Classical music? A higher form?

[lisztisforkids]

I had a big argument with my sister the other day. She listens to a lot of really loud heavy metal which I can hear all over the house. So I went into her room told her to turn it down and asked her why she listened to such simple mindlessness. She flipped, telling me that Metal was just as good if not better than Classical music. I pointed out to her that not only do most of the songs only last about 2-4 minuets, but they usually consist of about 2 chords, and go at one speed and volume: Loud and Fast. But Classical music is incredibly more complex, is louder, faster, and more chaotic. Not to metion that Classical Musicians have to relay dynamics with their bare hands unlike rock roll stars that have amps to do it for them. I feel particulary insulted when I give her a cd to listen to (this time it was Shostakovich 5th symphony) and she  listens to it less than a minuet and throws it back to me saying she dident like it and she dident want to waste her time. Sheesh.....


So anyway..... Do you beleive that Classical Music is a higher form of music?

I am thinking in terms of number of insturments, number of performers, length of piece,
and of course, the years of work to play a piece. But most importantly.. Raw emotional power. I have never encountered in my life music that has such force and momentum behind it. Sublime. Music is a path to God....

[pianistimo]

my thoughts exactly, but you can't sing to classical music.  too bad there isn't something better than 'pump it' by 'black eyed peas.'  i think teenagers like mindless repetition, too, because they can repeat verses with different words and 'chill out.'  BUT, what if they listened to mozart.  they might be smarter.

all i can suggest is buying a load of all different kinds of music and secretly taping the labels of her heavy metal onto them.  that would really shock her.  especially if she was going on a trip and was away from home and couldn't get to her cd stash.  or, putting your shostakovich on a few.

maybe she'll just overload one day - and stop listening.  my son did this when he started having a little trouble with his hearing. 

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

There is no question as to which is higher, of course classical music. The thing with the bulk of the currect society is that basically all of their interests, likes, dislikes, attitude, mindset is preditermined and governed by those that the youth looks up to, and those that govern what they do outside of their mindset, such as school, college, etc. Why do the youth follow these, partly because they are bluntly encouraged, the repetive beat of the music basically engraves the information that the producers want the teens to hear, and in so forth, the teen cannot actively listen to higher forms, which therefore contributes to the teen's rejection. I asked my piano teacher if she thinks that there will be a time for classical music to freely thrive. To no surprise she didn't think so(neither does my mom). Pity. All I can say is pity. If one thinks about it it sort of tends that way, towards the elimination of human spirit. Look at the schools. What do they teach, or should I say etch. They don't teach to understand they make the students a tape recorder with information that to them has no meaning and when asked(Life situation such as a normal job) they just play back without any understanding of what they just said. Why? Because that is efficient to the human nature. People tend to of course behave in such a singleminded, machine like manner. However if you look back and compare to the present, nothing really has changed. People didn't change, it is what the given mindset of the people that changes. All I can say is pity. Will humanity die out(classical music). I don't think so. It has always been and should always be. I belive there is a quote somewhere, "A house divided cannot stand." I personally agree because what is a man with intellect and ration without feeling? Not a man. Since man has always been man, nothing should change. Yes the majority will be just as it is today, which is not so good, but has always been like this, but classical music will always thrive. And that's precious.

[leahcim]

I am thinking in terms of number of insturments, number of performers, length of piece,
and of course, the years of work to play a piece. But most importantly.. Raw emotional power. I have never encountered in my life music that has such force and momentum behind it. Sublime.

I think you could make the same argument within classic music [or any other genre], and start to chip away at what is high or not.

I have in the past owned records where the whole of one side is a single track and / or albums where the entire work is a conceptually connected whole. OTOH, Chopin wrote some very short preludes and other pieces.

The danger is the argument is that, even if you don't intend it to, it might be misinterpreted as applying to the people rather than the music. "I listen to classical ergo I am higher", which is self-evidently not the case from the various forums around.

It seems clear to me that the people who listen and play classical music have a wide range of abilities / ages / beliefs / intelligence and other interests. No different from people who don't.

As for talking to God, it's not something I believe in, however I note for those that do, they appear to attempt that using a variety of musical styles from gospel to heavy metal, including classical. There doesn't seem to be any strong evidence as to which he prefers, if any.

I wouldn't go as far as expecting a modern-day Beethoven [or similar] to necessarily be found in modern-day classical music [Although I wouldn't say it was Paul McCartney ] but the quality of the music from classical / romantic composers is a strong argument.

If Art Tatum or Steve Vai are considered technically skilled, they both seem to have a good comprehension of theory. Then there's every possibility that another genre can have a very technically skilled musician that chooses to express him/herself through a different genre. I believe both put years of effort into their playing.

