Unreal Music

[ludwig]

I was told that to become sucessful in mass education in music, a teacher should encourage students to dislike music that isn't real, such as pop and rock music. This professor told me that as soon as they can distinguish the negative effects of this sort of music, they better. Somehow I do not agree with this, she's telling me to teach my students to hate entertainment music, I call them entertainers cos that's what they're there for, not to be musicians, they are light hearted performers with music integrated into it. Any comments on this advice she gave me?

[martin_s]

Crikey!!!!!!!
What kind of a stupid person told you that?? Probably the most insipid, unintelligent and narrow minded comment about music I have ever come across in my entire life! (her comment, not yours, that is Ludwig)

I mean, in what way is pop and rock music not real music, and if so, what is the definition of such "unreal" music, wherein does it differ from our precious bloody serious music and where do we draw the line between soulpop and jazz (which somehow seems to be legitimate nowadays, having only some six or seven decades ago been described as music played unemployed black people in *** houses) or experimental rock music and contemporary electroacoustic music??
And who says that we, "properly trained", classical musicians are not dealing with entertainment?? What is there to say that a dance movement from a suite by Händel or Grand Galoppe Chromatique by Liszt is not to do with entertainment?? Might our BIG problem actually lie in that we think of ourselves and our fine arts as something so bloody serious all the time? There has been good and bad music at all times, I mean, when did you last play a piece by Kalkbrenner or Moscheles or Henselt?? Of course there is lots and lots of seriously crap, mass produced, squeaky clean, superficial stuff coming out all the time these days, but I very much doubt that is something all that new...
So maybe we should start to actually try to entertain people instead of boring them to death, and maybe then, we would not lose all the young, talanted kids to other music styles??!

[Diabolos]

Hi there.

I pretty much agree with martin - there's no 'unreal' music. Of course, there's 'flat' music that's only produced to last a few weeks in the charts and then disappears.
But you can't define real music be just looking at it's harmonics - it is actually more about the way it touches people.
As music-professionals we should be open to any kind of musical style - there are even hiphop acts that are well thought out.
And Martin was completely right: how come we can't attract more people to 'our' style of music? If it was the real one, wouldn't the situation be different?

[ludwig]

Yeah, I agree. The degree of something being "musical" isn't depended upon a sheet of criteria paper, there's a smudge between entertainers and musicians now days, I think that we should incoperate these elements together, and in some cases, "bad" music will automatically seek out itself from students. Also, my professor told me that popular music does not promote music, it only promote the visual package it has neatly commercialised itself. So what is wrong with that? people like to see stuff pleasing to the eye, that is entertainment I think... she's taking this WA Y to seriously and not creatively enough..

on a last note, if music is bad, its still bad music, music is organised sound. But bad education isn't education at all.... :deep thought quote:

[Mandy]

People like that worry me......by unreal music does your prof mean only popular teannie-bopper stuff like Britney and NSync-or are they including everything from musicals, to jazz?  From a sarcastic point of view......look how many people go to their concerts compared to ours.......whose right is it to judge what is "good" music? and more so, whose right is it to discourage people from listening to whatever they want?

I have seen far too many people in their mid-ages say "I took piano lessons, but quit cause I hated it....my teacher didn't let me play what I want".  I think there is far too much emphasis onplaying "art music"-does it really matter if a student doesn't want to play Bach?  If they have no intentions of being a concert pianist and just want to play for themselves, can a good teacher not reinforce those exact same concepts through a jazz or pop piece?  I think so-it's all in the approach.  

While I personally do  not fully "appreciate" all of the pop musicians floating around the concert scene, I don't feel you should ever encourage a student to hate/dislike a style of music-because lets face it, we're all just playing the exact same notes.  Now, don't get me wrong, I think that people should strive to be excellent musicians and we should not take away from the classical, I just think it's dangerous to do what this prof is telling you to do.  It's unfortunate that your prof is so closed minded about this.  

I think if you can encourage your students to love all kinds of music, they will be much better off-and if you can get them to love classical music as much as the next set of backstreet boys then I think you have done a mighty fine job.    

[ludwig]

Thanks guys for the comments, I shall fight for justice (debate with my prof) in class, again.

[rmc7777]

In my opinion, there is no such thing as unreal music.  Although classical music is the love of my life, I certainly listen to and enjoy many genres of music, including rock, pop, jazz, blues, and others.  Rachmaninoff enjoyed playing jazz.  Andre Previn and Itzak Perlman recorded jazz music.  I think it's silly to dismiss other forms of music.  

