# How much easier is is it to make rock then classical?



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

I do like Rock and Classical. However I can't help but think that composers of times past would pretty easily be able to create the average Radiohead song, which sometimes makes me think less of the talents of rock musicians. For instance compare this:






To this: 




Now I understand it's unfair to compare stuff to Beehtoven, but I don't know. Are rock musicians less talented then the average composer, or does it take a different yet equal set of skills to create creative riffs with immediate emotional resonance (like in rock) and motifs that develop across a piece (like in classical)?

Although, I suppose that in terms of complexity one needs to take into account the vocal melody, in which case most rock music is more then just 4 chord music. Perhaps on par with some minimalist classical works. But even then it takes like 4+ people playing to make something as complex as what one composer/player does.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

It is very hard to compare the two. I would say it is generally easier to write a rock song, but to write something in rock that is well put together, fresh and original is still very difficult. To find the right chemistry in a band is also not easy. It is like comparing chess and golf. Sure it is harder to master chess, and it is a more complex game but if you want to excel at golf and become a professional golfer like everything nowadays it will still be a highly competitive field and it won't be an easy thing to do. And of course there will always be great artists in any genre that can push the envelope and do things in a more artistic way. I think there are some rock artists that are just as talented (and more) than some classical composers.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Your argument is fundamentally misdirected. For one, you're using Radiohead as an example of an average contemporary rock band, which they aren't. Though _Karma Police_ is quite a simple song there are plenty more complex works on the same record, and their more recent work on _In Rainbows_ and _King of Limbs_ far ahead of something like Kaiser Chiefs in terms of complexity. So we can throw that out the window right away. Also no, I don't like Radiohead, but they're not what you're making them out to be.

Then, you suggest that there are different tiers of "talent" among classical composers but not among rock musicians, so you betray an immediate bias against rock music, treating it as one homogenised mass of interchangeable guitar players and singers and so on and so forth. Yet this is as different to this, as this is to this, so I am left wondering how much you actually know about rock music compared to classical music. I note that it is often the case (as in a recent thread about techno music) that predominantly classical fans who approach other genres with a view to painting them or the artists associated with them as "lesser" or "mere" tend to do so without a firm understand of the genre they are attacking. The same is no less true of a devotee of any other genre with something to prove, before anyone attacks me for saying that, but that isn't the context we're dealing with here.


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

Well, I really like Radiohead, and I really like Karma Police. But i'm not talking about how good it is. Just how difficult it is to make compared to classical. Would someone with vast amounts of musical theory like most composers, necessarily find OKC easy to make, or does it require entirely different sets of talents?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

peterh said:


> Well, I really like Radiohead, and I really like Karma Police. But i'm not talking about how good it is. Just how difficult it is to make compared to classical. Would someone with vast amounts of musical theory like most composers, necessarily find OKC easy to make, or does it require entirely different sets of talents?


Ah, I see. I don't think that being able to make rock and classical music is impossible for the same artist, I'll catch some flak for saying so but both Frank Zappa and John Zorn were/are competent in both fields, but the creation of a rock track I think is quite different to the writing of a classical piece, and it's not like Beethoven and Thom Yorke could switch places and be competent in their new roles simply based on their previous experience.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

peterh said:


> Well, I really like Radiohead, and I really like Karma Police. But i'm not talking about how good it is. Just how difficult it is to make compared to classical. Would someone with vast amounts of musical theory like most composers, necessarily find OKC easy to make, or does it require entirely different sets of talents?


Yes and no.

Rock is about performance. Even if that performance is pasted together from separately recorded elements in a studio, the composition as such is a specific performance. That's why they're so hard to compare, especially given how much rock (and Radiohead in particular) depends on a "sound" that is often impossible to replicate in live performance. There is artificial echo, amplification, and electronic treatment and processing applied just about everything from the vocals to the guitar.

Not that none of this is done in classical music, but it's mostly limited to the avant-garde, and it is still in service of composition rather than performance.

If you want to make comparisons, compare works of similar type. Compare songs written in the classical tradition with rock songs. Often on a formal level the former are relatively simple as well.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

peterh said:


> Now I understand it's unfair to compare stuff to Beehtoven, but I don't know. Are rock musicians less talented then the average composer, or does it take a different yet equal set of skills to create creative riffs with immediate emotional resonance (like in rock) and motifs that develop across a piece (like in classical)?
> 
> ....


I think that to do any type of music - classical or rock, or other things like jazz or newer stuff like hip hop and so on - on a high level requires talent and skill. Talent is hard to define though and many people say skill is more than the 'nuts and bolts' stuff, it can be stuff for example outside of music (eg. what's going on in the world to other arts like poetry or visual arts, or whats going on in the musician's/composer's life).

I think its hard to predict what will resonate with many people and what won't. In classical, as in rock, you got 'one hit wonder' type people who create one big splash and that's it. But you also have people who year in year out (or even for decades) turn out good stuff, a lot of it top notch.

So I don't see a difference between the genres in terms of putting one above the other. As Crudblud has said, a number of musicians today cross the dividing lines between the genres, this has been going on for ages. Bernstein said he didn't see much of a differnce between the genres, hence him incorporating into him music many things outside what's strictly classical. Eg. Latin American musics, jazz, Jewish music and so on. I mean wouldn't it be a bit boring if we just had fugues and old stuff only, only technical 'music as craft' stuff? I think art is about the creator's vision and that need not necessarily be divided by various lines drawn in the sand. In any case, as we've seen time and time again, one generation draws such a line to find that the boundaries are quickly redrawn by the next generation. So nothing's permanent, everything changes, so too our concept of what are different genres and musical traditions and whether we view them as largely separate or as one tree with many branches coming off, with all these links. I see the latter.

