*Chart Music*".


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Deleted, duplicate post, mistaken quote instead of edit.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Shaughnessy said:


> I would be willing to bet hard cash that Zach can sing the lyrics of every single one of these songs by heart and, and much like Ginger Rogers ,while dancing backwards in high heels.


I accompanied *melodrama* and *vaudeville* for over 3 years, and was in a professional *Barbershop Quartet* for five.

You _bet_ I know most of these songs.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

prlj said:


> No offense taken. I'm about as new as the person who originally posted this thread, but I've been "in the industry" for decades.
> 
> I've found comparisons like what the OP attempted here to be cumbersome, unnecessary, and ultimately damaging to CM in the long run as we try to attract new people to our little niche spot in the global world of music. Comparisons of one style to other to determine which is "better" may make for fun barroom banter, but when it's taken too seriously, like it has been here, all it does is drive a further wedge between us and new audiences, as "we" come across as elitist and condescending.
> 
> So I don't have an answer for your question, as I simply don't think it's worthwhile to try to ascribe vocabulary to something that is impossible to describe with words. "Dancing about architecture" and all that. I hope that helps!


Thanks. As an aside, I don't understand defensiveness in an anonymous forum. We know so little about members, other than maybe the musical side of their lives. Many of us have careers in unrelated areas.
If people were reading these posts trying to decide about investing time in classical music, I agree we wouldn't want to project an air of elitism.

I'm more extreme than many folks in here, because I believe that CM is very important to a person's life down through the decades. And so, I'm very interested in how we can offer young people the opportunity to really appreciate the achievements of the past and how it would enrich their lives for decades to come. I think that musicology and music theory can be made interesting and mind expanding, etc. etc., but many people in here don't agree with me.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

@HansZimmer 

It seems to me by saying "melodies are essential to music" you're just stating another preference. It doesn't matter who agrees with you, but I had taken your comment more literally. There's a ton of music out there, both classical and popular, that doesn't have melody as an essential ingredient. There's music that focuses almost exclusively on rhythm, harmony, texture, tone, lyrics, etc. As I keep saying, you're free to value these ingredients to whatever extent, in whatever style, and whatever mixture you want, but your problem is that you're trying to make these preferences into objective standards, and that's not going to fly with anyone who doesn't already agree with you. In that same vein, you describing things as "refined and elegant" and others as "vulgar and rude" is just you stating your tastes. What is the purpose of this? It's just opinion vomiting. It's not impressive to anyone who knows what they're actually talking about and isn't just playing a game of trying to present their subjective opinions as authoritative ones. 

Pop music has been around for as long as music has been around. Before we had pop music of the rock n' roll era there was folk music, the popularity of show tunes, even jazz was the popular music for a time. 

I don't know what Mozart would've done if he was alive today, but he wouldn't have composed music anything like the Mozart of the 18th century. It's entirely possible he would've been a Max Martin type, or he could be a John Williams, or maybe he would've formed a heavy metal band, or be like any of the more struggling art-music composers that so few know today. Culture has changed radically from what it was in Mozart's time. It's almost pointless to speculate, and would hugely depend on what kind of environment he grew up in. What if his father had been a rocker and given Mozart a guitar at a young age and taught him all the ins-and-outs of rock music? Maybe Mozart would've been Eddie Van Halen. 

Where did you read that kids were bullied at school for liking classical music? I liked classical music when I was in school and nobody bullied me for it because nobody knew except my friends and they didn't care. 

"Most people" don't know what a "professional camera" looks like nor what counts as "credible actors." As for the former, good cameras these days are cheap and even cell-phones take high quality video so that 99% of the people couldn't tell the difference in the final product if they were both shot by the same cameraman in roughly the same way. 

Again you mistake "most popular" for "best." I guarantee a lot of those views are from people who didn't even like those songs but found them through any number of ways, such as people like you linking them on message boards. It's a snowball effect; once the popularity of a video gets going it spreads exponentially. You also vastly overestimate how much power "the music industry" has today. It's paltry compared to the power they had back when they actually got to control what people heard on the radio, when the radio was the only way people got to hear music for free. Now people can find stuff for themselves for free on YouTube and Bandcamp. Many of the biggest pop stars in the recent decade arose from grassroots efforts of them posting their music on YouTube, like Billie Eilish and Justin Bieber. They were only signed to major labels AFTER their massive success on YouTube. This grassroots creation/promotion is arguably more powerful today than the music industry trying to push/sell anything. Obviously the music industry only cares about money, but they also care about what people will like because that's what sells and makes them money.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> And so, I'm very interested in how we can offer young people the opportunity to really appreciate the achievements of the past and how it would enrich their lives for decades to come.


I completely agree, and I've found the most success by meeting people where they already are in their own musical journey and tastes. Denigrating or disparaging what they're already into only makes people defensive and pushes them away. I've found the most success by listening to their favorites, and engaging them in talking about what they like about their favorite songs or bands. Sometimes I don't even talk about classical music at all, I just try to foster an atmosphere of welcoming and acceptance to all of our concerts and programs. People live their lives on shuffle mode...all I hope for is to bring them a little bit of excitement about our world. This isn't about proselytizing and converting, simply awareness and encouragement. 

Talking smack about what they like will never accomplish that. Threads like this one, and the attitudes expressed herein, are what we here on the ground in the industry are constantly fighting against - the elitism and snobbery of our own "fan"base. 

The sooner these sorts of attitudes die out, the better off we'll all be.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

I mean, seriously, imagine a person brand new to classical music. Maybe they heard it some Vivaldi in the background at a coffee shop somewhere, and decided, "Hey, it's time for me to learn more about this." 

And they go online, and read about some composers on Wikipedia, and listen to some music on Spotify, and they come across this forum, hoping to learn more and ask some knowledgeable people about this stuff. 

And they come across this thread...and discover commentary that completely encapsulates the elitist, snobbish attitudes that "we" have unfortunately been known for. 

Do you think that helps a new person feel welcome?

Do you think that helps a new person feel comfortable?

Do you think that trashing on what someone might like outside of CM makes them feel good? 

This attitude among our 'fans' needs to stop, and it needs to stop now. 

We have spent 100 years shooting ourselves in the foot, with our stupid rules about "when to clap" and "what to wear" and "read all these program notes so that you UNDERSTAND." 

And all we've done convince the greater part of the population that they are not welcome. 

And they've heard our message. 

Haven't we done enough damage to ourselves? Isn't it time to chill the **** out, enjoy some music, and meet people where they are in their own musical journeys? 

Please, stop making this harder for those of us actually trying to make a difference.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> @HansZimmer
> 
> There's a ton of music out there, both classical and popular, that doesn't have melody as an essential ingredient.


A ton of music? Eliminate melody from classical music of the CP era and you would be left with a shell of the genre. As for popular music, not including rap, removing melody and you would eliminate a majority of the best popular music over decades. Without melody, the Beatles White Album could have been released as an EP.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

prlj said:


> I've found comparisons like what the OP attempted here to be cumbersome, unnecessary, and ultimately damaging to CM in the long run as we try to attract new people to our little niche spot in the global world of music. Comparisons of one style to other to determine which is "better" may make for fun barroom banter, but when it's taken too seriously, like it has been here, all it does is drive a further wedge between us and new audiences, as "we" come across as elitist and condescending.





> Talking smack about what they like will never accomplish that. Threads like this one, and the attitudes expressed herein, are what we here on the ground in the industry are constantly fighting against - the elitism and snobbery of our own "fan"base.





prlj said:


> I mean, seriously, imagine a person brand new to classical music. Maybe they heard it some Vivaldi in the background at a coffee shop somewhere, and decided, "Hey, it's time for me to learn more about this."
> 
> And they go online, and read about some composers on Wikipedia, and listen to some music on Spotify, and they come across this forum, hoping to learn more and ask some knowledgeable people about this stuff.
> 
> ...


Is this really necessary? This is a classical music forum. While I don’t agree with the OP, an opinion that appears to elevate classical music over other genres is not some sort of sin requiring this kind of piling on. Not to mention that a thread like this is highly unlikely to have the consequences you are forecasting unless new members tend to be naive, suggestible wilting violets which hasn’t been my experience and after you’ve been on the forum a little longer, it will likely be yours as well.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

prlj said:


> ...Denigrating or disparaging what they're already into only makes people defensive and pushes them away. ...


Well most of my life a good many people I've come across have disparaged classical music and it didn't discourage me. Sometimes people have to put forth a little effort and discover music or literature or painting or whatever on their own, regardless of what others say.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> Nice melody, catchy, but kind of repetitive and is not much developed compared to Classical.


What do you think of my post, #138?


hammeredklavier said:


> I don't listen to non-classical music, but sometimes I can't help but thinking -
> "Old stuff" that has things like form or counterpoint in it (I'm speaking generally, not just about Bach, btw), we tend to look upon it with respect.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Is this really necessary? This is a classical music forum. While I don’t agree with the OP, an opinion that appears to elevate classical music over other genres is not some sort of sin requiring this kind of piling on. Not to mention that a thread like this is highly unlikely to have the consequences you are forecasting unless new members tend to be naive, suggestible wilting violets which hasn’t been my experience and after you’ve been on the forum a little longer, it will likely be yours as well.


It's speaking of the wider world, I think.

Conversely, I must say that when I was a kid I thought of CM as pleasingly intellectual and high brow (elitist in that manner of categorizing) AND it's what pulled me away from regarding pop music too highly. What did I know? I'm glad that it did.

It's likely that the world has changed this much! Youngsters today push a button and talk with their friends for an hour, we obviously didn't have that dimension in our socializing.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> A ton of music? Eliminate melody from classical music of the CP era and you would be left with a shell of the genre. As for popular music, not including rap, removing melody and you would eliminate a majority of the best popular music over decades. Without melody, the Beatles White Album could have been released as an EP.


You do realize that "there's a ton of amelodic music out there" is not mutually exclusive to "there's a ton of melodic music out there" nor "melodic music greatly outnumbers amelodic music," yes? Because your post is acting like it is.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Is this really necessary? This is a classical music forum. While I don’t agree with the OP, an opinion that appears to elevate classical music over other genres is not some sort of sin requiring this kind of piling on.


You're right to observe that "piling on" is not necessary. It's difficult to stop it happening when several members (including me) have posted responses critical of the OP's argument, who (perhaps unsurprisingly) doubles down on their position with each one in turn.

If Hans feels "piled on" he might ask for mod help.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You do realize that "there's a ton of amelodic music out there" is not mutually exclusive to "there's a ton of melodic music out there" nor "melodic music greatly outnumbers amelodic music," yes? Because your post is acting like it is.


As usual, you evaded the real point which was where would CP era classical music and the majority of popular (outside of rap) be without melody. Using The Beatles again as an example (and I could name countless solo artists and bands since), without melody the amelodic music could have been released on perhaps one limited LP. How about Taylor Swift without melody. Beyoncé? Ariana Grande? Adele? Ed Sheeran?

As for your ‘mutually exclusive’: popular music would have easily survived without the benefit of amelodic music, not so without melody.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> As usual, you evaded the real point which was where would CP era classical music and the majority of popular (outside of rap) be without melody. Using The Beatles again as an example (and I could name countless solo artists and bands since), without melody the amelodic music could have been released on perhaps one limited LP. How about Taylor Swift without melody. Beyoncé? Ariana Grande? Adele? Ed Sheeran?
> 
> As for your ‘mutually exclusive’: popular music would have easily survived without the benefit of amelodic music, not so without melody.


Since your "real point" had nothing to do with I said that you responded to I was under no obligation to address it. It's so incredibly obvious that the history of classical and pop music would've been completely different had amelodic music been the dominant style as opposed to melodic music that it should've gone without saying. The point I was making was that there's still a ton of either amelodic music, or music that de-emphasizes melody to a huge extent, out there. Clearly, amelodic music can be made, and has been made, so anyone saying melody is "essential" is either ignorant, lying, or making a rhetorical point based on their own tastes.

As to whether popular would've survived without melody, who knows? Over the last few decades the importance of melody has decreased in popular music to a large extent, to the point now that hooks are more frequently made from short motifs that are far more driven by rhythm than melody. This phenomenon has been remarked on quite a lot within both classical music and pop music. There's been threads here about it, and here's a video that discusses it briefly in both contexts:





That video goes on to describes how "hooks" have taken the place of "melodies," especially in modern pop, and I largely agree (though one can always find exceptions; even the Billie Eilish song he mentions actually has an instrumental melody as its chorus). There's also the point to be made that there's no clearly defined line between a "melody" and a "hook," but it's still clear things have changed. This wasn't unheard of in classical either, including older classical, since the famous motif of Beethoven's 5th is far more of a hook than a melody; and while that symphony certainly has other melodies none of them are remotely as famous as that motif, and there's a reason for that: because hooks have the potential to be far more memorable than melodies, and in age where there's seemingly infinite music out there being made, it's unsurprising that the hookiest music is the most successful.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

DaveM said:


> A ton of music? Eliminate melody from classical music of the CP era and you would be left with a shell of the genre. As for popular music, not including rap, removing melody and you would eliminate a majority of the best popular music over decades. Without melody, the Beatles White Album could have been released as an EP.


The post said that melody was not necessary, or essential. It did not say it was not good, or enjoyable. All it means is that it's possible to create music where melody is not the primary aesthetic goal, or (in some cases) there at all.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Clearly, amelodic music can be made, and has been made, so anyone saying melody is "essential" is either ignorant, lying, or making a rhetorical point based on their own tastes.


Since opinions, however flawed, are a major driving force of this forum, I don’t know why ‘_lying_’ would be relevant. While melody is, apparently (groan), not essential in today’s classical music, per se, it is a legitimate opinion that melody is essential for the survival of the genre given that said survival is highly dependent on CP era music. As for popular music, outside of rap music, popular would be surviving on fumes without melody. ’Hooks’ have traditionally been associated with melody. While I suppose they can exist without melody, in my experience where there are ‘hooks’ in today’s popular music I hear melody, however threadbare.

All of this is to say that someone in a forum about a music genre heavily dependent on melody can be forgiven for believing that melody is essential and the term ‘_ignorant_’ would seem unnecessary.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

prlj said:


> Comparisons of one style to other to determine which is "better"


I'm not denigrating other styles of music. You haven't understood what I'm saying.

I am saying that there is art outside of classical music and that the art music of all styles has more difficulties in taking off in respect to the bad music.
If I write a negative review about Despacito (the most popular song in youtube) does it mean that I'm bashing the whole repertoire of non-classical music? No, the negative review is about Despacito, not about all pieces of music!

Why can't I write a negative review of Despacito? I don't understand your point. Do I have to pretend that everything has the same artistic value? Can't I say that a Picasso painting is better than a draw of a kindergarten child?


The point is that there is better music inside popular music than the trash of the "summer hits".
The music of Elton John, for example, has a greater artistic value. Smarter lyrics, good melodies and vocal techinique. There is more than "catchy melodies" in his music.

He also composed one of the most memorable film opening: the one of the Lion King (composed by Elton John, arranged by Hans Zimmer).






It's a pop song and I enjoy it because it's smart, expressive and therefore artistic. Popular music simply needs more pieces like this one and less junk like Despacito.


That said, the curious imaginary person who comes in this forum (the one about which you speak in your other post) will want to know why he/she should invest time in classical music and my posts will help him/her more than yours.

Despacito






8 years old Mozart






It's the first symphony of Mozart that captured my interest for classical music: a 8 years old with such skills is very inspiring, while Despacito is uninspiring and diseducational.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not denigrating other styles of music. You haven't understood what I'm saying.
> 
> I am saying that there is art outside of classical music and that the art music of all styles has more difficulties in taking off in respect to the bad music.
> *If I write a negative review about Despacito (the most popular song in youtube) does it mean that I'm bashing the whole repertoire of non-classical music? No, the negative review is about Despacito, not about all pieces of music!*
> ...


Except that you have repeatedly referred to certain individual songs as examples of the "supermarket" music about which you wrote:



> I reject the idea that there is anything appealing in supermaket music and, for sure, such products can not be better in any sense of the word in respect to classical music.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> Now you're just splitting hairs. The two phrases are OFTEN used interchangeably.
> 
> Fine, you want to narrow your discussion to the diverse "Pop Music" subgenre of "Popular Music". But that's a mighty fine distinction, with a very broad area of overlap.
> 
> ...



The terminology is not so important, because as explained here, I'm not bashing a particular style of music, but the bad music inside the different styles of music.

However, for the terminology I simply refer to this image.











It's an italian image, so I'll translate.

CULTURA ALTA = HIGH CULTURE

MUSICA COLTA = ART MUSIC

Inside POPULAR CULTURE: mass culture, market logics

Inside FOLKLORE: local cultures not directed by the media and by the industry.

Some of the songs of your list stay in the third area: FOLKLORE.

Inside POPULAR MUSIC there are only two examples of styles (POP and ROCK) because the space in the table is not infinite, but there are many other styles: dance, rap, trap, and so on...

I'm not bashing popular music or pop music, but the bad music inside popular music. There is also good music inside popular music. If I write a negative review about Despacito doesn't mean that I think that there is no art in popular music. If you write a negative review about "Fast & Furious" doesn't mean that you're attacking all hollywood films.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

HZ,

I think you'll find 100% agreement that nobody wants to listen to bad music of any genre. However, since people all have different taste, you will not get complete consensus on what constitutes bad music.

To use an example from country music, I am not a fan of the Florida-Georgia Line song "Cruise." It was #1 on the country charts for weeks and made the band a household name, so obviously, many other people found something in it that I did not. Therefore, I cannot call it bad, just not to my taste. Conversely, Brad Paisley's song "I Wish You'd Stay" was not a big hit as a single, but I still think it is one of his best songs. There will be other times where the charts and I agree.

Say what you want to about any piece of music you want. Just stay aware that art and popularity sometimes intersect and sometimes do not.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Nice chart, for a rudimentary overview. But ignores overlaps between genres, and leaves out some details. It could use a great deal of improvement.

Country, Bluegrass, Dixieland, Ragtime, Big Band, Be Bop, Gospel, Rap, Hip Hop, Electronica, Art Rock, Prog, Lite Classical, New Age. 

Moreover, this gives the impression that these are separate music fields. I'm not even convinced that "Folk" and "Popular" deserve separation. One could make a case that all those John Phillip Sousa marches are actually "Popular Music" and not strictly "Art Music".


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Since opinions, however flawed, are a major driving force of this forum, I don’t know why ‘_lying_’ would be relevant. While melody is, apparently (groan), not essential in today’s classical music, per se, it is a legitimate opinion that melody is essential for the survival of the genre given that said survival is highly dependent on CP era music. As for popular music, outside of rap music, popular would be surviving on fumes without melody. ’Hooks’ have traditionally been associated with melody. While I suppose they can exist without melody, in my experience where there are ‘hooks’ in today’s popular music I hear melody, however threadbare.
> 
> All of this is to say that someone in a forum about a music genre heavily dependent on melody can be forgiven for believing that melody is essential and the term ‘_ignorant_’ would seem unnecessary.


Nobody was arguing that, though. The statement was that a "catchy melody" was the minimum essential element of any CP or popular song and this is demonstrably false. 

"Essential" in this case is analogous to "inherent". Not "important", as in "essential to the survival of the genre".


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I also think the OP is entirely correct in separating popular music from Pop music (I sometimes say "capital-P Pop" to make it really clear that these are different things), the modern conception of which probably began with the advent of the record industry.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

fbjim said:


> Nobody was arguing that, though. The statement was that a "catchy melody" was the minimum essential element of any CP or popular song and this is demonstrably false.
> 
> "Essential" in this case is analogous to "inherent". Not "important", as in "essential to the survival of the genre".


There has been far more than that statement in posts by others. I respond to the posts or the segments of posts that I quote which may or may not be what you think I should be responding to.


----------



## mossyembankment (Jul 28, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> The user uses the word pop music, but the best word I can offer for the average top-selling commercial music of today is "supermarket music".
> "Supermarket music" doesn't contain only pop music, but also rap music, trap, reggaeton, dance and many other styles of music that the industry of music is pushing today.
> 
> Whatever is the style of music, what I think of supermarket music is that it's the equivalent of supermarket food: "plastic" food inside packs with good graphics.
> ...


The fact that a lot of people associate classical music with people who are snobby and out-of-touch enough with mainstream society to say something like this definitely doesn’t help it’s popularity.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Since opinions, however flawed, are a major driving force of this forum, I don’t know why ‘_lying_’ would be relevant. While melody is, apparently (groan), not essential in today’s classical music, per se, it is a legitimate opinion that melody is essential for the survival of the genre given that said survival is highly dependent on CP era music. As for popular music, outside of rap music, popular would be surviving on fumes without melody. ’Hooks’ have traditionally been associated with melody. While I suppose they can exist without melody, in my experience where there are ‘hooks’ in today’s popular music I hear melody, however threadbare.
> 
> All of this is to say that someone in a forum about a music genre heavily dependent on melody can be forgiven for believing that melody is essential and the term ‘_ignorant_’ would seem unnecessary.


One issue is that Hans didn't say that melody was essential for "the survival of the genre," he said melody was essential to music. Clearly that statement was incorrect unless he was just stating an opinion. As to whether it's essential to the survival of the genre, I'm more ambivalent on that. We can imagine a world in which melody never became a dominant feature in music at all, and then we can speculate how music would've evolved; but it would all only ever be speculation. As for pop, there's more genres than rap that minimize melody. Metal has been de-emphasizing melody since the 80s, and even before then a good chunk of rock/hard rock was often based more on riffs and rhythmic motifs than melodies. A band like AC/DC is one of the most successful rock acts of all-time, and while they have some songs that are more melodic than others, predominantly it's the rhythm and rhythmic hooks that carry most of their music and a lot of their fans think it's cheesy every time they try to move more towards melody. Even the band has spoken about this.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Since opinions, however flawed, are a major driving force of this forum, I don’t know why ‘_lying_’ would be relevant. While melody is, apparently (groan), not essential in today’s classical music, per se, it is a legitimate opinion that melody is essential for the survival of the genre given that said survival is highly dependent on CP era music.


"survival" of what, exactly?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

hammeredklavier said:


> "survival" of what, exactly?


Said survival.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Many people, as they are growing up and proceeding through their twenties, need to feel a connection to music that feels current and new. The mere fact that something is old makes it hard for many young people to accept.

A lot of the appeal of popular music is the content of lyrics. The lyrics should be in a language that the young listener understands, and they should address his or her concerns using the appropriate up-to-date slang and phraseology.

Plus, in previous generations, people listened to and sang songs, traditional or otherwise, that have disappeared or had their melodies repurposed. Most people didn't listen to what we call "classical" music. Perhaps some religious music that we consider as "classical" was heard by some non-elite people in religious services.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> Nice chart, for a rudimentary overview. But ignores overlaps between genres, and leaves out some details. It could use a great deal of improvement.
> 
> Country, Bluegrass, Dixieland, Ragtime, Big Band, Be Bop, Gospel, Rap, Hip Hop, Electronica, Art Rock, Prog, Lite Classical, New Age.
> 
> Moreover, this gives the impression that these are separate music fields. I'm not even convinced that "Folk" and "Popular" deserve separation. One could make a case that all those John Phillip Sousa marches are actually "Popular Music" and not strictly "Art Music".


They are the official definitions, but they are useless. The idea behind these categories is that only classical music is art, but this is wrong, because it's possible to produce art in other styles of music too.
In this discussion I'm suggesting an other view, namely a table of two columns: "Entertainment" and "Art". Then all styles of music will have some pieces that stay in a category, and other pieces which stay in the other.
"Art pop" and "Entertainment pop".
"Art rock" and "Entertainment rock".
"Art rap" and "Entertainment rap"

What's the difference between art and entertainment?
An artist is someone who tries to elevate himself/herself and his public.
An entertainer is someone who tries to amuse himself/herself and his public.


Now, the point of this discussion is that I see that the audience of entertainment music is wider than the audience of art music.
The most popular pop song will tend to be inside "entertainment pop" and not inside "art pop".

Indeed, Despacito and Gangam Style are clearily "entertainment songs" and not "art songs".

I understand that my negative view towards products for entertainment might not be shared by anyone, but at least you should admit that in my table "Despacito" and "Gangnam Style" stay in the entertainment column.
Someone wrote that Despacito is a good song. It's a good song for what? For entertainment might be good, but can the piece offer anyhing else than simple and pure entertainment? If it's art, then it's bad art.