From the pov of listening to music, the composers / instruments / number of players doesn't change hugely for me from my own feeble attempts at solo piano. Perhaps Hamelin et al would be higher if they went on stage en masse rather than sitting by themselves, but I don't think so.

So what have you got left? It's not the number of players, it's not the complexity per se, it's not the length of the pieces, it's not the people involved today nor the amount of years of effort afaict.

If it's anything at all I would say, for me, it's the quality of the music composed by people at a time when if you were there, the music around was probably no different from any genre today. In terms of having simple / complex / good / not so good and whatever else. But now we look at it from a point of view of a time in the future.

It's what Tony Blair hopes will happen long after his death, that he might be considered in the more favourable light that some dead ex-prime ministers are today.

[prometheus]

Indian classical music is more complex than european classical music. It has had about 2000 to reach the level of refinement it has now while our music isn't that old.

[ahinton]

Indian classical music is more complex than european classical music. It has had about 2000 to reach the level of refinement it has now while our music isn't that old.

No, it isn't; it has developed certain kinds of complexity to a greter degree than was evident in much European "classical" music (at lest until relatively recently), that's for sure, but whereas the latter has witnessed the development of harmonic and contrapuntal complexities that simply have no part in classical Indian music, the former has witnessed the development of melodic and rhythmic complexities that remained largely outside the remit of European "classical" composers until the latter part of the last century.

By adding the (presumably intended but accidentally omitted) word "years" between "2000" and "to" in the above post, however, the remainder of it is entirely true.

That said - and mindful of the actual question posed by the originator of this thread - my first paragraph here is not intended to represent any kind of value judgement (so, effectively, I admittedly haven't answered the question...).

Best,

Alistair

[stevie]

i am a fan of both.

in art, there is no universal way to tell if something is 'better', the only objective way to think about it is to think of what purpose it serves, and how well it fills that purpose.

popular music is largely simpler, less subtle, more immediate, and simply easier to digest.
it also has a beat, which is a major factor - as it provides the thing that most find sorely lacking in classical music - a constant energy.

you see, when a person listens to a pop song for the first time, they dont know the melody, but they can always enjoy the beat, and once theyve listened to it a couple times, the melody is ingrained too, so its alot easier to appreciate, especially without concentration.

classical music is largely more complex, subtle, and takes many more listens to absorb a single piece, let alone get accustomed to a composer's unique style/vocabulary.

but which is better?

popular music is simply better music, in many ways, as it's form is ideally suited to the musical digestive system of most average people.

enjoying classical music nowadays is more difficult because of many factors, you need patience, you need to ignore the fact that your peers may tease you and think of you as 'uncool', and you need to understand that to appreciate it, you must give it time, the more you give it, the more it gives you.
on top of that, you need an above-average musical brain, a higher level of musicality.

as i have said, i enjoy both, i have dipped my feet in both ponds, and i realise the inherent strength of these 2 universes of music.

i listen to classical music most of the time, but i do enjoy popular music a great deal, it provides things that classical music cannot.

its more relaxing/theraputic to listen to heavy metal than liszt, as ironic as it may seem to some.

[timothy42b]

We might want to invoke the Sturgeon principle (named for the sci-fi author):  90% of anything is crap.

This applies to all art forms.

Painting, sculpture, movies, etc.  And music.

90% of classical music was crap.  Time has served to weed some of this out.  90% of pop music is crap.  Time will weed it out and what remains will be tomorrow's classical music.

[brewtality]

it also has a beat, which is a major factor - as it provides the thing that most find sorely lacking in classical music - a constant energy.

you see, when a person listens to a pop song for the first time, they dont know the melody, but they can always enjoy the beat

This is what makes alot of popular music boring to me. There is no concept of rubato or any real dynamic range. I'd like to hear popular music without drums. I think the original poster underestimates metal; a lot of it is highly sophisticated and complex. I think the higher form notion is kinda snobbish to be honest. Good music is good music, simple as that. It's a matter of taste.

[prometheus]

Actually, when you play guitar you relay a lot more physically then when you play piano. It doesn't really matter how you touch your keys on a piano. But on a guitar it does. Because of the touch involved you can instantly recognise a musician. And with violin this is even more so.

[elspeth]

There is no such thing as better or worse in music or any other art form. It's all a matter of taste.

It is true that classical music is 'harder' that most other styles due to its tendency to length, subtlty, and complex emotional expression as well as simple combinations of melody and beat. It isn't taught properly in schools as most children are brought up with the 'classical music is boring' mentality, just as they are with 'reading is boring'. Today's society trends towards instant gratification and simple fixes mean children aren't encouraged to develop long attention spans. Unless a child volunteers a definite interest in classical music  - and odds are they'll get that interest from home, not school - they won't usually be given an opportunity to develop it until later in life when they've learned that they can like what music they want and blow what their friends think.