So I'm not concerned with this issue, I also see different types of music as suiting different purposes and needs. The best of today's rock and othe genres will endure just as the best of classical will. That's my view.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Radiohead are more flaccid idm with whineyboy vocals than rock.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

peterh said:


> I do like Rock and Classical. However I can't help but think that composers of times past would pretty easily be able to create the average Radiohead song, which sometimes makes me think less of the talents of rock musicians.


Well then, why didn't it happen? As far as simple verses complex goes, it's a moot point. Simple is not necessarily easy.


----------



## Metalkitsune (Jul 11, 2011)

regressivetransphobe said:


> Radiohead are more flaccid idm with whineyboy vocals than rock.


One thing i've found is that most modern rock bands seem to be mostly boy bands with distortion. You can't judge rock music based on the mainstream bands like Nickelback.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Metalkitsune said:


> One thing i've found is that most modern rock bands seem to be mostly boy bands with distortion. You can't judge rock music based on the mainstream bands like Nickelback.


Not in Progressive Rock/Metal. But yeah mainstream sucks these days.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

starthrower said:


> Well then, why didn't it happen? As far as simple verses complex goes, it's a moot point. Simple is not necessarily easy.


Because they didn't have access to enough electricity to cause deafness?
GG


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Sid James said:


> So I don't see a difference between the genres in terms of putting one above the other.


No, of course not. And you don't elevate roast duck with trimmings above cheese on toast either...



> The best of today's rock and othe genres will endure just as the best of classical will.


Nup. Time is the ultimate filter. Most rock/pop/anything-known-by-the-name-of-the-performer is assembled around the personality of the performer. "Classical" music is about the music. Which means that it's susceptible to 'cover' versions for centuries afterwards.
Past generations' Rock and Pop (and the rest...) will exist only in recordings of long dead performers, irrelevant to all but the anorak wearers. It's all about new songs (or new to the under-20s anyway), new performers, new ways to sell T-shirts and caps and phone covers and apps and all the rest.
Look at 'pop music' from the 20s, 30s, 40s. How does it exist nowadays? Performed in large halls with sell-out crowds, like the Concertgebouw do with Schumann? Or the London Philharmonic with Beethoven?
Nup. It's a tiny subset of interests only to specialists.
As is all top-40 and related music by the time all the people who first heard it aged 14 are dead...
cheers
Graeme


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

GraemeG said:


> No, of course not. And you don't elevate roast duck with trimmings above cheese on toast either...
> 
> Nup. Time is the ultimate filter. Most rock/pop/anything-known-by-the-name-of-the-performer is assembled around the personality of the performer. "Classical" music is about the music. Which means that it's susceptible to 'cover' versions for centuries afterwards.
> Past generations' Rock and Pop (and the rest...) will exist only in recordings of long dead performers, irrelevant to all but the anorak wearers. It's all about new songs (or new to the under-20s anyway), new performers, new ways to sell T-shirts and caps and phone covers and apps and all the rest.
> ...


Well you still got rock, jazz, blues musicians of today covering songs of the past. Maybe what you're suggesting is classical is a museum piece and the rest is living, so its kind of building upon itself. But you're generalising. Why is only classical music about the music? What about traditions in non classical that have influenced and enriched classical? Indeed, things like minimalism would most likely not have come about without those composers being influenced by what was going on outside of classical. Even Erik Satie, he was a pianist in cabarets, it fed into his music. So too Glass and Reich, they're more interested in jazz, esp. bebop, and world music than say serialism, which was strictly classical.

We're on a different wavelength. I value tradition as much as the next person, but I've also got time for things that break down the barriers between the genres. & I personally see few or none barriers in some music I like. Eg. Tim Minchin, an Australian who mixes everything from classical to jazz to rock to hip hop and his own brand of comedy (& then some!). Sold out concert halls in Australia and sold out Royal albert Hall in London way in advance of one of his concerts there. I see him as more relevant to classical, maybe a big aspect of the future of classical, not the concerts of Beethoven et al that have barely got anyone there under 40 or even 50.

But I digress. Face it, the world's changing, for good or bad. What we are experiencing now is a unique time in history, esp. in terms of digital media. I don't think that places like the Concertgebouw will mean much in 100 years, or they will be changed beyond recognition. But its only my own theory and in any case I won't be around in 100 years to check if I'm right or not.


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

GraemeG said:


> Look at 'pop music' from the 20s, 30s, 40s. How does it exist nowadays? Performed in large halls with sell-out crowds, like the Concertgebouw do with Schumann? Or the London Philharmonic with Beethoven?


I bet bands will still be playing Beatles songs to large audiences in hundreds of years.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Is not-classical just as difficult as classical?*

Many of these issues were raised in the following thread: http://www.talkclassical.com/22500-non-classical-just-difficult.html#post385460


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

GraemeG said:


> Because they didn't have access to enough electricity to cause deafness?
> GG


They being 18th-19th century European composers? Giving them electricity would make no difference. Rock music was invented by black musicians in America.

It's more likely because black folks were in shackles in those days and they hadn't yet been given the freedom to create popular music to be copied by white folks. Although they were creating anyway, and being ripped off by songwriters like Stephen Foster. Do-da, do-da!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Schubussy said:


> I bet bands will still be playing Beatles songs to large audiences in hundreds of years.


