# Why do people from Classical world hate "popular" music?



## PresenTense

I've seen a lot of snobs out there saying things like: "Popular music is so repetitive and boring. Classical is way more complex and not for everyone." I mean, I know popular music is repetitive but that doesn't mean it is bad, does it? We have great bands like Radiohead or electronic musicians that are really good like Aphex Twin. We all know classical music is way more complex, but that doesn't mean that popular music is for idiots or something like that. What do you think about this? :lol:


----------



## Ingélou

I think you'll find that you can't lump all lovers of classical music together. On this forum there is a sub-forum based on non-classical music (where in fact this thread appears! ) and plenty of members, including me, who post on it and write about their tastes in popular music as well as jazz or folk or whatever. 

Naturally there are snobs on Talk Classical as there are in the world in general - and there are also people who don't like pop music and give their reasons, civilly, for preferring classical music. These two groups are not the same.

For myself, I like most types of music. I still like the pop music of the 60s - my era - but am simply not interested in later pop music. There are plenty who are, though. I like folk music best, followed by classical music, but I don't hate other musics, let alone hate the people who enjoy them. 

I hope you meet some congenial people on Talk Classical and enjoy some good discussions about pop music and classical music - whatever floats your boat.


----------



## helenora

well, I don't hate, but I just find anything else than classic music to be rather shallow....at least listening to it for hours without getting bored ....so, am I typical classic music lover according to some descriptions ? 

but as for pop music especially Latin America rhythms can be a great choice for dance. So, here we are , music as a function , otherwise classical music transcends any functions and goes beyond....pure music.


----------



## Art Rock

helenora said:


> well, I don't hate, but I just find anything else than classic music to be rather shallow....at least listening to it for hours without getting bored ....so, am I typical classic music lover according to some descriptions ?


No, this is just your personal taste, and expressed as such.


----------



## SixFootScowl

I am hugely into classical and opera but also have a lot of non-classical, but most of it falls among a handful of artists who are among the very best such as Johnny Cash (maybe 20 disks), Neil Young (about 35 disks), Johnny Winter (probably 100 disks), and Bob Dylan (maybe 50-70 disks).


----------



## Art Rock

This "snobby" opinion is not unique to classical music by the way. There are lots of people who tend to believe that the music they love more than anything else has to be "objectively" the best. It is not.

I have seen similar reactions on classic rock forums versus modern pop/rock, and on progressive rock forums versus classic rock to name but two. I'm sure the same thing can be found on jazz forums, hiphop forums, etc.


----------



## Barbebleu

I wouldn't say that the music of John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Ornette Coleman, Joni Mitchell, Ani Di Franco, Richard Thompson, Bob Dylan, Keith Jarret, and many other non-classical musicians could be in any way be construed as shallow. As much as I love my classical "heroes" and can spend hours listening to them, I have no problem spending just as many hours in the illustrious company of all of the aforementioned artists.


----------



## GreenMamba

In fairness, there are many more popular music fans who hate Classical. So it works both ways.

EDIT: and, of course, many people who like some pop but despise other pop, and can sound quite "snobbish" while doing so.


----------



## norman bates

As Ingélou says, you can't say "classical listeners" as they (but "they" here is "we", actually) all think the same way.
A thing that should be said is that while in classical music popularity and quality tend to go together, in pop music is often the opposite and the best popular music isn't very well known. It's not always like this obviously, but I can understand why especially a casual listener can have a very low opinion of popular music.


----------



## Chordalrock

Classical music in general is very abstract: it is instrumental music (not about words, not about your singing voice), it is absolute music (no program, not background, no social context), and it usually doesn't matter that much what instruments you use for a piece of classical music (as long as those instruments have comparable note decay and other capabilities). Even when classical music involves singing, it is singing where the human voice is treated as just another instrument, and having purely instrumental arrangements of classical vocal music is relatively common.

In striking contrast, pop music isn't abstract at all. It is about words and voice and singing. People wouldn't dream of listening to purely instrumental versions of their favorite pop songs. Often you can't even change the singer - or even have a different performance by the same singer - you have to have the original studio recording. It's about personalities, it's about voices, it's about words, it's about how it is sung, and it can be about other things, but it's usually not all that much about music as such. 

So it's small wonder why some people would see pop music as not even in the same category with classical music in terms of "music as art".


----------



## Taggart

Weird or what. I've just been on an ITM site reading a similar thread from a folk perspective. Same sort of perspectives - ear vs dots; limited range of technique does not imply simplicity and so forth.

Interesting that we have such a divide. In 18th century Scotland it was all music. Some was art music, some was folk music but the same people played it *and *wrote it. Now pop culture is so limited that it has little in common with high culture.


----------



## DavidA

Preferring classical music does not make one a snob unless you're trying to indulge in one-upmanship. I can listen to some popular music but largely prefer classical. My son who is a professional musician plays exclusively pop. Just a matter of taste.


----------



## Manxfeeder

PresenTense said:


> I've seen a lot of snobs out there saying things like: "Popular music is so repetitive and boring.


I guess it depends on what you define as popular. If you're referring to the pop music genre, in my experience, pop music is designed to be heard easily and sickened of quickly so that you will move on to the next popular piece. It is more of a consumer-based approach. When you get into more art-informed music of whatever genre, it lends itself to more sustained listening.

In the example you gave, I would think Radiohead leans more toward the art-informed than the popular.


----------



## Guest

Manxfeeder said:


> I guess it depends on what you define as popular.


Quite. The term is often used pejoratively to refer to a specific variety of pop(ular), or to all varieties of popular without distinguishing between, for example, metal, alt, punk etc.



Chordalrock said:


> In striking contrast, pop music isn't abstract at all. It is about words and voice and singing. People wouldn't dream of listening to purely instrumental versions of their favorite pop songs. Often you can't even change the singer - or even have a different performance by the same singer - you have to have the original studio recording. It's about personalities, it's about voices, it's about words, it's about how it is sung, and it can be about other things, but it's usually not all that much about music as such.
> 
> So it's small wonder why some people would see pop music as not even in the same category with classical music in terms of "music as art".


As Manxfeeder says, it depends what you define as popular. There's been plenty of 'popular' that is instrumental, nor about 'words', or 'people' (not sure what this means) or 'how it is sung'.

I'm tempted to ask the OP to explain a little further, but I'm getting used to folks dropping by, sowing a seed of discord and then never returning, so I'm not expecting a response.


----------



## Morimur

PresenTense said:


> I've seen a lot of snobs out there saying things like: "Popular music is so repetitive and boring."


That sounds like one of mine and I _snobbishly_ stand by it.


----------



## zhopin

Most of my music consists of either classical or jazz, but on occasions I do listen to "popular" music, as in Bob Marley, several famous bands of classic rock and rock... But I _cannot_ stand current pop, and I know many people (not fans of the classical genre) that feel the same. For me, it's not just its repetition and simplicity, but the lyrics as well... As for Radiohead, I do like their song Creep - probably their most famous song, anyway.


----------



## Guest

zhopin said:


> I _cannot_ stand current pop, and I know many people (not fans of the classical genre) that feel the same. For me, it's not just its repetition and simplicity, but the lyrics as well.


How much are you forcing yourself to listen to that you can make such a judgement? Let's take a look at a tiny proportion of 'popular' by seeing what the top 25 albums are so far this year as calculated by Metacritic.

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/best-albums-of-2016-at-midyear

How many of these (just the top 25 rated, note, not the whole output in the last 6 months) are you familiar with?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Chordalrock said:


> In striking contrast, pop music isn't abstract at all. It is about words and voice and singing. People wouldn't dream of listening to purely instrumental versions of their favorite pop songs. Often you can't even change the singer - or even have a different performance by the same singer - you have to have the original studio recording. It's about personalities, it's about voices, it's about words, it's about how it is sung, and it can be about other things, but it's usually not all that much about music as such.
> 
> So it's small wonder why some people would see pop music as not even in the same category with classical music in terms of "music as art".


Also consider how often you will see pop concerts where the audience is acting in a manner that looks very similar to that of some of the more lively church worship services. I don't recall that happening at classical concerts. I think this is an off shoot of the way that pop music is more an emotional music, whereas classical is more intellectual. Sure, I generalize, but for the majority of the music I think this holds true.


----------



## zhopin

MacLeod said:


> How many of these (just the top 25 rated, note, not the whole output in the last 6 months) are you familiar with?


Honestly, I do not listen to much at all and was only familiar with 6 of the 25 artists and 2 albums (Lemonade and Blackstar). You're right, I could probably listen to more of the genre to make such a judgment, but I haven't reached that point yet and maybe one day I'll be interested in doing so. 

Personally, I have a difficult time forcing myself to listen to it.


----------



## Morimur

zhopin said:


> Honestly, I do not listen to much at all and was only familiar with 6 of the 25 artists and 2 albums (Lemonade and Blackstar). You're right, I could probably listen to more of the genre to make such a judgment, but I haven't reached that point yet and maybe one day I'll be interested in doing so.
> 
> Personally, I have a difficult time forcing myself to listen to it.


You're not missing much.


----------



## Guest

MacLeod said:


> How much are you forcing yourself to listen to that you can make such a judgement? Let's take a look at a tiny proportion of 'popular' by seeing what the top 25 albums are so far this year as calculated by Metacritic.
> 
> http://www.metacritic.com/feature/best-albums-of-2016-at-midyear
> 
> How many of these (just the top 25 rated, note, not the whole output in the last 6 months) are you familiar with?


That was a bit of an education. I've heard of 5 of the 25; probably the oldest five names. Not really surprising though, my preferences have usually been away from the mainstream.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> You're not missing much.


Someone else who either forces himself to listen to music he despises...or doesn't listen to music he despises and so knows nothing of its worth?


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> That was a bit of an education. I've heard of 5 of the 25; probably the oldest five names. Not really surprising though, my preferences have usually been away from the mainstream.


Same here. Every year I check out the Metacritic music of the year to see if there's anything new (to me) that might be worth exploring. I also check out the NME albums of the year - often differing from Metacritic quite significantly (and I mean content, not just the order of merit).

There's plenty of pop out there to hate, if only you gave yourself the time to listen to it!


----------



## Morimur

MacLeod said:


> Someone else who either forces himself to listen to music he despises...or doesn't listen to music he despises and so knows nothing of its worth?


