# What are your thoughts on the difference...



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

...between classical music and pop music? Is making a song and composing a piece different? Do you know what I mean? Will this be a popular thread or a dive into the depths of the sea of music? 
Cheers!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I'd say Pop music is all in the performance or the recording. On paper it is not impressive. The melodies are simplistic or banal usually. The harmony is usually based on more easily recognizable or generic chord progressions. Production is usually an important factor in pop music where they add layers of instruments or effects to complement the sound, that's where the magic is, like the stuff George Martin and Phil Spector produce.

Composing classical and song writing are quite different processes. Song writing is more streamlined, like a lite version of composing. Paul McCartney is a great songwriter, but his classical composition skills aren't quite up there. 

How about 'pop classical' like the stuff Richard Clayderman plays by Francis Lai and Paul de Senneville? It has some more virtuosity, but is still 100% pop, in that it is solely based around generic chord progressions.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'd say Pop music is all in the performance or the recording. On paper it is not impressive. The melodies are simplistic or banal usually. The harmony is usually based on more easily recognizable or generic chord progressions. Production is usually an important factor in pop music where they add layers of instruments or effects to complement the sound, that's where the magic is, like the stuff George Martin and Phil Spector produce.


I'd say these are very broad generalizations and that there are so many exceptions that the differences you cite are far from diagnostic. Popular songs can be fairly complex both melodically and harmonically. But I agree in placing the main emphasis on the importance of the performer and the arranger or producer; the composer of a popular song may have a specific idea of how the song will sound and may be the first performer, but he'll assume that his song will be arranged in different ways and sound very different when peformed by others. Classical music has to be interpreted by different performers, but can't normally be rearranged at will.


----------



## nardobrown (Feb 15, 2019)

For example, some may think my variations is classical but my blue moon isn't. But on paper, both are classical. By the way, my mentors in polyphony, harmony and composition are all pupils of shostakovich.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

nardobrown said:


> For example, some may think my variations is classical but my blue moon isn't. But on paper, both are classical. By the way, my mentors in polyphony, harmony and composition are all pupils of shostakovich.


It was '19th century' that Vasks and I thought had some similarities to pop conventions. I didn't say it wasn't Classical, but that it didn't sound 19th century because of those similarities.


----------



## nardobrown (Feb 15, 2019)

What about Scriabin Prelude Op.16 No.1 (1895), is that 19th Century?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The Scriabin doesn't have those poppish conventions (which there is nothing wrong even if it did) to my ears, that I hear in yours. The Scriabin sounds more 20th century to me than 19th.


----------



## nardobrown (Feb 15, 2019)

By the way, "to your ears" means that's your personal opinion only, and the reality is that piece was composed in 1895.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

nardobrown said:


> By the way, "to your ears" mean that's your personal opinion only, and the reality is that piece was composed in 1895.


Maybe, but I don't think the 5 year difference is that important, what is more important to me is it is not late Classical, high Romanticism which we associate with 19th Century. It is clearly post-Romantic.


----------



## nardobrown (Feb 15, 2019)

Do you understand the logic here? A piece that was composed in 1895 is music of the 19th Century.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

The composition of a good pop song with original melody, construction and lyrics and performed simply and straightforwardly by the talented composer and performer is almost as rewarding and amazing to me as some great classical works. I don't think they make them like they used to.  This is an example:






And this:






And finally (don't want to overstay my welcome):


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

_*Good idea for a thread!*_ It could be popular if extended from _creating_ (discussed below), to include _playing_ and _listening _.

In my experience, creating pop songs differs from creating classical music. The one point of similarity for me is that, in the musical background that is always going on in my head, sometimes there comes a musical idea that is striking or has potential. It may be in a pop or classical idiom. After that everything is different. In pop I often use the "work from a title" approach. The verbal and/or musical idea is a "hook," to which I write words that are a possible title. Everything else follows: words, motifs, harmony, verse, refrain, links.

In classical music, ideas may be rhythmic patterns, motifs, chord progressions, etc. Both intuitively and systematically one creates many _variants_ of all these, much more than in a pop song. A sense emerges of the overall form of the piece, which may be short, long, or anything in between.

This is all very oversimplified. Here are two crucial points: (1) the ways of creating pop and classical music I've described are only a couple among many possibilities; (2) nothing here is intended to rate different kinds of music as better or worse, etc.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

deleted post........................... .


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I have an analogy for the difference between classical and pop music which everyone might not agree with but I’ll put it out there and wait for the response if any. To me, pop music (as well as rock, hip hop, country etc) is more like a painting or some other medium in the visual arts. Pop music paints a contained and relatively static picture of a particular emotion or expression. Just as when you look at a painting, everything you need to know about the piece of art is laid bare in front of you immediately and remains there throughout, the beat, the background, the melody. You can listen ( or look) closer and notice things you didn’t before, but it’s all there at or near the beginning none the less.

Classical music, on the other hand, is more like a movie. It doesn’t express one singular emotion but develops a narrative in which various emotions pass by along the way. Unlike pop it is constantly changing and developing its characters, themes and setting. 

I’m still working on the best way to explain this analogy but I hope everyone understands me for now.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I'd say these are very broad generalizations and that there are so many exceptions that the differences you cite are far from diagnostic. Popular songs can be fairly complex both melodically and harmonically.


But vast majority of popsongs that are played on the radio today are written and performed in this way:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

*What are your thoughts on the difference... *



Kjetil Heggelund said:


> ...between classical music and pop music? Is making a song and composing a piece different? Do you know what I mean? Will this be a popular thread or a dive into the depths of the sea of music?
> Cheers!


Perhaps the major difference here is one of audience definition. That is, how the current audience for the music actually defines it.

If we start looking at the theoretical aspects of composition, between what we deem "popular" and "classical" music, we may hit some murky waters. Some of Schubert's songs harmonies and forms are much less complex than, say, those of Jimmy Webb, Cole Porter, or Dream Theatre. Still, Schubert is argued on the side of "classical" while "MacArthur Park", "So In Love", and "The Dance of Eternity" clearly fall on the side of pop. (Did I just say "clearly"?) Ravel's _Bolero _remains a top "classical" hit, but it's not much for development any moreso than is Iron Butterfly's pop classic "In a Gadda da Vida". (The drummer does get a workout in both pieces, but in very different ways.)