[jphunter]

I guess my only thought in regards to "unreal music" is that we must not be so quick to dispell today's music, of any type, for although someone may not like it, it is most likely here to stay and continue it's evolvement. Surely to many it is radical, if not grotesque, but weren't the same things said of the music of Beethoven or Chopin, or Liszt by many critics of their time? Who is to say how society will look upon the current music in a century or more? By then it may only be quaint at best, or maybe forgotten, or maybe even revered. The most important thing to remember is the goal. If a student is attracted to a particular type of music, surely it can't hurt to at least explore it.  After all, isn't the most important part their attraction to the music, regardless of style??

[IvoryTickler]

The definition of music is sound and silence, therefore, beauty is in the ear of the beholder ... or something like that!  

[ludwig]

Yeah, I suppose she was trying to let us distinguish what we should call soemthing more musically structured, and what's suitable to teach in a classroom situation... But I totally agree that the definition, even in a dictionary says that music is "organised sound." That leaves it to pretty much everything, but also i've gotta point out, that also worries me some times  

[dinosaurtales]

OK.  Let's suppose for an instant that pop music isn't "real."  It's still what all the kids and adults listen to on the radio, dance to and attend concerts to see.  Assuming she has even one well-adjusted student she will realize that by poo-pooing it, she will only **ss them off and they'll hate music class.

[notelady]

I pretty much agree with what has been said in the other posts. My teacher once told me that it was her job only to make sure that somehow her students appreciated, liked, and even dared to love music. And if it was through Mozart and Bach, great. If it was jazz, pop, rock, or any mix of these that was ok too. If a musician has a certain "thirst," whether it be for the Brittney Spears and N' Syncs, or for something of a more traditional nature, than it is the teacher's responsibility to feed it, and encourage exposure to other genres. Everything influences something else. A true musician I believe, loves,or at least respects all types of music.  

[ludwig]

Having said, and heard you guys talk about "unreal music," made me also wonder on the other side of the argument. Now IvoryTickler said that music is sound and silence, this is a interesting view that I've debated about before. I agree that physically talking, music is "organised" sound and silences. However in musical values and tastes, the definition does vary. Not to be hypocritical, I think that some music does not have any musical value to myself personally. Of course we could say that everything is music, however there is a boundary or a grey section in my mind that cuts out some music as not being "musical music." Thus this comes into what are the aims of music education, and music overall. Hope you guys could enlighten me on what you think is "musical music" and what is just "sound".

[janice]

Ok. Here's a thought for you to ponder:  If the definition of music is a combination of sounds and silences, then isn't a period of silence actually music itself?  I have a question.  Here's what I did.  Whenever I do a solo at my church, I always verbally introduce the text as well as related Scripture.  Once, I quoted a verse, and said that I would like everyone (in the congregation) to ponder it as I played.  But before I started, there was an entire minute of silence!!  It was AWESOME!!!  I didn't originally plan on an entire minute, but I guess I got carried away!  Oh well!  I had told my pastor my gameplan, and he said to do 20 seconds, and any more than that and I would "lose" them.  When I finally did play, it was very soft and beautiful.  It softly emerged from the silence.  It was beautiful!  I absolutely LOVE congregational silence.  I really feel God's presence.  I mean, He's always there, but (myself) I am more aware of God's presence in the silence.  

Ok. So my thought provoking question is this:  if music is organized sound and silence, then when did my music actually start?  Did it start at the beginning of the silence, or when I hit my first note on the piano?  I can't believe that I actually had an entire minute of silence.  Oh well, that was over a year ago, and they haven't kicked me out yet!!  Plus they keep asking me to play!

[pianoannie]

I appreciated your story, and in fact I'm a church pianist too.  So I'm not trying to be a "smart-alec."  But I guess I'm not as "philosophical" as you.  Here's how I see it:  if I take my car out for a drive, it will consist of periods of driving and periods of coming to stops.  Did my drive start last night when the car was stopped in the garage, or did it start when I first began moving?  Songs start when the notes start, in my simplistic view of things.  

[robert_henry]

I respect musicians and musical styles of every type throughout the world, and I think that "unreal music" rantings of a professor only adds to the growing chasm between those who mainly enjoy classical music and those who enjoy popular music.  That prof does a disservice to classical music.