MacLeod - might you consider changing your name to 'Oracle' since you _obviously_ know men (and their thoughts) better than they know themselves?

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## zhopin

MacLeod said:


> There's plenty of pop out there to hate, if only you gave yourself the time to listen to it!


As they say, keep your friends close and your enemies closer... I should probably listen to more genres I dislike - it never hurts to be well-rounded. That being said, it also never hurts to turn that music off.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Just because popular music is repetitive (and not in a good way) and boring, it does not mean that music lovers who say it is so are snobs. I don't like the smell of poop because well, it smells awful. Does that make me a smell snob?


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Just because popular music is repetitive (and not in a good way) and boring, it does not mean that music lovers who say it is so are snobs.


Quite true. One listener's repetition is another listener's subtle variation.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I don't like the smell of poop because well, it smells awful. Does that make me a smell snob?


it's a shame you undermine your first point with a depressing analogy that only serves to confirm the idea that too many who wish to dismiss pop are snobs: if it ain't classical, it's poop and I'm superior enough to smell the difference.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> MacLeod - might you consider changing your name to 'Oracle' since you _obviously_ know men (and their thoughts) better than they know themselves?
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:


When I know women's thoughts too, I might consider it.ut:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

MacLeod said:


> Quite true. One listener's repetition is another listener's subtle variation.
> 
> it's a shame you undermine your first point with a depressing analogy that only serves to confirm the idea that too many who wish to dismiss pop are snobs: if it ain't classical, it's poop and I'm superior enough to smell the difference.


Hey, how exactly did you read "if it ain't classical, it's poop" from my post? Are there only two musical genres? Classical and pop?

Also, there are obviously exceptions as there are some catchy pops songs but in general pop music is the musical equivalent of poop.


----------



## Lyricus

Chordalrock said:


> Often you can't even change the singer - or even have a different performance by the same singer - you have to have the original studio recording.


This is a brand-new concept, and not one that's rigorously enforced at that. It was common all throughout the 50s-60s for artists to cover each other. With the advent of album-oriented rock in the 70s, that started to go away, but pop artists still cover songs today, whether its Sinead O'Connoer covering Prince, Nirvana covering David Bowie, Adele covering The Cure, it happens all the time, and people still eat it up.


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Hey, how exactly did you read "if it ain't classical, it's poop" from my post? Are there only two musical genres? Classical and pop?


I didn't have to read it from your post...this thread is about people's opinions about classical snobbery wrt pop - not any other genre.



TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Also, there are obviously exceptions as there are some catchy pops songs but in general pop music is the musical equivalent of poop.


IYO of course. But I would bet that, like your fellows here who've also nailed their colours to the poop mast, you've only listened to a fraction of pop, or, bizzarely, you spend a lot of time listening to poop!


----------



## GreenMamba

zhopin said:


> For me, it's not just its repetition and simplicity, but the lyrics as well... As for Radiohead, I do like their song Creep - probably their most famous song, anyway.


A song loathed by the members of Radiohead. I suppose there are Radiohead "snobs" who sneer at people who like Creep.


----------



## Morimur

GreenMamba said:


> A song loathed by the members of Radiohead. I suppose there are Radiohead "snobs" who sneer at people who like Creep.


I don't get the fascination with Radiohead. Their fan-base seem to take pride in the perceived complexity and sophistication of the music-I simply don't hear it.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> I don't get the fascination with Radiohead. Their fan-base seem to take pride in the perceived complexity and sophistication of the music-I simply don't hear it.


Do they? I don't hear either 'complexity' or 'sophistication', but I'm a fan.


----------



## Morimur

MacLeod said:


> Do they? I don't hear either 'complexity' or 'sophistication', but I'm a fan.


Since 'OK Computer' was released-plenty do. But then it doesn't take much to come across as complex/sophisticated/innovative in the world of pop music. The kids think Gaga is 'avant-garde'! The costumes and visuals are certainly eye catchy but the music? Poop!

I should add: there's good pop music out there but it must be sought out. Is it still 'pop' if it's not popular? Who the hell knows.


----------



## GreenMamba

Morimur said:


> I don't get the fascination with Radiohead. Their fan-base seem to take pride in the perceived complexity and sophistication of the music-I simply don't hear it.


It isn't as cookie-cutter as much pop/rock. They're doing their own thing. Kid A was the first UK album to go #1 since the Spice Girls (~5 years), which was seen as a reason for optimism in the pop world.

If you don't expect it to be complex buy our CM standards, then it can be quite satisfying.


----------



## zhopin

MacLeod said:


> Do they? I don't hear either 'complexity' or 'sophistication', but I'm a fan.


I haven't listened to much Radiohead, in fact Creep is one of the only songs I am familiar with... But I have heard a few others and I think it's safe to say some of the music videos are sophisticated. I don't hear complexity, though.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> The kids think Gaga is 'avant-garde'!


Well the kids can hardly be expected to have your comprehensive knowledge of all that has gone before. As I illustrated earlier, there is much 'pop' out there...why must you cheapen your argument with reference to the same old same old? Whatever Lady Gaga's done to you, you needn't fell compelled to inflict your revenge on the rest of us.


----------



## zhopin

MacLeod said:


> Well the kids can hardly be expected to have your comprehensive knowledge of all that has gone before.


Must I mention that I am a 'kid' myself 

I'm currently attending high school!


----------



## Morimur

MacLeod said:


> Well the kids can hardly be expected to have your comprehensive knowledge of all that has gone before. As I illustrated earlier, there is much 'pop' out there...why must you cheapen your argument with reference to the same old same old? Whatever Lady Gaga's done to you, you needn't fell compelled to inflict your revenge on the rest of us.


That's what the 'Ignore' function is for, MacLeod. Go ahead, you won't hurt my feelings.

:tiphat:


----------



## Morimur

zhopin said:


> Must I mention that I am a 'kid' myself
> 
> I'm currently attending high school!


I am so sorry to hear that!


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> That's what the 'Ignore' function is for, MacLeod. Go ahead, you won't hurt my feelings.
> 
> :tiphat:


Why should I ignore you and let you roam free expressing your views about pop music unchallenged?


----------



## Morimur

MacLeod said:


> Why should I ignore you and let you roam free expressing your views about pop music unchallenged?


Do what thou wilt, then.


----------



## Guest

zhopin said:


> Must I mention that I am a 'kid' myself


It's not compulsory, no, but if you want to, that's fine by me. It might attract criticism from those who think school these days is a waste of time, so watch where you tread.


----------



## Morimur

Speaking of good pop, here's what I am listening to as we speak...










Hell of an album! Recommended.


----------



## zhopin

Morimur said:


> Speaking of good pop, here's what I am listening to as we speak...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell of an album! Recommended.


My father listens to Gram Parsons. Not bad.


----------



## GreenMamba

Morimur said:


> Speaking of good pop, here's what I am listening to as we speak...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell of an album! Recommended.


Two albums, technically. But yes, they are quite good.


----------



## PresenTense

zhopin said:


> I haven't listened to much Radiohead, in fact Creep is one of the only songs I am familiar with... But I have heard a few others and I think it's safe to say some of the music videos are sophisticated. I don't hear complexity, though.


Radiohead is not about complexity. When "Ok Computer" came out, lots of people said they were going to make a progressive rock album. Thom Yorke and the rest of the band said: we don't like progressive rock. They are not interested in being complex or something else among popular music. And if you want to relate to them, listen from Kid A to their last album. My favorite one is In Rainbows. I like all of their albums though


----------



## zhopin

PresenTense said:


> Radiohead is not about complexity.


I see, my bad. :tiphat:


----------



## Casebearer

PresenTense said:


> I've seen a lot of snobs out there saying things like: "Popular music is so repetitive and boring. Classical is way more complex and not for everyone." I mean, I know popular music is repetitive but that doesn't mean it is bad, does it? We have great bands like Radiohead or electronic musicians that are really good like Aphex Twin. We all know classical music is way more complex, but that doesn't mean that popular music is for idiots or something like that. What do you think about this? :lol:


I'm an all genre snob. I only like good music, regardless of genre. I think most music in most genres is boring, repetitive and/or uninteresting, including a whole lot of classical music, most of which is not that complex at all by the way. I also think in (probably) every genre there's good and interesting music to be found, it being more complex and interesting or not complex at all and interesting for other reasons. Being 'popular' music, popularity of the music, repetitiveness and simplicity or complexity really have not much bearing on the case.


----------



## Xenakiboy

By popular, do you mean doo ***, Surf rock, avant garde 70s groups, progressive rock, new age and ambient music? as in non-classical or literal pop? 

because if it's the latter, I love those genres, just not to the degree of my classical obsession... :lol: :tiphat:


----------



## zhopin

Xenakiboy said:


> By popular, do you mean doo ***, Surf rock, avant garde 70s groups, progressive rock, new age and ambient music? as in non-classical or literal pop?
> 
> because if it's the latter, I love those genres, just not to the degree of my classical obsession... :lol: :tiphat:


That's where I was confused. I'm sure many members here don't listen to strictly classical! :lol:


----------



## Guest

I think I must have missed where this became a thread about Radiohead. The OP used that band as an example of what s/he sees as the quality evident in 'popular' music, but presumably didn't intend the discussion to narrow its focus on whether Radiohead is or isn't 'complex'.

There is no doubt that some classical listeners reject pop music because it is not complex. Some reject it for other reasons (such as, apparently, it is 'poop'). However, a defence of pop does not need to be fought on the ground of 'complexity/simplicity' nor is pointing to Radiohead much of a defence of the value of pop music, any more than pointing to X's Symphony No 43 or Y's Great Piano Concerto is a defence of classical.

Setting aside the unresolved issue of a lack of a definition by the OP, I would argue that the segregation of music into genres is entirely needless. No one set out with the intention of creating distinct musics for distinct purposes* - this complex, that simple, this for the intellect, that for the emotions. The definition of genres occurred, SFAICS, for two reasons: marketing ("if you liked that, you'll also like this") and history ("and then prog came along, aping the forms of classical in a rejection of the simplicity/banality of the 3 minute pop-hit.").

(Oh, of course there is the third reason: to identify the 'other' and assume superiority over it. But this happens in all walks of life because of our tribal mentality and shouldn't give us cause for concern here.)