I would add to my reply to GraemeG's post above that there is indeed pop music - or music that was popular before the 1940's that's still known today, not just by a small clique as he suggests. Jazz was the pop music of its day, or one of the types of pop music. Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Louis Armstrong, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman, Django Reinhardt where all active before 1945, and they where not mere 'fly by night' one hit wonder superstars. Their music has endured, as has that of what's called 'The great American songbook' which many singers still cover - Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Gershwin, Jerome Kern. Of course its easy to discount this if one's argument tries to narrow things down and put things in convenient boxes. Its only useful if one wants boxes. Classical composers of the time like Ravel and Stravinsky incorporated elements of jazz into their music. So barriers where already breaking down.

The other thing is that without pop, rock, techno, hip hop and other genres, classical as a recorded medium may well be dead today. Its well known that the big recording companies like Decca and EMI have often underwritten their classical recordings with the profits they get from non classical.

Not to speak of after 1945, a lot of non classical has endured. The Beatles are one, and Elvis, Hendrix, Janis Joplin and people like that who died 40 or so years ago are still known and considered legends, basically. & look at people like Quincy Jones who has worked with so many of the top names in non classical over the last half century. Is his legacy nothing, is it worth less than someone like Elliott Carter, or Bernstein, or Boulez? I don't think so, its just different music.


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

Crudblud said:


> it's not like Beethoven and Thom Yorke could switch places and be competent in their new roles simply based on their previous experience.


Why, I think writing riffs would be fine for Beehtoven given he's written far more complex things that develop over a whole piece.

" "Quote Originally Posted by peterh View Post
I do like Rock and Classical. However I can't help but think that composers of times past would pretty easily be able to create the average Radiohead song, which sometimes makes me think less of the talents of rock musicians."

"Well then, why didn't it happen? " "

Because they felt like making more complex music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Schubussy said:


> I bet bands will still be playing Beatles songs to large audiences in hundreds of years.


I'd have to agree with the first post in this series. No one will be listening to the Beatles in a hundred years - don't delude yourself... the Magical Mystery Tour will be dead within 50 years! Just like Andrew Lloyd Weber's stuff!!

Now Zappa that would be different lol


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I don't agree re Lloyd Webber, but he's classically trained & uses many classical techniques, so I see him as classical. You know Lehar's Merry Widow was amongst the first stage works of its kind to be recorded in complete form early in the 20th century. So too one of Puccini's operas (forget which one, probably La Boheme). Now in those days that was a massive undertaking. Must have been something like 30 sides long. What your'e saying is that something is not highbrow enough (for you?) it won't survive. Well I think its not necessarily true. Quality music tends to survive, whether its highbrow or lowbrow or in between. Now I'll go on and play It Aint necessarily so...now, which 'jazz/folk opera' did that come from? Will that one survive? Um...probably yes!...Is it highbrow enough? Dunno and don't care honestly...


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Sid James said:


> ^^I don't agree re Lloyd Webber, but he's classically trained & uses many classical techniques, so I see him as classical. You know Lehar's Merry Widow was amongst the first stage works of its kind to be recorded in complete form early in the 20th century. So too one of Puccini's operas (forget which one, probably La Boheme). Now in those days that was a massive undertaking. Must have been something like 30 sides long. What your'e saying is that something is not highbrow enough (for you?) it won't survive. Well I think its not necessarily true. Quality music tends to survive, whether its highbrow or lowbrow or in between. Now I'll go on and play It Aint necessarily so...now, which 'jazz/folk opera' did that come from? Will that one survive? Um...probably yes!...Is it highbrow enough? Dunno and don't care honestly...


If it was mine?? - I was not trying to allude that highbrow music has any more merit the any other form, all I was commenting on was the statement that the Beatles music would be "around" in a hundred years. I like 'jazz/folk/ opera' and most musical forms - however as some of the posters have point out tastes change with time and dance hall music from the 20's and 30's is generally not that popular anymore. But like in all forms of music - music is nearly always influenced with what has gone before - the very existence of jazz improve would be nothing without using and adapting what's gone before.
Which is what the Beatles did too- but to say there music will be around in 100 years is fanciful, popular tastes and even signing styles in popular music change over time and in 100 years ...............

Oh and Lord ALW- yuk!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Well I go by the track record of a composer or performer etc until now. The Beatles started in the early 1960's, they started getting traction then, and their music is still known, they are among the 'classics' of their period. Similar to what I said about Lehar and Puccini in my post above. Same with Lloyd Webber, he started doing musicals in the early 1970's, and they are still being produced. I see him very much as like the successful opera or operetta composers of the past. Same as with Zappa for that matter, I can say the same things about him, except of course he's dead, but I don't see him as being less popular now than when he was alive.

So I can only go by what's happened until now. I can't gaze into a crystal ball like some gypsy. The bottom line is that there's no need to create dichotomies here, yet again. My view is as I said, the good stuff is likely to survive, that's whats tended to happen throughout the history of music, whether popular or classical or whatever.

The other issue is that in my view, classical's glory days or golden days are over. FAce it, the people on this forum know more post 1945 classical than many classical listeners out there. At least that's my impression based on my experience. So I don't know how viable classical will be. I'd agree that swing music is not as popular as in its heyday but as I said, the standards written then are still covered by jazz and even rock and crossover type performers. Maybe classical will be like swing - or operetta for that matter, a dead artform if there ever was one, no new operettas have been made for ages - the standards live on but as for it being a living art, well its less than now than it was say before 1945. Its a related issue but going on off a bit of a tangent.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

No matter 'how sophisticated,' to me, anyway, Rock has got to be somehow primal, and sounds -- no matter how 'set' -- as on the spot improvised music.