Then there are those "classical" tunes that have been turned to "pop" works. I mean, did Eric Carmen change either the melody or the harmony of the Adagio sostenuto of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerto No. 2 in C minor when he wrote "All by Myself". Or the same with the third movement of Rachy's Symphony No.2 when Carmen wrote "Never Gonna Fall in Love Again"?

And what about all that Medieval music that is today considered "classical" but was in its own day the street, tavern, and bordello song and dance music that entertained the common folk? Where (and when) does a pop tune turn classical?

There seems to be some agreement on the notion that "classical" music is scored, set into stone, so to speak, in a manner not akin to "popular" music, which shares a greater opportunity for interpretation. But one may interpret a classical piece to (by switching a Bach fugue from a harpsichord to a Steinway grand, giving it a "sound" that Bach himself never heard or possibly even imagined). Does changing an instrument alter a work from "classical" to "non-classical". Jazz is highly interpreted music, spontaneously generated on the spot, improvised from the barest of melody lines and a set of harmony leading chords. If we do the same with a Beethoven Sonata, have we destroyed the "classicality" of the original work? Is there an irony in saying, when we hear such an improvisation at a jazz club or on a recording, "Hey, that's a classical tune!"

I still feel that a lot of what we determine by way of our definitions in arts of all sorts has to do with perceptions and repeated (and often unthinking) use. A Beatles song may be notated strictly from its album version, down to an exact orchestration. Does such a movement make it any less of a "pop" song but move it into the "classical" territory?

We all seem to think we can tell the difference between "classical" and "pop" music, but it may be, with more intensive analysis applied, that things are not a clear as they originally seemed to be.

Perhaps in the end there is only musical art -- that which we like and that which we don't so much care for, that which we prefer to interpret strictly and that which we don't mind improvising or "adding to" or changing. I'm sure that many (even those of our contemporary composers) would have some problems distinguishing between what is pop about improvised jazz and what is _not_ pop about improvised "aleatory" music such as that written by John Cage or Witold Lutosławski. When jazz pianist Jacques Loussier plays Bach, is he playing "classical" music or "non-classical" music, and if the latter, what adjustments to the performance will move the needle to the pure "classical" side of the issue?

There is fast music and slow music, simple music and complex music, likeable music and non-likeable music, classical music and pop music ... There may even be good music and bad music (though I prefer to think in terms of favored music and unfavored music), but all of these designations have at least something to do with our own definitions of the terms in use.

Which in essence means, I think, that I have nothing to offer on this topic.


----------



## Guest (Jan 5, 2020)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> ...between classical music and pop music? Is making a song and composing a piece different? Do you know what I mean? Will this be a popular thread or a dive into the depths of the sea of music?
> Cheers!


Would you mind clarifying what qualifies as 'pop', for the purposes of this discussion?

Thanks.


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

MacLeod said:


> Would you mind clarifying what qualifies as 'pop', for the purposes of this discussion?
> 
> Thanks.


Popular music from 1950 until now. From Elvis to Ed Sheeran. The ones that sell the most. "The STARS". I attended a "music teacher day" at the State Academy on friday and in the lecture I attended, a composition professor said he meant the two were different, that is "making music" and "composing music". In making music you put things together and in composing music you "frame a memory". Maybe saying pop vs. classical music was wrong in my first post. I think the professor made a good distinction that I might have gotten mixed up in my brain...


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

Did I just kill my own topic?


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> ...between classical music and pop music?


Classical: the music is the most important thing. The composer second, performer third.

Pop: the performer is most important, the music second, the composer third.

It didn't use to be this complicated. Sure music was "low brow" or "high brow", but people could enjoy all types. Not so much now. People still find it odd that I can listen to Mahler, Beethoven, Prokofiev and company and still find pleasure in country/western. Yet I loathe rock, hip hop, techno and other forms.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

mbhaub said:


> Classical: the music is the most important thing. The composer second, performer third.
> 
> Pop: the performer is most important, the music second, the composer third.
> 
> It didn't use to be this complicated. Sure music was "low brow" or "high brow", but people could enjoy all types. Not so much now. People still find it odd that I can listen to Mahler, Beethoven, Prokofiev and company and still find pleasure in country/western. Yet I loathe rock, hip hop, techno and other forms.


A lot going on here, but I'm not sure it has much to do with music per se.

What can it mean to say in Classical "the music is the most important thing" while in Pop "the performer is most important." If you wish to discuss _music_, you should isolate it to what it actually is. You seem to be comparing a "thing" with a "person". Now, a person can certainly be a thing, but if one is interested in comparing, say, apples, one does not bring in an orange, for that would be (as the old saw says) comparing apples and oranges. Rather, let's compare music and music -- "classical" music and "pop" music.

You suddenly see that the real difference here is not with "music" but with the terms "classical" and "pop". If we actually eliminate those two terms and stick strictly with "music", we can make more valid comparisons. So … what are we comparing?

In essence we are comparing works of art. Art is a creation of a human endeavor. The artist or artists who create the work of art are primary to its existence. Even if, in a Dadaist manner, the artwork is actually a common household object, it is an object selected and designated a work of art, which is the human endeavor. Certainly some endeavors require more time, thought, energy, and skill than do others, and such may have a lot to do with what ultimately results in what we traditionally distinguish as "good" or "less good" or "bad" art.

If a duck is fitted with paint brushes and then set to waddle about over a blank canvas, what it produces is not "art" unless some human endeavors to assign it as such. One may or may not "like" or "appreciate" the work, but it becomes art when designated to be so. It's intrinsic _value_ has little meaning.

Value proves an intriguing notion in connection with art, but I stray from my topic. I am reminded, though, of the dictum of one of my first theatre professors, way back in first year of undergraduate studies, who proposed to the class that art is functionally useless (it doesn't feed us or shelter us or any of that other critical life stuff) but not valueless. Because art is what defines us as human. Without it, we are likely not human. And no species beside our own creates art, that which is functionally useless, something to be experienced for enjoyment alone.

How does a piece of "classical" music differ in such a manner from a piece of "pop" music? What do performers or composers really have to do with the finished product as Art?