I can see how a record shop where the only classification is alphabetical might make it a challenge to find a particular artist or a particular type of music. Imagine having to soil your hands with all that Bach before you can get your hands on your beloved Beyonce! But this commercial imperative - make it easy for the customer to part with their money - should not be allowed to determine our attitudes to what is of value in music.

I happen to have been raised in a house where pop (in its widest sense) took precedence, but classical was present, and when I became that most desirable of teenagers (one with money) I spent it, and have continued to spend it, on everything from the O'Jays to Orff, Reparata to Radiohead, Elton John to Arvo Part, Spyrogyra to Shostakovich, Haydn to Holy F***...

I'm only human and will occasionally feel, and express distaste for some musics that I don't appreciate. But as has been said elsewhere, it ought to be sufficient to say that 'it doesn't speak to me' and no elaboration on complexity/simplicity (as if that were the only dimensions of music that mattered) is required.

There is so much music out there to enjoy that it's hardly surprising that many, perhaps most of us neglect those genres that don't have a compelling appeal - I've explored very little jazz or folk - but that does not entitle anyone to dismiss the unexplored. Earlier posts in this thread confirm the more general observation of the OP that there are folk who do think they are so entitled - not just to ignore but to insult that which they say they dislike, even as they admit to not giving it a listen.

Enough. Back to my headphones and my listening list, where I pick what I feel like listening to now on the basis that I feel like it, and will enjoy it, not on the basis of its being of value to someone else.

(* I should acknowledge that of course there were, and still are individual musicians and composers who set out to produce or play music with a specific purpose in mind, even very grand purposes, but my point was that no one set out to create a whole genre of 'classical' music or 'pop' music.)


----------



## Guest

For me one of the worst (or best?) examples of a label created just for marketing purposes is (was?!) World Music. WTF? I'll say that again, WTF?

Does it distinguish it from Non-World Music? Other-World Music? No, it was to market all that unsexy indigenous music that wasn't being appropriately exploited.


----------



## Dr Johnson

Where is Classical World? Near Carpet World?


----------



## Xenakiboy

I would also add the term "country music" makes me laugh :lol:

And since when wasn't music written and performed in a country?


----------



## Guest

stateless music


----------



## Xenakiboy

dogen said:


> stateless music


I love that music, who's your favourite Stateless Music singer and are they playing at the National Stateless Music Festival?


----------



## Ingélou

Xenakiboy said:


> I would also add the term "country music" makes me laugh :lol:
> 
> And since when wasn't music written and performed in a country?


What about folk music, then - since when did non-folk produce it?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

PresenTense said:


> I've seen a lot of snobs out there saying things like: "Popular music is so repetitive and boring. Classical is way more complex and not for everyone." I mean, I know popular music is repetitive but that doesn't mean it is bad, does it? We have great bands like Radiohead or electronic musicians that are really good like Aphex Twin. We all know classical music is way more complex, but that doesn't mean that popular music is for idiots or something like that. What do you think about this? :lol:


Well, you can insult CM listeners all you like, but whether you think I'm a snob or not is of no consequence to me.

Yes, I find a lot of popular music to be dull .... but I have no intention of insulting those who like to listen to Radiohead or any other form of music. You do what your ears want you to do ... and I'll do what mine enjoy


----------



## Lyricus

Xenakiboy said:


> I would also add the term "country music" makes me laugh :lol:
> 
> And since when wasn't music written and performed in a country?


Yeah, but that's not what "country" means. Likewise with "folk."


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

So wait a minute. We need a better definition of what pop music is then. When I was replying I had in mind Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Daft Punk, that kind of music. Today's top 40 or whatever list. 

Since when is Radiohead considered pop? Not that I like them much but I didn't have their music in mind when I posted.


----------



## Strange Magic

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> So wait a minute. We need a better definition of what pop music is then. When I was replying I had in mind Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Daft Punk, that kind of music. Today's top 40 or whatever list.
> 
> Since when is Radiohead considered pop? Not that I like them much but I didn't have their music in mind when I posted.


In geology, a rock formation is defined by a type section, an outcrop of the formation with a specific location that can be visited by other geologists and interested parties , to see for themselves its exhibited characteristics. Perhaps an international governing body can offer, say, three defining examples--left, right, and center, so to speak--of the several genres of "popular music". I think most already have a notion of some categories: C&W, Rap, Blues, Metal of various weights, Prog, Glam, Grunge, but it would be, at the least, interesting to see/hear a classification attempt of this sort. Perhaps "Pop" is the residue remaining when all of the defined categories are subtracted out of the mix. To a certain extent, Wikipedia's contributors attempt to identify and define these genres, but they vary with almost every entry. As listeners, we are torn somewhat between an urge to classify and an equally powerful urge to just concentrate on the music. I'm so confused.....


----------



## majlis

Personally, I don't hate populars. I strongly hate popular rubbish. Unfortunatelly, 95% of all popular music is that to me.


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> So wait a minute. We need a better definition of what pop music is then. When I was replying I had in mind Justin Bieber, Taylor Swift, Daft Punk, that kind of music. Today's top 40 or whatever list.
> 
> Since when is Radiohead considered pop? Not that I like them much but I didn't have their music in mind when I posted.


I agree we need a better definition, but if you'd read the OP, you'll have realised that we've been talking about the broadest definition of 'popular' which is why Radiohead have been under consideration.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

MacLeod said:


> I agree we need a better definition, but if you'd read the OP, you'll have realised that we've been talking about the broadest definition of 'popular' which is why Radiohead have been under consideration.


Ah true. OP mentions Radiohead but that really is such an inclusive list of sub-genres that I doubt many classical music lovers hate it in broad strokes. At least based on my experience it is the really popular trashy music (like I mention in post #62) that is usually thought of as pop music.

And for the record, I love a lot of non-classical music, such as artists like Pink Floyd, Dire Straits, Black Sabbath, Santana, Ray Charles, Genesis, the list goes on and on.


----------



## norman bates

I suspect that many here have a different idea of what popular music is. Someone here has mentioned Miles Davis, other think of pop music just as Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber or The beatles. And this is probably one of the reasons why it's difficult to understand each other here.


----------



## ilysse

My middle child is a snob against classical music. She listens to rap and...honestly I'm not sure what her preferred genre is... Eminem, Kevin Gates...I hate it. But I don't think that's being snobby I think we just grow to like a particular musical genre and we stick to it because we are comfortable with it. I listen to what I've grown up on. Heavily classical, a good dose of folk, a handful of popular music from the 60s to the early 90s and a light sprinkle of today's top 40 (mostly for my kids). I can appreciate that other people appreciate other music but I don't.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

ilysse said:


> My middle child is a snob against classical music. She listens to rap and...honestly I'm not sure what her preferred genre is... Eminem, Kevin Gates...I hate it. But I don't think that's being snobby I think we just grow to like a particular musical genre and we stick to it because we are comfortable with it. I listen to what I've grown up on. Heavily classical, a good dose of folk, a handful of popular music from the 60s to the early 90s and a light sprinkle of today's top 40 (mostly for my kids). I can appreciate that other people appreciate other music but I don't.


I can appreciate other people liking rap, just like other people liking reality TV shows, but I still think rap sucks big time and is not really worthy of being called music. And yes, there is nothing snobby about that.


----------



## SixFootScowl

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> I can appreciate other people liking rap, just like other people liking reality TV shows, but I still think rap sucks big time and is not really worthy of being called music. And yes, there is nothing snobby about that.


There are always exceptions. For example, what I like to call the original RAP song, is a masterpiece of this great musician:


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Florestan said:


> There are always exceptions. For example, what I like to call the original RAP song, is a masterpiece of this great musician:


Cool song but it ain't rap 

But I agree with your general statement that there are always exceptions.


----------



## regenmusic

I do not look at myself as culturally or politically conservative but I look at the amount of addicts and homeless today as being an outgrowth of a type of "mad pop culture" that rock and rap obviously typify. Sure, there were alcoholics and even a rare amount of addicts in the youth culture before the 1920s but it wasn't anywhere near the level it got to and stayed at since the 1960s. It's not that I don't like a lot of this music, it's just that I realize that it limits people's education and worldview to stop there.


----------



## SixFootScowl

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Cool song but it ain't rap


Sounds kind of RAPpish to me, but what do I know.


----------



## Casebearer

Xenakiboy said:


> By popular, do you mean doo ***, Surf rock, avant garde 70s groups, progressive rock, new age and ambient music? as in non-classical or literal pop?
> 
> because if it's the latter, I love those genres, just not to the degree of my classical obsession... :lol: :tiphat:


By 'popular' I mean music of the people (folk).


----------



## Casebearer

regenmusic said:


> I do not look at myself as culturally or politically conservative but I look at the amount of addicts and homeless today as being an outgrowth of a type of "mad pop culture" that rock and rap obviously typify. Sure, there were alcoholics and even a rare amount of addicts in the youth culture before the 1920s but it wasn't anywhere near the level it got to and stayed at since the 1960s. It's not that I don't like a lot of this music, it's just that I realize that it limits people's education and worldview to stop there.


I'd not be surprised if Theodor Adorno made similar comments on the rise of jazz in his days. He seemed to view jazz as a threat and form of regression in music.

I'm not sure addiction levels in the past were less than later one, especially when you would look at subcultures in music. Some stimulants may have even contributed to the development of music (if the addicts showed up of course).


----------



## Suganthan

I do like many of pop music irrespective of which generation they were from. Apart from the music, certain artists(even many talented ones) desperately wanting to get more views/fame/attraction/attention/whatnot using zeitgeist, beauty, gossips, social media, etc. instead concentrating on making better music, letting just that speak to the audience. Its just that(when done too much) I despise.


----------



## Iean

Some observations :

1. Most people who hate pop music only listened to 0.05% of all pop music.

2. Some people evaluate the merits of pop music using the criteria in evaluating classical music. Then, these people
lament that pop music is inferior.

3. Some people love the pop music of the 60s and 70s but hate the current batch pop music. In 2050, some people
will say, "I love the music of Taylor Swift and One Direction and Rihanna but I hate the current batch of pop music".