The relative harmonic vocabularies do not necessarily make for a ready distinction of 'simple / difficult,' either. Languages with a far lesser number of words rely to a great degree on their contextual use, which in itself is another sort of 'mental sophistication,' yet often, when a native speaker of the more 'complicated' languages which do have a huge number of words pick up a 'simpler language,' after first finding it simple, the learner begins to realize how 'beyond clever' is that contextual use.

Classical music has, usually, an ideal that no matter how 'composed' (i.e. a non-pejorative 'contrived,'" that its performance does sound spontaneous, or if you will, more improvised than premeditated, even though so many aspects of the work are premeditated, calculated and 'fixed.'

I would be more than hard pressed to 'compose' any rock piece, even a simple song for voice and a small band, because I have little feel for it other than as an empirical listener, and no practice in improvising it or writing it at all -- ergo, it would be harder for me than composing a serial art song for voice and chamber ensemble.

Ergo: I find the basic premise of your question impossible flawed.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Sid James said:


> ^^Well I go by the track record of a composer or performer etc until now. The Beatles started in the early 1960's, they started getting traction then, and their music is still known, they are among the 'classics' of their period. Similar to what I said about Lehar and Puccini in my post above. Same with Lloyd Webber, he started doing musicals in the early 1970's, and they are still being produced. I see him very much as like the successful opera or operetta composers of the past. Same as with Zappa for that matter, I can say the same things about him, except of course he's dead, but I don't see him as being less popular now than when he was alive.
> 
> So I can only go by what's happened until now. I can't gaze into a crystal ball like some gypsy. The bottom line is that there's no need to create dichotomies here, yet again. My view is as I said, the good stuff is likely to survive, that's whats tended to happen throughout the history of music, whether popular or classical or whatever.
> 
> The other issue is that in my view, classical's glory days or golden days are over. FAce it, the people on this forum know more post 1945 classical than many classical listeners out there. At least that's my impression based on my experience. So I don't know how viable classical will be. I'd agree that swing music is not as popular as in its heyday but as I said, the standards written then are still covered by jazz and even rock and crossover type performers. Maybe classical will be like swing - or operetta for that matter, a dead artform if there ever was one, no new operettas have been made for ages - the standards live on but as for it being a living art, well its less than now than it was say before 1945. Its a related issue but going on off a bit of a tangent.


Yep, pretty much would agree with what your saying - maybe my crystal ball is less cloudy or I know the right gypsy or even Grand Wazoo!

But Lord Lloyd Webber- na, I just can't go there


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Statistically, I would say, just off the top of my head mind you, that it is approximately 37.478% easier to make rock music than classical.


Next question.


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Not to speak of after 1945, a lot of non classical has endured. The Beatles are one, and Elvis, Hendrix, Janis Joplin and people like that who died 40 or so years ago are still known and considered legends, basically. & look at people like Quincy Jones who has worked with so many of the top names in non classical over the last half century. Is his legacy nothing, is it worth less than someone like Elliott Carter, or Bernstein, or Boulez? I don't think so, its just different music.


Nah, sorry, but 40 years is not long enough. The critical time filter is when there is no-one left alive who remembers these performers. There are plenty of 60-year-old women around who still nurse a teenage crush on Paul McCartney. 
Remember, what has triumphed of classical is composers, not performers. I don't deny that there are a handful of jazz classics - as composed songs - that will endure, but it's going to be a tiny subset of the whole.
Now "modern music" (say post-1920s popular/jazz) has the massive advantage of a recorded legacy, which all the sopranos for whom Mozart wrote his arias don't; so to some extent it will always exist, but it will be a specialist subset.
As for the Beatles, or Hendrix - still popular in 100 years? Forget it. No chance. 2 or 3 songs of each might still be 'covered' by the pop singers of 2100, But that's it.
Heck, these days, we don't even play all of Rossini's operas any more, never mind guys like Meyerbeer and Raff, who were the big stars of their time.
GG


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

PetrB said:


> No matter 'how sophisticated,' to me, anyway, Rock has got to be somehow primal, and sounds -- no matter how 'set' -- as on the spot improvised music.
> 
> The relative harmonic vocabularies do not necessarily make for a ready distinction of 'simple / difficult,' either. Languages with a far lesser number of words rely to a great degree on their contextual use, which in itself is another sort of 'mental sophistication,' yet often, when a native speaker of the more 'complicated' languages which do have a huge number of words pick up a 'simpler language,' after first finding it simple, the learner begins to realize how 'beyond clever' is that contextual use.
> 
> ...


How come, doesn't the stuff for making good chord progressions etc. in classical make for good chord progressions in rock? Btw do you compose? You don't have to develop it much even, just repeat it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peterh said:


> How come, doesn't the stuff for making good chord progressions etc. in classical make for good chord progressions in rock? Btw do you compose? You don't have to develop it much even, just repeat it.


Despite the commonly held mistaken notion that all music is about 'chord progressions,' that is not the primary _modus operandi_ of classical composers, regardless if they are more a harmonic or contrapuntal composer.

"Chord Progressions," as a criteria or rudder, is drastically reductive.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Yep, pretty much would agree with what your saying - maybe my crystal ball is less cloudy or I know the right gypsy or even Grand Wazoo!
> 
> But Lord Lloyd Webber- na, I just can't go there
> View attachment 13950


Have to agree: Lady Gaga studied for a while at Juilliard, doesn't make anything she does 'classical.'

Ditto for lord Weber's works....