I think that art music deserves more attention than entertainment music. I know I can't change humanity, but I'm a bit disappointed for the trend I see.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

bharbeke said:


> HZ,
> 
> I think you'll find 100% agreement that nobody wants to listen to bad music of any genre. However, since people all have different taste, you will not get complete consensus on what constitutes bad music.
> 
> ...


Read my last post.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> I think that art music deserves more attention than entertainment music. I know I can't change humanity, but I'm a bit disappointed for the trend I see.


Some music (or film, painting, etc.) has been valued for generations; some seems like it will be, even if it is new. Other music is popular in the moment, "speaking" to a particular group of people in a particular place at a particular time.

Nonetheless, I wish to respect everybody and their tastes. I don't wish to tell somebody that their tastes are low-brow and that their music is only entertainment, while mine is art. I try to identify why somebody enjoys what they do, without judgment. (I don't need to say that I like it.) Then, if given the opportunity, I like to share the music I enjoy, with the hope they'll accord me the same respect.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It seems to me by saying "melodies are essential to music" you're just stating another preference.


We were speaking about "songs with catchy melodies" and that's why I was saying that in songwriting being able to write catchy melodies is only the basic requirement.
More precisely, songs with a catchy melody can be "good entertainment songs", but if a catchy melody is the only thing they have, they can not be considered "art songs".

See my last post for more details about the concept of "entertainment song" and "art song".


That said, I know that there is not only the melody in music. If I listen to a rap song I don't expect a melody, but to be honest in a piece of classical music I want to hear a melody. No one is obliged to have the same tastes as me, but can we agree about the fact that the most popular pieces of classical music ("The Four Seasons", "The Nutcracker", "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik", "Le Claire de Lune", "Canon in D Major", various movements/themes from Beethoven's and Mozart's symphonies) are usually melodic? So, the melody is important for the average ears of humans at least in classical music.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> We were speaking about "songs with catchy melodies" and that's why I was saying that in songwriting being able to write catchy melodies is only the basic requirement.
> More precisely, songs with a catchy melody can be "good entertainment songs", but if a catchy melody is the only thing they have, they can not be considered "art songs".
> 
> See my last post for more details about the concept of "entertainment song" and "art song".
> ...


Ah. So, Opera is not "Art", it's entertainment, which means operas are NOT "Classical Music".

Got it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> We were speaking about "songs with catchy melodies" and that's why I was saying that in songwriting being able to write catchy melodies is only the basic requirement.
> More precisely, songs with a catchy melody can be "good entertainment songs", but if a catchy melody is the only thing they have, they can not be considered "art songs".


And you and only you gets to decide what makes an "art song?" Who even cares if something is an "art song?" You seem to want to measure what is art by what objective qualities a thing has rather than by whether or how much a song moves people, and the latter is the only standard the vast majority of people have when it comes to music. Even for us critical listeners, most of us could sit and analyze music and talk about its constituent parts; rhythm, harmony, melody, form, etc., and at the end of the day if it doesn't move us our little check-boxes don't mean much. It's why when there have been people here who've tried to criticize, eg, Schubert and Chopin for their sub-standard (to them) harmonies it's rang hollow to most people, because even here most realize that those composers' ability to move us with their music--whether melodically, tonally, or some other way--transcends whatever check-box complaints someone might have. 

Often a great melody can, indeed, make up for a wealth of other deficiencies, and it's often even the case that the lack of things like complex harmonies and rhythms help to highlight the melody. Part of the "art" of modern pop is crafting music in the production in a way that best supports/highlights the melody while bringing out tonal (again, tone as "mood, attitude") qualities. That's more difficult to do than you want to give credit for, and many modern productions are quite complex things with a ton of layers of often very simple sounds overlapping to create a coherent whole.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> Ah. So, Opera is not "Art", it's entertainment, which means operas are NOT "Classical Music".


Verdi and Puccini have been yeeted right out of the classical canon...shame. 

And I supposed I'll stop humming along to Beethoven 9 and Mozart, too!

If this thread goes on any longer, we won't have any Classical music left!!!!


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

prlj said:


> Verdi and Puccini have been yeeted right out of the classical canon...shame.
> 
> And I supposed I'll stop humming along to Beethoven 9 and Mozart, too!
> 
> If this thread goes on any longer, we won't have any Classical music left!!!!


The extent to which people who lack great refinement and training are able to enjoy a piece of music is the extent to which that piece of music does not merit the appellation "art."


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ....................Often a great melody can, indeed, make up for a wealth of other deficiencies, and it's often even the case that the lack of things like complex harmonies and rhythms help to highlight the melody. Part of the "art" of modern pop is crafting music in the production in a way that best supports/highlights the melody while bringing out tonal (again, tone as "mood, attitude") qualities. *That's more difficult to do than you want to give credit for, and many modern productions are quite complex things with a ton of layers of often very simple sounds overlapping to create a coherent whole.*


I'd suggest a DAW arrange page with no programming is even more daunting than a blank manuscript given the infinity of possibilities for both.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> Ah. So, Opera is not "Art", it's entertainment, which means operas are NOT "Classical Music".
> 
> Got it.


I have never written this. I can give you my account if you want me to write things I don't think.

Operas are probably one of the highest forms of art in music, because there is everything inside an opera. There is a story, there is orchestration, there is singing. Not only the singers can show what they are able to do with their voices, but they are indispensable to advance the story.

When I speak about "art songs" I'm thinking about short versions of operas: short vocal pieces with a story or a message where the singer can show what he/she is able to do with his/her voice. An art song can be in any style (classical, pop, rock, rap,..).


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> I have never written this. I can give you my account if you want me to write things I don't think.
> 
> Operas are probably one of the highest forms of art in music, because there is everything inside an opera. There is a story, there is orchestration, there is singing. Not only the singers can show what they are able to do with their voices, but they are indispensable to advance the story.
> 
> When I speak about "art songs" I'm thinking about short versions of operas: short vocal pieces with a story or a message where the singer can show what he/she is able to do with his/her voice. An art song can be in any style (classical, pop, rock, rap,..).


But opera are entertainment.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> But opera are entertainment.


Your reliance on sound logic must bring you much frustration in this world.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> But opera are entertainment.


I wrote that an artist is someone who tries to elevate himself/herself and his public. If you think that a composer who writes an opera is not trying to elevate himself/herself and that the product is not demanding for the public I don't know what to say.

Art is also entertainment, of course, but it's DEMANDING entertainment. An opera is demanding for the composer, for the singers, for the orchestra and for the public.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> I wrote that an artist is someone who tries to elevate himself/herself and his public. If you think that a composer who writes an opera is not trying to elevate himself/herself and that the product is not demanding for the public I don't know what to say.
> 
> Art is also entertainment, of course, but it's DEMANDING entertainment. An opera is demanding for the composer, for the singers, for the orchestra and for the public.


Ah. So . . . now it's DEMANDING entertainment that is art? And Art is Entertainment. 

Are those goalposts moving yet again?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> I wrote that an artist is someone who tries to elevate himself/herself and his public. If you think that a composer who writes an opera is not trying to elevate himself/herself and that the product is not demanding for the public I don't know what to say.
> 
> Art is also entertainment, of course, but it's DEMANDING entertainment. An opera is demanding for the composer, for the singers, for the orchestra and for the public.


Depends on the opera, doesn't it? Not all operas are equally demanding. Not all operas contain melodic music (of the variety you exemplified earlier, though maybe let's steer clear of also defining what a melody is.) Not all operas are found equally entertaining.

Have you tried any of these modern operas?

Six great contemporary operas | Classical Music (classical-music.com)

Aren't we back round to the essential and obvious point you've been making from the start? That in all genres of music, there is that which audiences find good/bad, melodic/unmelodic, entertaining/dull, inspiring/uninspiring etc.

And that whilst almost everyone here accepts the idea of there being a consensus about which pieces are generally highly regarded, most here also allow for the matter of personal taste and preference to sometimes shape that consensus.

Here are two different polls. The methodologies differ, but surely personal tastes made a difference?

The 20 Greatest Operas of all time | Classical Music (classical-music.com) _The Marriage of Figaro_ comes out on top.

The 20 greatest operas ever written - Classic FM _Carmen _comes out on top, and _Marriage _only at 19.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I don’t understand why you find it so important to differentiate art from entertainment. And since when when something has a catchy melody it can only be ‘good entertainment’ but not art? So Beethoven 9 is not art in your opinion


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> Ah. So . . . now it's DEMANDING entertainment that is art? And Art is Entertainment.
> 
> Are those goalposts moving yet again?


You're doing the sophist: playing with words to win the discussion. It's not that if you play with words a song for bars/parties/beach like Despacito becomes serious music like an opera.

I wrote that an artist is someone who tries to elevate himself/herself and his/her public, while an entertainer is someone who tries to amuse himself/herself and his/her public.
If you want, I can update the second one in the following manner: "An entertainer is someone who ONLY tries to amuse himself/herself and his/her public".

However I would prefer to talk about the substance, instead of making sophistry.
There is music that not only you can listen to while you are drunk with your friends in the disco, but that it's even better to listen to in similar situations.
On the other hand, there is music which you have to listen to in silence and with a clear mind, because you have to understand a story or a message or because you have to pay attention to musical details to understand the value of the product.

Your argument is that the story of an OPERA is usually light (the equivalent of a comedy film, right?), but the musical part of it is not light at all. The music is not a comedy, it's a serious thing.


In order to be an art song, a song should be interesting from the strict musical perspective (composition, singing,...) like an opera or to have lyrics with a deep meaning. If a song is not brilliant from a technical perspective, then it must have brilliant lyrics. Viceversa, if it has not brilliant lyrics, it must be brilliant from the techincal perspective. Of course a complete art song is brilliant from any perspective.

The silly lyrics of Despacito are in line with the rest of the work. You can sing it or play it at the piano with no training. Try to sing an opera without training!
I've never written that it's easy to write a catchy theme of 5 notes and repeat it 100 times without variations, but it's probably much harder to write catchy and complex melodies like Mozart.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

I, for one, don't feel that this discussion is going to yield any further enlightenment. Also, I try to be a kind, decent person, so I feel empathy for @HansZimmer and only wish him many healthy, happy years enjoying the music he loves.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> I don’t understand why you find it so important to differentiate art from entertainment.


Because there are people who still believe in the value of art and can see the difference between a sitcom and a film like Schindler's List.



> And since when when something has a catchy melody it can only be ‘good entertainment’ but not art? So Beethoven 9 is not art in your opinion


So, not only I've written that operas are not art music, but I've also written that symphonies are not art music. I didn't know I've written all these things that the users are putting in my mouth.

Beethoven, like Mozart, didn't write catchy melodies, but good melodies.
Good melody = catchy and elaborated melody.

A melody can be catchy but at the same time trivial and flat. Such melodies are easy to memorize and become easily boring after a while. If a piece has a good melody, after the hundredth listen you can still notice new things. Would you be able to reproduce, with your voice, a melody of Beethoven?


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> Beethoven, like Mozart, didn't write catchy melodies, but good melodies.


Beethoven 5 not catchy? or 9? 

This is masters-level trolling you're doing here.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

prlj said:


> Beethoven 5 not catchy? or 9?
> 
> This is masters-level trolling you're doing here.


I think you should read the entire text.

"Good melody = catchy and elaborated melody. "

So yes, the melodies of Beethoven are catchy, but not ONLY catchy: they are also elaborated.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

However it's not that you need to compare the worst popular music with Beethoven's symphonies. You can start with a comparison between the worst popular music and the good, old pop songs.

For example, in this song there are simple theme variations, that's why a trained singer like Celine Dion is required.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> many modern productions are quite complex things with a ton of layers of often very simple sounds overlapping to create a coherent whole.


Is Despacito included in the list? Could you please write an analytical comparison between this melodic string symphony of the 14 years old Mendelssohn and Despacito?






If Chopin would have written piano versions of banalities like Despacito I seriously doubt that he would be put in the list of the great composers.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

I'm not a fan of the *Despacito* song.

Arranging it for string quartet (even if it's a _Theme and Variations_ arrangement) doesn't make it any better.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> I'm not a fan of the *Despacito* song.
> 
> Arranging it for string quartet (even if it's a _Theme and Variations_ arrangement) doesn't make it any better.


This piece is only a cover of the song.

A classical music composer would be able to write a development of the theme and bring out a more refined melody. Some persons would like the final work and soime other would not (it's only a question of tastes), but it would have an objective value that there is not in the song.

When we argue about what's better between two classical music pieces, sometimes it has nothing to do with the objective value. There is maybe the same amount of work in both pieces: it's just that some persons prefer the piece A and some others the piece B.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

The users in this discussion basically say that the value of a product is totally subjective and that I can't say that something is objectively better than an other thing.

So, can't I say that the objective artistic value of this paint...











... is higher than the one of this drawing?











Do we have to pretend that everything has the same value to not offend the child who made this draw?

Yes, we could choose to take this road, but in that case we would simply establish that the truth is less important than not offeding someone.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> The users in this discussion basically say that the value of a product is totally subjective and that I can't say that something is objectively better than an other thing.
> 
> So, can't I say that the objective artistic value of this paint...
> 
> ...


This user didn't say that. Why not engage with what I actually wrote?


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

The pair of pictures you are posting is not really an analogous comparison to the discussion at hand. The second drawing could be something like a Hirschfeld caricature to represent pop music. Hirschfeld looks simple and could capture a person instantly, but the average artist could not reproduce his style and skill.

If it was easy to create a song like "Uptown Funk" or "Shake It Off," then every musician would be making records like that.

There are objective criteria that can be used to measure a performer's skill within their chosen genre or medium. Beyond that, whether a particular piece of art connects with people or not is just luck, timing, or other elements outside of the artist's control (the "lightning in a bottle" effect).

Classical music has different approaches than some other musical genres, including generally longer lengths of pieces, but that does not make it inherently more artistic than those genres.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> A classical music composer would be able to write a development of the theme and bring out a more refined melody.


So it's safe to assume you don't consider Glass, Adams, Reich to be Classical composers, yes?


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

*"Why do many people say that top-selling music is more attractive than classical music?"*

Well, after 300 responses, I think you have your answer to this 3rd version of your question, even though you don't agree with the reasons. 

But I don't think you really wanted an honest answer. 

I think you just wanted to point out how _*you*_ think Pop Music, Popular Music, Charting Music, and Top-Selling music is intrinsically worse than the types of Classical Music *you* like.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

prlj said:


> So it's safe to assume you don't consider Glass, Adams, Reich to be Classical composers, yes?


or Wagner....


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> The users in this discussion basically say that the value of a product is totally subjective and that I can't say that something is objectively better than an other thing.
> 
> So, *can't I say *that the objective artistic value of this paint...
> 
> ...


You can say anything you like. No one here is _stopping _you, just offering their contrary thoughts.
No one has to pretend anything. You can compare the two pictures if you wish, though why you insist on swapping from film music to pop to art and back again is a bit mystifying.
And as for offending people, does this arise here? Is the child at hand to be upset? If either artist were here, waiting for feedback on their work, what would you say if you had any criticisms? Would you speak bluntly or gently? It's possible to speak the truth and not offend, isn't it?


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> When we argue about what's better between two classical music pieces, sometimes it has nothing to do with the objective value. There is maybe the same amount of work in both pieces: it's just that some persons prefer the piece A and some others the piece B.


Oké but when some people prefer genre A and some others genre B suddenly you can say that people who prefer B have a lower culture? Just because you prefer genre A


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> Is Despacito included in the list? Could you please write an analytical comparison between this melodic string symphony of the 14 years old Mendelssohn and Despacito?


You seem bizarrely obsessed with Despacito, a song I've already stated I don't really like; and the fact that you're asking me to write an "analytical comparison" between that an the Mendelssohn just shows me you aren't paying attention.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> The users in this discussion basically say that the value of a product is totally subjective and that I can't say that something is objectively better than an other thing.


As I said, we've been over this subject a million times on this forum. If you're interested there are dozens of threads on it, some of them quite long. Yes, I'm of the very firm opinion that there is no such thing as anything (not just art) being objectively better than something else. Good/bad/better/worse are concepts. Concepts originate in human brains, which makes them subjective by definition. When people say something is "objectively better" all they mean by that is something like "it's better according to the subjectively agreed-upon standards of a given society, culture, or community;" and then one can simply note there's no obligation to accept the standards of the society, culture, or community. At best all we can say is that something is better relative to all the people who thinks it's better, and that's it. Some of us, who aren't so insecure in our tastes that we feel the need to establish "objective standards," are perfectly capable of realizing that different music has different objective qualities that appeal to different people and are capable of judging music (to the extent that we do) on what it is and is trying to be rather than some one-size-fits-all objective standard.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> Because there are people who still believe in the value of art and can see the difference between a sitcom and a film like Schindler's List.


May sit-coms are, or at least have episodes/moments, that are as profound as Schindler's List. There are even lots of people who'd say that Schindler's List is little more than sentimental schlock from a hack like Spielberg who doesn't have a profound bone in his body (I'm not one of those people, btw, just proving the point of how subjective art is). If you think that art and entertainment are in any way mutually exclusive you really need a crash course on what art has been popular over time. Haydn, Verdi, Shakespeare, Dickens, Hitchcock... just a few example of people who made immensely popular art in their own time.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Is good "entertainment" better than bad "art." I feel that some creators try for "art" and then fail even to entertain.

I am starting to wonder whether @HansZimmer is a "false flag operation" by a fan of BTS or some other pop group. The intent could be to discredit classical music and those who love it by confirming all the old stereotypes about elitism, thereby causing classical music to struggle to grow audiences, win charitable grants, and secure government funding. It would be a far more intelligent strategy than such a person just saying they don't like classical music. (Note: This is meant to be humorous. I do not actually believe this is a false flag operation.)


----------



## Ulalume!Ulalume! (6 mo ago)

> Why do many people say that top-selling music is more attractive than classical music?


Because it's more popular. It can be shown that numbers-wise more people are attracted to pop than classical. 
Proof of this can be found in sales data and internet search data (e.g. Google Trends results)
If A attracts more people than B it can be convincingly argued that A is more attractive than B.
In conclusion, it's a perfectly rational thing to say, there's nothing mysterious about it.

"B-b-b-but I like B more!"

Mass opinion shouldn't and hopefully doesn't affect one's own personal tastes!* If you fall in love with a woman and see her as an unsurpassable beauty it matters not that others disagree!! If you were shown data that recorded the fact that only 6% of men surveyed deemed her "beautiful" would public consensus make you fall out of love with her? I hope not!

It's very hard for people to accept subjectivity... No work of human creation whether deemed "art" or "entertainment" is objectively good or objectively bad. Even if God came down to Earth and declared once and for "Bach is better than Beyonce, "even if hellfire was the punishment for believing the latter, many still would do sobecause we've been endowed with individuality and with that comes personal taste.

If, for whatever reason, we want to concern ourselves with opinion beyond our own the best we can do is use consensus as a metric to determine what people in general think: this can be popular consensus (sales figures, internet clicks) or elitist consensus (the common view among critics).

Personally I don't care about either, nor do I care a jot about any distinction between art or entertainment., regardless what consensus deems a work or even what the creator himself intended it to be, nor do I care about the relative popularity of what I like compared with what I dislike, or whether a random person on the internet's subjective tastes differ from my own, though I'd much rather speak with a person passionately discriminating when it comes to their own tastes even if I've no love for what they love (e.g. sci-fi, jazz music, etc) than I would with someone who foolishly believes in objective worth and blandly attempts to mold their own tastes to convention ("this is popular so it must be good" or "critics say this is really clever stuff so it must be good")... no no no! what matters to me when it comes to listening to music (and reading literature and watching film, etc) is the development of my own taste, the refinement of it, to learn more and more thoroughly what it is preciesly that I like, to learn how to skilfully discriminate and waste as little time as possible on what "isn't for me". 

(Referring back to * established opinion DOES have _some_ influence on us, not in what we like but in what is available to us, and it's from what's available that we develop our tastes).

on the art of discrimination John Cowper Powys wrote, 


> We all create, or have created for us by the fatality of our temperament, a unique and individual universe. It is only by bringing into light the most secret and subtle elements of this self-contained system of things that we can find out where our lonely orbits touch... The art of discrimination is the art of letting oneself go, more and more wilfully; letting oneself go along the lines of one's unique predilections; letting oneself go with the resolute push of the inquisitive intellect; the intellect whose rôle it is to register—with just all the preciseness it may—every one of the little discoveries we make on the long road. The difference between interesting and uninteresting critics of life, is just the difference between those who have refused to let themselves be thus carried away, on the stream of their fatality, and those who have not refused. That is why in all the really arresting writers and artists there is something equivocal and disturbing when we come to know them. Genius itself, in the last analysis, is not so much the possession of unusual vision—some of the most powerful geniuses have a vision quite mediocre and blunt—as the possession of a certain demonic driving-force, which pushes them on to be themselves, in all the fatal narrowness and obstinacy, it may be, of their personal temperament... it is the typical modern person, of normal culture and playful expansiveness, who is the mortal enemy of the art of discrimination. Such a person's shallow cleverness and conventional good-temper is more withering to the soul of the artist than the blindest bigotry which has the recklessness of genuine passion behind it. Not to like or to dislike people and things, but to tolerate and patronise a thousand passionate universes, is to put yourself out of the pale of all discrimination. To discriminate is to refine upon one's passions by the process of bringing them into intelligent consciousness.
> 
> The head alone cannot discriminate; no! not with all the technical knowledge in the world; for the head cannot love nor hate, it can only observe and register. Nor can the nerves alone discriminate; for they can only cry aloud with a blind cry. In the management of this art, what we need is the nerves and the head together, playing up to one another; and, between them, carrying further—always a little further—the silent advance, along the road of experience, of the insatiable soul. It is indeed only in this way that one comes to recognise what is, surely, of the essence of all criticism; the fact, namely, that the artists we care most for are doing just the thing we are doing ourselves—doing it in their own way and with their own inviolable secret, but limited, just as we are, by the basic limitations of all flesh. The art of discrimination is, after all, only the art of appreciation, applied negatively as well as positively; applied to the flinging away from us and the reducing to non-existence for us, of all those forms and modes of being, for which, in the original determination of our taste, we were not, so to speak, born. And this is precisely what, in a yet more rigorous manner, the artists whose original and subtle paths we trace, effected for themselves in their own explorations...
> 
> ...One thing at least is clear. The more we acquire a genuine art of discrimination amid the subtler processes of the mind the less we come to deal in formulated or rationalistic theory. The chief rôle of the intellect in criticism is to protect us from the intellect; to protect us from those tiresome and unprofitable "principles of art" which in everything that gives us thrilling pleasure are found to be magnificently contradicted! Criticism, whether of literature or art, is but a dead hand laid upon a living thing, unless it is genuine response, to the object criticised, of something reciprocal in us. Criticism in fact, to be of any value, must be a stretching out of our whole organic nature, a sort of sacramental partaking, with both senses and soul, of the bread and wine of the "new ritual." The actual written or spoken word in explanation of what we have come to feel about the thing offered, is after all a mere subordinate issue. The essential matter is that what we experience in regard to the new touch, the new style, should be a personal and absorbing plunge into an element which we feel at once to have been, as it were, "waiting" to receive us with a predestined harmony.


----------



## Ulalume!Ulalume! (6 mo ago)

N Fowleri said:


> Is good "entertainment" better than bad "art." I feel that some creators try for "art" and then fail even to entertain.


Isaac Bashevis Singer once said in a speech the following about novelists, I think it applies equally well to composers:


> The word "escape" has become almost a bad word on our time. But I don't think there's something bad about this word. We all want to escape one way or another, from the great tragedies of life. And I would say that higher people need more escape than lower people. And men like Shakespeare needed more escape than perhaps some uneducated person in his household. So, we need escape. We need for a moment to forget. I don't think that killing time is such a terrible thing, because we all need to kill time. The fact there's so much drugs nowadays, show us how great and how really huge the desire is and the need for some people to kill time to forget themselves for a while. But for a higher person, to forget himself, is very difficult. He must have very good pills. I don't say -- *when I call the writer an entertainer, I don't mean by this that's he's only an entertainer... he's more than an entertainer. While he entertains, he's also searching for eternal truths. But I don't want the critics to forget that he is an entertainer first of all. That if he does not entertain, all the other qualities are also lost. In other words, if he's a boring writer, he may be deep or profound or think that he's profound, or symbolic, or shymbolic, if he does not entertain you, he's nothing as far as writing is concerned.*


Interpreting "to entertain", not as some inherently lowly and unworthy act of diversion but simply ""to keep up, maintain, to keep (someone) in a certain frame of mind"
i.e. the opposite of entertain is to bore, an entertaining work holds your attention, a boring one does not!