4. Sometimes, hating pop music is a bandwagon thing. Its "cool" to hate pop music :angel:


----------



## Mahlerian

Casebearer said:


> I'd not be surprised if Theodor Adorno made similar comments on the rise of jazz in his days. He seemed to view jazz as a threat and form of regression in music.


Adorno thought jazz, which term at the time was used to mean all popular music, was musically retrogressive (and thus akin to fascism) and kept the average person complacent by distracting them from the true nature of their oppression.


----------



## Morimur

Iean said:


> Some observations :
> 
> 1. Most people who hate pop music only listened to 0.05% of all pop music.


Your statement should read: _Some_ of the people who hate pop music have only listened to 0.05% of it.


----------



## Ingélou

Strong melodies, wonderful voices, skilled musicians, brilliant rhythms & interesting themes are found in just about every genre of music. I like them where I find them.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

Ingélou said:


> Strong melodies, wonderful voices, skilled musicians, brilliant rhythms & interesting themes are found in just about every genre of music. I like them where I find them.


Yes but some genres have a lot more than others. For example, how many rap songs show "Strong melodies, wonderful voices, skilled musicians, brilliant rhythms & interesting themes"?


----------



## SixFootScowl

Iean said:


> 1. Most people who hate pop music only listened to 0.05% of all pop music.


That may very well correspond to the pop music that typically comes our of the radio or is played in stores, so it is easy to see how that would turn people off to pop music.


----------



## acitak 7

music is music is music, Its all about the melody, and its all popular with someone


----------



## Guest

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes but some genres have a lot more than others. For example, how many rap songs show "Strong melodies, wonderful voices, skilled musicians, brilliant rhythms & interesting themes"?


Indeed. The prevalent and not so prevalent characteristics are variable across genres and individuals. As it is within "classical."


----------



## GreenMamba

acitak 7 said:


> music is music is music, Its all about the melody, and its all popular with someone


Nah, it's not all about the melody, although I still agree with the general point of this post.


----------



## Guest

Mahlerian said:


> Adorno thought jazz, which term at the time was used to mean all popular music, was musically retrogressive (and thus akin to fascism) and kept the average person complacent by distracting them from the true nature of their oppression.


What, even if it don't got that swing? :lol:


----------



## Ingélou

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Yes but some genres have a lot more than others. For example, how many rap songs show "Strong melodies, wonderful voices, skilled musicians, brilliant rhythms & interesting themes"?


I said 'just about' every genre of music - please interpret that as you will!


----------



## Strange Magic

*An Opinion on Hip-Hop*

"Hip-hop is not music, in my estimation. (If music resolves.) Hip-hop does not progress, it revolves, replicates, sticks to the floor. It is not approximate emotion. It is approximate obsession. The "voice", the bard, the oracle, the messenger, the minister of propaganda intricately, saucily rhymes, chugs, foreshortens, sneers, insinuates, retreats. The voice betrays no emotion; has none; this is not rage, but cleverness. Too wise. Too sly. A dictatorship of rhyme. There is a message; the message is masonic; the conveyance too dense; deep as a trance. The voice is preoccupied and always in the present. It is the voice of schizophrenia. It is bad advice. It is the voice of battle--Beowulf, Edda, the madder psalms--the voice justifies endlessly. What is going to happen if you don't stop this! On and on and on. Slamming the table. It is the post-lude to music. Long after emotion has been flung from the bone, the beat remains. The beat plows through the rubble of music, turning under the broken arches of melody, stabbing about for rhyming shards--raising them, rubbing them together rhythmically--trying to ignite."

Thus sayeth Richard Rodriguez, in _Brown,_ 2002. Good book.


----------



## acitak 7

The first five words in your post sums it up for me Hip-Hop is not music, full stop.


----------



## Xenakiboy

acitak 7 said:


> The first five words in your post sums it up for me Hip-Hop is not music, full stop.


You're free to dislike it, barely any rap or hip-hop appeals to me either but it is music in every sense of the word. I hate when people try to say this about "atonal" classical music too, Music is not for you to decide.


----------



## SixFootScowl

What is music? Can any sound someone may appreciate be music? What about the explosions of fireworks? Or the shot from a gun? Is that music to some?


----------



## zhopin

Florestan said:


> What is music? Can any sound someone may appreciate be music? What about the explosions of fireworks? Or the shot from a gun? Is that music to some?


I think music is free to be interpreted however you like. In reference to the Quartet for the End of Time, Messiaen was inspired by birds chirping for the clarinet's part, and this was definitely music in his book!
If you find something beautiful, let it be music! :tiphat:

Edit: Needless to say, though, if one doesn't consider hip-hop music, that's their opinion. Maybe their hip-hop is the equivalent of a shot from a gun to them!


----------



## Xenakiboy

Florestan said:


> What is music? Can any sound someone may appreciate be music? What about the explosions of fireworks? Or the shot from a gun? Is that music to some?


Ask John Cage?
That kind of question was a big part of his notoriety.


----------



## Xenakiboy

zhopin said:


> I think music is free to be interpreted however you like. In reference to the Quartet for the End of Time, Messiaen was inspired by birds chirping for the clarinet's part, and this was definitely music in his book!
> If you find something beautiful, let it be music! :tiphat:
> 
> Edit: Needless to say, though, if one doesn't consider hip-hop music, that's their opinion. Maybe their hip-hop is the equivalent of a shot from a gun to them!


As for Messiaen, he had a really good point there, though getting into that point is going far off topic. Speech and sound is directly connected to music, to put you into perspective; Voices and in this case bird chirping can be notated, which results in awesome innovations in the musical world


----------



## Strange Magic

Xenakiboy said:


> You're free to dislike it, barely any rap or hip-hop appeals to me either but it is music in every sense of the word. I hate when people try to say this about "atonal" classical music too, Music is not for you to decide.


On the contrary, music is for each of us to decide. I hate it when people say I can't decide.


----------



## Xenakiboy

Strange Magic said:


> On the contrary, music is for each of us to decide. I hate it when people say I can't decide.


Music you like, appreciate, hate is for you to decide, not the definition


----------



## Strange Magic

Xenakiboy said:


> Music you like, appreciate, hate is for you to decide, not the definition


Thanks, but I always keep the reins in my own hands. You are free to submit to whosoever's definition you have chosen to espouse.


----------



## Iean

Xenakiboy said:


> You're free to dislike it, barely any rap or hip-hop appeals to me either but it is music in every sense of the word. I hate when people try to say this about "atonal" classical music too, Music is not for you to decide.


I agree. People may hate rap and hiphop but it doesnt change the fact that these are legitimate music genres. I find it odd that people look for "sweeping melodies" and lush orchestral arrangements" in rap and hip-hop music. Really? Then, should I look for highly amplified distortion and extended loud guitar solos in folk music? :angel:


----------



## Xenakiboy

Strange Magic said:


> Thanks, but I always keep the reins in my own hands. You are free to submit to whosoever's definition you have chosen to espouse.


Once you start giving examples, it's impossible to take seriously.

Mozart isn't music
Beethoven is music
Schoenberg is music
Stockhausen isn't music
Bach isn't music
Varese is music
Haas isn't music
Grisey is music
The Beatles isn't music
John Coltrane is music
Miles Davis isn't
Pink Floyd is noise
Eric Dolphy is music
Handel is sound art
Boulez is music

Do you see the point where it is solely stupidity? :lol:


----------



## zhopin

...............


----------



## Strange Magic

Xenakiboy said:


> Once you start giving examples, it's impossible to take seriously.
> 
> Mozart isn't music
> Beethoven is music
> Schoenberg is music
> Stockhausen isn't music
> Bach isn't music
> Varese is music
> Haas isn't music
> Grisey is music
> The Beatles isn't music
> John Coltrane is music
> Miles Davis isn't
> Pink Floyd is noise
> Eric Dolphy is music
> Handel is sound art
> Boulez is music
> 
> Do you see the point where it is solely stupidity? :lol:


I can see that you think you're disagreeing with me somehow, but it's just not really happening.:lol:


----------



## Morimur

Xenakiboy said:


> Once you start giving examples, it's impossible to take seriously.
> 
> Mozart isn't music
> Beethoven is music
> Schoenberg is music
> Stockhausen isn't music
> Bach isn't music
> Varese is music
> Haas isn't music
> Grisey is music
> The Beatles isn't music
> John Coltrane is music
> Miles Davis isn't
> Pink Floyd is noise
> Eric Dolphy is music
> Handel is sound art
> Boulez is music
> 
> Do you see the point where it is solely stupidity? :lol:


Oh, just let Magic be! A guy who listens to Cher can't be all bad...


----------



## zhopin

Morimur said:


> Oh, just let Magic be! A guy who listens to Cher can't be all bad...


I laughed. :lol:


----------



## Strange Magic

Morimur, you are my Main Man!


----------



## acitak 7

I will re post and say that "Hip-Hop is not good music in my opinion" so I stand corrected


----------



## SixFootScowl

Maybe a better category than "music" would be "entertainment with sound."


----------



## GreenMamba

Florestan said:


> Maybe a better category than "music" would be "entertainment with sound."


No, music is a perfectly fine and appropriate term. Why does it bother people so much to say "this is music I don't like"?


----------



## acitak 7

Speaking personally, I find that I love some music and hate other music in equal measure. I shouldn't let it bother me really, but every time I hear a song that I hate, I say to myself " I hate this song". I wonder how many people think that way, it comes natural to me.


----------



## Strange Magic

acitak 7 said:


> Speaking personally, I find that I love some music and hate other music in equal measure. I shouldn't let it bother me really, but every time I hear a song that I hate, I say to myself " I hate this song". I wonder how many people think that way, it comes natural to me.


I find that music either interests me or it doesn't. I don't really hate a lot of music. Some rises to the level of boredom.


----------



## Guest

acitak 7 said:


> Speaking personally, I find that I love some music and hate other music in equal measure. I shouldn't let it bother me really, but every time I hear a song that I hate, I say to myself " I hate this song". I wonder how many people think that way, it comes natural to me.


So do I. I just don't turn my personal hates into judgements about the genre as a whole or about those who love it.


----------



## Iean

MacLeod said:


> So do I. *I just don't turn my personal hates into judgements about the genre as a whole or about those who love it*.