That doesn't mean that there isn't crap out there trying to pass as music, i.e. boy-bands and bubblegum pop.  There are great musicians in the pop realm, but I would hardly count teen bands among them.  They would be the only exception.  Yeah, the progressions in the songs make sense and everyone sings on pitch, but music was never the goal...money was.  It's cheap, and though it doesn’t fit the definition of "unreal music", I would call the Britney's of the world pseudo-musicians and uninspired entertainers.  But other than the few examples I mentioned, all musical genres are legit.  There is just plenty of crap within each genre.

Still, some music has more value than others, and the worth of better music can only be appreciated by those who are familiar with it.  I am speaking of both within a genre and from genre to genre.  For instance, Billy Joel's classical music has less value than that of Chopin's.  And Paul McCartney's songwriting skills trump those of David Hesselhoff.

Rap...many people will give credence to every type of music but rap, and I think that is sad.  I have listened off and on to rap my entire life, and I think it is some of the most creative music out there.  

Bottom line, do I think Classical music is better music that pop, rap, country, etc.?  Yes, I do, but that doesn't mean that those types of music aren't legitimate and "real", and that doesn't mean there aren't phenomenal musicians in those fields.  If that prof can't hear talent and skill in all types of music, then he isn't listening.

Robert Henry

[sary2106]

Back to what Janice and IvoryTickler posted... about sound and silence really creating music. How about John Cage's "4'33"? For those unfamiliar with the piece, basically the idea is that the performer comes out to the piano, sits down, sets up the music, and counts the rests. The MUSIC is the audience - all the various sounds created randomly. I think that music can be many things, many sounds.... And I think that, without silence, music would be nothing.

[ludwig]

hehe, this is interesting what sary2106 said about John Cage's 4'33''. Clever enough idea, but you've got to agree with me that not the best concert or performance given. I suppose what music means to me, is sound that's organised in a way which appeals to you personally. Therefor music could be different to everyone, but there's also a boundary. For example, 4'33'' has no musical value to me whatsoever. He also composed some electronic music which was very clever and interesting, which manipulated all aspects of music. But what he composes is what I'm trying to get at, I don't think that all of his music, and alot of other composes is music to me, they are merely sounds that's organised not in a musical way. To the other extreme of that, sound which is organised in predicatable, unoriginal way, I call it tasteless music, it is still music however, but merely entertainment valueless(I hope that's a word) music.

[selsa]

I think this topic was started of a teacher's perception that there is 'unreal' music. My response would depend on what s/he meant by that.

Since I started to listen to classical music, I am convinced it is the best for my ears and heart. No other music has taught me so much about music. But others may have a different view. Even I didn't realize that classical music is so extraordinary until I got exposed to it. So there are a lot of factory.

But one thing we can agree on:

Classical music is all-encompasing: theory, virtuosity, imagination, touch, timing, and many other basic concepts of music are found in classical music, and are lacking in most other genres.

There is a wide range of notes to play in classical music, and all these things make it very challenging and demanding. And it is no surprise that it is chosen as a standard for teaching music in most schools.

So the teacher may be right if this is perhaps where s/he's cming from, although s/he didn't make an attempt to put it delicately for those who love other genres more than classical.

-Selsa.

[MzrtMusic]

This is just something interesting that nobody has mentioned. If by "unreal" music, your teacher meant the music that is popular right now, then that could also include classical music. Think about it. When Strauss wrote Waltzes, they took Vienna by storm. They were very popular in their time. Beethoven wrote his Landlers and Bagatelles, Mozart wrote his Minuets, Bach wrote his Cantatas. All of them were writing for the people of their time, not to be remembered in 200 years, and to have their names become immortal in the music world. Thinking about what is "real" and "unreal" in the context doesn't really make sense. Because then everything is about the money and the popularity. I agree with what others have said. The Beauty of music is in the eye of the beholder. If a teacher can't realize that, then it's really unfortunate. Anyway...  That's my two cents!

Love,

Sarah

[emywu]

hi all,

I'm not interested in discussing what unreal music is, and the other philosophical ideas... obviously most of us disagree with what the "teacher" said.

Frankly, I don't like rock n' roll, but I will never call it unreal music. My point is, we all have likes and dislikes, but as teachers and educators, we should always be careful of what we say because our words and opinions will affect our students.

[ludwig]

Thus is it important to remain neutral about music and musical tastes? Is it worth while analysing these types of "popular" music? Would you discuss popular music (pop, urban, alternative etc..) with students because they could relate to it and make a better connection with the teacher, or is popular music really quite pointless and not worthwhile analysing due to its simplicity and lack of creativity? I'm interested in talking about these things, just to collect experience and opinions for my music classes in the future.