----------



## Montarsolo (5 mo ago)

A comment I get a lot when it comes to music is: do you only listen to classical music?

Usually I answer: no, also to Renaissance, Baroque and Romantic etc. My music taste spans 1,000 years. And yours?


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

SoloYH said:


> also pop music is a very broad genre, it just refers to what's popular. Reggae and edm, etc can ALSO be categorized as pop. So can classical.


For a definition of Pop Music see wikipedia:"*Pop music* is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form during the mid-1950s in the United States and the United Kingdom"


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

For me the real question is why do so many educated people, who go art galleries to look at Leonardo's or Monet's , who read or watch TV adaptions of Shakespeare or Austen or Dickens, no longer go to Classical concerts, no longer know the difference between Bach and Beethoven.
If Classical Music is no longer seen as a key component of Western Culture , then many who may have found an interest in it will never get enough of an experience of it in the first place to decide whether they like it or not.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

John O said:


> For a definition of Pop Music see wikipedia:"*Pop music* is a genre of popular music that originated in its modern form during the mid-1950s in the United States and the United Kingdom"


That is a definition of "pop music." There are others. Language is fun.



John O said:


> For me the real question is why do so many educated people, who go art galleries to look at Leonardo's or Monet's , who read or watch TV adaptions of Shakespeare or Austen or Dickens, no longer go to Classical concerts, no longer know the difference between Bach and Beethoven.
> If Classical Music is no longer seen as a key component of Western Culture , then many who may have found an interest in it will never get enough of an experience of it in the first place to decide whether they like it or not.


I think the lovers of those paintings and that literature have worked hard to share their love in a positive way. They have supported promulgation of poor copies of paintings as being better than nothing. They have supported all manner of adaptations and abridgements of great works to give people a taste, just as you mention. The lovers of Da Vinci don't spend all their time saying modern art is trash, even if they think it. The lovers of Shakespeare don't go around saying Colson Whitehead just isn't worth in comparison.

Many lovers of classical music say that it's a "key component of Western Culture" so you're obligated to try it. This just doesn't work at all.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> And you and only you gets to decide what makes an "art song?" Who even cares if something is an "art song?" You seem to want to measure what is art by what objective qualities a thing has rather than by whether or how much a song moves people, and the latter is the only standard the vast majority of people have when it comes to music. Even for us critical listeners, most of us could sit and analyze music and talk about its constituent parts; rhythm, harmony, melody, form, etc., and at the end of the day if it doesn't move us our little check-boxes don't mean much. It's why when there have been people here who've tried to criticize, eg, Schubert and Chopin for their sub-standard (to them) harmonies it's rang hollow to most people, because even here most realize that those composers' ability to move us with their music--whether melodically, tonally, or some other way--transcends whatever check-box complaints someone might have.
> 
> Often a great melody can, indeed, make up for a wealth of other deficiencies, and it's often even the case that the lack of things like complex harmonies and rhythms help to highlight the melody. Part of the "art" of modern pop is crafting music in the production in a way that best supports/highlights the melody while bringing out tonal (again, tone as "mood, attitude") qualities. That's more difficult to do than you want to give credit for, and many modern productions are quite complex things with a ton of layers of often very simple sounds overlapping to create a coherent whole.


It sounds to me like most posters in here are relativists AND they might not even realize that they are. I find this very odd in a classical music forum. 

If we believe that CM is worth learning about it and spending time with, then there must be objective reasons in the scores for that conclusion.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ..It's why when there have been people here who've tried to criticize, eg, Schubert and Chopin for their sub-standard (to them) harmonies it's rang hollow to most people, because even here most realize that those composers' ability to move us with their music--whether melodically, tonally, or some other way--transcends whatever check-box complaints someone might have.
> 
> Often a great melody can, indeed, make up for a wealth of other deficiencies, and it's often even the case that the lack of things like complex harmonies and rhythms help to highlight the melody...


Yes, some reasons why some works are objectively better than others.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> It sounds to me like most posters in here are relativists AND they might not even realize that they are. I find this very odd in a classical music forum.
> 
> If we believe that CM is worth learning about it and spending time with, then there must be objective reasons in the scores for that conclusion.


That's not the only conclusion to be drawn, of course 😉


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

There's good and bad music in every genre. Most of the top 40 stuff is chaff, but that doesn't mean there isn't good pop music being made today. With CM we are quite spoiled because the genre is several hundred years old, and time has already (for the most part) filtered out sub-par material.


----------



## Doulton (Nov 12, 2015)

I remember my ear grew. For instance, when I was a teenager I thought that the late Beethoven quartets were forbidding or overly cerebral, although I did have basic standard good taste and swooned at the Brandenburgs the way some did at the Beatles. 
In my early 20's I saw somebody selling a collection at a yard sale (or tag sale as we called them where I lived) of the Budapest's Quartet's late Beethoven. It was about 25 cents (yes, I am that old). And I expected and received greatness. And I got it. 


I don't listen to contemporary music often. I think that Beyonce has an intriguing voice, as did Amy Winehouse. I have trained myself to read free verse. Were I younger, it might be much more appealing to me. We are creatures of our time and my early influences were people of their time--the ninetie's, the aughts, the nineteen teens. Perhaps some Indie women have composed some great lieder?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> It sounds to me like most posters in here are relativists AND they might not even realize that they are. I find this very odd in a classical music forum.


I, at the very least, know exactly what I am, and I don't find it strange it all that so many people here are like that, since it happens to be the truth of things. 



Luchesi said:


> If we believe that CM is worth learning about it and spending time with, then there must be objective reasons in the scores for that conclusion.


First, one doesn't have to "believe that" as if it were a true or false proposition. One can believe that based on their subjective goals and desires, meaning that CM is "worth learning about and spending time with" because we are moved by it and therefor desire to learn about it and spend time with it. I said in the LAST thread on this subject that, sure, the music/scores themselves are not causally inert. They certainly have an affect on why our subjective minds end up in the state of liking/loving CM; but our own subjectivities have a much more important role in why it responds to CM as it does. If the score was the primary causal factor, and if the "objective goodness" was inherent in the scores, then more subjective minds would end up in a state of liking/loving classical music than they do; but they don't. That's a clue that the objective qualities of the music are not the primary causal factor in how people respond to CM (or any music) the way they do.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Yes, some reasons why some works are objectively better than others.


There's nothing in my post that suggests that, but I'm sure it would be humorous if you tried to show how it did.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> As I said, we've been over this subject a million times on this forum. If you're interested there are dozens of threads on it, some of them quite long. Yes, I'm of the very firm opinion *that there is no such thing as anything (not just art) being objectively better than something else.* Good/bad/better/worse are concepts. Concepts originate in human brains, which makes them subjective by definition. When people say something is "objectively better" all they mean by that is something like "it's better according to the subjectively agreed-upon standards of a given society, culture, or community;" and then one can simply note there's no obligation to accept the standards of the society, culture, or community. At best all we can say is that something is better relative to all the people who thinks it's better, and that's it. Some of us, who aren't so insecure in our tastes that we feel the need to establish "objective standards," are perfectly capable of realizing that different music has different objective qualities that appeal to different people and are capable of judging music (to the extent that we do) on what it is and is trying to be rather than some one-size-fits-all objective standard.


There are, however, infinite instances of things being better than others for specific purposes. Have you ever tried to drive nails with a screw driver? There are tools objectively better for this purpose.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, I'm of the very firm opinion that there is no such thing as anything (not just art) being objectively better than something else...


No doctor, your recommended antibiotic for my strep throat is not objectively better than my preference which is a simple drink of water.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> There are, however, infinite instances of things being better than others for specific purposes. Have you ever tried to drive nails with a screw driver? There are tools objectively better for this purpose.


Pretty close. What you've described isn't "objectively better" it's "better relative to a purpose/desire." What you've done is taken a subjective thing (a "purpose") and are then judging "better" on the standard of whether it achieves that purpose. So what is the all-encompassing purpose of music and art that everyone agrees on? Obviously, such a thing doesn't exist beyond something very general like "making something that moves people," and then there's no objective way (other than polls) to determine whether the music accomplishes that purpose. Plus, even if you determine it accomplished that purpose, we don't have to agree that SHOULD be the purpose, nor do we know how/why it accomplished that purpose because the causal network (the way in which the objective features of the music interacts with human subjectivities) is too complex.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> No doctor, your recommended antibiotic for my strep throat is not objectively better than my preference which is a simple drink of water.


Your snarky analogy only serves to reveal the difference between medicine and music/art. In medicine, everyone (all patients and doctors) share the same goal/purpose of health, where "health" is defined as life being preferable to death, and wellness (and feeling good) is preferable to sickness (and feeling bad). When we all share that goal one can judge treatments as being better or worse relative to how it achieves that goal. There is no such universal standard when it comes to music. See my reply to @EdwardBast above. What both of you are referring to still isn't objective better/worse, it's relative (to agreed upon goals/desires) better/worse. What happens when people disagree on the goals/desires? Where's your objectivity then?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Your snarky analogy only serves to reveal the difference between medicine and music/art. In medicine, everyone (all patients and doctors) share the same goal/purpose of health, where "health" is defined as life being preferable to death, and wellness (and feeling good) is preferable to sickness (and feeling bad). When we all share that goal one can judge treatments as being better or worse relative to how it achieves that goal. There is no such universal standard when it comes to music. See my reply to @EdwardBast above. What both of you are referring to still isn't objective better/worse, it's relative (to agreed upon goals/desires) better/worse. What happens when people disagree on the goals/desires? Where's your objectivity then?


Maybe you should avoid broad statements such as ‘_I'm of the very firm opinion that there is no such thing as anything (not just art) being objectively better than something else.’ _You pretty much ruled out objectivity as applying to anything. You reap what you sow.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Maybe you should avoid broad statements such as ‘_I'm of the very firm opinion that there is no such thing as anything (not just art) being objectively better than something else.’ _You pretty much ruled out objectivity as applying to anything. You reap what you sow.


Why would I avoid the truth? What I said I still believe is the truth, and what you and @EdwardBast said weren't even close to refutations of it, it just showed me that neither of you have a firm grasp on what these terms mean in philosophy; and you can save me your patented "this isn't a philosophy forum." When people start discussing subjectivity/objectivity, a subject that has been discussed/written about in philosophy for as long as philosophy as existed, you are discussing philosophy. If you want to use the terms differently than how they're used in philosophy then define them and explain how you're using them. The onus isn't on me to read your minds.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ..If you want to use the terms differently than how they're used in philosophy then define them and explain how you're using them. The onus isn't on me to read your minds.


The onus is on you to not make statements that assume that this is a philosophy forum. One the other hand, this could be your world and we’re just living in it..


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Why would I avoid the truth? What I said I still believe is the truth, and what you and @EdwardBast said weren't even close to refutations of it, it just showed me that neither of you have a firm grasp on what these terms mean in philosophy; and you can save me your patented "this isn't a philosophy forum." When people start discussing subjectivity/objectivity, a subject that has been discussed/written about in philosophy for as long as philosophy as existed, you are discussing


If you studied philosophy you must also be aware that until relatively recently (18th century when bad philosophers like Hume were unduly influential) almost every philosopher thought that aesthetics were "objective". 
I think you are using these terms in a restricted sense that might agree with common usage in some or most current academic philosophy* but it is misleading because it leads people to deny that there is really no third between "objective" like maths and logics (and maybe some science) and "subjective" like personal ice cream preferences. 
And because aesthetics is not like the former, it must be like the latter (or some average of many invidual preferences which shows another prejudice, reductive individualism). I agree that aesthetics is not like the former but neither is is like the latter. And so are many things, e.g. language and law (actually most important things in everyday life are like that, they have conventional elements, but nevertheless admit of a sense of objectively correct or better/worse, even maths contains conventions). So the dichotomy as employed is misleading; it shows that specifics of the subject matter (here aesthetics) are not grasped because the "philosopher" is bound to a false dichotomy and assimilates the subject to the distinction he has from other fields but don't fit the subject matter.

* Although I don't think most philosophers would agree that an objective artifact function, like that of a screwdriver was "subjective". Or again, it would be a misleadingly narrow usage of both attributes and totally miss important differences (like stabbing someone not being the objective function of a screwdriver but fastening/loosening screws). Losing such distinctions in favor of sticking to a rough dichotomy is IMO not good philosophy.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

John O said:


> For me the real question is why do so many educated people, who go art galleries to look at Leonardo's or Monet's , who read or watch TV adaptions of Shakespeare or Austen or Dickens, no longer go to Classical concerts, no longer know the difference between Bach and Beethoven.


I think that this is comparably easy to answer. Mostly because there is no "popular visual art" in the sense there is popular music. And for literature almost everyone is literate enough (because schools still teach some rudiments in language and literature) to realize that there are clear differences in quality between Shakespeare and Fifty shades of grey. i.e. for popular literature it is mostly accepted that comparisons are either not very plausible or that "Classics" really are on a different level than Michael Crichton or Stephen King etc.
Whereas nowadays we have have about 3 generations growing up with popular music and often forming strong emotional and biographical bonds, so they just love popular music in a way that does not apply to visual arts or literature. This also means that the majority has been "primed" for the aesthetics and structures of popular music that makes it harder to appreciate classical music, especially when it is very different from popular music. (Literature has the advantage that today what used to be popular novels are considered "classics" and they are not that different from more recent and more popular literature. Whereas if all classical literature was verse epics or sonnets etc. the difficulty would be more pronounced and the appreciation of Milton or Pope is probably closer to classical music than with Austen or Dickens.)


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Hume, a "bad" philosopher?

Not so far as Stanford is concerned.

What do you mean by "bad"?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> You seem bizarrely obsessed with Despacito, a song I've already stated I don't really like; and the fact that you're asking me to write an "analytical comparison" between that an the Mendelssohn just shows me you aren't paying attention.


Doesn't matter if you like Despacito or not, because it's the most popular song in youtube and the thread title clearily speaks about "top-selling music". If we want to stick to the topic, we inevitably have to talk about the song.

It's important to understand that it's not a coincidence that Despacito has become so popular. It's exactly the kind of music that the people of today like, and each summer come out new songs like that.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> *Pretty close. What you've described isn't "objectively better" it's "better relative to a purpose/desire."* What you've done is taken a subjective thing (a "purpose") and are then judging "better" on the standard of whether it achieves that purpose. *So what is the all-encompassing purpose of music and art that everyone agrees on?* Obviously, *such a thing doesn't exist beyond something very general like "making something that moves people,"* and then there's no objective way (other than polls) to determine whether the music accomplishes that purpose. Plus, even if you determine it accomplished that purpose, *we don't have to agree that SHOULD be the purpose,* … *nor do we know how/why it accomplished that purpose because the causal network (the way in which the objective features of the music interacts with human subjectivities) is too complex.*


Bold portions in order:

Objectively better relative to a purpose or desire is all that's required because …

… there isn't and needn't be an all-encompassing purpose for music that everyone agrees on. After all, why people listen and what they seek in music is a personal matter ungoverned by objective values.

Sure it does. I'm in the mood for complex tonal counterpoint, so Bach is an objectively better choice (for me in this mood obviously) than Couperin, ZZ Top, or Yusef Ali Akhbar Kahn. One could make a large number of similar statements, all equally and objectively true.

Of course we don't have too.

Speak for yourself.  I'm perfectly capable of making these judgments to the necessary level of precision.


Anyway, my points throughout this thread have been that: (1) the only reasonable way to bring objective values into discussions of music is by stating them relative to aesthetic desires and purposes. (2) We should do that rather than making blanket statements like Beethoven is superior to Elvis.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Luchesi said:


> It sounds to me like most posters in here are relativists AND they might not even realize that they are. I find this very odd in a classical music forum.
> 
> If we believe that CM is worth learning about it and spending time with, then there must be objective reasons in the scores for that conclusion.


Some people use classical music to study music theory, singing theory and so on..., but other people (including me) only want to listen to serious music. You don't have to read the scores to understand that classical music is more serious than the summer hits: you just need ears.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

-------------------------- Oink.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

N Fowleri said:


> That is a definition of "pop music." There are others. Language is fun.


The first meaning of "pop" refers to a precise style of music.

Pop music - definition of pop music by The Free Dictionary 

It would be better to use the word "pop" in reference to the style and "popular music" in reference to non-classical music, otherwise people don't understand what you're talking about.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> The first meaning of "pop" refers to a precise style of music.
> 
> Pop music - definition of pop music by The Free Dictionary
> 
> It would be better to use the word "pop" in reference to the style and "popular music" in reference to non-classical music, otherwise people don't understand what you're talking about.


Perhaps a narrower definition of "pop" is more useful in some cases, but that one in the Free Dictionary isn't as satisfactory as the one posted earlier: Wikipedia "Pop Music." Still, with how genres of popular music bleed into each other now, with individual songs switching in and out of distinct genres (eg. pop -> rap -> pop), making distinctions becomes ever more challenging.

At any rate, if you go back 150 or 200 years, most people weren't listening to classical music (using the broad definition), they were listening to the popular music of the day. How many people could afford to go to a classical music concert or belonged to the right social class to attend a performance? Not many, I would say.

I think it's fine to feel and say that classical music is the very best form of music and that one doesn't enjoy any other type. Still, I think it is unwise, disrespectful, and often insulting to disparage that which other people love. It accomplishes nothing but to antagonize people and keep them from trying classical music, which is a terrible shame. It is also extremely problematic to disparage other people's music given that the majority of those other people are generally less well-off, less well-educated, and often come from other cultural backgrounds.

To the extent that there are objective differences between popular music and classical music, the comparison simply isn't that interesting because the differences are obvious. One can literally compare apples and oranges, but does that tell us much about either fruit?

I admire people like Yo-yo Ma, who has worked to bridge the gap by exploring other genres. Perhaps he is bringing people to classical music? I also applaud efforts such as the album by the Hampton String Quartet, "What if Mozart Wrote 'Born to Be Wild?'"










I can't think of any off the top of my head, but there are also versions of classical music played with pop music instruments and arrangements.

This is how classical music can draw people in, in my opinion.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Pretty close. What you've described isn't "objectively better" it's "better relative to a purpose/desire." What you've done is taken a subjective thing (a "purpose") and are then judging "better" on the standard of whether it achieves that purpose. So what is the all-encompassing purpose of music and art that everyone agrees on? Obviously, such a thing doesn't exist beyond something very general like "making something that moves people," and then there's no objective way (other than polls) to determine whether the music accomplishes that purpose. Plus, even if you determine it accomplished that purpose, we don't have to agree that SHOULD be the purpose, nor do we know how/why it accomplished that purpose because the causal network (the way in which the objective features of the music interacts with human subjectivities) is too complex.


This is right of course! People have different tastes and so they are moved by different things.

There are people who prefer serious music, and people who prefer music for bars. There are people who prefer serious films, and people who prefer comedy films.

However, to recognize that people have different tastes doesn't imply that you must not try to define the objective qualities of different products.

My question is: is "comedy music" more popular than serious music because people are innately inclined to such music, or it's because the market (or the modern society) educate them in this way?
I think that the second one is the correct answer.

At the times of Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn,... there were public organizations behind the music, but at some point we decided that we wanted the free market in music. Typically, the modern market produces a high quantity of industrial products, so we can see the music industry as an assembly line. The people have been used and educated to the industrial music.
I'm a bit disappointed and I'm expressing my disappoint in this thread, but surely the world will go on even without me.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Out of all the things to disagree with, I think the definition of pop as "capital-P Pop" is fine. Stretching this to include popular music generally would arguably involve things like folk music since antiquity which wouldn't really be relevant to this conversation.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Kreisler jr said:


> If you studied philosophy you must also be aware that until relatively recently (18th century when bad philosophers like Hume were unduly influential) almost every philosopher thought that aesthetics were "objective".


The 18th century was also when only a handful of minority thought Mozart was great. Una cosa rara eclipsed Le Nozze di Figaro in popularity. And anything that goes against the rules of good taste was considered to be not music.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> Sure it does. I'm in the mood for complex tonal counterpoint, so Bach is an objectively better choice (for me in this mood obviously) than Couperin, ZZ Top, or Yusef Ali Akhbar Kahn.


What do you think about it in relation to-


EdwardBast said:


> The expression "use of harmony" is vague to the point of being meaningless. Statements like X is "a more expressive / capable / greater composer of harmony than Bach" are also vague and without discernible content.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

bharbeke said:


> The pair of pictures you are posting is not really an analogous comparison to the discussion at hand. The second drawing could be something like a Hirschfeld caricature to represent pop music. Hirschfeld looks simple and could capture a person instantly, but the average artist could not reproduce his style and skill.
> 
> If it was easy to create a song like "Uptown Funk" or "Shake It Off," then every musician would be making records like that.
> 
> ...


There is an italian youtuber who produces junk music for fun. His goal is to produce bad music to laugh about it. In his videos, he explains the anti-artistic process he follows to produce the music and he ridiculizes the clichés ("I'll try to be as dumb as possible"). At the end of each video, his conclusion is: "I've just produced junk music".

In this video, with the title "how to produce a horrible latin summer hit", he produces a credible piece with the spirit of "Despacito".
This guy is funny!







One of the funniest moments of his videos is the one here after 5:47.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

DaveM said:


> Maybe you should avoid broad statements such as ‘_I'm of the very firm opinion that there is no such thing as anything (not just art) being objectively better than something else.’ _You pretty much ruled out objectivity as applying to anything. You reap what you sow.


That would have been simple hyperbole. Obviously there are cars and watches and refrigerators that have objectively differing states of "betterness".

Music and fine art are different than manufactured products like pasta or shoes. Or a _screwdriver*_. Music and fine art have ephemeral components that are difficult to define - there are things about music that are clearly subjective. Bob thinks that *Don Giovanni* is the best opera, while Sally thinks it's *Fidelio*. Is one _OBJECTIVELY_ "better" than the other? Well, that depends on your criteria, but you're unlikely to change Bob's or Sally's mind using objective criteria.

_* Oh, that "using a screwdriver to drive a nail" thing was so laughable. Not comparable. You can objectively compare one screwdriver to another, but to compare a screwdriver to a hammer is illogical. Of course you wouldn't use a screwdriver to pound a nail, nor would you use a hammer to twist a screw. Both tools are failures when you try to use them improperly._


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I, at the very least, know exactly what I am, and I don't find it strange it all that so many people here are like that, since it happens to be the truth of things.
> 
> First, one doesn't have to "believe that" as if it were a true or false proposition. One can believe that based on their subjective goals and desires, meaning that CM is "worth learning about and spending time with" because we are moved by it and therefor desire to learn about it and spend time with it. I said in the LAST thread on this subject that, sure, the music/scores themselves are not causally inert. They certainly have an affect on why our subjective minds end up in the state of liking/loving CM; but our own subjectivities have a much more important role in why it responds to CM as it does. If the score was the primary causal factor, and if the "objective goodness" was inherent in the scores, then more subjective minds would end up in a state of liking/loving classical music than they do; but they don't. That's a clue that the objective qualities of the music are not the primary causal factor in how people respond to CM (or any music) the way they do.


I appreciate your hefty posts and the time that you invest for us.

What has always gnawed at me is this monumental hurdle that must be crossed in every young person’s life. The adolescent brain landscape seems to be necessary for the much later and lifelong appreciation of CM, and yet it at that tender age CM would be easily seen as irrelevant. The subjectivist approach dilutes so much. 

But maybe you disagree with some of this above. I don't remember from the other threads concerning the liberty of being ‘subjective’, and ice cream preferences and the value(?) of polls. 