Schubert's "Erlkönig" exists in a blueprint that we call "the song" -- it's a combination of a poem (words) and accompanying music (sounds). As a song it is something new, and more than both, but it is also just a single entity itself. One that is not meant to be rendered in only one exact way. Every singer will render it differently, even the same singer doing it a second time will prove to show differences. The human performer(s) becomes critical for the rendering of this particular art form, for without the rendering it is merely a blueprint. The score of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony is not "the music". The music is something that must be rendered and heard; both performers and audience (even if that audience is only the performer) are crucial to the art's existence.

How does this differ from a "pop" song to a "classical" song?

Art proves a fascinating thing to ponder. And I'm hoping we will do just that before making blatantly meaningless statements such as are found in the post which prompts these comments.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I suppose we should compare like with like. Most pop music is songs so the comparison should be with classical songs. I can just about remember the music critic Edward Greenfield comparing the Lennon-McCartney partnership to Schubert which suggests that it is not easy to differentiate between pop songs and classical ones, once you cancel out the difference in singing styles. At the same time, and while I am not sure what the differences are, I think we would all recognise a pop song as a pop song and a classical song as classical. Is it something to do with pop songs needing hooks and repetition while classical songs don't? But then there are other "pop" (loosely) songs where the intention is not to produce a catchy song but to make a point or describe or evoke a feeling (indie rock etc.) and then there are forms when it is the words that are of central importance (e.g. rap).

As we have seen from past threads it can be even more difficult to agree on the differences between some (bloated and/or simplistic) prog rock pieces and classical music. So let's not go there again!


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

SONNET CLV said:


> *What can it mean to say in Classical "the music is the most important thing" while in Pop "the performer is most important." If you wish to discuss music, you should isolate it to what it actually is. *
> 
> You suddenly see that the real difference here is not with "music" but with the terms "classical" and "pop". If we actually eliminate those two terms and stick strictly with "music", we can make more valid comparisons. So … what are we comparing?
> 
> ...


It is not meaningless to say that the focus in classical music is primarily on the score, but in popular music it's on the performance. It's a generalization. Generalizations are not by their nature meaningless.

"Classical" and "popular" are not things. They're categories we use to identify things - pieces of music and musical traditions - and they have limited but real usefulness. Their usefulness depends as much on the context in which music is used and perceived as it does in what's written on the staff paper (if anything). What's meaningless is extended debate on which category every single piece of music, on paper, belongs in. There may be perfectly good reasons to put a piece in some other category altogether, to call it "classical" in one context but "popular" in another, or not to categorize it at all.

The generalization that classical music is primarily the art of the composer, while popular music is primarily the art of the performer, is a sound and useful one. It's true that all music is performed differently by different performers. But the performer's approach to realizing what she considers essential about the music can vary enormously, from a self-effacing effort to discover and project what's written on paper to a free adaptation based on something that may or may not ever have been written down. The audience for classical music understands that Eugene Ormandy and Rudolf Serkin are there for the purpose of making the notes written by Beethoven or Tchaikovsky audible and effective. The audience for popular music is generally there to watch and hear Bruce Springsteen, not to savor the aesthetic effect of specific notes written down by some particular composer. It's beside the point to point out that some of the music we call classical allows for or requires some improvisation, or that popular music can sometimes be written down in a precise way.

My answer to your question, "What do performers or composers really have to do with the finished product as Art?" would be: sometimes almost everything.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> The audience for popular music is generally there to watch and hear Bruce Springsteen, not to savor the aesthetic effect of specific notes written down by some particular composer. It's beside the point to point out that some of the music we call classical allows for or requires some improvisation, or that popular music can sometimes be written down in a precise way.
> 
> My answer to your question, "What do performers or composers really have to do with the finished product as Art?" would be: sometimes almost everything.


But doesn't it start with good composition whether it's classical or popular? It's hard to picture people flocking to Springsteen concerts if they didn't think the songs were good compositions to begin with.

You have people who write songs for a living and never perform their own compositions; sometimes they try but are dull as dishwater. Their songs can become hits when covered a more charismatic artist who might also have the vision to bring out of the song something that its writer never dreamed of, by the arrangement or by his interpretation.

Pop musicians have almost endless freedom to arrange and rearrange a song and are allowed to be much more creative than classical musicians. But can they turn a mediocre song into a great song? Seems like you have to have the germ of a good song in the first place.

(Springsteen isn't a good example for me since I don't like him. Or maybe I'm disproving my point since I dislike Springsteen mainly because of his delivery of his songs. It's histrionic - can't stand that braying "Bawn in the You Ess Ay Ayy Ayy" thing. I can't even tell if his songs are good.)


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Open Book said:


> But doesn't it start with good composition whether it's classical or popular? It's hard to picture people flocking to Springsteen concerts if they didn't think the songs were good compositions to begin with.
> 
> You have people who write songs for a living and never perform their own compositions; sometimes they try but are dull as dishwater. Their songs can become hits when covered a more charismatic artist who might also have the vision to bring out of the song something that its writer never dreamed of, by the arrangement or by his interpretation.
> 
> Pop musicians have almost endless freedom to arrange and rearrange a song and are allowed to be much more creative than classical musicians. But can they turn a mediocre song into a great song? Seems like you have to have the germ of a good song in the first place.


What constitutes a "good song" in popular music? Do hit songs become hits mainly they're musically interesting and subtle or profound in what they express? Sure, you have to have the "germ" of something to begin with, but that something can be pretty elementary, as long as it's catchy and memorable and some popular singer can put it across in a way that impresses people and makes them want to hear it again. The whole point of popular music is that it's - well, POPULAR!

I'm not here to argue for the superiority of classical music, and I haven't said that popular music can't be good music by the same sorts of criteria we use in calling classical music good (or not). But I seriously doubt that more than one in a thousand people at a rock concert have given a moment's thought to whether what they're listening to is a "good composition," or have even thought of it as a composition existing apart from the people performing it unless it's a well-known song that's been around for a while and been "covered" (weird word) by various people. That you say you can't even tell whether Bruce Springsteen's songs are good is perfectly consistent with what makes a large percentage of popular music different from classical music, where listeners are, appropriately, more interested in such esoteric matters as the aesthetics of musical form.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Triggered in part by violadude's post, #14, describing a pop song as more like a painting, and a classical piece as more like a movie, there is also the ability of a piece of popular music to achieve a sort of real excellence due to its brevity. This brevity allows the chance for a near-perfect merging of jewel-like lyrics within an arresting yet ultimately "right" musical matrix. I offer as my examples Cream's _Sunshine Of Your Love_, Al Stewart's _Year of the Cat_ (short version), and Joni Mitchell's _Chelsea Morning_, and there are so many others that each of us interested in popular music could list many such. The song is thus there for a few minutes, like a beautiful _objet d'art_. And then it's gone.