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

GraemeG said:


> Nah, sorry, but 40 years is not long enough. The critical time filter is when there is no-one left alive who remembers these performers. There are plenty of 60-year-old women around who still nurse a teenage crush on Paul McCartney.
> Remember, what has triumphed of classical is composers, not performers. I don't deny that there are a handful of jazz classics - as composed songs - that will endure, but it's going to be a tiny subset of the whole.
> Now "modern music" (say post-1920s popular/jazz) has the massive advantage of a recorded legacy, which all the sopranos for whom Mozart wrote his arias don't; so to some extent it will always exist, but it will be a specialist subset.
> As for the Beatles, or Hendrix - still popular in 100 years? Forget it. No chance. 2 or 3 songs of each might still be 'covered' by the pop singers of 2100, But that's it.
> ...


Well as I said, I'm loathe to use dodgy crystal ball techniques. But maybe you have a (implied?) point. Rock has to speak to its time, so its the 'here and now.' As other non classical genres. But I'd say as a whole, the golden days of classical are over, probably of jazz too and musicals. So if I was gazing into a crystal ball, I see classical as being museum piece, basically. Already appears to be to many listeners. I don't think that's a problem, I'm just saying that as a fact.

Re Rossini and Raff or Meyerbeer, even with the 'greats' you mainly get warhorses and bums on seats programming anyway. So a lot of us rely on recordings to listen to what we want anyway. Does it matter whether its with jazz, classical, rock, pop, whatever? Everything has a use by date at one stage. I say this with a negative mindset, I like a good deal of post 1945 musics. But if we are to say certain non classical things become museum piece or only for a handful of enthusiasts, lets get real here. Classical went that way ages ago. & I don't even lay blame at composers after 1945, I lay blame on guys like Wagner, who got many into the mindset that highbrow automatically means its better than the rest, no matter that the quality of the rest is just as good, just not as profound or whatever.

There are many issues I'm unpacking here. All it boils down to for me is that people apply one standard to the music they like and others to the music they don't. Doesn't add up if you apply basic logic. But who cares? Its fun to gaze into imaginary crystal balls but I just enjoy the here and now. Of classical, of the other genres, good music is good music, no matter what it is. The longevity/posterity thing is a smokescreen imo.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Nah, sorry, but 40 years is not long enough. The critical time filter is when there is no-one left alive who remembers these performers. There are plenty of 60-year-old women around who still nurse a teenage crush on Paul McCartney. 
Remember, what has triumphed of classical is composers, not performers. I don't deny that there are a handful of jazz classics - as composed songs - that will endure, but it's going to be a tiny subset of the whole.

The problem with your logic is that you are arguing for the inherent superiority of music "recorded" by it's being written down in a score vs recorded mechanically using sound recording technology. There is no logical reason for anyone to accept this.

Now "modern music" (say post-1920s popular/jazz) has the massive advantage of a recorded legacy, which all the sopranos for whom Mozart wrote his arias don't; so to some extent it will always exist, but it will be a specialist subset.

Really? You imagine that Stockhausen, Philip Glass, Xenakis, John Cage, etc... will retain a far larger audience 100 years from now than Duke Ellington, Miles Davis... or the Beatles? Somehow I doubt it. The reality is that Classical Music as a whole is a specialist subset of the whole of music sold and listened to. Of that subset, what percentage of the audience that listens to Classical music listens to Opera, Lieder, Medieval Chant, Baroque Choral works?

As for the Beatles, or Hendrix - still popular in 100 years? Forget it. No chance. 2 or 3 songs of each might still be 'covered' by the pop singers of 2100, But that's it.
Heck, these days, we don't even play all of Rossini's operas any more, never mind guys like Meyerbeer and Raff, who were the big stars of their time.

Some big stars last... because they continue to resonate with subsequent generations (Beethoven, Mozart, Wagner) and some fade away because they fail the test of time. You seem ready to dismiss the possibility of the survival of the recordings of certain popular works of music... in spite of the fact that we already see subsequent generations picking up and appreciating certain works/artists. So with your powers of divination, what music of the last 50-75 years do you imagine will survive?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I like a good deal of post 1945 musics. But if we are to say certain non classical things become museum piece or only for a handful of enthusiasts, lets get real here. Classical went that way ages ago. & I don't even lay blame at composers after 1945, I lay blame on guys like Wagner, who got many into the mindset that highbrow automatically means its better than the rest, no matter that the quality...

Is there anything you don't blame on Wagner? Do you honestly believe that the majority of other classical composers were populists hanging out at the local pubs and listening to jigs played on a rusty accordion?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

No one will be listening to the Beatles in a hundred years - don't delude yourself... the Magical Mystery Tour will be dead within 50 years! Just like Andrew Lloyd Weber's stuff!!

Now Zappa that would be different lol

Nobody listens to Zappa now. He's already dead.


----------



## Tero (Jun 2, 2012)

I had this conversation once. I calculated that a 3 minute Beatles song was worth a 15 minute Vivaldi concerto. Probably took the same time to write, except Vivaldi had to pay a copyist to clean it up for selling. But the Beatles song had lyrics.

A rock/pop song consists of song with lyrics and chords. That is what the writing credit is for. For a n instrumental tune you may get three writers.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Nobody listens to Zappa now. He's already dead.


He may be dead, but you're out of touch. There are more people listening to Zappa now than when he was alive.

And there are many more musicians playing Zappa music these days. If you listen beyond the poodles, yellow snow, and valley girls, you'll find a lot of brilliant music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Re the original question: No doubt that it's easier to make rock music. Simpler medium, less technical knowledge, fewer skills. But... *successful *rock music? Now that's different...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Escher's image speaks volumes to this thead, I think. I gaze into my crystal ball (trying to predict the future?) and see...myself.