No one is totally objective or totally subjective. We can stop repeating that. You don't do that, but it's the impression I get that the thinking starts with that characterization of objectivity. We need more effective help with the challenge facing the future of CM. But then again, maybe there’s no direct help possible and the child is just left to the luck of happenstances. That's what it's been in my experience, except for the very lucky children who get exposed to music at about the same time as they've achieved some competency with spoken language. Very early, because this is when the fundamentals of music become integrated (still unfocused) into their wider life, before peer groups.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

hammeredklavier said:


> What do you think about it in relation to-


Two sensible statements.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

pianozach said:


> That would have been simple hyperbole. Obviously there are cars and watches and refrigerators that have objectively differing states of "betterness".
> 
> Music and fine art are different than manufactured products like pasta or shoes. Or a _screwdriver*_. Music and fine art have ephemeral components that are difficult to define - there are things about music that are clearly subjective. Bob thinks that *Don Giovanni* is the best opera, while Sally thinks it's *Fidelio*. Is one _OBJECTIVELY_ "better" than the other? Well, that depends on your criteria, but you're unlikely to change Bob's or Sally's mind using objective criteria.
> 
> _* Oh, that "using a screwdriver to drive a nail" thing was so laughable. Not comparable. You can objectively compare one screwdriver to another, but to compare a screwdriver to a hammer is illogical. Of course you wouldn't use a screwdriver to pound a nail, nor would you use a hammer to twist a screw. Both tools are failures when you try to use them improperly._


Of course, it was hyperbole and silly hyperbole at that. I responded with the level of seriousness it deserved.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> I appreciate your hefty posts and the time that you invest for us.
> 
> What has always gnawed at me is this monumental hurdle that must be crossed in every young person’s life. The adolescent brain landscape seems to be necessary for the much later and lifelong appreciation of CM, and yet it at that tender age CM would be easily seen as irrelevant. The subjectivist approach dilutes so much.
> 
> ...


Personally, there was no "monumental hurdle" for me in enjoying/appreciating classical music. I heard it, I liked it, I wanted to hear more, I kept listening. To me, liking classical music was no more different or special than liking rock or pop or jazz or any other music I liked. Maybe with classical there was more TO understand in terms of the history and the formal and harmonic language, but one can still enjoy/appreciate without those things, the same way one can appreciate poetry without knowing an iamb from a trochee. 

I don't think there's any way to help CM, or, if there is, it will be via folks like TwoSetViolin that have attracted a young audience on YouTube via their humor and passion. It certainly won't be from people like @HansZimmer, whose attitude are one of the main reason so many people stay away from CM and think it's not for them.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> However, to recognize that people have different tastes doesn't imply that you must not try to define the objective qualities of different products.
> 
> My question is: is "comedy music" more popular than serious music because people are innately inclined to such music, or it's because the market (or the modern society) educate them in this way?
> I think that the second one is the correct answer.
> ...


We can define the objective properties of art/music, but we can't objectively judge those qualities as good or bad, which it seems you've been trying to do throughout this thread. 

I don't think pop music is "comedy music." I think there is comedy in pop music, just as there as comedy in classical music (how much pop music has a fart joke like Haydn inserted into one of his symphonies?). The music market is a reflection of what people like; the market itself didn't educate anyone. You should really take a crash course in the history and audiences of music. Classical music, historically, was mostly for the church or aristocracy and, later, for the middle classes. It was rare that classical music was for the lower classes. Before modern pop music there was folk music, which is what most common people listened to. Most folk music wasn't written down, it was just played at gatherings and, at best, passed down. In the 20th century we gained the ability to record and distribute music so, suddenly, the folk music that used to languish in obscurity except among people who heard it locally started getting to hear it on the radio and on records. Eventually that folk music started combining together and eventually we get to the rock 'n' roll era. The pop music we hear now is descended from that plus a lot of other genres (like hip-hop, club dance music, etc.) that evolved during the post-RNR era. The reason such music is popular is multifold, and part of that is, indeed, that music education stopped being mandatory so most people drifted towards enjoying simpler music that emphasized hooks and melodies that are memorable the way folk music always was. Simply put, most pop music is popular because it's catchy, and, as I've said, it is not a common talent to make the kind of catchy music consistently like Max Martin or Taylor Swift does. 

As for producing an industrial product, I guarantee that there's plenty of little known classical music from also-ran hack composers who produced the stuff like it was on an assembly line. Modern pop music generally takes much more time and effort to put together, especially in the production, than most classical music ever did. Just compare the oeuvres of most pop/rock acts with that of most classical composers and tell me which more resembles an assembly line in terms of the amount of product produced.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

EdwardBast said:


> Bold portions in order:
> 
> Objectively better relative to a purpose or desire is all that's required because …
> 
> ...


We could perhaps quibble over details, but I do think we're basically in agreement here; but surely you do see the problem in this thread of how the OP has continually referred to ideas of objectively better and best without reference to those subjectively determined standards. I think most would agree that Bach is more complex in his harmony and counterpoint than ZZ Top, but most could also probably agree that ZZ Top is better at blues with attitude; and I would hope most of us would agree it's rather pointless to decide which of those things are better in the abstract, as opposed to each being better suited to a certain mood or taste. Of course we can all make judgments, but those judgments over which we prefer are, well, subjective preferences, not objective facts/truths. I very much agree with your 1 and 2.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> and I would hope most of us would agree it's rather pointless to decide which of those things are better in the abstract, as opposed to each being better suited to a certain mood or taste.


And...to take this one step further...that a person isn't any more or less of a "person" or "music fan" if they choose one over the other.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

prlj said:


> And...to take this one step further...that a person isn't any more or less of a "person" or "music fan" if they choose one over the other.


Can I be more of a "person" or "music fan" if I spent more on my hi-fi than other people? How about if I enjoy the food at expensive restaurants that most people can't afford? I mean the food is objectively better, right? 😀

My audio system is actually cheap and I haven't been to an "expensive" restaurant in years...in case, people thought that part was serious.

There are people who have the right to take pride in their dedication to classical music--the people who compose and perform it. They start with talent and put in endless hard work. As a listener, I just sit on my duff and enjoy. Investing in recordings and live performances hardly counts as an accomplishment of any sort, in my opinion.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

N Fowleri said:


> Investing in recordings and live performances hardly counts as an accomplishment of any sort, in my opinion.


As the ED of an orchestra, your investment in live performances IS an accomplishment in MY book.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

prlj said:


> As the ED of an orchestra, your investment in live performances IS an accomplishment in MY book.


Thank you for your work. I truly almost added "and the people who facilitate the composing and performing," but left it out to keep from running on too much. 

So, have you found that you get more people attending concerts with advertising that says that all other music sucks and that people are fools for enjoying it?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Kreisler jr said:


> If you studied philosophy you must also be aware that until relatively recently (18th century when bad philosophers like Hume were unduly influential) almost every philosopher thought that aesthetics were "objective".
> I think you are using these terms in a restricted sense that might agree with common usage in some or most current academic philosophy* but it is misleading because it leads people to deny that there is really no third between "objective" like maths and logics (and maybe some science) and "subjective" like personal ice cream preferences.
> And because aesthetics is not like the former, it must be like the latter (or some average of many invidual preferences which shows another prejudice, reductive individualism). I agree that aesthetics is not like the former but neither is is like the latter. And so are many things, e.g. language and law (actually most important things in everyday life are like that, they have conventional elements, but nevertheless admit of a sense of objectively correct or better/worse, even maths contains conventions). So the dichotomy as employed is misleading; it shows that specifics of the subject matter (here aesthetics) are not grasped because the "philosopher" is bound to a false dichotomy and assimilates the subject to the distinction he has from other fields but don't fit the subject matter.
> 
> * Although I don't think most philosophers would agree that an objective artifact function, like that of a screwdriver was "subjective". Or again, it would be a misleadingly narrow usage of both attributes and totally miss important differences (like stabbing someone not being the objective function of a screwdriver but fastening/loosening screws). Losing such distinctions in favor of sticking to a rough dichotomy is IMO not good philosophy.


There's still a lot of disagreement in philosophy over whether aesthetics (and its cousin, ethics) is subjective or objective. The latter was probably indeed the more popular position in antiquity, but most philosophers are wrong about most things both then and now.  Trust me, for as much as I go on about philosophy I don't have a high opinion of most philosophy.

I'm using these terms in the sense of the subjective referring to things that depend upon the mind for existence--like abstract concepts--and things that exist independently of the mind like the sun, moon, trees, rocks, etc. That's a pretty classic and common distinction in philosophy and not just a particularly current one. It is a restrictive usage, but that's necessary for clarity. The more common, colloquial usages--which often uses "subjective" to mean "relative to the individual" and "objective" to mean "relative to various collective groups" or "uninfluenced by personal bias/prejudices"--aren't very helpful or useful in these discussions as they obscure what's really going on in terms of how artistic tastes and even canons function on a fundamental level. Sure, we CAN discuss tastes as the product of individuals, and we can discuss them as it relates to various group (socio-cultural) standards, but that doesn't really get to the bottom of things.

The only way aesthetics is objective in any way at all is two-fold:

1. In the "independent of the mind" sense, aesthetics can refer to the properties of art. In music those objective properties are temporal arrangements of tones that, in more common terms, create harmonies, melodies, rhythms, and textures. These objective qualities certainly have some causal effect on why certain subjectivities end up liking/disliking any given music, but an objective thing having subjective effects doesn't make the effect (the resultant feeling of like/love, dislike/hate, etc.) objective, no more than an objective bullet causing subjective pain makes the pain objective.

2. In the "socio-cultural" sense it's certainly true that certain standards exist among the groups that like any genre of music, even if those standards are rather amorphous and ill-defined. Still, people of similar temperaments seem to like similar music enough so that canons are formed around those similarities, which explains why Beethoven is so beloved among classical fans, or The Beatles are so beloved among fans of rock/pop, etc.

The ways in which aesthetics isn't objective, though, are, sadly, the ways in which some people WANT it to be. Aesthetics isn't objective in the sense that our standards, preferences, etc. for judging music are facts independent of our mind-dependent tastes, feelings, standards, etc. There is no mind-independent way to declare that any art (or anything) is better than any other thing, and there's no mind-independent way to say how our minds should be or should feel; this is Hume's classic, unbridgeable, Is-Ought gap.

I could discuss many of your examples as well, but most of them boil down to the same thing. Math is a mind-dependent concept that's been used to successfully map mind-independent reality. Whether that amounts to "objective truth" would get into epistemology. Language is similar, though I think most would be willing to admit that the meaning of the text "tree" didn't have to have the meaning we've assigned to it, that the assigning of meanings is mostly (not entirely) arbitrary, conventional and agreed-upon to facilitate communication.

Part of the confusion is just in having the same words (like objective/subjective) to refer to very different things, but as soon as someone tries to unpack all the different definitions and the way they do and don't function in relation to aesthetics I get the feeling people's eyes start to glaze. So the options are to continue languishing in the ambiguities of language or try to unpack it in ways that people don't like/want to, or are unable to, follow.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> The onus is on you to not make statements that assume that this is a philosophy forum. One the other hand, this could be your world and we’re just living in it..


Why is the onus not on everyone else to not start discussing philosophy and then not acting all indignant when someone who actually knows some philosophy steps in to correct their misunderstandings? As always, you think expertise is really important only when it suits you, like in confirming your opinions on classical music.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Of course, it was hyperbole and silly hyperbole at that. I responded with the level of seriousness it deserved.


It wasn't hyperbole and it's still true. All you've done is demonstrate you didn't understand it, but what else is new? This is the problem with discussing this with people like you on this forum: if I make a short statement, you will misunderstand it and accuse me of hyperbole, even if what I said is true. If I write a long post, as I've done above in my reply to Kreisler Jr., trying to carefully and logically lay out all the reasoning that lead me to that conclusion, I get accused of being verbose and confusing and people still don't understand what I'm saying. It's basically a damned-no-matter-what-I-do for some people who either lack the ability or willingness to understand.

Here's a challenge, and I'll make this an open challenge to anyone who wants to take it up: explain to me how anything can be judged better than something else in a completely mind-independent way, that doesn't involve preferences, desires, purposes, or other mind-dependent concepts. If you say "but you can have objective judgments with mind-dependent preferences, desires, purposes," then explain precisely how you're using "objective" in that sense.


----------



## N Fowleri (5 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> [...] It's basically a damned-no-matter-what-I-do for some people who either lack the ability or willingness to understand.


Although I do it, it's pointless to argue with people who won't engage honestly and directly with what you say. It just becomes a shouting match and ad hominem attacks.

Still, I sometimes persist for the sake of people reading a thread, perhaps years later, so that can see my perspective.

Edit: Addendum: In this thread, it might not be ad hominem attacks, it might be ad Eminem attacks.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

N Fowleri said:


> Thank you for your work. I truly almost added "and the people who facilitate the composing and performing," but left it out to keep from running on too much.


Thank you! While the thought is appreciated, I will always defer to the composers and performers. Very happy to be in the background and let the music take center stage!



N Fowleri said:


> So, have you found that you get more people attending concerts with advertising that says that all other music sucks and that people are fools for enjoying it?


We'll add this to our direct marketing mailers:

*"The beatings will continue until morale attendance improves."*


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It wasn't hyperbole and it's still true. All you've done is demonstrate you didn't understand it, but what else is new? This is the problem with discussing this with people like you on this forum: if I make a short statement, you will misunderstand it and accuse me of hyperbole, even if what I said is true. If I write a long post, as I've done above in my reply to Kreisler Jr., trying to carefully and logically lay out all the reasoning that lead me to that conclusion, I get accused of being verbose and confusing and people still don't understand what I'm saying. It's basically a damned-no-matter-what-I-do for some people who either lack the ability or willingness to understand.


I’m sure it would be optimal if everyone discussed things from our the perspective we prefer, but, darn it, on a forum, it is, as they say, just a cross we have to bear. Most philosophical truths can be explained (such that they won’t be misunderstood) without the need for an essay.



> Here's a challenge, and I'll make this an open challenge to anyone who wants to take it up: explain to me how anything can be judged better than something else in a completely mind-independent way, that doesn't involve preferences, desires, purposes, or other mind-dependent concepts. If you say "but you can have objective judgments with mind-dependent preferences, desires, purposes," then explain precisely how you're using "objective" in that sense.


Here‘s a challenge for you. Either you think that the icons of classical music of the CP era accomplished something uniquely special or you don’t. If you don’t then you’ll have to explain how this forum manages to exist. If you do, then try to explain why without referring to something that infers objective skill.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> I’m sure it would be optimal if everyone discussed things from our the perspective we prefer, but, darn it, on a forum, it is, as they say, just a cross we have to bear. *Most philosophical truths can be explained (such that they won’t be misunderstood) without the need for an essay.*


Says the person who has probably never read a philosophical text in their life. Tell me, which of these philosophical truths can be explained without an essay and how would you do so? Please, lead by example, sir. 



DaveM said:


> Here‘s a challenge for you. Either you think that the icons of classical music of the CP era accomplished something uniquely special or you don’t. If you don’t then you’ll have to explain how this forum manages to exist. If you do, then try to explain why without referring to something that infers objective skill.


I'll gladly take up your challenge if you take up mine. Of course, since I've the one who's been willing to actually take up such challenges and justify my beliefs--as opposed to, you know, sniping from the stands--and because I asked first, I'll have to insist that you go first.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ..I don't think there's any way to help CM, or, if there is, it will be via folks like TwoSetViolin that have attracted a young audience on YouTube via their humor and passion. It certainly won't be from people like @HansZimmer, whose attitude are one of the main reason so many people stay away from CM and think it's not for them.


I don’t know why people continue to believe that this is a reason that people stay away from CM. That the potential for an individual’s attraction to CM could be jeopardized by the opinion of someone on a CM forum seems unlikely. And perhaps, from time to time, it is reasonable to believe that there will be some who think that classical music is a the top of the music pyramid and assume that those on a CM forum will understand the feeling while not necessarily agreeing.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

DaveM said:


> it is reasonable to believe that there will be some who think that classical music is a the top of the music pyramid


It is of course reasonable to believe this. They would be mistaken, but they are entitled to think it. They might be considered wiser if they were to think that classical music is its own musical pyramid, and continue arguing about whether Bach or Beethoven is at the top. In the meantime, it is also reasonable to believe that there are some who think that pop music is at the top of the music pyramid. They would also be mistaken, and would be wiser if they were to think that...etc etc...


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> If I write a long post, as I've done above in my reply to Kreisler Jr., trying to carefully and logically lay out all the reasoning that lead me to that conclusion, I get accused of being verbose and confusing and people still don't understand what I'm saying. It's basically a damned-no-matter-what-I-do for some people who either lack the ability or willingness to understand.


I often read your (long) posts and appreciate your time and effort @Eva Yojimbo . Some subjects cannot be easily reduced to internet speak and still be illuminating and informative for all.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

DaveM said:


> by the opinion of someone on a CM forum


It would be the opinion and its prevalence in wider society that would be the issue - not the influence of a single individual on the internet.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Forster said:


> It would be the opinion and its prevalence in wider society that would be the issue - not the influence of a single individual on the internet.


Which is why it was unnecessary to mention a single individual as if some sort of evil doer.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Which is why it was unnecessary to mention a single individual as if some sort of evil doer.


Well this has been a pretty evil thread 😉, and given that the individual was the OP who has consistently returned to either move the goal posts or double down in the face of reasoned argument, I see no reason not to give them a name check.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

DaveM said:


> I’m sure it would be optimal if everyone discussed things from our the perspective we prefer, but, darn it, on a forum, it is, as they say, just a cross we have to bear. Most philosophical truths can be explained (such that they won’t be misunderstood) without the need for an essay.
> 
> 
> 
> Here‘s a challenge for you. Either you think that the icons of classical music of the CP era accomplished something uniquely special or you don’t. If you don’t then you’ll have to explain how this forum manages to exist. If you do, then try to explain why without referring to something that infers objective skill.


Some people like CM. That doesn't mean it's objectively greater than other music (except in relation to qualities we subjectively value).


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> We could perhaps quibble over details, but I do think we're basically in agreement here; but surely you do see *the problem in this thread of how the OP has continually referred to ideas of objectively better and best without reference to those subjectively determined standards.* I think most would agree that Bach is more complex in his harmony and counterpoint than ZZ Top, but most could also probably agree that ZZ Top is better at blues with attitude; and I would hope most of us would agree it's rather pointless to decide which of those things are better in the abstract, as opposed to each being better suited to a certain mood or taste. Of course we can all make judgments, but those judgments over which we prefer are, well, subjective preferences, not objective facts/truths. I very much agree with your 1 and 2.


I think we agree more or less completely. And I do see the problem. In fact, I was naively trying to remedy it by suggesting that "objectivists" (hard to use this term seriously after Ayn Rand's mischief) can and should be happy with _objectively better with respect to their particular technical requirements and aesthetic preferences_ rather than unqualified objective superiority. It seems not to have worked.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Forster said:


> Well this has been a pretty evil thread 😉, and given that the individual was the OP who has consistently returned to either move the goal posts or double down in the face of reasoned argument, I see no reason not to give them a name check.





ORigel said:


> Some people like CM. That doesn't mean it's objectively greater than other music (except in relation to qualities we subjectively value).


That is the enlightened view most of us hold, but to name the individual as an example of some alleged reason why people might turn away from CM seems a bit much when there are some far more important reasons why CM is where it is.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't think there's any way to help CM, or, if there is, it will be via folks like TwoSetViolin that have attracted a young audience on YouTube via their humor and passion. It certainly won't be from people like @HansZimmer, whose attitude are one of the main reason so many people stay away from CM and think it's not for them.


I dunno if the issue actually is a "snobbish" image, because the people who get into this stuff tend to be ones who like going after "artsy" stuff anyway.

Pop culture often gets brought up as a problem, but I think a bigger "problem" (which isn't really a problem) has been the legitimization and growth of other disciplines of music (and popular culture generally) as artistic expression, rather than disposable entertainment.

If you were a kid who was interested in "artistic" music back when, your choice was pretty much classical/opera, and eventually jazz. Nowadays the "art school type" kids can find great veins of discovery in other genres. Like I'm not kidding when I say that when playing to people interested in art music of a certain age, I get a better and more familiar response with stuff like Xenakis, Reich tape music, or early electronic like Subotnick than with the standard rep because these days, a lot of art music-interested kids get into ambient and noise records, and that kind of stuff actually holds more immediate appeal than, say, Mozart.

This is obviously a narrow case, but the point is that classical isn't fighting pop culture for relevance in culture at large, it's fighting "art music" for relevance in the culture of "artistic" music listeners.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

EdwardBast said:


> I think we agree more or less completely. And I do see the problem. In fact, I was naively trying to remedy it by suggesting that "objectivists" (hard to use this term seriously after Ayn Rand's mischief) can and should be happy with _objectively better with respect to their particular technical requirements and aesthetic preferences_ rather than unqualified objective superiority. It seems not to have worked.


The problem is that aesthetics is a vague concept and can be justified in any number of ways, and technical mastery is a limited way to view music.
For example, the aesthetic judgment "X is corny" is something that can't be explained in terms of technicality.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Personally, there was no "monumental hurdle" for me in enjoying/appreciating classical music. I heard it, I liked it, I wanted to hear more, I kept listening. To me, liking classical music was no more different or special than liking rock or pop or jazz or any other music I liked. Maybe with classical there was more TO understand in terms of the history and the formal and harmonic language, but one can still enjoy/appreciate without those things, the same way one can appreciate poetry without knowing an iamb from a trochee.
> 
> I don't think there's any way to help CM, or, if there is, it will be via folks like TwoSetViolin that have attracted a young audience on YouTube via their humor and passion. It certainly won't be from people like @HansZimmer, whose attitude are one of the main reason so many people stay away from CM and think it's not for them.





ORigel said:


> Some people like CM. That doesn't mean it's objectively greater than other music (except in relation to qualities we subjectively value).


But... who's "we"? A class of ten year old music students?
A class of twenty year old music (university) students?
A class of advanced music students (professional or at least very serious to learn as much (efficiently) as possible)?

If someone is not intending to learn how different musics work, then no objective data is needed (how would it be useful?). The same as in any technical subject in the arts or sciences.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> But... who's "we"? A class of ten year old music students?
> A class of twenty year old music (university) students?
> A class of advanced music students (professional or at least very serious to learn as much (efficiently) as possible)?
> 
> If someone is not intending to learn how different musics work, then no objective data is needed (how would it be useful?). The same as in any technical subject in the arts or sciences.


I don't see where either post you quoted references "we," so I'm not sure I can help. Why are you so focused on music students at all? Popular music is popular precisely because it appeals to people who don't study music. Classical music can be appreciated/enjoyed without studying music, as I did in my early teens. Studying music (to the extent I did, informally) helped me appreciate classical music in different ways, but it didn't make me love it any more or less; the two things (the aesthetic/emotional attraction and the intellectual appreciation) are just two different things for me. People, music students or not, are probably going to pursue the music that speaks to them emotionally or aesthetically, and that's going to be largely dictated by culture. If classical music has lost its hold on the popular culture then, as I said, I don't think there's any way to recover it. Classical music fans just need to get comfortable with enjoying what is and will probably forever remain from now on a niche interest.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> I dunno if the issue actually is a "snobbish" image, because the people who get into this stuff tend to be ones who like going after "artsy" stuff anyway.
> 
> Pop culture often gets brought up as a problem, but I think a bigger "problem" (which isn't really a problem) has been the legitimization and growth of other disciplines of music (and popular culture generally) as artistic expression, rather than disposable entertainment.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't conflate "artsy" with "snobby." I like artsy stuff but recognize that's a personal preference, and I don't do it out of any snobbishness. I'm, in fact, very anti-snob about my tastes and all tastes. So while I would agree many who love artsy stuff may get into classical music, I don't know what, if any, role snobbishness will play into that. My feeling is that if you're getting into any art for snobbish reasons you're doing it for the wrong reasons. Wanting to feel better than other people and manifesting that through your artistic tastes is just a really ****** mentality IMO and feeds into a lot of "Naked Emperor" parables. 

I agree that what you say some see as a "problem" with the elevation of pop art as art is, indeed, behind a lot of this. I also think it's not a problem because I also see popular art as art, an art which is as difficult to master as any other genres and styles are. I also don't think entertainment and art are mutually exclusive, something that's borne out by examining the history of both "lasting art" and "popular art that was entertaining." 

I also agree that, depending on a young person's taste, there are probably routes into classical music as long as they aren't solely obsessed with the poppiest pop, as there just isn't much of any overlap with most classical. However, with stuff like drone, noise, lots of progressive rock/metal, there are definitely analogs within classical music. I know a friend who loves film, and especially loves artsy films where the themes are left ambiguous for the audience to think about. That friend also hates opera... or so he thought until I got him into Bartok's Bluebeard's Castle, which is fraught with such thematic ambiguities (and it probably helped that there was a film version).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> I don’t know why people continue to believe that this is a reason that people stay away from CM. That the potential for an individual’s attraction to CM could be jeopardized by the opinion of someone on a CM forum seems unlikely. And perhaps, from time to time, it is reasonable to believe that there will be some who think that classical music is a the top of the music pyramid and assume that those on a CM forum will understand the feeling while not necessarily agreeing.