Ludwig

[MzrtMusic]

As a teacher, I have to realize that not all of my students are the next van cliburn. Most of them are taking piano lessons because their parents are making them, or they think that it's fun. I will use Alfred prep lesson books until they are done with that series, and then we have a talk about what kind of music we want to do from there. I've had students say they wanted to do church music or classical music, and some of them have this one song that they just really want to learn. I think it's my job as a teacher to find a learning opportunity in every piece, not just those on a pre-approved list. There is always something to learn from any piece, even if it's something as simple as listening to yourself!

Hope that helps.

Love,

Sarah

[emywu]

Popular music sure has its value. After all, music relects  cultures and social styles. I took some classes on popular music in university. The whole class had so much fun.  We anlysise jazz, blues, roch n roll, ragge, 80's, 90's, etc. We did not only look at the music itself,  we also learnt a lot about the origin and history of each style, the growth of different cultures, foreign music influences and the music industry nowadays.

I think most of us here are "classical musicians", but we should always open our minds to receive new ideas and keep learning new things around us. As music is an important part of the pop culture now, we should offer this variety (other than traditional classical music training) for students who are interested in more modern music styles and help them to develop skills for a more "commercial" music world.

[louellen]

Pop music is real music, in my opinion, and sometimes the students bring something they want to play that fits in the "pop" category.  If the piece is written well for a piano player, what they call "idiomatically", we use it.  If not, we find the same song in a better arrangement.  The main trouble with popular sheet music, like those with Disney or Warner pictures, is that they are written for the singer and not the pianist.  They actually discourage the student from playing and progressing.  

What my kids actually ask for, more often, are classical pieces they've heard modeled by more advanced students, you know, the old war horses, Canon in D, Fur Elise, etc., and that's where they make sudden leaps in understanding and skill.

[Le-ackt]

Depends on the music , there is real Artistic Crytals exist in every Musical Genre . I m a Rock fans also, and I know there are Very fine Rock musics which has depth . But for the most appear in MTV or so , I would consider those as Entertainer music .
I dont think Bach created so many pieces and they all musically perfect . There is good stuff , but also bad . So does everything .
The thing is , Encourage your student to discriminate what is Good and what is Bad , what stardard of Music . The Lyrical content , the musical content , the emotional content , whatever elements is the part of the whole picture you look at . Just most Classical Music seems very High Art , doesnt really mean they all good , at least not me . And Even Heavy Metal , there is song existing that contains Musical elements which has Depth .
And you know , there is Symphonic Metal this genre which I dont think someone who lack of Musical understanding could create such a thing
X Japan Rocks ~
YOSHIKI Rocks ~  

[glamfolk]

Does this mean that we're not allowed to be entertained by classical music?  That it shouldn't be fun?  After 10 years of "training" I could barely play a lick, then I took 10 more years off and traveled with blues and rock bands.  Guess what?  I returned to classical music way better than when I left it.  I played with more feeling, had a deeper understanding of theory, and was a much better reader.  I could sight read all those class-A solos I struggeled with in school.  I think that to appreciate music on any level is a gift that should not be discouraged in any way.  I'd love for all my students to appreciate Chopin, but I get them playing heart and soul, chopsticks, and mary had a little lamb first.  That's where music appreciation starts--with the ability to communicate through the instrument.  What a sad professor you must have. People like that give music and musicians a bad name.

[willcowskitz]

"Also, my professor told me that popular music does not promote music, it only promote the visual package it has neatly commercialised itself. So what is wrong with that?"

I must point out here, that if this narrow-minded professor was right about one thing, this is it.

I personally think he/she was absolutely on the right track. It makes me literally feel bad/sick/ill/wrong when I see this bull$hit on TV. Now we should think: TV?  MTV! Music is being sold as a product. The record companies wouldn't give a crap whether they sold cigarettes, heroin, books, pork chips or music. They just happen to sell music.

There is too much "music" out there. I hear "music" on the elevator, I hear "music" in the restaurant, I hear "music" at the parking lot. God knows how long will it take the humanity to develop deafness to music this way. What I'm saying, is that 95% of the existing music never needed to exist. I hate it, I've learnt to hate Britney Spears and the rest of the MTV crew. I respect the hiphop/rap scene in the sense that its for long been "underground", therefore far less commercial.

Yeah, commercials. On TV. What terrible tunes! Oh no, not just that, but they play Beethoven's Für Elise in a commercial advertising some kind of painkillers. What the...  Obviously, I hate Für Elise now.

Jazz, Blues, Rock, Electronic... Hey, seriously, anything as long as the music is a result of human mind, not a forced cause.