Its funny how when you read about classical musicians, jazz musicians, rock musicians, they've inevitably got their favourite musicians from the other side of the fence. They tend not to say one genre is better than the other, just different. But when it comes to fans, its a totally different ballgame altogether. We got to maintain those fences, its very important isn't it? Well not to everyone, but to some it is. Nothing wrong with it, maybe its even human nature in a way to have these tribes, but I personally got little time for it. I see more connections there, after all whatever it is, its all music, right?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The question posed in the thread title is based on generalizations. It assumes rock music is simple by nature, and that the question "how much easier is it?" has a definitive answer. 

Same for the question "are rock musicians less talented than the average composer?" What rock musicians are we referring to? Who is an average composer? And is talent all it takes to create more sophisticated music? Talent only goes so far without knowledge.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

On my end, I've got about three songs I feel completely comfortable with and proud of yet I've got dozens of sonatinas and fantasies for piano that I have composed and would play live with no problem. 

I find it much more difficult to make something happen with only four chords going round and round than it is to have a complete world of possibilities with sounds as one has with writing say, a symphony. If you can't understand that then you probably don't play music. 

The dude that thinks music is going to change so much in 87 years that we won't recognize it, I'll be in your rest home blaring Helter Skelter and If 6 Was 9 at the turn of the century!


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

Why can't you make rock a world of possibilities though?

I like this band called Sleepytime Gorilla Museum. It seems to me that there aren't really riffs in there songs, so much as motifs that develop like classical. With the constant forward motion of rock they can't develop them as much as classical, but it's somewhere between motifs and riffs. Would recommend (warning, this band is pretty strange.): 
Dig the contrast of bass and flute melodies at 3:25 in this one:
http://grooveshark.com/#!/s/The+Don...Of+Humanity+Opens+The+Discussion/31tu5y?src=5

I like the violin melody that seems different then the main melody at 4:50 in this one:
http://grooveshark.com/#!/s/FC+The+Freedom+Club/31tvjV?src=5

BTW what kind of rock songs are those three songs?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ....Lloyd Webber... is ... classically trained & uses many classical techniques, so I see him as classical.


Classically trained + uses many classical techniques -- Ergo = classical?

Talk about a false syllogism


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Hire a drummer, grab a guitar, raise your voice and ... your favorite Rock song is ready!
BTW the average 40s singer has more appeal to me than the beatles.

If you talk about progressive rock or Jazz Fusion, they must be harder but composing/playing them simply can't be harder than a symphony.


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

> How much easier is is it to make rock then classical?


Who cares? Joy Division's songs are very simple, but I'd much rather listen to them than most music.


----------



## Bargeon (Feb 21, 2013)

It took me a week to learn the bass part for Bach's Bouree from the Lute Suite but it took me 2 weeks to learn Paul McCartney's bass line for Something.

From this I conclude that it must be easier to make Classical than rock


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

It took me 2 hours to mutilate Wagner's requiem but took me 2.5 hours to mutilate Black Sabbath's paranoid!


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

arsakes said:


> hire a drummer, grab a guitar, raise your voice and ... Your favorite rock song is ready!
> Btw the average 40s singer has more appeal to me than the beatles.
> 
> If you talk about progressive rock or jazz fusion, they must be harder but composing/playing them simply can't be harder than a symphony.


*Hey you forgot tight leather pants ,messy long hair,sunglases, drugs,alcohol and groupies!*


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Re the original question: No doubt that it's easier to make rock music. Simpler medium, less technical knowledge, fewer skills. But... *successful *rock music? Now that's different...


What do you mean successful? Financially? Quality?


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

kv466 said:


> I find it much more difficult to make something happen with only four chords going round and round than it is to have a complete world of possibilities with sounds as one has with writing say, a symphony. If you can't understand that then you probably don't play music.


Could you elaborate as to why exactly it is more difficult to make something happen?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

peterh said:


> ...I..think that composers of times past would pretty easily be able to create the average (rock) song...


Rock & pop music is based on gestures of a performance, not structural harmonic complexity or notated scores.

Also, recorded sound and mixers enable us to create music based on sounds & textures that would be impossible to create in performance.

For example, it would be impossible to make the cowbell the loudest sound in a composition without mixers and close-miking.

*MORE COWBELL!!*


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

millionrainbows said:


> Rock & pop music is based on gestures of a performance, not structural harmonic complexity or notated scores.
> 
> Also, recorded sound and mixers enable us to create music based on sounds & textures that would be impossible to create in performance.
> 
> ...


I think you generalise too much here "not structural harmonic complexity or notated scores", they are many how have if fact done this in the rock area namely Frank Zappa for one but more generally prog rock bands and cross over groups from jazz and classical world too.


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Rock & pop music is based on gestures of a performance, not structural harmonic complexity or notated scores.
> 
> Also, recorded sound and mixers enable us to create music based on sounds & textures that would be impossible to create in performance.
> 
> ...


What do you mean "gestures of a performance?"


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

I've decided there is no hope I will ever be a decent composer (it takes me too long to draw the treble clef perfectly on the stave lines) but I'm still planning to be a heavy metal medieval lute rocker (once I get my busking licence lol). Yes yes.... you raise your eyebrows at that, but isn't that just sheer originality? 

I do love some rock music (not the commercial formulaic fodder penned by record label in-house writers or talentless teenage rock star wannabes), although I don't tend to go around asking myself: "who is more talented....Buddy Miller or Beethoven? 