AMEN. This attitude can also be applied to artists in general. Some people who don't like "Baby" concluded right away that Justin Bieber's music is trash (his latest album "Purpose" is actually better than the average pop record ). I wonder what will these people say about Rolling Stones' music if they are allowed to listen to only one of their albums :"Still Life":angel:


----------



## SixFootScowl

GreenMamba said:


> No, music is a perfectly fine and appropriate term. Why does it bother people so much to say "this is music I don't like"?


To me, this is entertainment with sound:


----------



## GreenMamba

No argument there, Florestan. Except I'm not sure it's entertainment.


----------



## SixFootScowl

GreenMamba said:


> No argument there, Florestan. Except I'm not sure it's entertainment.


Good point. Any entertainment value is lost after one listen.


----------



## Pugg

Florestan said:


> Good point. Any entertainment value is lost after one listen.


Post of the day :tiphat:


----------



## helenora

Florestan said:


> Good point. Any entertainment value is lost after one listen.


but so true.....:lol:
one track, one month or may be less top in chart, then gone, lost....


----------



## acitak 7

Your absolutely right, my wife loves lots of songs that I loathe, but I love her. bigtime and the genre.


----------



## Tristan

I don't. I just listen to what I like. All kinds of music appeals to me, from gangsta rap to classical.

I guess maybe I do ultimately view classical music as superior, but that doesn't make me hate popular music, especially given how much of it I like and listen to.


----------



## Pugg

Tristan said:


> I don't. I just listen to what I like. All kinds of music appeals to me, from gangsta rap to classical.
> 
> I guess maybe I do ultimately view classical music as superior, but that doesn't make me hate popular music, especially given how much of it I like and listen to.


That's the spirit .


----------



## Vronsky

I like soul music, I really enjoy. Marvin Gaye (favourite), Ray Charles, Ben E. King, The Temptations, Isaac Hayes, Otis Redding, Nina Simone... I also like folk music, and a little bit of rock and blues.






_I just want to ask a question
Who really cares?
To save a world in despair
There'll come a time, when the world won't be singin'
Flowers won't grow, bells won't be ringin'
Who really cares?
Who's willing to try to save a world
That's destined to die_

Prophetic words...


----------



## SixFootScowl

Speaking of soul music, here is a pretty soulful tune:


----------



## nbergeron

"Hate" is definitely the wrong word. Pop and classical music have totally different goals. You can enjoy Dr. Dre or something like that but it's obvious that sort of music was made with entertainment value in mind. That doesn't mean all pop music is devoid of artist statements, as the OP mentioned Radiohead or Aphex Twin as pop music with a fair amount of artistic merit. They're still limited by their medium however, and they often aren't able to focus completely on creating abstract art music like a classical composer would. The line is blurred by really artsy pop musicians (I don't know, like late Scott Walker) on the one hand and really vapid classical (I'm thinking light opera and program music) on the other. But that's just a recognition of their differences--I don't want to listen to Stravinsky at a party any more than I want to lie back and listen deeply about One Direction. 

As Vladimir Asheknazy said, "Art is not just entertainment. Art is something terribly essential, terribly important. It communicates to you something eternal, and when it doesn’t, then it’s entertainment."


----------



## Pugg

nbergeron said:


> *"Hate" is definitely the wrong word. *Pop and classical music have totally different goals. You can enjoy Dr. Dre or something like that but it's obvious that sort of music was made with entertainment value in mind. That doesn't mean all pop music is devoid of artist statements, as the OP mentioned Radiohead or Aphex Twin as pop music with a fair amount of artistic merit. They're still limited by their medium however, and they often aren't able to focus completely on creating abstract art music like a classical composer would. The line is blurred by really artsy pop musicians (I don't know, like late Scott Walker) on the one hand and really vapid classical (I'm thinking light opera and program music) on the other. But that's just a recognition of their differences--I don't want to listen to Stravinsky at a party any more than I want to lie back and listen deeply about One Direction.
> 
> As Vladimir Asheknazy said, "Art is not just entertainment. Art is something terribly essential, terribly important. It communicates to you something eternal, and when it doesn't, then it's entertainment."


It is always the wrong word, music or not. 
Wast of energy also


----------



## hammeredklavier

PresenTense said:


> I've seen a lot of snobs out there saying things like: "Popular music is so repetitive and boring. Classical is way more complex and not for everyone." I mean, I know popular music is repetitive but that doesn't mean it is bad, does it? We have great bands like Radiohead or electronic musicians that are really good like Aphex Twin. We all know classical music is way more complex, but that doesn't mean that popular music is for idiots or something like that. What do you think about this? :lol:


Honestly, you think there's nothing wrong with this?
Yes there are some good bands out there as you mentioned, but they're virtually unknown to the public because guys like Justin Bieber and Bruno Mars dominate the market. People can listen to what they like, but if we keep telling them "there's no such thing as bad music, art is subjective", it'll only encourage the industry to continue this never-ending-cycle of producing music 100% for money.


----------



## nikola

The problem is not style. The problem is lack of the talent most of the time and music politics in last cca 25 years. 
There are many pop songs I love and many that I don't. There are also many classical pieces I love and many I don't. 

4 chords are also not the problem if you know how to use those. The Beatles did it great with 'Let It Be'... well, Elton John too with "Can You Feel the Love Tonight". 
The problem is not in using the same 4 chords, but not knowing what to do with those 4 chords. 
Overusing those is also showing, of course, that there are some deeper problems in today's commercial music.


----------



## Strange Magic

hammeredklavier said:


> Honestly, you think there's nothing wrong with this?
> Yes there are some good bands out there as you mentioned, but they're virtually unknown to the public because guys like Justin Bieber and Bruno Mars dominate the market. People can listen to what they like, but if we keep telling them "there's no such thing as bad music, art is subjective", it'll only encourage the industry to continue this never-ending-cycle of producing music 100% for money.


There actually is no such thing as bad art, nor is there any such thing as good art. What is encouraging, however, is that there is art you like, and art that I like. But while we can yearn for others to like our art, and we can wring our hands over the choices of others that displease us, I'm afraid any attempt to argue that art is objective is doomed to failure.


----------



## Haydn70

Popular music, even the best of it, is not art...it is entertainment.

To quote nbegeron's quote:

'As Vladimir Asheknazy said, "Art is not just entertainment. Art is something terribly essential, terribly important. It communicates to you something eternal, and when it doesn’t, then it’s entertainment."'


----------



## Room2201974

ArsMusica said:


> Popular music, even the best of it, is not art...it is entertainment.


I'll go to my grave never believing this. As *Strange Magic* has rightly pointed out, whatever Art is cannot be argued objectively. I think the following songs were not written for "entertainment value" nor do I know anyone who likes them who sees them in that light. I also believe that they do communicate something eternal. I've sung Schuman lieder - music that some consider art. None of those pieces communicated to me anything as strong or eternal as these did. My life would be poorer without them:















I






As one of Robert Heinlein's characters once said "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh." If you don't believe the above songs function as art, that's fine. But you don't have an argument in your arsenal that would convince me that they are not.


----------



## wkasimer

ArsMusica said:


> 'As Vladimir Asheknazy said, "Art is not just entertainment. Art is something terribly essential, terribly important. It communicates to you something eternal, and when it doesn't, then it's entertainment."'


It may not be "just" entertainment - but it is entertainment nonetheless.


----------



## Strange Magic

ArsMusica said:


> Popular music, even the best of it, is not art...it is entertainment.
> 
> To quote nbegeron's quote:
> 
> 'As Vladimir Asheknazy said, "Art is not just entertainment. Art is something terribly essential, terribly important. It communicates to you something eternal, and when it doesn't, then it's entertainment."'


The Ashkenazy quote is one of those sorts that are uttered when one is feeling "expansive" about the grandeur of what one is doing. But it is an assertion and only that, however much we wish to rush into its outstretched arms. Terribly essential, terribly important, something eternal--surely everyone, everyone can agree on the handful of works that exemplify and embody these qualities. The list, please?


----------



## Haydn70

Room2201974 said:


> ...nor do I know anyone who likes them who sees them in that light.


Why are you presenting a variation on the _Argumentum ad populum_ logical fallacy if you believe that no argument can be made either way on this topic?

Make up your mind. If you believe the evaluation of music is subjective, i.e., personal, then you shouldn't be invoking the opinions of others. If you do, I can invoke plenty of opinions in support of the Ashkenazy statement.


----------



## Strange Magic

Haydn70 said:


> Why are you presenting a variation on the _Argumentum ad populum_ logical fallacy if you believe that no argument can be made either way on this topic?
> 
> Make up your mind. If you believe the evaluation of music is subjective, i.e., personal, then you shouldn't be invoking the opinions of others. If you do, I can invoke plenty of opinions in support of the Ashkenazy statement.


The two theses can coexist: A) That the evaluation of music is personal, and B) That more people like music X than like music Y. How far one chooses to go beyond these theses is another matter.


----------



## Guest

nbergeron said:


> it's obvious that sort of music was made with entertainment value in mind.


1. Is it obvious?
2. What do you/we mean by 'entertainment'?

I think there would be many reasons why pop 'artists' get up and do their stuff, and I doubt that many of them think solely, "I'm doing this because I want to entertain people."

(Entertaining people is not an ignoble desire of course.)


----------



## nikola

ArsMusica said:


> Popular music, even the best of it, is not art...it is entertainment.
> 
> To quote nbegeron's quote:
> 
> 'As Vladimir Asheknazy said, "Art is not just entertainment. Art is something terribly essential, terribly important. It communicates to you something eternal, and when it doesn't, then it's entertainment."'


This is quite snobbish view. All classical music is also entertainment unless you think it's out there to be experienced by nothingness.


----------



## Haydn70

nikola said:


> This is quite snobbish view. All classical music is also entertainment unless you think it's out there to be experienced by nothingness.


I consider myself an elitist...but you want to consider me a snob that is fine with me.


----------



## Haydn70

MacLeod said:


> I think there would be many reasons why pop 'artists' get up and do their stuff, and I doubt that many of them think solely, "I'm doing this because I want to entertain people."


Yes, they also want to make as much dough as they can.


----------



## KenOC

ArsMusica said:


> Yes, they also want to make as much dough as they can.


As I remember Beethoven was also somewhat interested in money. He went to great lengths in his late works, earning about US$100 thousand for his Missa Solemnis through a variety of methods.