It's hardly limited to the opinion of those on a CM forum. Most of us on this forum are out amongst people in our daily lives, and if the subject ever switches to music then how we present ourselves to such people can, very much, have an impact on how CM is perceived through its fans by all the non-(but potential) fans out there. I have no idea what the OP is like in his daily life, but he shares his opinions out there in the same way he's done so in here I very much do think such a thing has a much greater chance at damaging CM's reputation, and probably has done so from similar such people.

FWIW, I hate judging any music by the people who like it as, to me, the two have nothing to do with each other. Like or not, though, there are plenty of people who do think like that; and I promise that if you try to get a feel for how people perceive CM and CM fans it often wouldn't be in the most positive light, and mostly because of that snobby reputation. Of course, I certainly don't think that's the only thing (or even the main thing) that's limiting CM's appeal; the rest of it is just cultural changes in general. I'm just saying that if people really want to help CM it could certainly help starting with its reputation via its fans. 

As for some potentially liking it because they "believe CM is at the top of the music pyramid," then I'd question why they believe that, because it certainly isn't because it has any objective truth to it.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fbjim said:


> but I think a bigger "problem" (which isn't really a problem) has been the legitimization and growth of other disciplines of music (and popular culture generally) as artistic expression, rather than disposable entertainment.


If it's not a problem, I'm not sure why you bring this up...but would you elaborate on your thinking? Which "disciplines of music" should not be "legitimised" as artistic expression? Why not? What do you mean by "legitimised"? etc. Thanks.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Like or not, though, there are plenty of people who do think like that; *and I promise that if you try to get a feel for how people perceive CM and CM fans it often wouldn't be in the most positive light,* and mostly because of that snobby reputation. Of course, I certainly don't think that's the only thing (or even the main thing) that's limiting CM's appeal; the rest of it is just cultural changes in general. I'm just saying that if people really want to help CM it could certainly help starting with its reputation via its fans..


We must walk in very different public circles because I go for months or even years without talking about classical music outside of this forum or situations where CM fans gather. So, it’s unlikely that I will lean forward to the barista at Starbucks serving me a Venti Nonfat Carmel Macchiato with extra Carmel Drizzle and say, ‘_You know, instead of that crappy popular music playing overhead, why doesn’t Starbucks play Beethoven because that stuff playing and every other form of music sucks!_’


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Or ‘_You know, instead of that crappy popular music playing overhead, why doesn’t Starbucks play some decent popular music instead because that stuff sucks!_’


Fixed that for you. 😉


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> We can define the objective properties of art/music, but we can't objectively judge those qualities as good or bad, which it seems you've been trying to do throughout this thread.


The relativists think that everything is relative except of relativist ideas. If someone refuses the relativist ideas, he/she can say that A is objectively better than B and that some people are simply not able to understand the superiority of A.

Furthermore, if someone is a relativist in the field of aesthetic, he/she can not be a relativist in the field of ethic, because if you are a relativist you must be a LIBERAL and liberals tend to see authoritarians as "bad/violent persons".

I am thinking of myself, because I'm a relativist and a liberal, and although I think that people have the right to have different aesthetic tastes, I don't think the same about ethic. 


That said, liberalism also means "freedom of expression" and in this discussion I'm only expressing my right to do a negative review of the top-selling music.
However, the liberal principles say that you must express your personal tastes without imposing them on others, otherwise people who don't share your tastes have the right to complains.
Some weeks ago I was in Croatia and I had to do a long travel with public transports. I was listening to classical music with my earphones, but at some point the bus driver turned on the radio. The result? Croatian pop mixing with Mozart in my ears. This is a crime!

Then there are the teens who often listen to their music in public transports.
I must stuck with the music of my friends at the dinners and the music of the bars where they take me.

If all persons would listen to their music in private like I do (at home or in the public spaces with earphones) and my ears were not continuosly raped I would be more tolerant.




> I don't think pop music is "comedy music." I think there is comedy in pop music



Are you speaking about pop music or popular music? The top-selling music is comedy music. Some styles of the popular music are intrinsically dumb (I' thinking about dance and trap, for example), but the pop music (style of music) can be more serious or less serious. Many persons think that serious pop is boring and they prefer pop for parties.

The italian pop singer Marco Masini was thrown away after a while because people said that his lyrics (see the english translation) were negative.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Forster said:


> Well this has been a pretty evil thread 😉, and given that the individual was the OP who has consistently returned to either move the goal posts or double down in the face of reasoned argument, I see no reason not to give them a name check.


I changed the title of the thread because the users were not understanding what I wanted to say, not because I was changing ideas. With the current title should be clear to anyone that this thread is not an attack towards non-classical styles of music, but an attack to the top-selling music.

That said, no one tried to support the idea that Despacito, Gangnam Style and things like that are serious music. Maybe it's because you know that it's not. Many users are answering to straw men, not to what I actually wrote.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> I changed the title of the thread because the users were not understanding what I wanted to say, not because I was changing ideas. With the current title should be clear to anyone that this thread is not an attack towards non-classical styles of music, but an attack to the top-selling music.
> 
> That said, no one tried to support the idea that Despacito, Gangnam Style and things like that are serious music. Maybe it's because you know that it's not. Many users are answering to straw men, not to what I actually wrote.


Whatever your reason for changing the thread title, your arguments have been all over the place. The focus on two songs as representative of "the top-selling music" did not justify subsequent conclusions which I have quoted and debunked already: even if Despacito and Gangnam Style were the finest songs ever written, I would have rejected any conclusion about the state of top-selling music based solely on an evaluation of their worth.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> The relativists think that everything is relative except of relativist ideas. If someone refuses the relativist ideas, he/she can say that A is objectively better than B and that some people are simply not able to understand the superiority of A.


What this means, I'm not sure. Who are "The relativists"?



HansZimmer said:


> Furthermore, if someone is a relativist in the field of aesthetic, he/she can not be a relativist in the field of ethic, because* if you are a relativist you must be a LIBERAL* and liberals tend to see authoritarians as "bad/violent persons".


What does this mean - and who are you talking about here?


----------



## Doulton (Nov 12, 2015)

Just a thought and I'm not trying to change the trend of the conversation: How many people were exposed to decent classical music when in elementary school? I went to a public school during the 1950's and the teacher's would play music for many occasions. My third and fourth grade teachers had a "composer" of the day. They would play a 5 or 10 minute sample and talk about what to listen for. Grieg was predictable for Hallowe'en, and Beethoven's birthday was always honored. My children got to see MTV videos for music (and some of them were superb). My grandchildren get nothing.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

DaveM said:


> We must walk in very different public circles because I go for months or even years without talking about classical music outside of this forum or situations where CM fans gather. So, it’s unlikely that I will lean forward to the barista at Starbucks serving me a Venti Nonfat Carmel Macchiato with extra Carmel Drizzle and say, ‘_You know, instead of that crappy popular music playing overhead, why doesn’t Starbucks play Beethoven because that stuff playing and every other form of music sucks!_’


Yes, we do run in different circles because I run (or, at least, ran) in circles with plenty of people who would semi-regularly discuss music. Why don't you just try to casually bring up classical music and see what people's perception of it is. My parents used to call it "stuffy rich people music." Where do you think they got that idea?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> The relativists think that everything is relative except of relativist ideas. If someone refuses the relativist ideas, he/she can say that A is objectively better than B and that some people are simply not able to understand the superiority of A.


First, please don't tell me/us what relativists think. I've said this many times, but there is such a thing as objective truth, but it applies to mind-independent objects, or to conceptive descriptions of either mind-independent or mind-dependent things. What doesn't have objective truth are mind-dependent opinions, values, standards, etc. because they're statements about how we feel about things, not how things are. At most we can say that it's objectively true that a person feels the way they feel. 

Second, if someone refuses relativist ideas then the onus is on them to argue how something can be objectively better than something else, which nobody has ever been able to do. 



HansZimmer said:


> Furthermore, if someone is a relativist in the field of aesthetic, he/she can not be a relativist in the field of ethic, because if you are a relativist you must be a LIBERAL and liberals tend to see authoritarians as "bad/violent persons".


We're not allowed to discuss politics on here but I will simply say this is completely untrue and basically a non sequitur. 



HansZimmer said:


> That said, liberalism also means "freedom of expression" and in this discussion I'm only expressing my right to do a negative review of the top-selling music.


And you have every right to that review as a matter of your opinion. The problem, since the very beginning of the thread, has been the suggestion that you've been stating your supposed "relativistic aesthetics" as if they were objectively true and often ignoring people who tried to speak to the virtues of pop/popular music, even some of the most popular music (like I did with Uptown Funk). 



HansZimmer said:


> If all persons would listen to their music in private like I do (at home or in the public spaces with earphones) and my ears were not continuosly raped I would be more tolerant.


I understand your frustration but most of us have to deal with things that other humans do that annoy us. I'm happy that there's almost zero music out there that annoys me, or, if it does, I'm completely capable of tuning it out unless someone is blasting it in my ear. My suggestion to you would be that instead of complaining about what other people listen to is to either learn to appreciate the kind of music you're being exposed to or else learn some meditation techniques for tuning such annoyances out. You're never going to get the vast majority of people's musical tastes to align with your own. 



HansZimmer said:


> Are you speaking about pop music or popular music? The top-selling music is comedy music. Some styles of the popular music are intrinsically dumb (I' thinking about dance and trap, for example), but the pop music (style of music) can be more serious or less serious. Many persons think that serious pop is boring and they prefer pop for parties.


] I guess I'm confused as to how you're using "comedy" here. Most people nowadays use comedy to refer to humor. Weird Al Yankovic makes comedy music, eg. It almost seems like you're using comedy the way Dante did (in his Divine Comedy), to refer to "low" or "folk" music? If not, I can't figure out what you mean. I also don't think any music is intrinsically dumb. People who make the music can be dumb, but that's true of people who make any music, including classical music. I also don't think seriousness is in opposition to comedy. Tragedy is in opposition to comedy, and yet even then both of those things can be mixed (as in Mozart's operas).


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> First, please don't tell me/us what relativists think. I've said this many times, but there is such a thing as objective truth, but it applies to mind-independent objects, or to conceptive descriptions of either mind-independent or mind-dependent things. What doesn't have objective truth are mind-dependent opinions, values, standards, etc. because they're statements about how we feel about things, not how things are. At most we can say that it's objectively true that a person feels the way they feel.
> 
> Second, if someone refuses relativist ideas then the onus is on them to argue how something can be objectively better than something else, which nobody has ever been able to do.


Mind-independent facts:
- In the comment section of youtube videos which contain classical music pieces is quite common to find people who speak about music theory, while it's quite uncommon to find similar comment in videos of commercial music. In this forum the average knowledge of music theory seems to be quite high.
These observations must be confirmed by scientific data, but if they are true, we can say that the target of classical music are musically educated people, while the target of commercial music is a large audience composed by many people who understand little or nothing about music.


- The catchiness of a melody is mind-dependent, so you can not judge the quality of a piece of music with a so relative standard. If you want to show me that there is quality in a melody, you must show me that it's not objectively flat.
I'm tired of people who say that a determined piece of music is bad because they don't SUBJECTIVELY like the melody. If you find a piece of music that it's not catchy for you, you must be happy, because it probably means that it's catchy for ears of other persons.

Many pieces of the top-selling music have flat melodies. What we can say is that if people who listen to that music had been exposed to classical music since birth, they would be able to hear the catchiness of many classical music pieces and they would have a richer musical experience, because in classical music the melodies are usually not so flat (the theme in classical music is usually more courageous, it has more notes, and it's not continuosly repeated without variations, because there are theme variations and developments).
This also means that if the piece is vocal you need a trained singer who is really able to use his/her voice and not an incapable who sings with the autotune.
However, it has to be said that "variation" can also be an instrumental variation, so a nice orchestration can give a greater value to a melody which is not su much creative in itself. So, a good melody can compensate the lack in instrumental variations and a nice orchestration can compensate the lack of great creativity in the melody. This is a multidimensional thing.
An other point is that in the top-selling music there is only one instrument who plays the melody: the singer (who is a bad instrument, if he/she needs the autotune). So, the flatness of the melody is not compensated by instrumental variations.

However, it's not that you necessarily have to listen to classical music, because in popular music there are also pieces with not so flat melodies and I think that these pieces should be the minimum standard.


- The quality of the lyrics is not exactly mind-independent. It's at least quite easy to determine if the lyrics contain a message or a story, or if the singer gives only air to his/her mouth.
If someone said that a piece with very good lyrics is bad because it has a flat melody, I would tell him/her that the flat melody is compensated by good lyrics and that poetry is also art.
The problem is that there is nothing I can save in the average top-selling music, because the lyrics are usually dumb like the melodies.
An other point in favour of classical music is that a great part of the vocal music are operas, which have a story.
So, when Mozart had nothing to say he composed instrumental music: I recommend to many artists to convert themselfes to instrumental music, because it's clear that they have nothing to say.


Now, the mind-dependent part of what I wrote here above is the judgement you give to the mind-independent facts.
To have a negative view of determined products might be subjective, but you are free to explain why, according to you, I shouldn't have a negative view of music with flat melodies, incapable singers and dumb lyrics.




> And you have every right to that review as a matter of your opinion. The problem, since the very beginning of the thread, has been the suggestion that you've been stating your supposed "relativistic aesthetics" as if they were objectively true and often ignoring people who tried to speak to the virtues of pop/popular music, even some of the most popular music (like I did with Uptown Funk).


Uptown Funk is probably the most distinctive of the five pieces from a composer perspective, but even if we would conclude that the piece deserves so much popularity (more popularity than many other pieces, including pieces of classical music), one good piece on five is not a good result.
If 80% of top-selling music contains pieces with no artistic value, it means that what I'm writing is true.



> I guess I'm confused as to how you're using "comedy" here. Most people nowadays use comedy to refer to humor. Weird Al Yankovic makes comedy music, eg. It almost seems like you're using comedy the way Dante did (in his Divine Comedy), to refer to "low" or "folk" music?


Yes, it's nearer to Dante's definition.
I read that a "comedy film" is a comic film, but in my dictionary "comedy" has a larger meaning.
A film about ordinary life, like a group of friends who go holidays together, is a comedy.
The films for families are comedies.
Christmas films are comedies.

It's a light film that doesn't try to take your mind off from your odinary life.
Sometimes a film is not light (and therefore not a comedy) only because it contains free violence and things like that, and in this case the artistc value of the product is not greater.
However, a film about a person who is dying for cancer is also not a comedy/light film, because it speaks about things of which we wouldn't want to think, but in this case the "hard" part has a meaning (it's not free violence).


So, how can we translate the concept in music? I think that Despacito is a perfect example of what is comedy/light in music. If you write a song for the beach, it's comedy/light music.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> Mind-independent facts:
> - In the comment section of youtube videos which contain classical music pieces is quite common to find people who speak about music theory, while it's quite uncommon to find similar comment in videos of commercial music. In this forum the average knowledge of music theory seems to be quite high.
> These observations must be confirmed by scientific data, but if they are true, we can say that the target of classical music are musically educated people, while the target of commercial music is a large audience composed by many people who understand little or nothing about music.


Even without the scientific data I'd accept that this point as true. I don't see the relevance though. While I have no problem with the study of western music theory, western music theory is also, IMO, quite myopic in what it focuses on. If you want to hear more about this from someone who has formally (rather than informally) studied such music theory, check out Adam Neely's YouTube channel where he's talked about all the things that most educations in western music theory mostly ignores. It's also worth pointing out that any music theory should be descriptive rather than prescriptive, but too many treat it as the latter. 



HansZimmer said:


> - The catchiness of a melody is mind-dependent, so you can not judge the quality of a piece of music with a so relative standard. If you want to show me that there is quality in a melody, you must show me that it's not objectively flat.
> I'm tired of people who say that a determined piece of music is bad because they don't SUBJECTIVELY like the melody. If you find a piece of music that it's not catchy for you, you must be happy, because it probably means that it's catchy for ears of other persons.


I agree that catchiness is mind-dependent (MD), but my entire point has been that ANY standard we choose to judge music is on is ultimately relative and MD. Even if you choose mind-independent (MI) qualities as the standard upon which to make judgments, there's still the MD feeling that likes those qualities, and the MD decision to choose that as the standard because it's liked. So what real difference is there between the liking (MD) and choosing (MD) of MI qualities as the standard, and simply making MD qualities (like catchiness) the standard? I'm not quite sure what you mean with the "show you there is a quality" and "If you find a piece of music," parts. I mean, if I find a piece of music I don't like that others do I AM happy (or at least fine) with the fact that others like it. Why wouldn't I be? 



HansZimmer said:


> Many pieces of the top-selling music have flat melodies. What we can say is that if people who listen to that music had been exposed to classical music since birth, they would be able to hear the catchiness of many classical music pieces and they would have a richer musical experience, because in classical music the melodies are usually not so flat (the theme in classical music is usually more courageous, it has more notes, and it's not continuosly repeated without variations, because there are theme variations and developments).


As I said many posts ago, we keep talking about melodies but most contemporary pop music is really focused around hooks. Hooks are as much rhythmic as they are melodic. They also very much exist in classical music. Arguably the most famous classical motif of all time, the opening four notes of Beethoven's 5th, is very much a hook: two different notes, two different note values, spread across four total notes. That's almost a model for popular music hooks, and I created a thread a long time ago here on this phenomenon. I mean, if you take Billie Eilish's Bad Guy, the verse vocal hook is the same thing: two notes and two note values in which the change in value/note is the very last one in the sequence. Bad Guy is even objectively more complex than the Beethoven (speaking of JUST the motif here, not the entire symphony or movement, obviously) because the Eilish syncopates to the off-beats before it hits the ending change. 



HansZimmer said:


> This also means that if the piece is vocal you need a trained singer who is really able to use his/her voice and not an incapable who sings with the autotune.
> However, it has to be said that "variation" can also be an instrumental variation, so a nice orchestration can give a greater value to a melody which is not su much creative in itself. So, a good melody can compensate the lack in instrumental variations and a nice orchestration can compensate the lack of great creativity in the melody. This is a multidimensional thing.
> An other point is that in the top-selling music there is only one instrument who plays the melody: the singer (who is a bad instrument, if he/she needs the autotune). So, the flatness of the melody is not compensated by instrumental variations.


You always need singers capable of singing the music that's written; that's a rather obvious point, as is the point that some music requires more vocal ability than others, and you can say the same about any instrument. As for autotune, people overstate and don't understand the role it plays in pop music. Yes, some pop artists are pretty bad singers and use autotune to fix their mistakes, but autotune is also used by great singers as well, especially in the studio where studio time is expensive. The effect of autotune can be extremely subtle or extremely pronounced, and some even use it as a kind of vocal effect. Autotune isn't just use by bad singers to help them sing. Singing is a complex craft and if you're a bad singer autotune is not going to turn you into a good one. There's far more to singing than just hitting notes accurately. 

I don't disagree that nice orchestration can give greater value to a melody, but so can a nice production, and "nice" in either case doesn't have to mean "complex" in a music theory sense. 



HansZimmer said:


> - The quality of the lyrics is not exactly mind-independent. It's at least quite easy to determine if the lyrics contain a message or a story, or if the singer gives only air to his/her mouth.
> If someone said that a piece with very good lyrics is bad because it has a flat melody, I would tell him/her that the flat melody is compensated by good lyrics and that poetry is also art.
> The problem is that there is nothing I can save in the average top-selling music, because the lyrics are usually dumb like the melodies.
> An other point in favour of classical music is that a great part of the vocal music are operas, which have a story.
> So, when Mozart had nothing to say he composed instrumental music: I recommend to many artists to convert themselfes to instrumental music, because it's clear that they have nothing to say.


It must be said that the quality of everything in music in MD, and that includes lyrics. FWIW, to me, the art of lyrics isn't really (or is rarely) the quality of the lyrics as poetry. The art of song-writing is the way in which lyrics are given life through the music, and the same is true of opera. In opera, the art is tied up in how the music is used to narrate and/or dramatize the story, giving us the emotions and even themes underlying the words, the characters, or the situation. Songwriting is the same thing, and lyrics that are often flat on the page come alive when paired with music and in the way it's sung, and many songwriters love playing around with voices, styles, genres, and even characters to fit their lyrics.



HansZimmer said:


> Now, the mind-dependent part of what I wrote here above is the judgement you give to the mind-independent facts.
> To have a negative view of determined products might be subjective, but you are free to explain why, according to you, I shouldn't have a negative view of music with flat melodies, incapable singers and dumb lyrics.


I don't think you "shouldn't have a negative view of music with flat melodies, incapable singers, and dumb lyrics;" I think you're free to like or dislike anything you want to in music, the same way we all are. What I've been trying to do in this thread is show, one, that your preferences are just preferences, the same way others' preferences are preferences; two, that your preferences are ultimately MD, aka subjective; and, three, perhaps explain why some people enjoy the things you don't. Personally, I can enjoy hooks (I prefer that to "flat melodies") depending on the hook; I can tolerate incapable singers depending on the other qualities of the music (though I can certainly appreciate great singers as well, and enjoy many artists primarily for their great voices); and even "dumb lyrics" can be fine with the right music. 



HansZimmer said:


> Uptown Funk is probably the most distinctive of the five pieces from a composer perspective, but even if we would conclude that the piece deserves so much popularity (more popularity than many other pieces, including pieces of classical music), one good piece on five is not a good result.
> If 80% of top-selling music contains pieces with no artistic value, it means that what I'm writing is true.


There's an old saying that 99% of everything is crap. We can quibble over the number, but the simple fact is that there is vastly more art produced in any medium/genre than there is art that will be deemed great and will last. You have to understand that when you look back on classical music you are also looking back on the top 1% (probably less) of composers and pieces that are remembered as being great. In the present we don't have the luxury of the sieve of time, in which the best pieces/artists have been selected for us by previous generations. However, some people enjoy the process of sifting through the silt to find those rare flecks of gold, and I'm of the mind that gold can be found anywhere, including in the most popular pop music, as with Uptown Funk. 




HansZimmer said:


> Yes, it's nearer to Dante's definition.
> I read that a "comedy film" is a comic film, but in my dictionary "comedy" has a larger meaning.
> A film about ordinary life, like a group of friends who go holidays together, is a comedy.
> The films for families are comedies.
> ...


All I can say is that you're using a pretty archaic definition. I know of that definition only because I know of how the word was used by Dante (and Balzac in his "Human Comedy"). All I would say is that there's plenty of meaning to be found in comedy, in whatever sense you want to use it in. I know many people value tragedy and art that doesn't flinch away from the darker parts of life but, hell, even Mozart's operatic masterpieces were comedies, and they're dripping with profundity and wisdom and feeling. Sure, under the broadest definition I can see calling Despacito "comedy music" in the sense that it's meant to be light and fun, but I simply think there's a lot of value in light and fun music. Speaking of music for the beach, I've been really enjoying this piece of pop fluff lately, a piece that's comedy in both senses of the word:


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> The relativists think that everything is relative except of relativist ideas. If someone refuses the relativist ideas, he/she can say that A is objectively better than B and that some people are simply not able to understand the superiority of A.
> 
> Furthermore, if someone is a relativist in the field of aesthetic, he/she can not be a relativist in the field of ethic, because if you are a relativist you must be a LIBERAL and liberals tend to see authoritarians as "bad/violent persons".
> 
> ...


Let's break some of this down:

"The relativists think that everything is relative except of relativist ideas" is a strawman. I'm technically a relativist in the field of aesthetics, but I am not a relativist in the field of geology.

"If someone refuses the relativist ideas, he/she can say that A is objectively better than B and that some people are simply not able to understand the superiority of A."

Seems to me that people are throwing around "objectively better" to prop up their inherently subjective experience of the music. I am sure that if bats were sapient, they'd have an entirely different set of criteria for "greatness" than humans do, because their senses are different.