I tend to see rock musicians with respect in their own right. They are in a different field than say classical composers or performers. Composers don't tend to perform their own music; rock musicians like the very original Sixteen Horsepower or Wovenhand, conceive their music and lyrics ...from the penning of the music, to the performance. This takes a huge sweep of artistry. Whereas composers focus on their niche area of composition; and their respective performers on performing; the best of rock musicians undertake both.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

^ Who needs a treble clef anyway - Tonality Yuk....................:devil:


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

True .... I'm still using the alto clef :lol:

This is terrible - I picked up a classical guitar this week and have been reciting: 

" Every Body Gets Drunk At Easter" until I'm completely pissed off with the guitar :lol:


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

Head_case said:


> although I don't tend to go around asking myself: "who is more talented....Buddy Miller or Beethoven?


Why not? They're both genres of music that use the same basic principles and can be judged based on harmony and melody and things.


----------



## Head_case (Feb 5, 2010)

peterh said:


> Why not? They're both genres of music that use the same basic principles and can be judged based on harmony and melody and things.


Maybe because as soon as I ask the question, I lose my faculty of appreciation, and instead, operate on an intellectual level, instead of enjoying the music on a listening level.

This is the effect of judgement...and applying conceptual frameworks of thinking, onto music, which is essentially, aural, or sensory.


----------



## mwtzzz (Apr 1, 2013)

Classical music prior to the late 1800s was fairly simple in a harmonic sense. With the arrival of French and Russian impressionist composers, the harmonies became more complex, and with such composers in the 20th century as Schoenberg, Prokofiev, and Bartok the theory of harmony evolved even greater.

So if you compare any type of popular music, such as rock, to the early classical music, the complexity is about the same. if you compare rock to "modern classical" or jazz, then rock is usually quite a bit simpler.

But it should be said that in our modern day and age, most forms of popular music will sometimes incorporate other musical elements. An example of this would be the 70s group Sea Level which was a combination of rock and jazz, which of course makes it more complicated than you're run-of-the-mill rock group.

--

http://www.michael--martinez.com/music/


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

Head_case said:


> Maybe because as soon as I ask the question, I lose my faculty of appreciation, and instead, operate on an intellectual level, instead of enjoying the music on a listening level.
> 
> This is the effect of judgement...and applying conceptual frameworks of thinking, onto music, which is essentially, aural, or sensory.


We often do it composer to composer, I don't see why we can't do it musician to musician. I don't think people would have a problem asking the question about Hemingway and Tolstoy. Despite being vastly different styles they are in the same medium. Sure it's not a necessary question, but fine to simply contemplate, and in doing so may find new ways of thinking about the two genres.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mwtzzz said:


> Classical music prior to the late 1800s was fairly simple in a harmonic sense. With the arrival of French and Russian impressionist composers, the harmonies became more complex, and with such composers in the 20th century as Schoenberg, Prokofiev, and Bartok the theory of harmony evolved even greater.
> 
> So if you compare any type of popular music, such as rock, to the early classical music, the complexity is about the same. if you compare rock to "modern classical" or jazz, then rock is usually quite a bit simpler.


From a classical perspective, this just isn't true. You're looking at it from a Jazz perspective, where the complexity of the harmony is related to the voicings and types of chords, whereas classical theorists look at the diversity of chord relations in a piece.

A rock song may use only major and minor triads with the occasional seventh, and while the same may be said for Mozart, in practice, the treatment is far different, with Mozart making use of a richer use of diatonic triads as well as secondary dominants and modulations.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> From a classical perspective, this just isn't true. You're looking at it from a Jazz perspective, where the complexity of the harmony is related to the voicings and types of chords, whereas classical theorists look at the diversity of chord relations in a piece.
> 
> A rock song may use only major and minor triads with the occasional seventh, and while the same may be said for Mozart, in practice, the treatment is far different, with Mozart making use of a richer use of diatonic triads as well as secondary dominants and modulations.


Have you ever listened to Zappa - Triad overload, diatonic triads, 7ths, triplets, tonal/atonal, ever concievable time signature and then some more, upbeats you name it.

Take Peaches En Regalia. The major theme of the piece starts on the B in the middle of the staff, rises to the fourth space E and then down to the second space A. The melody then takes a leap up to the fourth line D and then briefly reaches the highest note in the melody, fourth space E, after which it descends to middle C. And that is rock and roll but not as we know it?

I could go on but I wont......


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Have you ever listened to Zappa - Triad overload, diatonic triads, 7ths, triplets, tonal/atonal, ever concievable time signature and then some more, upbeats you name it.
> 
> Take Peaches En Regalia. The major theme of the piece starts on the B in the middle of the staff, rises to the fourth space E and then down to the second space A. The melody then takes a leap up to the fourth line D and then briefly reaches the highest note in the melody, fourth space E, after which it descends to middle C. And that is rock and roll but not as we know it?
> 
> I could go on but I wont......


I'm referring to the typical rock song, which Zappa certainly is not. Of course you're right that there are exceptions, but my whole point was that rock is not generally known for any kind of harmonic complexity, in the classical or the jazz sense (and Zappa was influenced by both).

Not that it matters, because rock music is not meant to be judged by the same criteria as classical or jazz.


----------



## Jord (Aug 13, 2012)

I write some of my own classical music occasionally, i'm in the middle of writing a few unfinished pieces at the minute, it's frustrating, tiring, and very time consuming, however i could write a rock or metal song within an hour, the structures are generally much simpler, there isn't as much harmony, usually it's just playing 5th's most of the time, a bass line, and then the drums. That's most standard rock and metal songs, however prog is much harder to write than standard rock and metal, like symphony x or dream theatre, it's still not as hard as composing classical music, but it's still easy but that may be because i've been playing rock and metal my whole life so it comes more naturally than classical music


----------



## Ryan (Dec 29, 2012)

I heard it's at least 16 times more easier to get into classical than it is rock.