There are variations on this, and with expanding length, popular music can take on more of the narrative film-like character of classical music as in some Prog or the longer story-telling works of Bob Dylan or of Fairport Convention _et al._ though only rarely does the narrative evolution fully encompass the music as it does in CM.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> ...between classical music and pop music? Is making a song and composing a piece different? Do you know what I mean? Will this be a popular thread or a dive into the depths of the sea of music?
> Cheers!


Pop is about capturing a single feeling and delivering as accessibly and stylishly as possible. It has its own challenges because to make a genuinely good song the feeling has to be actual to the times, real, and 'sexy' for lack of a better word - it has to be extremely tasteful yet unchallenging intellectually. It really depends completely on the charisma and/or sex appeal of the performer.

Classical music goes much deeper and requires extreme talent creatively by the composer, but the content can represent anything, you're much freer in this way. It's much more fun but also much harder and truly time consuming.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> People still find it odd that I can listen to Mahler, Beethoven, Prokofiev and company and still find pleasure in country/western.


how about saloon Wagner?


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

^^^What a curiosity! According to a comment on YouTube, this was written as a present to Marie Luckemeyer, the sister of Mathilde Wesendonck. It prompts me to observe that "classical" and "popular" didn't have the same connotations in the 19th century that they came to have in the 20th. Music like this was very popular and ubiquitous in middle class households, where there was ordinarily a piano and someone able to play it at a fair level of skill. Lots of Romantic composers wrote waltzes, and the continuity of this quasi-Schubertian piece with the more rarefied salon waltzes of Chopin or the more Viennese-sounding Liebeslieder Waltzes of Brahms makes popular/classical distinctions hard to draw. The dance music of the Strausses was probably as popular as any music has ever been, and it crossed cultural lines: both Brahms and Wagner (among others, including the critic Hanslick) held Johann Strauss in high regard. I've read that Strauss returned the tribute by giving the first public performance of the prelude to _Tristan_ with his dance band. I can only speculate on how his audience reacted to that!


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> What constitutes a "good song" in popular music? Do hit songs become hits mainly they're musically interesting and subtle or profound in what they express? Sure, you have to have the "germ" of something to begin with, but that something can be pretty elementary, as long as it's catchy and memorable and some popular singer can put it across in a way that impresses people and makes them want to hear it again. The whole point of popular music is that it's - well, POPULAR!
> 
> I'm not here to argue for the superiority of classical music, and I haven't said that popular music can't be good music by the same sorts of criteria we use in calling classical music good (or not). But I seriously doubt that more than one in a thousand people at a rock concert have given a moment's thought to whether what they're listening to is a "good composition," or have even thought of it as a composition existing apart from the people performing it unless it's a well-known song that's been around for a while and been "covered" (weird word) by various people. That you say you can't even tell whether Bruce Springsteen's songs are good is perfectly consistent with what makes a large percentage of popular music different from classical music, where listeners are, appropriately, more interested in such esoteric matters as the aesthetics of musical form.


I don't think Springsteen's songs are great compositions but his off-putting (to me) personality is the first is the first thing I notice about his songs. I should listen to covers by other people. I listened to John Legend performing "Dancing in the Dark" at a piano and vocally he seems to be imitating Springsteen, like Springsteen is still overwhelming the song.

What constitutes a "good song" in popular music? We'd have to look at specific songs, don't you think? Some are profound in what they express, not just in the lyrics but in the way the lyric is married to the notes. Beatles' songs are the given as a primary example of great songs. I'm not a musician but I can recognize that a lot of interesting stuff musically goes on in Beatles' songs, AND they're catchy - win-win! And it isn't just the notes, it's the arrangements, the equivalent of orchestration in classical music. They use their band instruments and exotic instruments and other sounds so masterfully.

Liszt made transcriptions of Beethoven symphonies. Are they still great music without their orchestration? I think they are lessened, though fun to hear. The arrangement matters.

Only one in a thousand people consider whether something is a good composition? You think too little of people. A rock concert isn't the place to analyze music, it's an event to support an artist and commune with like-minded fans and go deaf. When it's just them and their headphones I think most people think about why something is musically good even if they don't have the word "composition" in their vocabulary.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Open Book said:


> What constitutes a "good song" in popular music? We'd have to look at specific songs, don't you think? Some are profound in what they express, not just in the lyrics but in the way the lyric is married to the notes. Beatles' songs are the given as a primary example of great songs. I'm not a musician but I can recognize that a lot of interesting stuff musically goes on in Beatles' songs, AND they're catchy - win-win! And it isn't just the notes, it's the arrangements, the equivalent of orchestration in classical music. They use their band instruments and exotic instruments and other sounds so masterfully.
> 
> Liszt made transcriptions of Beethoven symphonies. Are they still great music without their orchestration? I think they are lessened, though fun to hear. The arrangement matters.
> 
> Only one in a thousand people consider whether something is a good composition? You think too little of people. A rock concert isn't the place to analyze music, it's an event to support an artist and commune with like-minded fans and go deaf. When it's just them and their headphones I think most people think about why something is musically good even if they don't have the word "composition" in their vocabulary.


You're moving the argument away from its basic point, which was that in classical music the integrity of the composition as left by the composer is generally of supreme importance and the performer is basically a vehicle for conveying its qualities, while in popular music the composition is generally perceived as a vehicle for a particular performer and is frequently subjected to considerable adaptation to suit what the performer does best.

The fact that there are artistically fine popular songs - which no one denies - doesn't negate the generality that most of them owe their popularity to the way particular performers put them across. Most hits remain indelibly associated with the artists who make them hits. Obviously, some popular music is inherently distinguished enough to endure and become "classic," although popular songs of earlier eras often survive mainly as "nostalgia" among oldsters rather than as things of continuing relevance and vitality. I would guess that the songs of Jerome Kern and Irving Berlin mean more to today's classical music audience than they do to fans of today's popular music. Classical music listeners are more likely than popular music listeners to respond to the artistic qualities of music from eras long antedating their own time. Virtually the only popular songs that have lingered for centuries in the popular consciousness are a handful of patriotic tunes, hymns and Christmas carols, and they've done so mainly because of their associations.