In his very first opus number, the three trios, he negotiated a complex contract with his publisher that paid enough to live in some comfort for half a year, according to Cooper's biography.

But other than such things, his heart was pure!


----------



## Haydn70

KenOC said:


> As I remember Beethoven was also somewhat interested in money. He went to great lengths in his late works, earning about US$100 thousand for his Missa Solemnis through a variety of methods.
> 
> In his very first opus number, the three trios, he negotiated a complex contract with his publisher that paid enough to live in some comfort for half a year, according to Cooper's biography.
> 
> But other than such things, his heart was pure!


I am guessing just about every composer of Western art music was/is interested in making money...nothing wrong with that all. However they were/are getting paid to create art not entertainment.


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> Yes, *they *also want to make as much dough as they can.


Marvellous insights into the minds of pop artists.


----------



## Haydn70

MacLeod said:


> Marvellous insights into the minds of pop artists.


Ah yes, the minds of pop artists...so deep, so profound.


----------



## nikola

ArsMusica said:


> I am guessing just about every composer of Western art music was/is interested in making money...nothing wrong with that all. However they were/are getting paid to create art not entertainment.


It's like saying that Leonard Cohen is art while ABBA is entertainment. They're both art and entertainment. I like a lot of classical music, but I'm listening to it because it gives me the same satisfaction just like pop, new age, folk-country or other types of music. Certainly, there are better and worse songs and musical pieces, but you can also apply such philosophy on differences between pop music. For example, Modern Talking are way more derivative and simplistic than The Beatles or Elton John. It's all about talent and nothing about musical styles. There are some of the worst musicians ever in classical music and jazz pretending that their crap is art. Somehow, it's easier to hide the lack of talent behind many notes while saying to people that they "don't understand the art". Classical music is more complex, but very often not better than contemporary music.


----------



## Guest

ArsMusica said:


> Ah yes, the minds of pop artists...so deep, so profound.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that pop artists' minds are either deep or profound (or that their work is deep or profound). The challenge is to show that all can be dismissed as mere entertainers. So far, no-one has produced any evidence to show that that is their one sole purpose or, furthermore, that that is their one sole impact.


----------



## KenOC

There is absolutely no doubt that modern art songs can easily rival those of Schubert. An example:






In fact, I don't think the little mushroom could have come close to this.


----------



## nikola

Elton John is modern classical music in pop form. Also classically educated. 
There are many talented musicians. 
Ennio Morricone is better and more profound to me than most of the classical music.


----------



## KenOC

That raises a question: The Beatles and the Stones are still selling nicely after half a century, as are many other albums of their age. _My Sharona_ and a lot of other songs from a few years later are still known and enjoyed.

How many so-called "classical works" of the same vintage can say the same? Most, almost all, have joined Raff in the underworld.


----------



## DavidA

A misunderstanding that classical music lovers 'hate' pop music. I certainly like some forms of pop music. I hate others. But I hate some classical music too


----------



## nikola

ABBA made some pretty much complex pop songs considering construction of melody and also considering interwining backing vocals with instrumental melodies and main melody:









Elton John was also always above many other pop music to me as a composer and also great piano player:


----------



## Strange Magic

ArsMusica said:


> Ah yes, the minds of pop artists...so deep, so profound.


How does one measure artistic depth and profundity? Does one observe the Best People to discover (and emulate) what they are listening to? Assuming for a moment that the Best People are right here on TC, we note that in a current thread on crappy music that Bartók's _Concerto for Orchestra_ was dismissed as specimen crappy music by one; others on various occasions have questioned the depth and profundity of Beethoven's 9th Symphony, some singling out the last movement for special obloquy. Some people really like the paintings of Rothko and Motherwell and pay millions for them. I'm so confused!


----------



## norman bates

ArsMusica said:


> I consider myself an elitist...but you want to consider me a snob that is fine with me.


it's incredible to me to agree with Nikola (who is a snob for jazz), but I agree with him in this case. And snob is not a compliment, is meant for a person who doesn't understand something while thinking that he's above that thing.
The world of popular music is vast and full of artists who's first interest was in their art and not in the money, and there's a lot of great classical music that was written to entertain kings. 
The only conclusion that one could make is that to think only about artistic quality doesn't imply necessarily great quality, and that making music for money doesn't imply necessarily an inferior quality. 
Whoever wants to make this kind of generalizations ("all popular music hasn't any artistic value") actually has only a very superficial knowledge of the "genre" (it's not even a genre, but a lot of different genres), that's for sure.


----------



## nikola

norman bates said:


> it's incredible to me to agree with Nikola (who is a snob for jazz), but I agree with him in this case. And snob is not a compliment, is meant for a person who doesn't understand something while thinking that he's above that thing.
> The world of popular music is vast and full of artists who's first interest was in their art and not in the money, and there's a lot of great classical music that was written to entertain kings.
> The only conclusion that one could make is that to think only about artistic quality doesn't imply necessarily great quality, and that making music for money doesn't imply necessarily an inferior quality.
> Whoever wants to make this kind of generalizations ("all popular music hasn't any artistic value") actually has only a very superficial knowledge of the "genre" (it's not even a genre, but a lot of different genres), that's for sure.


Common enemy finally united us. I knew this day will come.


----------



## Mal

Why would you assume the Best People are right here on TC? :devil:


----------



## Strange Magic

Mal said:


> Why would you assume the Best People are right here on TC? :devil:


The Best People (including myself) are very like the _Bandar-log_ of Kipling's Kaa's Hunting, who have seized Mowgli and carried him off to their secret lair: "Sore, sleepy, and hungry as he was, Mowgli could not help laughing when the _Bandar-log_ began, twenty at a time, to tell him how great and wise and strong and gentle they were, and how foolish he was to wish to leave them. 'We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! *We all say so, and so it must be true,*' they shouted."

TC is our lair :lol:.


----------



## Larkenfield

"Why do people from Classical world hate "popular" music?"

I don't. But like a police car with flashing lights behind me, I usually feel better when it's not around.


----------



## SixFootScowl

DavidA said:


> A misunderstanding that classical music lovers 'hate' pop music. I certainly like some forms of pop music. I hate others. But I hate some classical music too


I do listen to some non-classical but not pop music. I hate the term pop music except as a disparaging term. How popular was Johnny Winter, not very except for his brief (less than a decade) stint as a stadium rocker. When he returned full time to the blues only an elite following kept with him. But really, the whole realm of blues music is outside of the category pop music.


----------



## eljr

helenora said:


> I just find anything else than classic music to be rather *shallow*.


I would suggest "hollow" a better word.


----------



## eljr

Fritz Kobus said:


> How popular was Johnny Winter, not very except for his brief (less than a decade) stint as a stadium rocker. .
> 
> Don't you think if you are playing stadiums you are popular?
> 
> 
> 
> Fritz Kobus said:
> 
> 
> 
> But really, the whole realm of blues music is outside of the category pop music.
> 
> 
> 
> I think Eric Clapton popular, he plays the blues principally.
Click to expand...


----------



## Enthusiast

Fritz Kobus said:


> I do listen to some non-classical but not pop music. I hate the term pop music except as a disparaging term. How popular was Johnny Winter, not very except for his brief (less than a decade) stint as a stadium rocker. When he returned full time to the blues only an elite following kept with him. But really, the whole realm of blues music is outside of the category pop music.


That album he did with Muddy Waters etc (and from the same sessions as Muddy's Hard Again) - Nothin' But the Blues - is wonderful. It certainly isn't pop music, though, and may not even have been very popular.


----------



## E Cristobal Poveda

To answer the thread question: Because it's bad.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Good pop has a certain vitality missing in a lot of Classical. I can always go back to good pop.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

"Why do people from Classical world hate "popular" music?"

Because generally they are not Popular


----------



## agoukass

The thing about popular music is that it doesn't really plumb the depths like classical music does. Sure, it is fun to listen and might have lyrics that are relevant, but does it really say anything about the human experience in the same way that a Chopin nocturne or a Mozart piano concerto can? I don't really think so. 

After all, most popular music that exists is written to be easy on the ear. You can hum it, you can bang it out on a piano, and you can sing it out of tune at a karaoke place, but it's only good the first few thousand times and, even then, it loses some of its luster the more it's listened to. 

Classical music is very different. While there is some of it that might be considered popular, there is a great deal of it that is deeply profound and moves my spirit in a way that popular music simply can't.


----------



## Guest

agoukass said:


> there is a great deal of it that is deeply profound and moves *my *spirit in a way that popular music simply can't.


Well, it takes all sorts to make a world, as they say. The key word in your post is the one highlighted in bold. Popular music can certainly move *my *spirit (assuming a wide definition of 'popular') as can classical. If 'plumb the depths' just means 'move the listener' then both genre can do it for me.


----------



## eljr

MacLeod said:


> Well, it takes all sorts to make a world, as they say. The key word in your post is the one highlighted in bold. Popular music can certainly move *my *spirit (assuming a wide definition of 'popular') as can classical. If 'plumb the depths' just means 'move the listener' then both genre can do it for me.


was not Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Gregorian Chant.. all popular music of it's day?

see how that works?


----------



## eljr

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> "Why do people from Classical world hate "popular" music?"
> 
> Because generally they are not Popular


:lol:

-------------


----------



## norman bates

agoukass said:


> The thing about popular music is that it doesn't really plumb the depths like classical music does. Sure, it is fun to listen and might have lyrics that are relevant, but does it really say anything about the human experience in the same way that a Chopin nocturne or a Mozart piano concerto can? I don't really think so.
> 
> After all, most popular music that exists is written to be easy on the ear. You can hum it, you can bang it out on a piano, and you can sing it out of tune at a karaoke place, but it's only good the first few thousand times and, even then, it loses some of its luster the more it's listened to.
> 
> Classical music is very different. While there is some of it that might be considered popular, there is a great deal of it that is deeply profound and moves my spirit in a way that popular music simply can't.


it's strange that you say "most popular music is written to be easy on the ear", while using Mozart and Chopin who are often truly easy on the ear, much more than a lot of popular music.
There are some simplifications in your post. The fact that a piece is easy on the ear or not does not have anything to do with the quality: Beethoven's Allegretto from the 7th symphony or the Largo from Bach's double violin concerto are very easy on the ear, and still those works are masterpieces, and there's a lot of avantgarde that is not so successful, to put it mildly.
There's a lot of popular avantgarde that is not easy on the ear at all, there's popular music with a lot of depht and sophistication and there's also worthless and shallow classical music. John Rutter's "for the beauty of the earth" to me is as terrible as a Kenny G piece. Stardust, a popular song written by Hoagy Carmichael is a masterpiece.