----------



## niv (Apr 9, 2013)

Like some people said before, effort is very relative. Different genres or pieces of music require different skills, provoke different moods, have differing qualities, have different creation and interpretation processes involving people with different roles... and we must not forget that art is rarely created on a vaccuum: it's almost always based on something preexistent. It does not take the same effort to play a generic rock'n'roll nowadays, in 2013, than what Little Richards (to give an example) did, even if it might seem technically simple: Little Richards created a new sound (based on previous ground, but still, what he created was new), which provoked a new wild mood in people. And that required a little bit of composition, a little bit of interpretation, and a lot of imagination. Compare that to the effort that the Emerson String Quartet made when playing (and arranging) the Art Of Fugue (to give an example). Very different skills involved (I'm leaving Bach out of the equation, but you can add him if you want). Very different purpose. Very different results. Different effects on the history of music. 

To reduce all that to the question of quantifiable and comparable "effort", IMHO, it's very hard, very simplistic, very futile.


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

Jord said:


> I write some of my own classical music occasionally, i'm in the middle of writing a few unfinished pieces at the minute, it's frustrating, tiring, and very time consuming, however i could write a rock or metal song within an hour, the structures are generally much simpler, there isn't as much harmony, usually it's just playing 5th's most of the time, a bass line, and then the drums.


But what about the vocal melody? That's the most important part of the whole song because it provides like 2/3rds of the melodic content, and you need at least 2 good ones (verse/chorus).


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

Ive got a question, given that rock obviously doesn't follow a lot of the rules of harmony, the way the voicings don't follow classical rules a lot, the interaction between the chords and vocal melody doesn't follow classical rules etc. the various parts don't interlock. Like the vocal melody generally floats on top of the instrumental backing which is how it's supposed to be i'm not saying that's bad, just different. But would this mean that Rock would have a different harmonic language then classical, because sometimes a simple i iv v progression in a song i'm writing doesn't have the effect I would expect given music theory in the overall song, and I have to fiddle around with different progressions and strumming patterns etc. to get it to feel right.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

It is not only 'unfair' to compare stuff to Beethoven, it is unfair to both Beethoven and that which you are comparing to Beethoven.

Writing anything really 'good,' and especially within a genre where far more similarities than differences abound between one writer to another (by way of that named limitation of the simple format) is anything but 'easy.'

Of course it takes more time to invent and write out, orchestrate a three or four movement symphony, especially when you are determined to cover almost fully new ground.

But the time it takes is moot. "It takes just as much time to make a small table as it does to make a large table" is somewhat apt as to your question, 'is one easier than the other?'

Are we to name 'that which is expected' of either sort of composer as 'difficult?' 
The pop composer is held to making something fresh and 'great' in a very restricted format.
The classical composer is expected to have a distinct 'voice' readily distinguished from others, and to write a very different 'original' work from one piece to the next.

This is a question, I think, with no concrete or supportable 'good' answer! But I'll go out on a limb and say, 'no, it is not easier at all.'


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2013)

peterh said:


> sometimes a simple i iv v progression in a song i'm writing doesn't have the effect I would expect given music theory in the overall song, and I have to fiddle around with different progressions and strumming patterns etc. to get it to feel right.


I'm puzzled. Are you writing 'rock' for any particular purpose - such as attempting a study of the similarities and differences between 'rock' and 'classical'? And when you use the term 'rock', do you mean to include everything from Bill Haley to Rammstein?

Your questions seem to reflect a desire to write a rock song (you're keen on vocals, so I'm assuming rock instrumentals are not up for analysis) that conforms to a traditional classical structure as if it were a symphony by Haydn or a concerto by Beethoven. Why?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

peterh said:


> Ive got a question, given that rock obviously doesn't follow a lot of the rules of harmony, the way the voicings don't follow classical rules a lot, the interaction between the chords and vocal melody doesn't follow classical rules etc. the various parts don't interlock. Like the vocal melody generally floats on top of the instrumental backing which is how it's supposed to be i'm not saying that's bad, just different. But would this mean that Rock would have a different harmonic language then classical, because sometimes a simple i iv v progression in a song i'm writing doesn't have the effect I would expect given music theory in the overall song, and I have to fiddle around with different progressions and strumming patterns etc. to get it to feel right.


Rock music probably won't make a lot of sense to you if you are trying to "think" it through or construct it in a similar way to Classical music. It's more of a "feel" kind of music. A lot of it is based on the rhythms. A good way to learn how to do it is (if you can play an instrument) - learn how to play a few songs in the style you are going for, then go from there.

I think it is far easier to write a mediocre rock song than a mediocre classical piece. To write something very good in either genre is very difficult. It seems that a lot of the rock artists who do write quality stuff often have little control over when their good stuff comes, and when they get past their prime most don't realize it. (Every artist seems to think their latest work is their "best" work). The creative process is a strange thing. For the few who actually are consistently good at it, I don't think it is generally a very difficult thing for them at all.


----------



## hello (Apr 5, 2013)

I can strum open chords and drum my belly and make rock music.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I can jot down some 5 quarter-notes on a piece of paper and have created a composition.

So, a better question would be, "How much easier is is it to make good rock then good classical?".


----------



## peterh (Mar 10, 2012)

hello said:


> I can strum open chords and drum my belly and make rock music.
> 
> ON THE OTHER HAND, I can jot down some 5 quarter-notes on a piece of paper and have created a composition.
> 
> So, a better question would be, "How much easier is is it to make good rock then good classical?".


I think that's the implied question.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Can you define "good" then


----------