"he/she can not be a relativist in the field of ethic, because if you are a relativist you must be a LIBERAL"

You can be a conservative, reactionary, centrist, or communist and still be a relativist. Conservatives and reactionaries are uncomfortable with relativism because it suggests there are views and values that can possibly be seen as "valid" despite being different from theirs, and some liberals like relativism because they mistakenly think it enshrines tolerance. Actually, a relativist can value intolerance or social conservatism.

"and liberals tend to see authoritarians as "bad/violent persons"

A liberal relativist can oppose authoritarianism despite thinking it's technically not "objectively" wrong. It is wrong to them and their culture, and that's what's required for liberals to oppose authoritarianism.

"I think that people have the right to have different aesthetic tastes, I don't think the same about ethic."


For societies to function, you don't need to adhere to objectively correct ethics. No, you need almost all of society to adhere to some rules, either because people genuinely think those rules are right, or because of selfish fear of punishment or expectation of gain.

To achieve order and moral progress, most people should not (admit to) being ethical relativists. Professing relativism probably weakens one's arguments for why society should follow the morals you want them to follow. Imagine if abolitionists said slavery is wrong...because they think it is wrong, or because they can from a society where most people think it is wrong. Instead of saying, slavery is inherently wrong because it violates inalienable rights.

"I must stuck with the music of my friends at the dinners and the music of the bars where they take me...my ears were not continuosly raped I would be more tolerant."

Listening to music you don't like in a public space is not remotely comparable to being raped. Will you start complaining about being exposed to cars you don't like, crowds you don't like, clothes you don't like, etc.?


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Forster said:


> What this means, I'm not sure. Who are "The relativists"?
> 
> 
> 
> What does this mean - and who are you talking about here?


Decades ago, right-wingers took a look at what was happening in some corners of academic philosophy, and created The Super Relativist as a strawman to use against their opponents. See also: Postmodernist. It's easy to debunk a view that there is no objective truth, even if no one subscribes to that view. And claim all your opponents are that kind of relativist.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> and my ears were not continuosly raped


You are seriously comparing hearing music you don't like to being raped?

You need to stop this. Right now. Your smug condescension has gone too far.

The forum filter is preventing me from using the language that you truly deserve.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> Mind-independent facts:
> - In the comment section of youtube videos which contain classical music pieces is quite common to find people who speak about music theory, while it's quite uncommon to find similar comment in videos of commercial music. In this forum the average knowledge of music theory seems to be quite high.
> These observations must be confirmed by scientific data, but if they are true, we can say that the target of classical music are musically educated people, while the target of commercial music is a large audience composed by many people who understand little or nothing about music.
> 
> ...


Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that CM is objectively great and top-selling music objectively sucks. Why would people care if a subset of music theorists demonstrates that the songs they like suck?

Or, if music theorists proved that Brahms' string sextets are objectively terrible, why would I care?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Not wanting to divert from the main argument, I just want to observe that while "melody" is undoubtedly an important component in both classical and popular (and probably the most important component in popular classical), I would argue that in the best of both genres, it's difficult to separate the components. In the case of pop (much of what has been in the Top 40 over the last 50 years) I'd say rhythm is the more important component.

Now, back to the objective truth that classical is "better"...


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

ORigel said:


> Decades ago, right-wingers took a look at what was happening in some corners of academic philosophy, and created The Super Relativist as a strawman to use against their opponents. See also: Postmodernist. It's easy to debunk a view that there is no objective truth, even if no one subscribes to that view. And claim all your opponents are that kind of relativist.


Quite.

The piece that is always missing from the argument by those who assert that "classical is better than pop" is the authority behind their criteria.

Look, I accept the lay argument that Beethoven's 9th Symphony is "superior" to Trio's Da Da Da, (and all other such stupid comparisons) provided that the criteria for the analysis are made clear. and these can be discussed. It's a pretty shallow argument, especially when it's deployed with so little evidence to support it.

What "we relativists/subjectivists" reject is that there is any _authority _for the claim that such criteria are objectively arguable. By all means claim that "complexity" is superior to "simplicity" or "profundity" is superior to "trite", but nowhere is it Written In Tablets that complexity and profundity have been, are and always will be the superior criteria.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> As I said many posts ago, we keep talking about melodies but most contemporary pop music is really focused around hooks. Hooks are as much rhythmic as they are melodic. They also very much exist in classical music. Arguably the most famous classical motif of all time, the opening four notes of Beethoven's 5th, is very much a hook: two different notes, two different note values, spread across four total notes. That's almost a model for popular music hooks, and I created a thread a long time ago here on this phenomenon. I mean, if you take Billie Eilish's Bad Guy, the verse vocal hook is the same thing: two notes and two note values in which the change in value/note is the very last one in the sequence. Bad Guy is even objectively more complex than the Beethoven (speaking of JUST the motif here, not the entire symphony or movement, obviously) because the Eilish syncopates to the off-beats before it hits the ending change.


It's really dishonest to say that the first movement of the fifth symphony of Beethoven is based on 4 notes.






A part from the fact that the opening motif is recapitulized with many different theme variations (it's not repated always in the same way), there are also devlopment sections in the melody, like the one which starts after 00:50.
The hook is simply the part of the movement that it's easy to memorize. I think that it's a good thing if a classical music piece contains a good memorable theme, but a quality composition contains also theme variations and developments. A catchy theme becomes boring if it's repeated too many times without variations (as I said, the variations can be also in the instrumentation and not in the notes).


Only the producers of junk commercial music would be able to write a song entirely based on a motif of 4 notes without any variation and only a musically uneducated audience can believe that there is quality in a similar composition.
This song comes close for example, and the words are stupid and repetitive just like the melody.






Furthermore, this song incites to drug assumption. Alhough I think that drug assumption should be legal (because I believe in the self-ownership) as a music producer I would never put my money in similar songs, otherwise the next time we will produce a song that incites children to suicide.

As I've already said, however, it's not the responsability of persons with little or none musical education to mantain the artistic level of the music above a determined line. It's the responsability of the experts of music (the people who work in the music industry) to give a good musical education to the public. The problem is that they don't work for the god of arts, but for the god of money.
Companies also have a social responsability and if you publish songs which incite to drugs assumption you're a ********.

Yes, I know that my definition of "quality" is mind-dependent, but I still have to understand your point of view. Do you really believe that the famous movement of the fifth symphony would be a quality composition if it really continously repeated a theme of four notes without variations?


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

the language of classical music is simply a language, and that's it.




You can glorify it as some sort of 'divine complexity' all you want, but we don't know how much better AI will get at it.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

hammeredklavier said:


> the language of classical music is simply a language, and that's it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As a computer programmer, I can say that computers don't think. The programmers think.

If Mozart was still alive, we could create a program together which create scores like him, but the program wouldn't think: it would only reproduce the mind of Mozart at a very high speed. Mozart thinks, the computer executes his instructions. The programmer must only translate the language of Mozart in a language that the computer can understand.


However, this would be possible only if Mozart composed in a procedural way. If he followed more creative approaches, it would be hard to write a program that composes like him.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> It's really dishonest to say that the first movement of the fifth symphony of Beethoven is based on 4 notes.


It's literally true, though. At the very least the main subject is an exploration of this short "cell". The second subject is used in the same way, most dramatically when its inversion drives the coda.

Even simpler is the opening of Brahms 4 which is arguably based on a single interval - falling third, and rising sixth, which is just the falling third raised by an octave. If you undo the octave displacement, the famous opening of Brahms 4 consists of nothing more than four descending third intervals. The ability to get complexity out of such simple material is part of the whole appeal of the Beethoven/German school.


It's not that these are "bad melodies" but when people talk about "melodic" classical music, it's frequently _in contrast_ to this type of musical writing. The appeal of this music isn't melodic in the way that Schubert or Dvorak's music frequently is - it's based on exploration of small motives which are (and this does get subjective) usually considered too "incomplete" to be melodies.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

fbjim said:


> It's literally true, though. At the very least the main subject is an exploration of this short "cell". The second subject is used in the same way, most dramatically when its inversion drives the coda.
> 
> Even simpler is the opening of Brahms 4 which is arguably based on a single interval - falling third, and rising sixth, which is just the falling third raised by an octave. If you undo the octave displacement, the famous opening of Brahms 4 consists of nothing more than four descending third intervals. The ability to get complexity out of such simple material is part of the whole appeal of the Beethoven/German school.
> 
> ...


Not necessarily the first movement of the fifth symphony is the best piece of classical music. "Most popular" doesn't necessarily mean "highest quality" even in classical music.

It might be quite easy to show that in less popular pieces of Beethoven there is a higher quality. I would say that in classical music you find the highest compositional quality in concertos, and I'm thinking in particular about Mozart's and Beethoven's piano concertos, but also harpsichord concertos of Bach are masterpieces (however I prefer the piano versions).


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> Not necessarily the first movement of the fifth symphony is the best piece of classical music. "Most popular" doesn't necessarily mean "highest quality" even in classical music.
> 
> It might be quite easy to show that in less popular pieces of Beethoven there is a higher quality. I would say that in classical music you find the highest compositional quality in concertos, and I'm thinking in particular about Mozart's and Beethoven's piano concertos, but also harpsichord concertos of Bach are masterpieces (however I prefer the piano versions).


So you don't like Beethoven 5 or Brahms 4? Of COURSE they're high-quality. The development of the material, the emotional content, the thematic transformations in Beethoven's Fifth (the coda is a terrifying variant the lyrical theme which gets sliced up in the exposition and recapitulation).


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Yes, we do run in different circles because I run (or, at least, ran) in circles with plenty of people who would semi-regularly discuss music. Why don't you just try to casually bring up classical music and see what people's perception of it is. My parents used to call it "stuffy rich people music." Where do you think they got that idea?


Not from me for sure, because I'm not rich. Maybe it's an old stereotype given by the fact that in the classical period the audience of the classical music were the aristocrats.

I've been called a snob and an elitist in this discussion, but if I was, I wouldn't be a liberal. Infact, liberalism was born to fight against the elitism of the aristocracy. For me, all persons born equal and they must have the same possibilities, because there is no such thing as "the noble blood".
The fact that all citzens born equal (with the same rights) however doesn't mean that all persons achieve the same results, because the individuals are actually different from each others.

I believe in free, public education because all the citzens, like I already said, must have the same opportunities, but having the same opportunities doesn't mean that all people will succeed in taking a degree. You have to sweat and toil!


What I'm saying about music has nothing to do with elitism. The public education system must also offer degrees in the music fields, but many musicians of the music industry of today they didn't take any degree in music because they don't want to sweat and toil: they only want to make easy money with songs for teens.
I won't never judge someone for his blood, therefore I'm not a snob/an elitist/an aristocrat, but I judge people for what they DO.

To be an elitist is an other thing. For example, if you say that a formed and skilled composer like John Williams is a "failed composer" only because he uses his skills for products for the general public and not only for the niche audience of classical music, then you are an elitist, and I'm not the one who makes similar arguments.
No, this is not true that the film scores of John Williams are elementary: there is smart composition/tecnique inside of them.

Someone in this discussion mentioned Hans Zimmer. If it's true that he didn't read books of music theory and he is only able to fiddle with a DAW (and I'm not sure about this), however it has to be said that in the Remote Control Productions there are probably some persons who know a few things about music theory and that they work on arrangements with Zimmer.
The wikipedia page also say that there are probably ghost writers behind him.

To provide good outputs, a good musical formation is needed. Fortunately, the musical expetances of film producers are not so low like the ones of the general public.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> Not necessarily the first movement of the fifth symphony is the best piece of classical music. "Most popular" doesn't necessarily mean "highest quality" even in classical music.
> 
> It might be quite easy to show that in less popular pieces of Beethoven there is a higher quality. I would say that in classical music you find the highest compositional quality in concertos, and I'm thinking in particular about Mozart's and Beethoven's piano concertos, but also harpsichord concertos of Bach are masterpieces (however I prefer the piano versions).


If it might be quite easy to show there is a higher quality in less popular piece of Beethoven I would like you to do it. The 5th symphony of Beethoven is him at his best, one of the best symphonies ever written for sure


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> So you don't like Beethoven 5 or Brahms 4? Of COURSE they're high-quality. The development of the material, the emotional content, the thematic transformations in Beethoven's Fifth (the coda is a terrifying variant the lyrical theme which gets sliced up in the exposition and recapitulation).


No, I've never written that I don't like them. It's only a reply to the users who portray the first movement as a "lazy composition of 4 notes". If it was true, then it would be easy to find pieces of higher quality in the Beethoven's catalogue.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> If it might be quite easy to show there is a higher quality in less popular piece of Beethoven I would like you to do it. The 5th symphony of Beethoven is him at his best, one of the best symphonies ever written for sure


Read my previous post.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> Not from me for sure, because I'm not rich. Maybe it's an old stereotype given by the fact that in the classical period the audience of the classical music were the aristocrats.
> 
> I've been called a snob and an elitist in this discussion, but if I was, I wouldn't be a liberal. Infact, liberalism was born to fight against the elitism of the aristocracy. For me, all persons born equal and they must have the same possibilities, because there is no such thing as "the noble blood".
> The fact that all citzens born equal (with the same rights) however doesn't mean that all persons achieve the same results, because the individuals are actually different from each others.
> ...


You are an elitist snob in regards to music. The rest of your political views are not relevant to the topic.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Who said "lazy"? The amount of expression Beethoven and composers in that style are able to get out of explorations of extremely simple motifs is precisely what people look for in that music.

When I said that melody was not necessary in classical music, I'm not just talking about obvious examples like minimalist works. There's all sorts of classical music such as this where the focus is less on lyrical melodies, and more on this sort of motivic development. Sonata form, where the development section frequently consists of exploration of motives in the exposition actually encourages this.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> No, I've never written that I don't like them. It's only a reply to the users who portray the first movement as a "lazy composition of 4 notes". If it was true, then it would be easy to find pieces of higher quality in the Beethoven's catalogue.


The quality of Beethoven's Fifth is not in the complexity of the motif. It's in a) the emotional impact of the motiff (right off the bat) and what 
Beethoven does with the motif.

I am not versed in music theory, but I understand that simple motives lend themselves better to development than a long flowing melody.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Contrast it with the first movement of Dvorak 9, the themes Dvorak explores are much more "complete", and could stand on their own as melodies outside the context of sontata-form development. That's a symphony regarded for it's use of song-like melodies - you'd use words like "melodic" or "lyrical" to describe it. It's a great symphony but one in a different style of musical writing than what the "Beethoven school" is doing there (not that German composers, including Beethoven and Brahms never worked with song-like melodies).


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> You are an elitist snob in regards to music. The rest of your political views are not relevant to the topic.


I'm not, otherwise I'd say that only rich persons must have the privilege to study classical music, while I think that there must be a public and free education. If I say that many musicians don't want education because they are lazy and they only want to make easy money with songs for teens with little or none musical education I'm not an elitist.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

fbjim said:


> Beethoven and Brahms never worked with song-like melodies).


Are you sure? I'd put 10'00 likes to this piece, if I could.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> I'm not, otherwise I'd say that only rich persons must have the privilege to study classical music, while I think that there must be a public and free education. If I say that many musicians don't want education because they are lazy and they only want to make easy money with songs for teens with little or none musical education I'm not an elitist.


No, you seemingly want to cram the music you like down kids' throats* while claiming that having to listen to popular hits at your local restaurant is equivalent to being assaulted.
*Somehow, I don't think that their music teachers bashing the music they listen to would get them hooked on CM.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> Are you sure? I'd put 10'00 likes to this piece, if I could.


Stop misrepresenting what fbjim wrote.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

ORigel said:


> The quality of Beethoven's Fifth is not in the complexity of the motif. It's in a) the emotional impact of the motiff (right off the bat) and what
> Beethoven does with the motif.
> 
> I am not versed in music theory, but I understand that simple motives lend themselves better to development than a long flowing melody.


But if you develop a simple theme, at the end you will have an elaborated melody. This is the point: the first movement of the fifth symphony clearily doesn't contain only four notes.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> But if you develop a simple theme, at the end you will have an elaborated melody. This is the point: the first movement of the fifth symphony clearily doesn't contain only four notes.


No one said that the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony "contain(s) only four notes." Rather, that masters like Beethoven and Brahms could get a lot of mileage from simple material and that music is as appealing as music with long melodic passages.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fbjim said:


> what the "Beethoven school" is doing there (not that German composers, including Beethoven and Brahms never worked with song-like melodies).





fbjim said:


> The ability to get complexity out of such simple material is part of the whole appeal of the Beethoven/German school.


Beethoven was a German-born musician who had most of his development in Vienna, under Haydn's guidance (and to a lesser extent, Albrechtsberger's). I would say, the two "Viennese" composers, Haydn and Beethoven, fit the bill of what you're talking about. But I don't think we should generalize the whole "German school" based on that. Whatabout Weber, for example? Or whatabout this "German" style?-

"Much of Reichardt's reputation as a composer rests on his Lieder that number about 1500, using texts by some 125 poets. Important among these are the settings of Goethe's texts, some of which were known to, and influenced, Schubert. He was also known by his Singspiele, a genre that he refined with Goethe's support."









"At the beginning of the nineteenth century, before Berlioz's time, some influential critics - for instance, Julien-Louis Geoffroy - rejected Mozart as a foreigner, considering his music 'scholastic', stressing his use of harmony over melody, and the dominance of the orchestra over singing in the operas - all these were considered negative features of 'Germanic' music." -Benjamin Perl.





"The numerous settings of liturgical texts in German, the secular German part-songs and Lieder, together with his expanding sphere of influence as a teacher of composition in the 1790s, place Michael Haydn in a position of importance in the early history of both German sacred music and German song. One of his students Georg Schinn (1768-1833), left Salzburg in 1808 to take a position in the Munich Hofkapelle, where Michael Haydn's Latin and German sacred music was performed frequently throughout the 19th century." <Michael Haydn and "The Haydn Tradition:" A Study of Attribution, Chronology, and Source Transmission / Dwight C. Blazin / P.28>


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> But if you develop a simple theme, at the end you will have an elaborated melody. This is the point: the first movement of the fifth symphony clearily doesn't contain only four notes.


Nobody said that the first movement of the 5th symphony only contains 4 notes. That would be a very short movement. And what you write is false. Beethoven develops the 4 note motif, but at the end you don’t get an elaborated melody. You just get the motif played by a lot of different instruments and with different rythms


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

"German school" is of course a stereotypical generalization, hence the scare quotes


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> Nobody said that the first movement of the 5th symphony only contains 4 notes. That would be a very short movement. And what you write is false. Beethoven develops the 4 note motif, but at the end you don’t get an elaborated melody. You just get the motif played by a lot of different instruments and with different rythms


Not true. There are development sections.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> Not true. There are development sections.


I want a video with timestamps. Show me where the "elaborated melody" is in the first movement of Beethoven's Fifth. Even though I've listened the symphony a thousand times, I must have missed that part.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> Not true. There are development sections.


You do realise that developing a theme doesn’t mean that you automatically end up with an ‘elaborated melody’. A good example of this is the first movement of Beethoven’s 5th symphony. Hey that’s a coincidence


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> It's really dishonest to say that the first movement of the fifth symphony of Beethoven is based on 4 notes.


First, I didn't say the first MOVEMENT was based around those 4 notes (though, as others have said, it kinda is), I said: "Arguably the most famous classical *motif *of all time, the opening four notes of Beethoven's 5th, is very much a *hook." *Others have since corrected you on your misapprehension that somehow the first movement of Beethoven's 5th is based around melody; it's very much not, it's based around the development of very simple motifs, and a good chunk of music from the German classical tradition is based around the same thing. 



HansZimmer said:


> ...but a quality composition contains also theme variations and developments. A catchy theme becomes boring if it's repeated too many times without variations (as I said, the variations can be also in the instrumentation and not in the notes).


These are your MD opinions and you are welcome to them. I think a catchy theme would become boring over the length of a long symphonic movement, sure, but they're just fine in the span of a 3-minute pop song. 



HansZimmer said:


> Only the producers of junk commercial music would be able to write a song entirely based on a motif of 4 notes without any variation and only a musically uneducated audience can believe that there is quality in a similar composition.


I'm musically educated and I believe that there is quality in such music. I don't care to measure such things against the "quality of (classical) compositions" because they're (say it with me) two completely different things with different goals/purposes. 

Whatever song you linked to about drug consumption (I assume you mean consumption rather than assumption) isn't working for me. I have no idea what connection you're making between drug consumption and suicide. 



HansZimmer said:


> As I've already said, however, it's not the responsability of persons with little or none musical education to mantain the artistic level of the music above a determined line. It's the responsability of the experts of music (the people who work in the music industry) to give a good musical education to the public. The problem is that they don't work for the god of arts, but for the god of money.
> Companies also have a social responsability and if you publish songs which incite to drugs assumption you're a ******.


LOL First, not all people who work in the music industry are "music experts." Second, how, pray tell, would you propose they "give a good musical education to the public?" That sort of thing has to either happen at home or in school. People in the music industry have no way to educate a mass public. Of course people in the music industry work for money; so have most of the great composers you've talked about in this thread, often churning out hack pieces on commission at much faster rates than the music industry churns out pop music (which takes much longer to write and produce). Finally, the notion that music "incites" people to anything is absurd. The entire claim that "media causes X(bad thing)" has been so thoroughly and consistently debunked by science/statistical studies that it's stunning to me people still bring it up. As Frank Zappa once said: "I wrote a song about dental floss, but nobody's teeth got any cleaner." 



HansZimmer said:


> Yes, I know that my definition of "quality" is mind-dependent, but I still have to understand your point of view. Do you really believe that the famous movement of the fifth symphony would be a quality composition if it really continously repeated a theme of four notes without variations?


Beethoven's 5th would be an entirely different kind of work if it was the equivalent of a 3-minute pop song in which that motif was like, say, a chorus; but you'd have to rewrite the rest of it around that, and then we're back into the realm of apples and oranges.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> Not from me for sure, because I'm not rich. Maybe it's an old stereotype given by the fact that in the classical period the audience of the classical music were the aristocrats.
> 
> I've been called a snob and an elitist in this discussion, but if I was, I wouldn't be a liberal. Infact, liberalism was born to fight against the elitism of the aristocracy. For me, all persons born equal and they must have the same possibilities, because there is no such thing as "the noble blood".


Your politics are irrelevant to your elitist and very undemocratic approach to music and aesthetics, which is much closer to being authoritarian. YOU know what the best music is and all the ignorant masses who think differently are wrong and should be re-educated and forced to listen to/like the kind of music you like. There's nothing liberal about that. 



HansZimmer said:


> The public education system must also offer degrees in the music fields, but many musicians of the music industry of today they didn't take any degree in music because they don't want to sweat and toil: they only want to make easy money with songs for teens.


You are incredibly delusional if you think it's "easy money" making "songs for teens." Do you have any idea how many people are trying to do that and failing? As I've said, if doing such a thing were easy then there would be more Max Martins out there. If you think it's easy, by all means take your music education and go write some hit songs for teens. See how easy it is. If you're actually good at it, trust me, you will be successful. 

At the end of the day, what you don't seem to appreciate is that music is as much (really more) art than craft. You're hammering on about learning the craft from a music theory perspective, but as we've seen throughout the 20th century, not just with contemporary pop music, such theory isn't needed to create artistically substantial music. The Beatles were not musically educated, neither was Bob Dylan, yet between them they had an incalculable impact on 20th century culture, not just music but culture as a whole. What "learned" composer had 1/10th of the impact they had? Maybe the closest was Stravinsky, but the vast majority of people couldn't name a piece by Stravinsky compared to a song by Dylan or The Beatles. You can decry that if you want to, but people are going to like what they like and you being all elitist about it isn't going to change anything.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Just last night one of my musician friends said that people generally outgrow pop music and then they have nothing. And I said is that really true in your experience? And she said that it's okay because they don't know what they're missing. So it's all good, I guess.
What is the percentage of people who find lasting satisfaction in pop/alternative or dance music? From her experience it was less than 20%. I think she did a paper on it 'way back in college and she's still thinking about the ramifications.

How many people are like Eva and others in here who very quickly appreciated something about CM and then pursued it so that they could become an informed listener? 10% or less?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I'm not sure people "outgrow pop" so much as a lot of people reach an age where they no longer have the interest in following the latest aesthetic trends, and will be relatively comfortable settling into listening to what they like. 