----------



## Guest

eljr said:


> was not Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Gregorian Chant.. all popular music of it's day?
> 
> see how that works?


Um...er...no, I don't see how that works.


----------



## Haydn70

eljr said:


> was not Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, Gregorian Chant.. all popular music of it's day?


Of course not...it was the art music of its day.


----------



## laurie

norman bates said:


> There's a lot of popular avantgarde that is not easy on the ear at all, there's popular music with a lot of depht and sophistication and there's also worthless and shallow classical music. John Rutter's "for the beauty of the earth" to me is as terrible as a Kenny G piece.* Stardust, a popular song written by Hoagy Carmichael is a masterpiece.*




:clap: 
That's for sure, as are so many other 'popular' songs in the Great American Songbook!


----------



## goatygoatygoatgoat

_"Why do people from Classical world hate "popular" music?"_

Aside from the previously mentioned reasons (simplistic, repetitive, shallow), I generally hate popular music for these reasons:

1. I don't like to hear the human voice or lyrics in music. To me, music is emotion and logic, not communication. I don't want words forced on me through music.

2. I don't like "beat". I find percussion instruments annoying.

Then there are two things I _really_ hate:

- the fact that you _can't escape_ from "popular" music. There is absolutely no way to avoid it. It's forced on you everywhere - in _every single public area_ - at work, in stores, in government offices, in medical places, at public events, and blasting out of people's cars and phones.

- when beat and repetition is combined with deep bass. I absolutely, totally, _super-violently HATE_ thumping deep bass! There is no thumping repetitive deep bass in Classical music. When I hear thumping deep bass, I want to locate its source and utterly destroy it with heavy machine gun fire, artillery, bass-seeking missiles and lasers shooting out of my eyes (and butt). Then I want to take off and nuke the site from orbit - just to be sure.


----------



## Strange Magic

An equally interesting question is why (some) "Classical world" music lovers post here in the non-classical forum, to tell others of their non-classical hatred(s). I guess we're supposed to care.


----------



## goatygoatygoatgoat

Ha! I didn't notice that this thread was in the Non-Classical Music section. How very odd.


----------



## Strange Magic

goatygoatygoatgoat said:


> Ha! I didn't notice that this thread was in the Non-Classical Music section. How very odd.


What is odd? The location of this thread, or the fact that you didn't notice?


----------



## Strange Magic

Here is some soothing, non-vocal classical music :tiphat::


----------



## haydnguy

I haven't found that classical fans hate "popular" music. What I have found is that the popular music fans seem to think that classical music fans think they are elitist. 

The thing you have to consider is, how much does a Taylor Swift concert ticket cost vs. how much a classical concert ticket cost? Now, who's elitist? My point is not to start an argument but to just point out that anyone can be a classical music fan. Now, with the internet you can be almost anywhere and have access to it. 

I WILL say this (coming from a "popular" background). It does take some investment in time to "get into" it. You CAN just start listening. A lot of people will say that, and there certainly isn't anything wrong with it. 

I, personally, wanted to listen in some sort of context. If there wasn't context it would be like listening to Hank Williams, Jr. and then listening to Cole Porter. You might like both of them but wouldn't know the things that are associated with each. But listening is the main point of it all.

EDIT: If there are any classical lovers reading this, just consider that it's been popular music that's paid the record companies' bills all these years.


----------



## Captainnumber36

haydnguy said:


> I haven't found that classical fans hate "popular" music. What I have found is that the popular music fans seem to think that classical music fans think they are elitist.
> 
> The thing you have to consider is, how much does a Taylor Swift concert ticket cost vs. how much a classical concert ticket cost? Now, who's elitist? My point is not to start an argument but to just point out that anyone can be a classical music fan. Now, with the internet you can be almost anywhere and have access to it.
> 
> I WILL say this (coming from a "popular" background). It does take some investment in time to "get into" it. You CAN just start listening. A lot of people will say that, and there certainly isn't anything wrong with it.
> 
> I, personally, wanted to listen in some sort of context. If there wasn't context it would be like listening to Hank Williams, Jr. and then listening to Cole Porter. You might like both of them but wouldn't know the things that are associated with each. But listening is the main point of it all.
> 
> EDIT: If there are any classical lovers reading this, just consider that it's been popular music that's paid the record companies' bills all these years.


I think the posters on this site are music enthusiasts and are not representative of the large portion of classical music goers that are a bit stiff.

My mom just listens to a piece and decides if she likes it or not. Music like Mozart's is quite easy to enjoy on a superficial level. Something like Rite of Spring may need more getting used to, and some casual music listeners may not want to put in the effort.


----------



## Captainnumber36

Martha Wainwright - Martha Wainwright


----------



## haydnguy

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think the posters on this site are music enthusiasts and are not representative of the large portion of classical music goers that are a bit stiff.
> 
> My mom just listens to a piece and decides if she likes it or not. Music like Mozart's is quite easy to enjoy on a superficial level. Something like Rite of Spring may need more getting used to, and some casual music listeners may not want to put in the effort.


Anybody that's a bit stiff, I say "to hell with 'em".


----------



## Captainnumber36

Captainnumber36 said:


> Martha Wainwright - Martha Wainwright


I put this in the wrong thread, thanks for liking anyways Eddie! haha


----------



## goatygoatygoatgoat

Strange Magic said:


> Here is some soothing, non-vocal classical music :tiphat::


Thank you. That was very soothing... right up to the point where it said "This video is not available." That's when it suddenly stopped being soothing.


----------



## Strange Magic

goatygoatygoatgoat said:


> Thank you. That was very soothing... right up to the point where it said "This video is not available." That's when it suddenly stopped being soothing.


Works just fine here in Nova Caesarea. But a YouTube search should turn up another version that functions in Canada. Marvelous piece of music!


----------



## norman bates

goatygoatygoatgoat said:


> _"Why do people from Classical world hate "popular" music?"_
> 
> Aside from the previously mentioned reasons (simplistic, repetitive, shallow), I generally hate popular music for these reasons:
> 
> 1. I don't like to hear the human voice or lyrics in music. To me, music is emotion and logic, not communication. I don't want words forced on me through music.


but a human voice is an expressive (many would say the most expressive) instrument, it's sound and not just lyrics. And a lot of listeners for that reason don't even care for the quality of lyrics. 
Also, a lot of classical music involves the voice, operas , cantatas, lieder, choral music, masses...I think it's hard to find a major composer that hasn't written vocal works (and some are some of the most important works ever), and on the other hand there's a lot of popular music that is instrumental music...


----------



## goatygoatygoatgoat

norman bates said:


> but a human voice is an expressive (many would say the most expressive) instrument, it's sound and not just lyrics. And a lot of listeners for that reason don't even care for the quality of lyrics.
> Also, a lot of classical music involves the voice, operas , cantatas, lieder, choral music, masses...I think it's hard to find a major composer that hasn't written vocal works (and some are some of the most important works ever), and on the other hand there's a lot of popular music that is instrumental music...


Yes, this is the problem. I wish Bach, Albinoni, Handel, Mozart, and others hadn't wasted their time making music for the human voice. When I hear the human voice, it's a total turn off. I like to think of music as _above_ humanity - pure emotion and logic, but when I hear the human voice, the music is brought down to the level of primitive humanity.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

goatygoatygoatgoat said:


> Yes, this is the problem. I wish Bach, Albinoni, Handel, Mozart, and others hadn't wasted their time making music for the human voice. When I hear the human voice, it's a total turn off. I like to think of music as _above_ humanity - pure emotion and logic, but when I hear the human voice, the music is brought down to the level of primitive humanity.


Yes, I for one would much prefer a Goat Choir


----------



## Joe B

goatygoatygoatgoat said:


> Yes, this is the problem. I wish Bach, Albinoni, Handel, Mozart, and others hadn't wasted their time making music for the human voice. When I hear the human voice, it's a total turn off. I like to think of music as _above_ humanity - pure emotion and logic, but when I hear the human voice, the music is brought down to the level of primitive humanity.


Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I won't try to 'argue' for or against your tastes. But I do feel your reaction to music for the human voice is indicative of a taste in music which still has a long road of refinement ahead of it. This is not a put down. I had no desire to listen to vocal music for a long, long time. What started my head turning was Dawn Upshaw's singing of Barber's "Knoxville: Summer of 1915". I now devote at least as much time listening to choral works and art songs as I do instrumental works. My hope is that time will mellow your attitude and that the world of vocal music will become a new frontier which you can explore as I have.
Best of luck,
Joe B


----------



## goatygoatygoatgoat

Well, I'm pretty old so the road can't be that long. A few decades ago, I did try to get interested in some (non-goat-related) choruses and had a few Baroque and Mozart discs with vocal music that I listened to. I found that I would become annoyed when the vocal pieces came up and started skipping them until I basically weeded them out of my collection. (...and yes, I am aware that goats like weeds)


----------



## St Matthew

goatygoatygoatgoat said:


> Yes, this is the problem. I wish Bach, Albinoni, Handel, Mozart, and others hadn't wasted their time making music for the human voice. When I hear the human voice, it's a total turn off. I like to think of music as _above_ humanity - pure emotion and logic, but when I hear the human voice, the music is brought down to the level of primitive humanity.


You bring up a point that often concerns me too, however I both fully agree with you and partly disagree with you. Vocals (in classical especially but also in non-classical) tend to be a turn off for me too. In many respects I'm a Brahms, not a Wagner. I think music in itself is an objectively subjective expression and in a way, lyrics or poems injected into music tend to abuse the music itself. The lyrics often also imply meanings to the sounds that one would never associate with the sounds, which is problematic as a composer. Once you try to force meanings or images onto a piece of music in this sense, it is depriving it of an element of it's personal association with the listener.
In the same way though one can argue about how we connect and identify personally with lyrics which where written in a completely unrelated context that may have nothing to do with oneself yet one may identify with it in such a personal manner, it's a headscratcher!