Classical composers are free to write the music they feel, at the length the particular piece feels it ought to be, while modern songwriters are usually compelled to write three-minute songs because that's what they can sell. Like everything else, it comes down to money in the end. A short, technically simple, catchy new song will sell more copies and make more profit than a complex, subtle, hour-long new symphony. The classic example of bucking the trend is of course Bohemian Rhapsody, a six-minute track that only got released at all due to the perseverance of a few people and went on to be one of the most instantly recognisable songs ever.

If anybody thinks all popular music is simple and banal, they could do worse than trying to sing Bohemian Rhapsody properly. It's actually very difficult to do well.

There are divisions within classical music, too - many serious classical music fans take pleasure in despising those pieces of classical music which have worked their way into the popular consciousness. Many serious opera fans love to deride Gilbert and Sullivan, for instance, as their work is popular and - heaven forbid - fun, but Sullivan's music is in reality very tricky and needs a lot of skill to perform well. Equally Gilbert's lyrics may not be Shakespeare, but they are witty and suited to the style of music and show.

For my part, I was lucky to be brought up in a household where music was music and appreciated as such regardless of style or technical snobbery. I listen to a lot of different styles and take my influences from many musicians - and I believe it makes me a better pianist and hopefully a better person.

[Torp]

I feel particulary insulted when I give her a cd to listen to (this time it was Shostakovich 5th symphony) and she  listens to it less than a minuet and throws it back to me saying she dident like it and she dident want to waste her time. Sheesh.....

I'm guessing your sister might feel that same way.  Music is an exploration.  There are some forms of music that I may or may not like personally, but I think they have validity in exploring them.  A long thread on rap music comes to mind on this forum.

The problem that people often have is when we begin to lable things.  What exactly is Metal?  There are many different sub-genres within the context of Metal; just like there are many genres within what is generally refered to as "classical" music.

If you're really looking for understanding from your sister you'll probably have to take the first step.  Find out what it is about her music that appeals to her.  See if "you" can understand that.  If you take a genuine interest in her point of view you may find she is more receptive, over time, to yours.  On the other hand, if you simply try and ram Shostakovic down her throat she may not repsond very favorably.

From my limited point of view I simply am thrilled that someone enjoys music, any music.  Some people couldn't give a crap about music at all.  Those are the people I don't get.

[lisztisforkids]

I'm guessing your sister might feel that same way.  Music is an exploration.  There are some forms of music that I may or may not like personally, but I think they have validity in exploring them.  A long thread on rap music comes to mind on this forum.

The problem that people often have is when we begin to lable things.  What exactly is Metal?  There are many different sub-genres within the context of Metal; just like there are many genres within what is generally refered to as "classical" music.

If you're really looking for understanding from your sister you'll probably have to take the first step.  Find out what it is about her music that appeals to her.  See if "you" can understand that.  If you take a genuine interest in her point of view you may find she is more receptive, over time, to yours.  On the other hand, if you simply try and ram Shostakovic down her throat she may not repsond very favorably.

From my limited point of view I simply am thrilled that someone enjoys music, any music.  Some people couldn't give a crap about music at all.  Those are the people I don't get.

My sister listens to that music for almost purley for rebelion. She has Swastikas painted on her wall because she says they look cool, in reality she just wants to piss people off.  She is not in any way a Post-Nazi she just likes to shock people. She really dosent care for other peoples feelings or opinions. hopefully she will grow up.

Music is an exploration, and I enjoy going to many punk rock shows and mashing for several hours. The problem is no one wants to take the step in Classical musics direction. No one will take the time time to listen to a simple piece.

It seems to me that Clasical music has a huge bias against it. Why?

[Torp]

My sister listens to that music for almost purley for rebelion. She has Swastikas painted on her wall because she says they look cool, in reality she just wants to piss people off.  She is not in any way a Post-Nazi she just likes to shock people. She really dosent care for other peoples feelings or opinions. hopefully she will grow up.

Keep in mind that rebellion is often an attempt at getting attention.  When positive attention is freely given then negative attention getting behaviors often decrease.  Another factor in rebellion is the "good" child "bad" child syndrome.  Often in families you have one child who does really well in school, never is in trouble, excels at extracurricular activities, etc.  This child gains a tremendous amount of attention from this.  In some cases another child in the family cannot compete at the same level and garner the same attention.  As an adaptation for this they engage in behaviors that are negative and generally opposite from the "good" child.  Your analysis that your sister is engaging in behavior simply to piss people off bears some resemblence to this.

It seems to me that Clasical music has a huge bias against it. Why?