It's difficult to say who finds "lasting satisfaction" in pop/dance because a lot of listeners simply aren't terribly interested in listening to music on a critical/artistic level. Certainly electronic music is a big enough field to last a lifetime of exploration.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> At the end of the day, what you don't seem to appreciate is that music is as much (really more) art than craft.


The best way I can raise the objection that many have with capital-P Pop is that it sometimes does seem more like craft than art. I guess one could say the same thing about any piece of music in any genre which may not be particularly "inspired", but while I find Pop production interesting, so much of it seems sometimes like an amalgamation and sanding-down of aesthetic trends in more "underground" music in a way to make it palatable for general audiences. In the last decade or so (and earlier), see how production trends in hip-hop and (especially) dance got turned into trap-inspired pop, and more dubiously, "Brostep".

This process can be interesting and require great skill in-and-of-itself, but the result frequently seems crafted-for-purpose rather than the more expressive kind of art that those interested in "artistic" music typically seek out.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Having started in my younger life listening to classical music as, by far, the major genre and then in my teens developing a strong interest in popular music and from that point on listening to both genres side-by-side to the present, my experience is that classical music is more profound and enduring and something that I turn to more when life downturns intrude.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DaveM said:


> Having started in my younger life listening to classical music as, by far, the major genre and then in my teens developing a strong interest in popular music and from that point on listening to both genres side-by-side to the present, my experience is that classical music is more profound and enduring and something that I turn to more when life downturns intrude.


Do you think you've had a typical start? Can we use folks with rare experiences for help with the problem of losing CM? Aren't many responders in here the lucky people who somehow had rare experiences? 

What are the rare experiences?

Liking CM before pop music influences him or her, because of sufficient exposure to attractive works. Rarer and rarer today.
Learning music as early as their spoken language. This has always been rare.

Intelligent individuals tire of pop and investigate why CM has more to offer. Fairly rare, I think. Less music education and fundamentals at the critical maturation time makes it rarer (for the last 30 or 40 years), I think. These adults are now the policy-makers. They consequently have no love for CM.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

There are a lot of forms of music beyond classical for listeners to explore if they want to see "what more" music has to offer. Classical doesn't have a monopoly on the "art music" field and arguably hasn't since at least the birth of Jazz.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Your politics are irrelevant to your elitist and very undemocratic approach to music and aesthetics, which is much closer to being authoritarian. YOU know what the best music is and all the ignorant masses who think differently are wrong and should be re-educated and forced to listen to/like the kind of music you like. There's nothing liberal about that.


The old liberals don't have high opinion about the masses, because many dictators and criminals have been supported by the masses. It's quite the contrary: the old liberals think that the power of the masses should be limited, otherwise they create damages.
The constitutions of the states, which limit the democratic power of the citizens, are an implementation of this thought, and for many liberal are not sufficient.

Yes, we are a bit snob, but for good reasons. While the democrats run after the masses, liberals like me think about the individuals. The best solution for all persons in music, of course, is that anyone listen to music he/she prefers.
This, however, doesn't mean that I can not say that what the masses of today like is far from "art music". Being liberal does not mean self-censoring one's opinions


That said, it doesn't have to do with what I subjectively like.

I have just uploaded the score of the film "Basic Istinct" for the competition in the movie corner: Basic Instinct - Score - TC best film score award 1993
I don't like it, but I don't say that it's "junk music". Why?
I don't like many pieces of classical music, but I don't say that they are "junk music". Why?

You're making a too childish portrait of me.

What I'm saying goes beyond my personal tastes. The question is to determine what is serious and what is not serious. I could prefer a melody inside a piece of junk music than the melodies inside the score of "Basic Instinct", but this wouldn't change my judgement in any way about which one of the two products is more serious.

My judgement of art is not so childish/visceral: people who think that something is art because they like it and that something else is not art because they don't like it are childish. Ok, you like this song... fine, but it's not that you have to elevate it to "art" only because you like it. On the other hand, you shouldn't thrown away something only because you don't like it.

You have a left hemisphere: you can use it to go beyond the emotions.


So, are the summer hits "art/serious music" only because you find them catchy? No.
Are some pieces of music that you don't find catchy "art/serious music"? Yes.





> You are incredibly delusional if you think it's "easy money" making "songs for teens." Do you have any idea how many people are trying to do that and failing? As I've said, if doing such a thing were easy then there would be more Max Martins out there. If you think it's easy, by all means take your music education and go write some hit songs for teens. See how easy it is. If you're actually good at it, trust me, you will be successful.


Hammeredklavier mentioned this part of your post in an other discussion: Why do many people think that classical music composed for film scores is not classical music?

However, I've never said that it's easy to produce songs for teens, but maybe it's much harder to produce music for a mature and musically educated public.
Why? Because the second kind of public have higher expactations. You can not give them silly lyrics and technically poor products.

There are musicians who try to create products for the educated/mature audience and they fail, but at least they try. There are other musicians that are happy with their audience of teens of low culture and they don't hatch from there because it's a convenient location.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

HansZimmer said:


> My judgement of art is not so childish/visceral:


YOU are the one who equated hearing "bad" music to getting raped. 

YOU need to stop. 

YOU are the problem.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

prlj said:


> YOU are the one who equated hearing "bad" music to getting raped.
> 
> YOU need to stop.
> 
> YOU are the problem.


Are you trying to use the card of political correctness?

It's obvious that when I wrote that some pieces of music rape my ears I was simply using a "figure of speech". It was a hyperbole.
However I would like to be more precise: the junk music in reality is not exactly a rape for the ears, but for the brain, because the melodies are often catchy.

That said, the artists could speak about social issues (including violence on women), but they prefer to write lyrics about the nothing.
It's easier to find lyrics who portray women like sexual objects inside of junk music rather than lyrics which denounce the violence on women.

What do you want to say about these lyrics about one of the most succesful rappers in Italy: Fabri Fibra?

I'm 28 years old, girls, contact me,
**** me and if there is still time tell me your name
don't conserve yourself, give your pussies to all, to dogs too
and if you won't give me your pussy, I will take it with the force like Pacciani*.

Pacciani is an italian serial killer.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

HansZimmer said:


> The old liberals don't have high opinion about the masses, because many dictators and criminals have been supported by the masses. It's quite the contrary: the old liberals think that the power of the masses should be limited, otherwise they create damages.
> The constitutions of the states, which limit the democratic power of the citizens, are an implementation of this thought, and for many liberal are not sufficient.
> 
> Yes, we are a bit snob, but for good reasons. While the democrats run after the masses, liberals like me think about the individuals. The best solution for all persons in music, of course, is that anyone listen to music he/she prefers.
> ...


Saying that teens have low culture is a really stupid statement and yes, very snobbish as well. Also not all art is serious. That would be really boring


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

fbjim said:


> There are a lot of forms of music beyond classical for listeners to explore if they want to see "what more" music has to offer. Classical doesn't have a monopoly on the "art music" field and arguably hasn't since at least the birth of Jazz.


I worry about the dwindling support for CM. 
After free form jazz gained acceptance I worried about jazz, but I haven't followed it to see a decline. How's it doing?

There's a trend here. Interest in CM declining, and jazz, and rock, and metal, and maybe power ballads are mostly gone too.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> Do you think you've had a typical start? Can we use folks with rare experiences for help with the problem of losing CM? Aren't many responders in here the lucky people who somehow had rare experiences?
> 
> What are the rare experiences?
> 
> ...


What use do most people have for classical music? 
1. Fit in to a social clique (when young-- your friends probably will be listening to popular songs)
2. At a social event (again, songs are usually better for that)
3. Because it speaks to one's emotions and experiences (easier to do that with lyrics in a language you understand, in a clear way of singing)
4. For nostalgia (nostaligia for classical music only applies for CM enthusiasts like me).
5. Commuting (reduced dynamic range makes pop music better for listening in noisy environments)

While I listen exclusively to CM, I will always be in the minority. And that's fine, though of course I want the CM industry to be preserved so I won't have to be making copies of files of the CM recordings I like)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Do you think you've had a typical start? Can we use folks with rare experiences for help with the problem of losing CM? Aren't many responders in here the lucky people who somehow had rare experiences?
> 
> What are the rare experiences?
> 
> ...


All of that, for the most part, is likely true. I guess I’m only saying that if one starts with a strong attachment to classical music, even though popular music will be also enjoyed, it is CM that will likely sustain one and endure more (in one’s life, not as a growing genre) as one ages.

The CM of the CP era is solid, enduring music that has survived over centuries to the point that there are still a substantial number of orchestras and soloists around the world, regardless of the overwhelming popularity of popular/rap music. It still remains to be seen whether popular music has that same kind of staying power. The works of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven generate much the same interest in people who love CM as they did a century ago. The same can’t be said of popular music from close to a century ago. Popular music has changed considerably over the last 80 years and I don’t enjoy it in its present form as much as I once did.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

ORigel said:


> What use do most people have for classical music?
> 1. Fit in to a social clique (when young-- your friends probably will be listening to popular songs)
> 2. At a social event (again, songs are usually better for that)
> 3. Because it speaks to one's emotions and experiences (easier to do that with lyrics in a language you understand, in a clear way of singing)
> ...


Saving up for a time for a CM album you've thought you'd like to have. Do people still have a notion about such a collector's all-consuming interest?

As I read your list of snags, how did you become a CM enthusiast?

Kids trained to be musicians will know about the enduring values and achievements in CM.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> The old liberals don't have high opinion about the masses, because many dictators and criminals have been supported by the masses. It's quite the contrary: the old liberals think that the power of the masses should be limited, otherwise they create damages.
> The constitutions of the states, which limit the democratic power of the citizens, are an implementation of this thought, and for many liberal are not sufficient.
> 
> Yes, we are a bit snob, but for good reasons. While the democrats run after the masses, liberals like me think about the individuals. The best solution for all persons in music, of course, is that anyone listen to music he/she prefers.
> ...


"While the democrats run after the masses, liberals"
So you are elitist and anti-democratic, and consider yourself a liberal?

"liberals like me think about the individuals"
You mean The Individual, yourself. You get to dictate to people what is art and what is not, and you either want to force people to listen to the music you like in public places, or have public places not play music at all to protect your delicate ears from auditory assault.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> I changed the title of the thread because the users were not understanding what I wanted to say, not because I was changing ideas. With the current title should be clear to anyone that this thread is not an attack towards non-classical styles of music, but an attack to the top-selling music.
> 
> That said, no one tried to support the idea that Despacito, Gangnam Style and things like that are serious music. Maybe it's because you know that it's not. Many users are answering to straw men, not to what I actually wrote.


This is one of the places in which the thread loses me.

So . . . it's now "Top-Selling" music, which translates to "Music that charts", but it always seems to hinge on these two songs, Despacito, Gangnam Style to try to prove the point. There have always been very simple songs that have charted (because they sell records), and are very popular.

(Oh,) *Donna* - Richie Valens (1958, peaked at #2)
*Sugar Sugar* - The Archies (1969, peaked at #1)
*Na na na na, hey hey hey Goodbye* - Steam (1969, peaked at #1)
*My Ding-A-Ling* - Chuck Berry - (1972, his only #1 hit)
*Don't Worry Be Happy* - Bobby McFerrin (1988, peaked at #1)


*Gangnam Style*, released in 2012, broke records and attained #1 chart status on a stunning majority of charts worldwide.

In 2017 *Despacito* went #1 almost EVERYWHERE in the charted world. It went 13x Platinum in both the US (16,300,000 units sold) and Sweden (104,000,000 units streamed). It streamed 30,000,000 units in Japan.

These songs are (were?) MONSTER POPULAR because people enjoyed them immensely. So, why would so many people worldwide love these songs if they're so objectively awful?

The truth is they're not awful. They're just simple, and catchy, and fun. Those that wish to "put down" songs such as these are simply pretending that they are not ignorant to what constitutes awful and not-awful song. People loved these songs so much that millions of people ponied up the cash to buy and stream them (or in the case of Gangnam Style, making it the most watched video ever, with over 2 BILLION views).


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

pianozach said:


> This is one of the places in which the thread loses me.
> 
> So . . . it's now "Top-Selling" music, which translates to "Music that charts", but it always seems to hinge on these two songs, Despacito, Gangnam Style to try to prove the point. There have always been very simple songs that have charted (because they sell records), and are very popular.
> 
> ...


Play them on your piano and see what you think of them.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Luchesi said:


> Saving up for a time for a CM album you've thought you'd like to have. Do people still have a notion about such a collector's all-consuming interest?
> 
> As I read your list of snags, how did you become a CM enthusiast?
> 
> Kids trained to be musicians will know about the enduring values and achievements in CM.


They're not my list of snags. They're what I think others' snags are, in addition to the crucial snag I forgot to include, the low attention span snag.

I am and have been a loner, so I didn't get into social groups that love certain top-selling artists. I've always like instrumental music (perhaps because I have a harder time than most understanding sung words) but was hindered by my short attention span. I slowly built up a number of CDs. I think listening to CM rewired my brain, turning it against the song format.

When I was a teenager back in the mid 2010s, I thought the new songs on the radio were terrible so I hardly listened to music at all for a few years. Then I got hooked on Dvorak's New World Symphony from a high school band arrangement of the finale. After months of listening to that symphony, I started branching out and listening to other works-- praise be to Youtube.

_Kids trained to be musicians will know about the enduring values and achievements in CM._

But most don't become enthusiastic about it. Despite music programs still existing in many schools, the market for CM is shrinking or staying static while the population grows. 

It's one thing to acknowledge that Brahms was a master. It's another to buy CDs of his music.

At the end of the day, CM is a hobby. The implosion of the CM industry would be a tragedy-- to musicians, conductors, contemporary composers that hardly anyone pays attention to, music scholars, a few record labels, and CM industry customers. The preservation of the industry is not an important cause to me, because there are other causes that actually matter, ethically, and because surely we can convince some enthusiasts to preserve archives of scores and recordings, to perhaps be revived by a later culture.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> Play them on your piano and see what you think of them.


You completely missed my point.

It doesn't matter what you or I may think of them. We are judging music using far different measures than the typical consumer of music; for starters, we both love Classical Music. 

We love Classical Music because of certain characteristics Classical Music contains. But we're in the minority. Most people *don't* value those characteristics; in fact, most people value the characteristics of songs that top the Charts.

And to write a song that becomes a chart-topper? Easy, right? Of course not. Songs that reach the very top of the charts DO have something in common though; they simultaneously conform to prevailing musical feature profiles while exhibiting some degree of individuality or novelty. They sound similar to whatever else is popular at the time, but also have enough of a unique sound to help them stand out as distinctive.

So, it's funny, songs that made the charts tended to be happier, more partylike, and more danceable. THOSE characteristics are more highly valued by the public-at-large than the more sophisticated characteristics found in Classical Music.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

pianozach said:


> You completely missed my point.
> 
> It doesn't matter what you or I may think of them. We are judging music using far different measures than the typical consumer of music; for starters, we both love Classical Music.
> 
> ...


Yes, I know. Happiness sells better in scary times. It's extra-musical. What's to talk about?

I think sales of song sheets are a better barometer of value, instead of the tally of inexpensive push-button purchases these days.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

DaveM said:


> All of that, for the most part, is likely true. I guess I’m only saying that if one starts with a strong attachment to classical music, even though popular music will be also enjoyed, it is CM that will likely sustain one and endure more (in one’s life, not as a growing genre) as one ages.
> 
> The CM of the CP era is solid, enduring music that has survived over centuries to the point that there are still a substantial number of orchestras and soloists around the world, regardless of the overwhelming popularity of popular/rap music. It still remains to be seen whether popular music has that same kind of staying power. The works of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven generate much the same interest in people who love CM as they did a century ago. The same can’t be said of popular music from close to a century ago. Popular music has changed considerably over the last 80 years and I don’t enjoy it in its present form as much as I once did.


But a lot of people stop listening to new music as they get older.

In addition, new music has been getting less popular as of late, according to some articles I read


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

ORigel said:


> But a lot of people stop listening to new music as they get older.
> 
> In addition, new music has been getting less popular as of late, according to some articles I read


Video games and social sites for uploads are becoming more engaging. A threshold has been reached, maybe. Music's pushed even further into the background. 

That's what seemed to happen in the 1980s when the buyers of Rock and Disco avoided the new styles and movements (Punk, Madonna, MJ, Rap, Grunge) likewise, as if it wasn't music. It wasn't music to or for them..


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

fbjim said:


> The best way I can raise the objection that many have with capital-P Pop is that it sometimes does seem more like craft than art. I guess one could say the same thing about any piece of music in any genre which may not be particularly "inspired", but while I find Pop production interesting, so much of it seems sometimes like an amalgamation and sanding-down of aesthetic trends in more "underground" music in a way to make it palatable for general audiences. In the last decade or so (and earlier), see how production trends in hip-hop and (especially) dance got turned into trap-inspired pop, and more dubiously, "Brostep".
> 
> This process can be interesting and require great skill in-and-of-itself, but the result frequently seems crafted-for-purpose rather than the more expressive kind of art that those interested in "artistic" music typically seek out.


I guess it depends on what we mean by "art" and "craft." When I said it I had in mind more the dichotomy between inspiration (art) and craft (the work to realize that inspiration). Obviously there's a lot of craft that goes into pop as well, and I agree that much of it is in the "sanding down" of niche genres into more mainstream-palatable forms, which does, indeed, require a lot of craft in itself. However, the inspiration between things like "catchy hooks" or "melodies" are rather mysterious, and some artists/songwriters have a knack for them and some don't. I've personally never thought of "art" as being limited to, for lack of a better word, profound expression, and that notion seems derived from the lingering influences of romanticism. Art has served a bewildering variety of purposes over the years, and popular entertainment has been one of them, and one of the oldest ones.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Just last night one of my musician friends said that people generally outgrow pop music and then they have nothing. And I said is that really true in your experience? And she said that it's okay because they don't know what they're missing. So it's all good, I guess.
> What is the percentage of people who find lasting satisfaction in pop/alternative or dance music? From her experience it was less than 20%. I think she did a paper on it 'way back in college and she's still thinking about the ramifications.
> 
> How many people are like Eva and others in here who very quickly appreciated something about CM and then pursued it so that they could become an informed listener? 10% or less?


People don't outgrow pop music, they outgrow following popular music trends. There have been studies on this, but most people's favorite music are the music they discovered in their teens. Why? Because when you're a teenager your hormones and emotions are in overdrive and everything you discover and love them usually becomes integral parts of your identity and remains with you throughout your life. There are exceptions to this, of course. As a teenager I discovered I loved music, not any particular artist or band or composer (though them too; many of which are still among my favorites), but music in general, and I wanted to hear/discover as much of it as I could. I never liked any music to fit in, and back then I had relatively little interest in the music that was popular at the time. Instead, I was discovering music that was popular from before or around the time I was born: classic rock, 80s metal, eg, as well as classical music and jazz. I started playing guitar, joined a guitar forum, and got introduced to all kinds of music there, much of which was very much outside my wheelhouse (Radiohead, early prog) but which I came to love. Of course, I'm very aware that my musical journey is very atypical, and I carry with me today that same sense of exploration where the thrill is still in finding new music I love. 

If people get bored with the music they discovered in their teens I think that's mostly just a product of them not identifying with themselves back then anymore; either that, or they simply become bored with such music having heard it so much, but also don't find themselves liking most contemporary music, and don't have the time/interest to find new music they DO like. My dad's a bit like that. He's a drummer and I grew up with him playing drums to classic rock radio, but he's gotten rather bored of most of the songs he played back then. I'm always trying to find new music that I think he'd like to drum to. Recently I've found everything from Dirty Loops (Follow the Light is great pop-funk in the vein of Michael Jackson) and Dance Gavin Dance (he loves Blue Dream, which is rather accessible mathcore). Neither are songs/bands you'd hear on the radio, yet they aren't that obscure either if you follow music at all. Most people don't realize that there's a huge world of music out there just beyond the biggest hits/artists, which are really the very tip of the iceberg. Hell, I've been surprised at the popularity of a piece like this that's essentially a prog instrumental with flamenco and bossa nova influences mixed with virtuosic playing and electronic touches: 



That track doesn't have Despacito numbers, but 10 million views is hardly nothing in the world of YouTube. Most content creators would kill to have 10 million views on a video of theirs.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

HansZimmer said:


> The old liberals don't have high opinion about the masses, because many dictators and criminals have been supported by the masses. It's quite the contrary: the old liberals think that the power of the masses should be limited, otherwise they create damages.


As always I recommend you speak for yourself rather than for large and diverse groups. I guarantee there are many liberals here (like myself) that disagree with you. As the old saying goes, "democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form of government." 



HansZimmer said:


> Yes, we are a bit snob, but for good reasons.


What "good reasons?" I've seen no good reasons beyond your personal tastes. 



HansZimmer said:


> The best solution for all persons in music, of course, is that anyone listen to music he/she prefers.
> This, however, doesn't mean that I can not say that what the masses of today like is far from "art music". Being liberal does not mean self-censoring one's opinions.


We agree on both of these things: the best solution is for people to listen to what they like, and you are free to dislike what the masses like and to say so. Again, my issue was never against you stating your opinion as an opinion, the issue was that you weren't treating it like an opinion but like an objective fact, but hopefully we've cleared that up. 



HansZimmer said:


> What I'm saying goes beyond my personal tastes. The question is to determine what is serious and what is not serious.


To quote Heath Ledger's Joker: "Why so serious?" I mean, seriously, life is not all serious. I love the serious and the tragic too. One of the most profound moments of my life was listening to Tristan und Isolde for the first time. I finished it in tears, literally shaking from the emotions it stirred; so please don't doubt that I don't value seriousness in art or music. I know the power of great, serious art to affect and even transform some people who experience, and I'm not minimizing that. However, life is much more than those serious and profound moments, and everything in life, including frivolous fun, needs its expression in art and music, and I don't see the point of diminishing the role or even importance of such art either. I've mentioned this before, but one film that a had a profound effect on my views on this matter is Preston Sturges's Sullivan's Travel, which is basically the story of a very serious director wanting to make serious films that tackle serious issues, only to discover that, after he's walked a mile in the average person's shoes, the value of comedy and light entertainment. It's a profound message in a film that's quite profoundly silly at times. 



HansZimmer said:


> My judgement of art is not so childish/visceral: people who think that something is art because they like it and that something else is not art because they don't like it are childish. Ok, you like this song... fine, but it's not that you have to elevate it to "art" only because you like it. On the other hand, you shouldn't thrown away something only because you don't like it.
> 
> You have a left hemisphere: you can use it to go beyond the emotions.


Any left-brain appreciation boils down to liking stuff as well, it's just liking stuff with a different part of your brain for different reasons. If I enjoy the sonnets of Shakespeare because of its linguistic patterns then I'm simply liking the it from the left-brained perspective that delights in such patterns. There's also no reason one must like anything from that perspective as opposed to right-brained emotions, or even that stuff liked via right-brained emotions can't be justified by left-brained analysis; or that left-brained analysis amounts to better in any objective sense, or that much left-brained analysis is anything but rationalization for the what the right-brained emotions like for reasons they're either ignorant of or embarrassed about. 



HansZimmer said:


> So, are the summer hits "art/serious music" only because you find them catchy? No.
> Are some pieces of music that you don't find catchy "art/serious music"? Yes.


What you need to justify now is why "art/serious music" matters more than any other kind of music, keeping in mind that I love lots of "art/serious music" myself. Again, the difference between us is that I understand the concept of everything in its right place and I feel no compulsion to compare unalike things made for different purposes. 



HansZimmer said:


> However, I've never said that it's easy to produce songs for teens, but maybe it's much harder to produce music for a mature and musically educated public.
> Why? Because the second kind of public have higher expactations. You can not give them silly lyrics and technically poor products.