I wonder what exactly you think people are thinking "when it's just them and their headphones." If they don't have the word "composition" in their vocabulary, in what terms are they evaluating the quality of what they're hearing? It's my observation that even most classical listeners aren't especially good at saying why they think some work or composer is good. The subjective feeling that one song is "better" than another - they like the tune or find the rhythm engaging - is probably about as far as most people get in analyzing their enjoyment of music, and that's fine. Music is for pleasure, and popular music becomes popular largely because the pleasure comes easy. Classical music lovers, however, often find the rewards greater when gleaning all the music has to offer requires a greater exertion of their faculties.


----------



## Guest (Jan 7, 2020)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> ...between classical music and pop music? Is making a song and composing a piece different? Do you know what I mean? Will this be a popular thread or a dive into the depths of the sea of music?
> Cheers!





Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Popular music from 1950 until now. From Elvis to Ed Sheeran. The ones that sell the most. "The STARS".


Thanks for responding to my first question about what you were thinking about 'pop'.

Now, what are my thoughts on the difference between classical and pop? I don't really have any, tbh. I enjoy them both, so the differences don't matter. Others have offered some explanations of the difference, which is all well and good, but why worry? Last July, I went to a Madness concert (are they 'Pop', or just nostalgia, I wonder) which was great fun; last September, I attended two concerts in Finland, one of Sibelius, and one of Berlioz; next month, I'm going to hear the Bournemouth SO perform Beethoven 1 and 3 at the Sage, Gateshead, a venue I've never attended despite my reasonable proximity to it over the last 18 years.

View attachment 128694


https://sagegateshead.com/whats-on/big-beethoven-weekend-1-the-symphonies/

In all cases, I enjoyed listening, being moved (though in different ways depending on the composition) reflected on the "meanings" of their works, the performers and their contributions, the writers...

What is the significance of 'difference'? What thoughts were you looking for?


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund (Jan 4, 2016)

I just wanted to hear some opinions and now I sit and watch as they appear...I like most kinds of music, so it's not so important for me.


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> I just wanted to hear some opinions and now I sit and watch as they appear...I like most kinds of music, so it's not so important for me.


Agreed, every genre has quality. There's a legitimate reason why most people don't listen to classical, other music is just so much more accessible.

When I'm drunk at a party I really see this clearly, every kind of music has its purpose and its audience.


----------



## Room2201974 (Jan 23, 2018)

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Popular music from 1950 until now. From Elvis to Ed Sheeran. The ones that sell the most. "The STARS". I attended a "music teacher day" at the State Academy on friday and in the lecture I attended, a composition professor said he meant the two were different, that is "making music" and "composing music". In making music you put things together and in composing music you "frame a memory". Maybe saying pop vs. classical music was wrong in my first post. I think the professor made a good distinction that I might have gotten mixed up in my brain...


The essence of the question really is: songwriting vs. composing.....And we are then really talking about *two different art forms*. Like overlapping Venn Diagrams, both the songwriter and the composer share a few similar qualities. They both have to come up with some good musicial ideas. But a songwriter only needs say 5-7 good musicial ideas to make a song go and a composer might have 5-7 good musical ideas in the first 8 measures. Composers then will develop their material and that will usually also involve changes of key. Songwriters usually don't. The real challenge for songwriters is to set words to music in a memorable way. The aims of the artists are different!!!!

Anyway, the above paragraph is a synopsis of a conversation that took place in Composition Seminar many decades ago. That discussion was led by a Gabriel Faure-like prof, in that like Faure he was a composer known for his compositions who also taught composers known for their compositions. And like Faure, he had a "commercial" hit having written "the greatest Christmas Carol you have never heard." The point being is that he had seen it from both sides. And having that perspective he believed that both songwriting and composing deserved respect for the beautiful things they can give us......but that they are different art forms.

The same discussion is where I get the line I've quoted in Ideas For Stupid Threads before: "If writing pop songs is so "easy" then how come you don't hear of a bunch of hot shot theory and comp majors writing hits and then retiring on their fame to live in Alès to work on their 12 tone developing variation masterpieces?"


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Room2201974 said:


> The essence of the question really is: songwriting vs. composing.....And we are then really talking about *two different art forms*. Like overlapping Venn Diagrams, both the songwriter and the composer share a few similar qualities. They both have to come up with some good musicial ideas. But a songwriter only needs say 5-7 good musicial ideas to make a song go and a composer might have 5-7 good musical ideas in the first 8 measures. Composers then will develop their material and that will usually also involve changes of key. Songwriters usually don't. The real challenge for songwriters is to set words to music in a memorable way. The aims of the artists are different!!!!
> 
> And having that perspective he believed that both songwriting and composing deserved respect for the beautiful things they can give us......but that they are different art forms.


Are Schubert's songs examples of songwriting or composing, or a combination, as you have described them?


----------



## 1996D (Dec 18, 2018)

Room2201974 said:


> The essence of the question really is: songwriting vs. composing.....And we are then really talking about *two different art forms*. Like overlapping Venn Diagrams, both the songwriter and the composer share a few similar qualities. They both have to come up with some good musicial ideas. But a songwriter only needs say 5-7 good musicial ideas to make a song go and a composer might have 5-7 good musical ideas in the first 8 measures. Composers then will develop their material and that will usually also involve changes of key. Songwriters usually don't. *The real challenge for songwriters is to set words to music in a memorable way. *The aims of the artists are different!!!!
> 
> Anyway, the above paragraph is a synopsis of a conversation that took place in Composition Seminar many decades ago. That discussion was led by a Gabriel Faure-like prof, in that like Faure he was a composer known for his compositions who also taught composers known for their compositions. And like Faure, he had a "commercial" hit having written "the greatest Christmas Carol you have never heard." The point being is that he had seen it from both sides. And having that perspective he believed that both songwriting and composing deserved respect for the beautiful things they can give us......but that they are different art forms.
> 
> The same discussion is where I get the line I've quoted in Ideas For Stupid Threads before: "If writing pop songs is so "easy" then how come you don't hear of a bunch of hot shot theory and comp majors writing hits and then retiring on their fame to live in Alès to work on their 12 tone developing variation masterpieces?"