Music with vocals that don't have lyrics (but aren't just doing lame umms and aarrrs) in this way tend to be more preferable. There is no solution for everyone however.


----------



## DavidA

goatygoatygoatgoat said:


> Yes, this is the problem. I wish Bach, Albinoni, Handel, Mozart, and others hadn't wasted their time making music for the human voice. When I hear the human voice, it's a total turn off. I like to think of music as _above_ humanity - pure emotion and logic, but when I hear the human voice, the music is brought down to the level of primitive humanity.


Interesting as music is a product of humanity, then how can it be above humanity as you imply? Is that logical?


----------



## norman bates

goatygoatygoatgoat said:


> Yes, this is the problem. I wish Bach, Albinoni, Handel, Mozart, and others hadn't wasted their time making music for the human voice. When I hear the human voice, it's a total turn off. I like to think of music as _above_ humanity - pure emotion and logic, but when I hear the human voice, the music is brought down to the level of primitive humanity.


I honestly don't see as you can make a separation between emotion and humanity. When you say "primitive humanity"... that's to me is emotion, that is in a sense the opposite of logic.


----------



## jenspen

goatygoatygoatgoat said:


> Well, I'm pretty old so the road can't be that long. A few decades ago, I did try to get interested in some (non-goat-related) choruses and had a few Baroque and Mozart discs with vocal music that I listened to. I found that I would become annoyed when the vocal pieces came up and started skipping them until I basically weeded them out of my collection. (...and yes, I am aware that goats like weeds)


My experience, for what it's worth, is that understanding the words made all the difference. It's a shame then that most of the best vocal music is set to German, Latin, Italian, French....not English words (though you're a tough audience if you can resist Handel's Messiah).

I don't think you're asking for advice but I'll give some anyway. Make the acquaintance of the German language (presuming you haven't already) and it will open your ears to another 50 per cent of the best that J. S. Bach, Schubert and Schumann have to offer.


----------



## goatygoatygoatgoat

DavidA said:


> Interesting as music is a product of humanity, then how can it be above humanity as you imply? Is that logical?





norman bates said:


> I honestly don't see as you can make a separation between emotion and humanity. When you say "primitive humanity"... that's to me is emotion, that is in a sense the opposite of logic.


Yes, I know I worded it badly. I know that music is a product of humanity - but that's what I don't like to think about. It's easier to disassociate the music from the people making it when there's nobody singing.

Even seeing a live instrumental performance ruins it for me. I thought it would be great to see a live Baroque concert, but I hated it. You can see all the human flaws - the violinist picking her nose or scratching her butt, the pink haired cello player with nose piercing, the rolling eyes and attitude problem of the conductor, etc.. All that ends up becoming linked in my mind with the piece, ruining it - when before I didn't have any kind of mental image of flawed boring humans producing the music. The music itself was separate.


----------



## goatygoatygoatgoat

St Matthew said:


> You bring up a point that often concerns me too, however I both fully agree with you and partly disagree with you. Vocals (in classical especially but also in non-classical) tend to be a turn off for me too. In many respects I'm a Brahms, not a Wagner. I think music in itself is an objectively subjective expression and in a way, lyrics or poems injected into music tend to abuse the music itself. The lyrics often also imply meanings to the sounds that one would never associate with the sounds, which is problematic as a composer. Once you try to force meanings or images onto a piece of music in this sense, it is depriving it of an element of it's personal association with the listener.
> In the same way though one can argue about how we connect and identify personally with lyrics which where written in a completely unrelated context that may have nothing to do with oneself yet one may identify with it in such a personal manner, it's a headscratcher!
> 
> Music with vocals that don't have lyrics (but aren't just doing lame umms and aarrrs) in this way tend to be more preferable. There is no solution for everyone however.


Yes, exactly. I actually prefer it when the lyrics are in a language I don't understand - like Japanese. Even then though, I'd prefer not to hear a voice at all.


----------



## NjaP

PresenTense said:


> I've seen a lot of snobs out there saying things like: "Popular music is so repetitive and boring. Classical is way more complex and not for everyone."


I've come across so many classical music "lovers" who feel this way about popular music but then turn around and criticize contemporary 'classical' music for being too complex. When that happens, I have to say that I have no clue as to what their issues with popular music are, because there's no consistency in their argument.


----------



## jegreenwood

This thread has caused me to open my copy of Alec Wilder's "American Popular Song: The Great Innovators, 1900-1950" for the first time in a while. I would turn to it more frequently if the musical examples were more legible on a Kindle. May have to check the library.

I highly recommend it for an extended discussion of the musical sophistication of popular composers (Porter, Gershwin, Arlen etc.) of that era. And it focuses almost entirely on the music; lyrics are discussed only insofar as they affect the music.


----------



## Steve Mc

In response to some of the posts above, I must say that one cannot separate music from the humans who make it. Music is the greatest form of human expression, existing as it does at the crossroads of human nature between the physical and the spiritual.
The listener is able to achieve a fuller, more complete understanding of the music if he or she recognizes the human strengths and weaknesses behind it. Vocal music, be it "popular" or especially classical only heightens this.

As for why the classical world is opposed, in greater part, to the "pop" world, I think this is primarily because of perceived commercialism. To these people, commerciality is equated with superficiality. Thus, any music made for a larger audience with financial incentive high in mind, like most pop and rock, or even otherwise "classical" film scores, are less worthy than music made to be appreciated by a more selective few. While there are valid points to be made in its favor, there are also serious problems with this view. 19th Century opera and ballet were about as commercial as things could get at the time. Yet many of these works have entered the canon.


----------



## laurie

^^^^

Love your avatar, Steve Mc! Welcome to the forum


----------



## laurie

jegreenwood said:


> This thread has caused me to open my copy of Alec Wilder's "American Popular Song: The Great Innovators, 1900-1950" for the first time in a while. I would turn to it more frequently if the musical examples were more legible on a Kindle. May have to check the library.
> 
> I highly recommend it for an extended discussion of the musical sophistication of popular composers (Porter, Gershwin, Arlen etc.) of that era. And it focuses almost entirely on the music; lyrics are discussed only insofar as they affect the music.


I'll have to check this book out; thanks! 
Arlen is a particular favorite of mine; my copy of_ Ella Fitzgerald sings the Harold Arlen Songbook_
gets a lot of spins in my house!


----------



## norman bates

laurie said:


> I'll have to check this book out; thanks!
> Arlen is a particular favorite of mine; my copy of_ Ella Fitzgerald sings the Harold Arlen Songbook_
> gets a lot of spins in my house!


I agree with jegreenwood: it's a great book, very useful for those who are interested in discovering high quality popular songs. My only pet peeve is that he just mention only few songs after 1950 (so even certain absolute masterpieces like Lazy afternoon aren't mentioned), and that Wilder was very humble and he doesn't talk about his own songs, that are absolutely beautiful.
I wish there was a book like that for brazilian songs, since Brazil is a country that has produced gems worth of the best songs in the Great american songbook.
Anyway what are your Arlen's favorite songs?

If I had to choose just one, for me it would be Ill wind, I just love that song


----------



## Steve Mc

laurie said:


> ^^^^
> 
> Love your avatar, Steve Mc! Welcome to the forum


Thanks, laurie!


----------



## jegreenwood

norman bates said:


> I agree with jegreenwood: it's a great book, very useful for those who are interested in discovering high quality popular songs. My only pet peeve is that he just mention only few songs after 1950 (so even certain absolute masterpieces like Lazy afternoon aren't mentioned), and that Wilder was very humble and he doesn't talk about his own songs, that are absolutely beautiful.
> I wish there was a book like that for brazilian songs, since Brazil is a country that has produced gems worth of the best songs in the Great american songbook.
> Anyway what are your Arlen's favorite songs?
> 
> If I had to choose just one, for me it would be Ill wind, I just love that song


Nobody wrote torch songs like Arlen. "Stormy Weather" is probably my favorite.

Many years ago - must've been the 60s - NBC ha a special on the top 10 songs of what we now call the Great American Songbook. I still remember the list, although not the entire order:

St. Louis Blues
September Song
Body and Soul
All the Things You Are
Summertime
Someone to Watch Over Me (I think - I know there was a second Gershwin)
Over the Rainbow
Blues in the Night
Stormy Weather

and number one - Star Dust


----------



## Fredx2098

To call anything that isn't classical or folk music "popular music" is a bit too oversimplified in my opinion. I use the term to refer to music that is intended to appeal to as much of the population as possible. Anything else I call rock music, electronic music, or whatever. It's too broad of a term to talk about in general, in the same way that modern classical music and common practice music can't really be judged in the same way, or the folk music of the USA compared to other countries.


----------



## mhengleking

Occasionally you hear a "pop" melody so beautifully melodic and compelling that it must be considered a masterpiece, regardless of its simplicity. Just because a song touches the emotions rather than the intellect doesn't make it inferior. It just makes it different. The music world would be bereft without pop. For example, I could listen to different versions of "There's a Summer Place" for an extended time!


----------



## Nate Miller

I think its because classical musicians cant sell any records and it irks them that Taylor Swift and Billie Eilish are way more famous than the best virtuosos on the planet

That's what I think anyway.


----------



## mhengleking

Oh yes, there's definitely a frustration with classical music lovers pop is more popular. But I do think people are missing a lot by not giving classical a fair hearing, so to speak!


----------



## Xisten267

I'm from the "classical music world" and yet I love non-classical music including works from rock, metal, jazz, pop, new age and hip hop. I think that some albums of non-classical are on par with some of the (IMO) great compositions in classical.


----------



## starthrower

mhengleking said:


> Occasionally you hear a "pop" melody so beautifully melodic and compelling that it must be considered a masterpiece, regardless of its simplicity. Just because a song touches the emotions rather than the intellect doesn't make it inferior. It just makes it different.


??? I know it wasn't your intention but this statement comes across as misguided and condescending. You don't need to convince anyone that a beautiful, simple melody that touches the listener is not inferior. It's actually a very difficult thing to do which is why the truly great writers and artists are a rare breed. And different? What do you mean? This is what music is supposed to do. Communicate with the listener. And how is classical music any different? I listen to it to be moved, not as an intellectual exercise.


----------