Maybe it's much harder, but maybe it isn't. How would anyone know unless they've done both? Find me a composer who currently appeals to musically educated audience and also writes hits pop songs and maybe they could speak to the comparative difficulties; without that all you're doing is guessing, especially considering you've done neither. I'd argue that a musically uneducated public doesn't have low expectations, they just have different expectations, which may, on some levels, be easy to satisfy, but on another level, that level in which billions of such expectations are satisfied, is very much not.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> People don't outgrow pop music, they outgrow following popular music trends. There have been studies on this, but most people's favorite music are the music they discovered in their teens. Why? Because when you're a teenager your hormones and emotions are in overdrive and everything you discover and love them usually becomes integral parts of your identity and remains with you throughout your life. There are exceptions to this, of course. As a teenager I discovered I loved music, not any particular artist or band or composer (though them too; many of which are still among my favorites), but music in general, and I wanted to hear/discover as much of it as I could. I never liked any music to fit in, and back then I had relatively little interest in the music that was popular at the time. Instead, I was discovering music that was popular from before or around the time I was born: classic rock, 80s metal, eg, as well as classical music and jazz. I started playing guitar, joined a guitar forum, and got introduced to all kinds of music there, much of which was very much outside my wheelhouse (Radiohead, early prog) but which I came to love. Of course, I'm very aware that my musical journey is very atypical, and I carry with me today that same sense of exploration where the thrill is still in finding new music I love.
> 
> If people get bored with the music they discovered in their teens I think that's mostly just a product of them not identifying with themselves back then anymore; either that, or they simply become bored with such music having heard it so much, but also don't find themselves liking most contemporary music, and don't have the time/interest to find new music they DO like. My dad's a bit like that. He's a drummer and I grew up with him playing drums to classic rock radio, but he's gotten rather bored of most of the songs he played back then. I'm always trying to find new music that I think he'd like to drum to. Recently I've found everything from Dirty Loops (Follow the Light is great pop-funk in the vein of Michael Jackson) and Dance Gavin Dance (he loves Blue Dream, which is rather accessible mathcore). Neither are songs/bands you'd hear on the radio, yet they aren't that obscure either if you follow music at all. Most people don't realize that there's a huge world of music out there just beyond the biggest hits/artists, which are really the very tip of the iceberg. Hell, I've been surprised at the popularity of a piece like this that's essentially a prog instrumental with flamenco and bossa nova influences mixed with virtuosic playing and electronic touches:
> 
> ...


Most of my teens was a musical desert between the music my parents listened to, a few current pop songs, and some classical, and the exploration of classical music in my late teens up to now (I am 23). Since I listen exclusively to CM, the stream of new discoveries has been slackening because the area of the standard repertoire I've left mostly untouched, opera, is harder to assimilate than listening to music on repeat as I read a book).


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> As always I recommend you speak for yourself rather than for large and diverse groups. I guarantee there are many liberals here (like myself) that disagree with you. As the old saying goes, "democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form of government."
> 
> What "good reasons?" I've seen no good reasons beyond your personal tastes.
> 
> ...


By "old liberals," I think HansZimmer means figures like the Enlightenment philosophers and U.S. Founding Fathers, whom no one would consider to be "liberal" today, even though they were liberal by the standards of the time. Remember that the American "Founding Fathers" set up the Electoral College, sufferage restricted to only certain groups, and a Senate not elected by popular vote but by the state legislatures (that was changed by the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Just last night one of my musician friends said that people generally outgrow pop music


This notion of outgrowing pop has cropped up simultaneously in this thread, where I posted my answer to it.

Briefly, it's nonsense. But if you'd like to read the less abrupt version...









Post 1950 classical music: was it relevant?


Just as sort of an afterthought here about "visceral" and "relevance" and so on. Not really a judgement of worth or value but of the character of genres. As I said there's a lot of pop that I love and still listen to. But one of the reasons that I and many others feel that we "outgrow" pop...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

ORigel said:


> They're not my list of snags. They're what I think others' snags are, in addition to the crucial snag I forgot to include, the low attention span snag.
> 
> I am and have been a loner, so I didn't get into social groups that love certain top-selling artists. I've always like instrumental music (perhaps because I have a harder time than most understanding sung words) but was hindered by my short attention span. I slowly built up a number of CDs. I think listening to CM rewired my brain, turning it against the song format.
> 
> ...


i am convinced 99 % of TC members have a totally wrong perception of the share of voice of classical music today and its immense growth all over the world; this is due to various factors:
-people focus on cd sales, instead of focusing on the overall listening to cm which includes concerts, streaming, videos, etc.
-people are totally unaware of the gigantic interest of cm in asia to name one region of the world where the growth is immense; just look at the ever-growing number of outstanding asian performers and orchestras and you will easily understand we are talking about explosive interest
-there are cities like berlin, paris and vienna in old europe where traditional cm and contemporary cm thrive; the same is true for some cities in the us; we have the best musicians and orchestras ever and we have the largest repertoire ever, so do not believe cm is losing traction; our contemporary composers are extraordinary and come from all over the world; my archives show 500 composers with substantial works after 1945 against 500 composers with substantial works before 1945; it means there is a pool of 1000 composers to pick from; is there any other type of music that has similar richness?
-regarding the conservation of cm music you should not be worried; there are individuals like me who have collections of 25 000 carefully selected cds which cover the totality of cm history; part of them are custom-made with the help of the composer and a sound engineer or only a sound engineer in case of older works
-of course there is a great population growth in areas in the world where they will maybe never be interest for cm; that will bring the percentages of interest down; what really counts is the absolute number of people who listen to cm
-i personally make immense efforts to enlarge the interest of our members beyond the 100 to 200 familiar cm composers and it proves to be a daunting challenge; the diversion caused by so many threads which talk more about film music or pop music does not help the cause of cm; i personally love these music categories but they should not be mixed with cm IMHO


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

justekaia said:


> i am convinced 99 % of TC members have a totally wrong perception of the share of voice of classical music today and its immense growth all over the world; this is due to various factors:
> -people focus on cd sales, instead of focusing on the overall listening to cm which includes concerts, streaming, videos, etc.
> -people are totally unaware of the gigantic interest of cm in asia to name one region of the world where the growth is immense; just look at the ever-growing number of outstanding asian performers and orchestras and you will easily understand we are talking about explosive interest
> -there are cities like berlin, paris and vienna in old europe where traditional cm and contemporary cm thrive; the same is true for some cities in the us; we have the best musicians and orchestras ever and we have the largest repertoire ever, so do not believe cm is losing traction; our contemporary composers are extraordinary and come from all over the world; my archives show 500 composers with substantial works after 1945 against 500 composers with substantial works before 1945; it means there is a pool of 1000 composers to pick from; is there any other type of music that has similar richness?
> ...


ORigel, i know we are on the same page, but i would like you to express yourself instead of simply flashing a like; i have experienced the same with other members who are not good with words, are reluctant to express themselves out of fear of a backlash; plse overcome all these imaginary hurdles; we are on TC to communicate and i am sure members will appreciate any comment you make; so feel free to write


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

prlj said:


> And don't forget that classical has had a 400 year head start.


400 Years? The repertoire goes back to 1200, even earlier. Early music is a "thing" that is not going away.

This is from the 13th Century and sounds more advanced than a lot that came after it.





Montpellier Codex - Motet 328 : Amor potest conqueri / Ad amorem


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

justekaia said:


> ORigel, i know we are on the same page, but i would like you to express yourself instead of simply flashing a like; i have experienced the same with other members who are not good with words, are reluctant to express themselves out of fear of a backlash; plse overcome all these imaginary hurdles; we are on TC to communicate and i am sure members will appreciate any comment you make; so feel free to write


I am not knowledgeable on the topic, so I was upvoting because I'm glad you show that the classical music industry is not stagnating or declining despite common perceptions.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

ORigel said:


> I am not knowledgeable on the topic, so I was upvoting because I'm glad you show that the classical music industry is not stagnating or declining despite common perceptions.


thks for yr honest answer; i really appreciate it


----------



## Eva Yojimbo (Jan 30, 2016)

ORigel said:


> By "old liberals," I think HansZimmer means figures like the Enlightenment philosophers and U.S. Founding Fathers, whom no one would consider to be "liberal" today, even though they were liberal by the standards of the time. Remember that the American "Founding Fathers" set up the Electoral College, sufferage restricted to only certain groups, and a Senate not elected by popular vote but by the state legislatures (that was changed by the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).


Ah, I've heard people refer to them as "classic liberals" which are perhaps most similar to contemporary libertarians, though not quite.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> This notion of outgrowing pop has cropped up simultaneously in this thread, where I posted my answer to it.
> 
> Briefly, it's nonsense. ...
> ...


Nonsense to you. It isn't to me and many others. I notice accusations of musical fascism (I don't know in what direction they were flying) but yet I'm told it's nonsense if I consider myself to have outgrown "Satisfaction" or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "Daydream Believer". Nonsense.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> Nonsense to you. It isn't to me and many others. I notice accusations of musical fascism (I don't know in what direction they were flying) but yet I'm told it's nonsense if I consider myself to have outgrown "Satisfaction" or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "Daydream Believer". Nonsense.


The vast majority of people don't outgrow pop, but they do eventually stop following pop music trends. The TC community almost certainly includes a disproportionate number of people who "outgrew" pop.

There might well be some people who "outgrow" CM in favor of pop. I dunno.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

ORigel said:


> The vast majority of people don't outgrow pop, but they do eventually stop following pop music trends. The TC community almost certainly includes a disproportionate number of people who "outgrew" pop.
> 
> There might well be some people who "outgrow" CM in favor of pop. I dunno.


I understand what you mean.

The Popular and Classical music I grew up with still resonates with me, for the most part, but I lost my love of Pop Music when it moved on WITHOUT me. I despised Disco and Punk. I never found a love for Rap and Hip Hop. I
I loved Dixieland and Big Band, but never progressed onto Cool and Bop
I loved Broadway Musicals for quite a bit longer, but stopped following newer musicals eventually
Classical? My love pretty much ends with post-Romanticism: Stravinsky, Holst. 12-Tone and Noise Classical and Random music just bemused me, though not in a good way.

Do I hate ALL Hip Hop, Cool, new musicals, Disco, and Modernism? Of course not. I've found plenty of "newer" music I like, in many different genres, but I'm way pickier than I used to be.

So, I think that we don't outgrow Pop, it outgrows us.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Nonsense to you. It isn't to me and many others. I notice accusations of musical fascism (I don't know in what direction they were flying) but yet I'm told it's nonsense if I consider myself to have outgrown "Satisfaction" or "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" or "Daydream Believer". Nonsense.


Funny how you don't want me to speak for you, but you're happy to speak for "many others". I guess we both know "many others" who either have or haven't outgrown pop and can justify our generalisations - or perhaps we should confine ourselves to speaking only for ourselves. So, if you want to say you've outgrown pop, go right ahead.



ORigel said:


> The vast majority of people don't outgrow pop, but they do eventually stop following pop music trends. The TC community almost certainly includes a disproportionate number of people who "outgrew" pop.


Some of the "disproportionate" number who claim to have outgrown pop may genuinely believe that to have been the case. Some simply use the idea as another way to dismiss pop as something inferior, and that they have matured into serious music listeners.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> Funny how you don't want me to speak for you, but you're happy to speak for "many others". I guess we both know "many others" who either have or haven't outgrown pop and can justify our generalisations - or perhaps we should confine ourselves to speaking only for ourselves. So, if you want to say you've outgrown pop, go right ahead.
> ...


Follow your own advice. You were the one with the flat "nonsense" statement. If you want to enjoy Teletubbies and the Bay City Rollers, nobody's going to stop you. What's musically "fascistic" is to go around preaching (correctly, imv) the subjective nature of music appreciation while simultaneously demanding that all music be considered equal.


pianozach said:


> ... for the most part, but I lost my love of Pop Music when it moved on WITHOUT me.


In my view I moved on without it.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Follow your own advice. You were the one with the flat "nonsense" statement. If you want to enjoy Teletubbies and the Bay City Rollers, nobody's going to stop you. What's musically "fascistic" is to go around preaching (correctly, imv) the subjective nature of music appreciation while simultaneously demanding that all music be considered equal.
> In my view I moved on without it.


I figured you might not want a conversation and would not answer my questions but thought I should give it a go.

No, you prefer to call me odd and fascistic.

Whatever.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> This notion of outgrowing pop has cropped up simultaneously in this thread, where I posted my answer to it.
> 
> Briefly, it's nonsense. But if you'd like to read the less abrupt version...
> 
> ...


As I've mentioned before, this is a CM forum so we do meet members who at a very early age appreciated CM (in the manner that a young mind is able) and we also learn from posters who are over 60 who are still finding some pop music that is relevant to them.

In the wider world I can't relate that I know anybody like this, and I don't even remember anybody in my past like this (older or younger). Maybe you do know some people like this?

I understand that for non-musicians there's not a lot of opportunity to bring up these subjects, so maybe some of my friends are like this and I just don't know..

In order to help young people develop a lasting appreciation for CM we need a more general population to think about. Not, as I see it, a very few members and their lucky and rare serendipities.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

EvaBaron said:


> Saying that teens have low culture is a really stupid statement and yes, very snobbish as well. Also not all art is serious. That would be really boring


The expression "teens of low culture" doesn't imply that all teens have a low culture, otherwise I would write "teens, who have a low culture".

However, what is the problem? Do we have to pretend that the average teens are mature?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

HansZimmer said:


> The expression "teens of low culture" doesn't imply that all teens have a low culture, otherwise I would write "teens, who have a low culture".
> 
> However, what is the problem? Do we have to pretend that the *average teens* are mature?


Well, I guess the average teen would be averagely mature.



Luchesi said:


> As I've mentioned before, this is a CM forum so we do meet members who at a very early age appreciated CM (in the manner that a young mind is able) and we also learn from posters who are over 60 who are still finding some pop music that is relevant to them.
> 
> In the wider world I can't relate that I know anybody like this, and I don't even remember anybody in my past like this (older or younger). Maybe you do know some people like this?
> 
> ...


It's true that this Forum is unlikely to be representative of the general population, given that the general population does not listen to much classical music. However, I make no claim to be special in still finding new "pop" music that I enjoy listening to as much as I enjoy listening to CM. There will be others (my brother for one!)


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Temporarily closed for moderator discussion.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

The thread is now open again. A reminder to all: please stay away from politics in this discussion, in line with the site's rules. We have deleted a purely political post.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> Well, I guess the average teen would be averagely mature.
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that this Forum is unlikely to be representative of the general population, given that the general population does not listen to much classical music. However, I make no claim to be special in still finding new "pop" music that I enjoy listening to as much as I enjoy listening to CM. There will be others (my brother for one!)


this Forum is unlikely to be representative of the general population

So any conclusions we settle on will be from people like you and your brother and the lucky, rare people who 'liked' CM as a youngster. 

People NEED music in their lives (once it's become 'inculcated') and they will pursue all forms and cleverness that will satisfy this (universal) thirst.

I think I started out like this too (my memory’s hazy). Then I was accidentally lucky enough to begin playing and seeing scores unravel in fun of me. 

One thing leads to another and then I began to appreciate musical analysis (putting it all into long-agreed upon terms). I went through all the greats in somewhat historical order so that I could see the development and the huge achievements, from within the large background of banal works. 

Pop music became just a fun thing that was easy to digest (too easy to digest, comparatively). Obviously, there’s good stuff in popular offerings, but where’s the history?, what’s the goal? If the intention or goal is getting the most profit it puts me off..

We should be PC in public about this, of course.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

Luchesi said:


> this Forum is unlikely to be representative of the general population
> 
> So any conclusions we settle on will be from people like you and your brother and the lucky, rare people who 'liked' CM as a youngster.
> 
> ...


I think music enhances our lives but people don’t NEED it.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

EvaBaron said:


> I think music enhances our lives but people don’t NEED it.


It's just a thirst.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> ..One thing leads to another and then I began to appreciate musical analysis (putting it all into long-agreed upon terms). I went through all the greats in somewhat historical order so that I could see the development and the huge achievements, from within the large background of banal works.


You mean like discovering objective evidence that some composers are skilled over others?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

EvaBaron said:


> I think music enhances our lives but people don’t NEED it.


Yes, they do...for those people in whom it has been inculcated.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

DaveM said:


> You mean like discovering objective evidence that some composers are skilled over others?


If that's what the evidence shows.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> Pop music became just a fun thing that was easy to digest (too easy to digest, comparatively). Obviously, there’s good stuff in popular offerings, but where’s the history?, what’s the goal? If the intention or goal is getting the most profit it puts me off..
> 
> We should be PC in public about this, of course.


I agree that we for whom music has been "inculcated" NEED it. It's not an optional extra in my life, though obviously it's not as basic a requirement as food and water (thought I should reassure the literalists). This applies to all the music I've consumed over the years, both classical and pop. I don't only thrive on Beethoven and Berlioz, Sibelius and Stravinsky, but on Beatles and Bloc Party, Sigur Ros and Simple Minds.

Where's the history, you ask. Why? What has that to do with the value of music? Are you saying that only that which has an established tradition, verified by "experts" is worth listening to?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> I agree that we for whom music has been "inculcated" NEED it. It's not an optional extra in my life, though obviously it's not as basic a requirement as food and water (thought I should reassure the literalists). This applies to all the music I've consumed over the years, both classical and pop. I don't only thrive on Beethoven and Berlioz, Sibelius and Stravinsky, but on Beatles and Bloc Party, Sigur Ros and Simple Minds.
> 
> Where's the history, you ask. Why? What has that to do with the value of music? Are you saying that only that which has an established tradition, verified by "experts" is worth listening to?


There is a history of pop music. But mostly the history is about the band, what they did before and what they did afterward. You can see how Lennon and McCartney and the team became more and more sophisticated. So did the Stones. When there's not enough for a long history it's less interesting.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> So, it's funny, songs that made the charts tended to be happier, more partylike, and more danceable. THOSE characteristics are more highly valued by the public-at-large than the more sophisticated characteristics found in Classical Music.


This is exactly the point: the general public have low artistic expectations from music. They see music as a "background for parties".

However, the question is: is this conception of music innate in humans, or are humans educated by the music market? In the second case, you can speak about "bad capitalism". If you check the statistics, you will see that classical music used to be the most popular style of music in the last century, that's why I think that musical tastes are created by education and are not innate.


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Finally, the notion that music "incites" people to anything is absurd. The entire claim that "media causes X(bad thing)" has been so thoroughly and consistently debunked by science/statistical studies that it's stunning to me people still bring it up. As Frank Zappa once said: "I wrote a song about dental floss, but nobody's teeth got any cleaner."


So, do the companies spend a lot of money for marketing and pubblicity because the studies say that you can not manipulate persons, especially children and teenagers?
The Nike paid Eminem to wear Nike dresses for the pictures of his album because the studies say that the idols of teenagers don't influence the public? Believe me: the Nike knew what it was doing. Many fans of Eminem bought Nike dresses to emulate him.

Eminem also created songs about the fans who try to emulate him (see the videos here below).
However, it doesn't matter if the fans of Eminem wear Nike clothes, but if he teach them homophobia and that it's cool to offend persons, he will contribute in reinforcing social issues.


----------



## EvaBaron (Jan 3, 2022)

I was watching Brooklyn 99 today and I had to laugh really hard at this one considering the discussion we have had in this thread


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> This is exactly the point: the general public have low artistic expectations from music. They see music as a "background for parties".
> 
> However, the question is: is this conception of music innate in humans, or are humans educated by the music market? In the second case, you can speak about "bad capitalism". If you check the statistics, you will see that classical music used to be the most popular style of music in the last century, that's why I think that musical tastes are created by education and are not innate.


Ah. A side discussion about _"the music market"_.

When you get into the "music industry", promotion, capitalism, and music being marketed as a "product", you can make a case for "promoted" music being generally less "risky".

The music industry bets on "safe" music. The music considered as being "safe bets" [on which you can safely invest in for promotional marketing, promo videos, the talk show circuit, etc.], _CHANGES_ as "_*outsider*_" music gets the public's attention. THEN _that_ music becomes the "_safe_ _music"_.

_". . . classical music used to be the most popular style of music in the last century"? _

This is an unfair comparison, ALTHOUGH I'm not even sure that when you say _". . . last century"_ whether you're referring to the *20th Century (the 1900s)* [the "_last_" century], or the *19th Century (the 1800s).*

If you're referring to the *1900s*, I'd have to baldly contradict your theory. *20th Century Classical Music* was _DOMINATED_ by Popular Music in terms of _style popularity_.

If you're referring to the *19th Century (the 1800s)*, it's really an unfair conclusion: There was no radio, no audio reproduction (no records, cassettes, CDs, or streaming), no significant "Music Industry" except for distributors of sheet music. 

*Classical Music* was the "_most popular style_" of music in the *19th Century (the 1800s)* BY _DEFAULT_, because there was practically *no* organized _"Popular Music"_ industry; there was simplistic Folk music - In America Stephen Foster wrote Camptown Races in 1850, and prior to that, there's almost nothing in that realm. In other areas of the Western World it's likely a similar story (although there ARE other parts of the world other than the Western World).


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

HansZimmer said:


> So, do the companies spend a lot of money for marketing and pubblicity because the studies say that you can not manipulate persons, especially children and teenagers?


We are all malleable. 



HansZimmer said:


> The Nike paid Eminem to wear Nike dresses for the pictures of his album because the studies say that the idols of teenagers don't influence the public? Believe me: the Nike knew what it was doing. Many fans of Eminem bought Nike dresses to emulate him.


Simple tribal bonding. You and I do the same thing with every decision we make all day long.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

eljr said:


> We are all malleable.
> 
> 
> 
> Simple tribal bonding. You and I do the same thing with every decision we make all day long.


Yes. Populations can be easily *manipulated*.

I'd extrapolate, but it's difficult do so without the conversation turning political. It's actually a fairly broad subject.

But to keep the conversation _confined_ to how *music* and *manipulation* are related, one can easily point to advertising, and its use of music. Most television *commercials* have a music component, which can be used in many different ways: Calming music that is comforting for care products, exciting music for action products. Many products use existing *popular music* because it's familiar, and evokes emotional, visceral, mental, and psychological responses from the intended consumer. 

Which brings me to *Film Music* and *Popular Music*: Naturally, Film Music works similarly - the background music in a film helps to convey a feeling. Popular Music also has to connect with the listener somehow, it matters not whether that connection is visceral, emotional, intellectual, or psychological. 

So, of course, it is the same with *Classical Music*. Successful Classical Music connects with the listener on one or more of these components. That is why it is successful. The INTENT is incidental. The delivery method (concert, recording, symphony, film, advertising, or even what's played in a supermarket) is moot nowadays. 

*Music* is *manipulative*. That is why we listen to it, and why it's weaponized by the Music Industry, Advertising Agencies, Radio Stations, all the different Media platforms, and even retail establishments.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

pianozach said:


> Yes. Populations can be easily *manipulated*.
> 
> I'd extrapolate, but it's difficult do so without the conversation turning political. It's actually a fairly broad subject.
> 
> ...


Agree with your post but strongly feel "manipulative" is a bad choice of wording.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

eljr said:


> Agree with your post but strongly feel "manipulative" is a bad choice of wording.


I understand how a phrase such as *"*_*Music* is _*manipulative" *could be viewed perjoratively.

It's a rather harsh truth. _Music manipulates_. Whether it's a song or symphony that brings us joy or sorrow or comfort, it has manipulated us somehow.

*"Music moves us"* is basically the same meaning, although it sounds much nicer that way.

*Music moves us:* That is why we listen to it. 

Better?


----------



## HansZimmer (11 mo ago)

pianozach said:


> Ah. A side discussion about _"the music market"_.
> 
> When you get into the "music industry", promotion, capitalism, and music being marketed as a "product", you can make a case for "promoted" music being generally less "risky".
> 
> ...


Watch this video. According to the statistics, between 1910 and 1916 operas were one of the most beloved things by the public.

*Most Popular Music Styles 1910 - 2019





*


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

HansZimmer said:


> Watch this video. According to the statistics, between 1910 and 1916 operas were one of the most beloved things by the public.
> 
> *Most Popular Music Styles 1910 - 2019
> 
> ...


1901-1916? 15% of the 20th Century? The majority of the 1900s was most certainly dominated by Popular Music.

Audio recordings were a brand new thing. There was still no radio. 

While there were rudimentary audio recordings, I think that they were still doing recordings onto cylinders.

The phonograph was "invented" in 1877, although the sonic results were abysmal. The gramophone was developed around 1893. Opera DID dominate recorded music in its early days, but in 1918 jazz records started being made, and the rise of Popular Music began.


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

HansZimmer said:


> Watch this video. According to the statistics, between 1910 and 1916 operas were one of the most beloved things by the public.
> 
> *Most Popular Music Styles 1910 - 2019
> 
> ...


Back then, recordings were still being done on cyllinders, were super expensive, and were in crappy sound. I doubt more than a tiny fraction of the public were buying them, and it makes some sense that the wealthy elite would appreciate (or pretend to appreciate) opera because it's perceived as high culture.


----------