Yet still pop songs compare poorly to Mahler's or Brahms' Lieder. The level of poetry is below that of Rückert, Heine, or Goethe which many composers of the day used.

We can't forget that pop is commercial and therefore can barely be called art if at all. It's money oriented, that's the purpose.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

1996D said:


> We can't forget that pop is commercial and therefore can barely be called art if at all. It's money oriented, that's the purpose.


I don't know how far we can push this idea of the disregard of "real art" for money. There are 573 million counter-examples, at least. Prokofiev, for one, was always interested in making a few dollars, francs, rubles.....


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Room2201974 said:


> "If writing pop songs is so "easy" then how come you don't hear of a bunch of hot shot theory and comp majors writing hits and then retiring on their fame to live in Alès to work on their 12 tone developing variation masterpieces?"


I think that there is too much reliance on big marketing, social engineering, and underformed-deformed "tastes" of the general audience to really break out purely on competence anymore.

But it _is _weird to me that there is no "black market" of word of mouth for some super-catchy songs written by the river of composers flowing out of universities (not to mention all the erudite autodidacts).


----------



## Bluecrab (Jun 24, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> ...Prokofiev, for one, was always interested in making a few dollars, francs, rubles.....


As was Mozart. There, 15 characters.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Bluecrab said:


> As was Mozart. There, 15 characters.


Yet another link between the two Masters of All Genres, an interest in the coin of the realm....


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

One huge difference that I can think of between pop (or really almost any form of non-classical music) ad classical music is the way they use rhythm, or rather a beat. I once had someone tell me that they didn't like classical music because there is "no beat". Well, in a way that's true. Almost all other types of music that people listen to are synced up to a constant beat in the background that the rest of the music marches to. I think this has an orienting effect where people who are not really inclined to listen for the nuances in a musical piece can use this beat that's always there to guide them through the music no matter what else is going on.

In classical music, obviously there's an underlying pulse at all times but it's often obscured by changing textures, extreme syncopation that you usually don't get in any other form of music and a freer sense of rhythm that allows the music to act more independently from the pulse.

There's a really good video about this by a youtuber named Adam Neely. Even though this isn't the intention of the video, I do think it explains a lot about why people have a hard time getting into Classical Music sometimes.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

violadude said:


> One huge difference that I can think of between pop (or really almost any form of non-classical music) ad classical music is the way they use rhythm, or rather a beat. I once had someone tell me that they didn't like classical music because there is "no beat". Well, in a way that's true. Almost all other types of music that people listen to are synced up to a constant beat in the background that the rest of the music marches to. I think this has an orienting effect where people who are not really inclined to listen for the nuances in a musical piece can use this beat that's always there to guide them through the music no matter what else is going on.
> 
> In classical music, obviously there's an underlying pulse at all times but it's often obscured by changing textures, extreme syncopation that you usually don't get in any other form of music and a freer sense of rhythm that allows the music to act more independently from the pulse.
> 
> There's a really good video about this by a youtuber named Adam Neely. Even though this isn't the intention of the video, I do think it explains a lot about why people have a hard time getting into Classical Music sometimes.


I suspect that what people who complain about "no beat" usually mean is that there isn't anyone continuously banging out the pulse on something that makes a noise. I guess it's called a "beat" because somebody is beating on something. Popular songs didn't always have to have a beat, but since rock 'n' roll they generally seem to.

There's probably something to the idea that classical musicians feel rhythm differently from popular or jazz musicians, but I suspect it's more a matter of orchestral musicians versus soloists, and especially versus people who improvise or compose. If you spend all your time trying to play exactly in time with ninety other people watching a conductor's baton, your freedom to feel the rhythm, much less play around with it, is constrained within strict limits. It may be that some orchestral players who spend their days practicing their parts with metronomic precision never develop a very fine rhythmic sense.

What to say about that professor who couldn't demonstrate a triplet correctly? There are lots of triplets in classical music. He should be made to stay after school and play something from Bruckner or Vaughan Williams 100 times.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Woodduck said:


> I suspect that what people who complain about "no beat" usually mean is that there isn't anyone continuously banging out the pulse on something that makes a noise. I guess it's called a "beat" because somebody is beating on something. Popular songs didn't always have to have a beat, but since rock 'n' roll they generally seem to.


It's become a whole different thing in current pop music. A beat, at least if it's being created by a real human being with an inner sense of time and groove can be infectious and enjoyable to experience. But now the producers remove the human element and digitally modify the time keeping so there is no variation. Everything is computer "corrected" on the rhythmic level to go along with the static 3 note vocal melodies. Why people enjoy this stuff is a mystery to me but the big hit songs today consist of these elements.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2020)

Room2201974 said:


> The essence of the question really is: songwriting vs. composing.....And we are then really talking about *two different art forms*. Like overlapping Venn Diagrams, both the songwriter and the composer share a few similar qualities. They both have to come up with some good musicial ideas. But a songwriter only needs say 5-7 good musicial ideas to make a song go and a composer might have 5-7 good musical ideas in the first 8 measures. Composers then will develop their material and that will usually also involve changes of key. Songwriters usually don't. The real challenge for songwriters is to set words to music in a memorable way. The aims of the artists are different!!!!
> 
> Anyway, the above paragraph is a synopsis of a conversation that took place in Composition Seminar many decades ago. That discussion was led by a Gabriel Faure-like prof, in that like Faure he was a composer known for his compositions who also taught composers known for their compositions. And like Faure, he had a "commercial" hit having written "the greatest Christmas Carol you have never heard." The point being is that he had seen it from both sides. And having that perspective he believed that both songwriting and composing deserved respect for the beautiful things they can give us......but that they are different art forms.
> 
> The same discussion is where I get the line I've quoted in Ideas For Stupid Threads before: "If writing pop songs is so "easy" then how come you don't hear of a bunch of hot shot theory and comp majors writing hits and then retiring on their fame to live in Alès to work on their 12 tone developing variation masterpieces?"


Some good points here.