MUSIC IS NOT "MADE". MUSIC WRITES ITSELF IN THE COMPOSER'S HEAD.

I believe I consider music something divine, and without doubt it IS divine. Its about as divine as anything could be without being untouchable.

Oh and by the way... somebody said something about kids getting bored on piano classes. Well I WISH my teacher had me play classical when I was 8 or 9 years old. All I had to play were those stupid light-hearted simple childrens' songs. I HATE THEM!  Well, another case were my guitar lessons... My fingers started to hurt and I really disliked it because of that. My teacher had told my mom that "This boy will probably never become a guitarist, but a composer maybe. I've never seen as young kid as him like classical music so much.".  I was somewhere between 5 and 7 years old.  This was the case with me.

Please, people, leave music alone.
Unless, of course, it asks you to dance with itself.

p.s. I apologise for letting all the anger out on you people.

p.p.s.  I apologise for my sometimes irrational English.

[ludwig]

  Hi Willcowskitz,

        I believe that good music is something you listen to a million times and still could pick out interesting and musical elements you find fascinating and valuable. Now this means musical taste will differ from person to person. If it is really good music, then you can't really get sick of and begin to "hate it," when once you loved that piece of music. For example I never really liked fur elise, but that's because of my own personal taste in music, not because everyone knows it from a Panadol ad.
       There's a lot of music out there that I don't like either, but I suppose we have to have acceptance and acknowledgement for music. As they say, receive the good with the bad, we have to tolerate all sorts of music, even those we don't like. Just put it past your ears, don't be bothered by it, this way life will seem less stressful, and tiring, than if we rejected and complained about all the things that we don't like. There are so many people who'd camp out to buy a Britney Spears concert ticket, so let them have their fun.

     Also what did you mean by "MUSIC IS NOT "MADE". MUSIC WRITES ITSELF IN THE COMPOSER'S HEAD." ?

     I must admit that my piano playing career was the result of "forced cause." If it weren't for my parents persistency and supervision, I would have never had the chance to get to know music, and really love it now. Otherwise I'll probably be one of those people who regret not continuing with their piano learning.


Ludwig

[willcowskitz]

I'm saying music has lost a lot of its meaning because of crap tunes used only for advertising totally unrelated products and cause there are so many crap "artists" (oh dear total rape of the word 'art') whose music isn't something they felt like making because they thought it had something to tell, but instead is just made to be background "music" and therefore something that slowly kills a soul and another. The whole concept of "music" is so twisted and I'm not referring to any particular genre, but the raw abuse of the nature of music. I don't want to hear a stupid tune in a commercial just so I could remember it and recall that same ad everytime I hear something that is in even small details similar. This isn't why music exists and I honestly find it most disgusting.

"Also what did you mean by "MUSIC IS NOT "MADE". MUSIC WRITES ITSELF IN THE COMPOSER'S HEAD." ?"

I'm not talking about being "forced to get to know music" like maybe in your case it kind of appeared to be. Instead, I'm pointing a finger at the "hit song"-creators. Same people write the tunes for several "bands", therefore not differing from each other much, except from the butt-size of the girls/boys dancing on the stage. No matter how open-minded I am to things in general, I can't tolerate this, not even after being bombed by this horrible sight/"music" for years and years. As I said, they don't give a damn whether they sell cigarettes or music, as long as it makes money they dig it.

So what I'm actually saying... take Liszt for example. His compositions summon such great truths into my mind. About death, love, life, happiness. And none of those emotions are faked, none of them were faked by him - therefore he DID feel every single piece he wrote. The music was the result of something that is always present but only a few can actually TOUCH and bring to others. Franz Liszt was one of those. John Lennon was one of those. Bach was one of those. Jimi Hendrix was one of those. Many did have this ability. Britney Spears did not. (or hahahah whoever writes her 'songs')

[Dr._Blow]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dinosaurtales]

Dr Blow, welcome to the board!  I see you have a low threshhold for innane topics.  This would be one of them.  You have chosen poorly.  Perhaps another topic would be better.

[ludwig]

  Right now one of my friends who's also a classroom teacher is teaching her kids to play the chord progressions of britney spears on the xylophone. They will learn chords i, V, VII, III, iv through this exercise. They love to play it because it relates to them, therefor maybe, perhaps, this isn't such a big mistake to do this, even though some people might classify this as rubbish, I think that this topic isn't that much inane since I'm experimenting with pop songs in my classes, it is of substance, this topic. It is with great appreciation that I get opinions from everywhere about what to teach in a classroom situation.