These threads are often launched to provide the classical with a chance to look down their noses at another art form, as if there is a _need _to show that Beethoven's Ninth is better than _She Loves You_. And sure enough, some have taken the opportunity to do just that. What insecurity they must endure to require such self-confirmation!

Even if we discount the various strands of rock (prog and alt for example) and just focus on mainstream pop, there is good and bad, as there is memorable and forgettable classical. There are celebrities and money in both too. Commercialism and 'art'. Integrity and cynicism. For example, see this quote in another thread:



starthrower said:


> I say give it a little time and Sony will re-issue the Bernstein cycle again. They will be milking the Bernstein cow forever.


To dismiss all pop as mere money-making, just because some of it makes money, is as vacuous as suggesting that all classical is represented by the showmanship and commercialism of André Rieu. There seems to be plenty of money in CM, though my guess is that there are plenty of players in orchestras round the world who don't see too much of it, all of whom need to make money to live, just as their pop siblings.

Whilst I recognise the definition of CM posted earlier that focuses on the primacy of the written score, it's only partly true to define pop as putting the performer first, as if there is no merit in what has been written. Ironically, the 'factory' production of, say, Motown, did the opposite: it was the song that was of prime importance, not the performer. Singer-songwriters, on the other hand, might justly be assumed not to write but to compose through experimentation (though I'm not entirely sure what the ultimate difference is between these two methods of composition if the end result is something that can be performed by different artists). And then, of course, there are pop artists who write because they have 'something to say', not just a rhythm to beat. (The striving to hear purpose in a Sibelius symphony - "Ah, those forests and lakes, the icy stillness" - just goes to show that CM is not without its superficial search for meaning in music.)

I'm not convinced that there is much worthwhile to be said in response to the OP's question - it's a pointless comparison. Pop, as represented by the typical 3 minute pop song serves a completely different purpose than the 50 minute orchestral symphony and does not deserve the derision heaped on it in this Forum.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> I'm not convinced that there is much worthwhile to be said in response to the OP's question - it's a pointless comparison. Pop, as represented by the typical 3 minute pop song serves a completely different purpose than the 50 minute orchestral symphony and does not deserve the derision heaped on it in this Forum.


I agree that pop music is too harshly criticized sometimes by CM fans, I don't agree that talking about the difference between the two is pointless. I think if you're trying to get someone into classical music is helpful to understand the difference and why they would gravitate towards one and not the other. That's my main goal in discussing the difference between the two anyway.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> For example, see this quote in another thread:
> 
> To dismiss all pop as mere money-making, just because some of it makes money, is as vacuous as suggesting that all classical is represented by the showmanship and commercialism of André Rieu. There seems to be plenty of money in CM, though my guess is that there are plenty of players in orchestras round the world who don't see too much of it, all of whom need to make money to live, just as their pop siblings.


I don't know why you quoted me from a Sibelius thread? If orchestra players aren't making enough maybe it's because the conductor is paid a million a year? I don't know? And I'm not of the opinion that all popular music is money driven. There is too large of an underground and indie network of musicians doing creative work.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Whenever we think about issues like this, it may be helpful to think less about categories and more about prototypes. This is fairly abstract.... 

The idea is that each of us has some prototypical examples of "pop music" and prototypical examples of "classical music," and we define things based on how similar they are to the prototypes we have in our minds. 

We don't all have the same prototypes of course. My idea of pop music will not be the same as someone who is 30 years older or 20 years younger than me, or someone who grew up in a different culture, etc... because we have different prototypes in our minds. 

Anyway, I'm a fan of dismissing the labels we usually use now. They are mostly the creations of marketers, and have no very substantial value.


----------



## Guest (Jan 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> I don't know why you quoted me from a Sibelius thread?


I quoted what you said as it was relevant to my point about the commercialism in CM, that's all.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

But to a more on-topic point, I think the real difference between classical and the various pop genres is the identity of the listeners. 

Someone who listens to New Age music is pursuing a certain kind of identity. 

Someone who listens to progressive rock is pursuing a certain kind of identity. 

Someone who listens to CPP classical music is pursuing a certain kind of identity. 

Someone who listens to K-pop is pursuing a certain kind of identity. 

Someone who listens to avant-garde jazz is pursuing a certain kind of identity. 

And so on. 

Most of us pursue multifaceted identities, mixing the genres according to our various social goals. 

Of course there are also different aesthetic qualities of the music in different traditions, but I believe that for the most part we learn to like what we want to like.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

science said:


> But to a more on-topic point, I think the real difference between classical and the various pop genres is the identity of the listeners.
> 
> Someone who listens to New Age music is pursuing a certain kind of identity.
> 
> ...


This actually may be true for most people, but I find it completely anti-thetical to the way I wish to view music. I know there is music, like Country, that I tend to avoid because I feel that it just clashes significantly with my own culture/identity what have you, but it's kinda something I hope to get over someday cause really, theoretically music is just music and doesn't need to be tied to a particular identity (if it did, there would be a lot less music I would listen to). For example, I don't tend to relate to the culture surrounding metal music but I still enjoy some of the music. Why it works with metal for me and not Country? I don't know, it's complicated.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I wonder what exactly you think people are thinking "when it's just them and their headphones." If they don't have the word "composition" in their vocabulary, in what terms are they evaluating the quality of what they're hearing? It's my observation that even most classical listeners aren't especially good at saying why they think some work or composer is good.


Not having the vocabulary doesn't mean that there's no ability to judge the merits of music. Many listeners lack the vocabulary because they are not musically trained, and this goes for many classical music listeners as well. Without technical music training one has limited ability to describe what one hears. The descriptions can get metaphorical and poetic but not technical. That doesn't mean such listeners don't have the ability to recognize when something good and interesting is going on in a piece of music. (Well, except for Britney Spears fans, there I will grant you that it's all about the personality and not the music.) Haven't there been very talented musicians with minimal formal training, some unable even read music, who have produced enduring and respected popular music (never classical, though; that always seems to require training)?



Woodduck said:


> The subjective feeling that one song is "better" than another - they like the tune or find the rhythm engaging - is probably about as far as most people get in analyzing their enjoyment of music, and that's fine. Music is for pleasure, and popular music becomes popular largely because the pleasure comes easy. Classical music lovers, however, often find the rewards greater when gleaning all the music has to offer requires a greater exertion of their faculties.


A perceptive person could probably go through a song and point out details of all sorts that they like even without a technical vocabulary.

Popular music is not always easy to listen to. Classical music is not always immediately difficult, some is very accessible, and it is the most accessible classical that reels in new listeners. There is always more to discover with repeated hearings in the best music, accessible or not.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

violadude said:


> In classical music, obviously there's an underlying pulse at all times but it's often obscured by changing textures, extreme syncopation that you usually don't get in any other form of music and a freer sense of rhythm that allows the music to act more independently from the pulse.


There are orchestral pieces by Ravel and Debussy that I would swear have almost no rhythm. They just sprawl.

Then there are pieces with a strong pulse like Schubert's 9th symphony. Or anything Baroque.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Open Book said:


> Not having the vocabulary doesn't mean that there's no ability to judge the merits of music. Many listeners lack the vocabulary because they are not musically trained, and this goes for many classical music listeners as well. Without technical music training one has limited ability to describe what one hears. The descriptions can get metaphorical and poetic but not technical. That doesn't mean such listeners don't have the ability to recognize when something good and interesting is going on in a piece of music. (Well, except for Britney Spears fans, there I will grant you that it's all about the personality and not the music.) Haven't there been very talented musicians with minimal formal training, some unable even read music, who have produced enduring and respected popular music (never classical, though; that always seems to require training)?
> 
> A perceptive person could probably go through a song and point out details of all sorts that they like even without a technical vocabulary.


I guess this depends on what you mean by a "perceptive person." Musical comprehension doesn't always go with general perceptiveness.



> Popular music is not always easy to listen to. Classical music is not always immediately difficult, some is very accessible, and it is the most accessible classical that reels in new listeners.


What IS "popular" music? Does it have to be music that's popular, or is it some ill-defined genre that just happens to be called that? How likely is music to become popular if it's difficult to listen to? If, as you suggest, it's the most accessible classical music that reels in new listeners, mightn't that be because the non-classical music they're used to hearing is simpler in its structure or expressive goals?

In general, classical music is more complex than music of most other genres. If we can't make generalizations without immediately noting exceptions, there's no point in looking at the question.



> There is always more to discover with repeated hearings in the best music, accessible or not.


What is "the best music"? That looks like a dead end. In any case I find that most of the popular music I hear is quite easly grasped first time around, and doesn't suggest layers of form and meaning awaiting further discovery.

Of course there are exceptions to everything.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> You're moving the argument away from its basic point, which was that in classical music the integrity of the composition as left by the composer is generally of supreme importance and the performer is basically a vehicle for conveying its qualities, while in popular music the composition is generally perceived as a vehicle for a particular performer and is frequently subjected to considerable adaptation to suit what the performer does best.
> 
> The fact that there are artistically fine popular songs - which no one denies - doesn't negate the generality that most of them owe their popularity to the way particular performers put them across. Most hits remain indelibly associated with the artists who make them hits. Obviously, some popular music is inherently distinguished enough to endure and become "classic," although popular songs of earlier eras often survive mainly as "nostalgia" among oldsters rather than as things of continuing relevance and vitality. I would guess that the songs of Jerome Kern and Irving Berlin mean more to today's classical music audience than they do to fans of today's popular music. Classical music listeners are more likely than popular music listeners to respond to the artistic qualities of music from eras long antedating their own time. Virtually the only popular songs that have lingered for centuries in the popular consciousness are a handful of patriotic tunes, hymns and Christmas carols, and they've done so mainly because of their associations.


I'm just interested in the fact that some popular songs lend themselves to great variation by artists who cover them and others do not. The former have the stamp of the whatever artist performs them and can appear in many guises. Artists who cover them may find something new in the song or transform the song by festooning it with some musical thing or other that wasn't in the score, yet fits in fabulously. Popularized Christmas songs and Beatles songs fall into this category.

Other popular songs are seldom covered by artists other than the original ones. When they are, the performers often try to follow the original ones closely. An example would be the music of the Talking Heads. There's a Talking Heads album "Remain In Light" that was played in its entirety live by Phish. Phish is very creative jam band but they chose to play this music as almost a carbon copy of the original. Phish's lead singer even imitated the inimitable vocals of David Byrne. This wasn't just Phish's goofy sense of humor, I think they realized the original couldn't be improved upon. Almost like classical music, you don't deviate from the score. Except in this case the music was tailored to the Talking Head's band members' individual and unique gifts.


----------



## Open Book (Aug 14, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> I guess this depends on what you mean by a "perceptive person." Musical comprehension doesn't always go with general perceptiveness.


I mean a person who is perceptive about music whether or not they have formal music training.



Woodduck said:


> What IS "popular" music? Does it have to be music that's popular, or is it some ill-defined genre that just happens to be called that?


The latter. It wants to be popular but may not succeed.



Woodduck said:


> How likely is music to become popular if it's difficult to listen to? If, as you suggest, it's the most accessible classical music that reels in new listeners, mightn't that be because the non-classical music they're used to hearing is simpler in its structure or expressive goals?
> 
> In general, classical music is more complex than music of most other genres. If we can't make generalizations without immediately noting exceptions, there's no point in looking at the question.


I don't disagree with any of that.
Was there not always a popular music? Even in the days of the classical composers we listen to, there was other music. What did the average person play and hear? Ethnic folk music? Isn't today's popular music that arose in the U.S. a fusion of folk music from Europe and Africa, with other influences thrown in occasionally?
And how about jazz? Is that popular music?



Woodduck said:


> What is "the best music"? That looks like a dead end.


Music that the most respected critics would say is the best if you tallied all their likes and threw out the outliers. You really want to get into that?



Woodduck said:


> In any case I find that most of the popular music I hear is quite easily grasped first time around, and doesn't suggest layers of form and meaning awaiting further discovery.
> 
> Of course there are exceptions to everything.


I don't, but I'm sure I'm not as good a listener as you. Even the simple ones don't always hit me right away, which is why Top 40 radio used to hammer home the same songs to create hits out of them.
The not so simple ones, you find yourself marveling at details in them, just like with classical music. There may not be layers of meaning as in e.g. Schubert's "Die Winterreise", but there are deft musical touches to be found in some popular music that I can't help but admire.


----------