Probably because people who talk about it have a tendency to talk about it in ways that are condescending to other forms of music or likes.  I personally think that a lot of classical music is very repetitive and shallow while a lot of progressive rock music does a better job of portraying a wider range of emotions.  Since this is only my opinion it cannot be verified or really debated for that matter.  I happen to really enjoy many different types of music.  However, when I really want to get out and party I probably won't throw on some Chopin to liven up the crowd.  When I'm feeling more instrospective I may listen to jazz or classical.

Many of the people who are hanging out in the mosh pits during a punk rock concert may not be interested (yet) in a wider range of emotional experience through music than what is available through punk.  Generally, however, I have found that punk music has a social consciousness to it that at leads me to believe that these people are thinking beyond their next drink.

The beauty of music, for me, is its ability to express such a wide range of emotions.  I have yet to find a single genre of music that does everything perfectly well.

[elspeth]

My sister listens to that music for almost purley for rebelion. She has Swastikas painted on her wall because she says they look cool, in reality she just wants to piss people off.  She is not in any way a Post-Nazi she just likes to shock people.

Thank your lucky stars she's chosen to rebel through decorating and music. Would you rather she do it through having an eating disorder or something? Teenage angst is usually about control - you pick something in your life you do have control over and focus on that, then you don't have to worry about all the stuff you don't feel you can control. There are plenty worse outlets for that feeling than music.

She really dosent care for other peoples feelings or opinions.

Have you considered the same might be said of you if you try to impose your taste on her without stopping to consider why she likes what she does?

Also, have you considered she possibly thinks exactly the same of you for your love of classical music as you do of her? 'My brother's a classical music type, he only does it to try to prove he's different, he tries to force it on me because it makes him feel clever and important'. (I hope you take that in the spirit it's intended, I'm not trying to insult you, just to point out that your sister may look at things a little differently!)

If you want to show her some of the things you love about classical music without starting rows, you have to meet her half way. Choose music she'll know for starters. If she likes her rock bands, why don't you buy her a recording of the Queen symphony for her next birthday? She'll probably already know the tunes and then it's just a question of presentation. Or maybe her favourite film's score? An awful lot of people now only listen to an orchestra for an extended period in cinemas, when they're being distracted so don't notice they're sitting listening to classical music.

Also bear in mind that unless they're at a concert or show, most people won't just sit and listen to a whole classical CD and call it entertainment. Put it on in the background while you're doing something else around the house. Music tends to permeate - just as you can hear your sister's music around the house. I'm not saying put it on loudly and compete - but I initially learned about classical music because my grandmother in particular listened to it a lot and it was always just there in the background. And I suppose I associate it with her and all the things I loved about her.

It seems to me that Clasical music has a huge bias against it. Why?

Many reasons... one main one being the attitudes of a lot of people involved with it which have a nasty tendency towards snobbery. This can make it seem both difficult and elitist to people outside classical circles.

Classical music has an image of being older people's style - and it is, mostly because it takes most people a certain amount of maturity to develop the interest and attention span.

It's expensive - not just if you're learning an instrument. CDs at £30 or opera tickets at £100+ a time put the cream of classical performers beyond the reach of most people, especially most families, certainly on a regular basis. I've got lucky this season and will be going to hear Placido Domingo sing at Covent Garden - but the weekend in London and the ticket price will cost me around £200. It's certainly not something my parents could have afforded for me when I was growing up, and only something I can afford for myself now I'm independant and earning reasonable money. Contrast this with, say, Robbie Williams - a handful of CDs at £15 or less, concert tickets under £50. That's an investment most families can afford to support their child in if said child likes Robbie Williams.

It's badly marketed and publicised to the mass market. Some classical performers are starting to try to appeal more to the masses, but most people don't know where to find out about their local concert circuit. It's also notable that those performers who do choose to play to the masses - Russell Watson, for instance - are sneered at by the rest of the classical music world, who do their best to ostracise them. If you asked most people to name famous current classical music stars, you'd probably just about get Nigel Kennedy, the Three Tenors, Lesley Garrett or Russell Watson named. Even serious classical music people can usually name more famous rock bands than that.

All of the above meaning - unless you're born into a family that brings you up with classical music and can afford to support any growing interest in it on your part, you probably won't be offered any opportunity to get involved with it until you're old enough and rich enough to do it for yourself, and even then you'll probably need something outside yourself to get you motivated to do so - acquiring a friend with an interest in classical music or falling in love with a film score or something.

[meisel]

I just want to clear out one thing. The term "heavy metal" seems to be used with everything that has a distorted guitar in it, when in fact, its a subgenre within the genre metal. Heavy metal is bands like Judas Priest, Helloween and Iron Maiden, NOT Nickelback or fast "noisy" metal with a vocal that sounds like hes swallowed a barb wire.

And by the way, metal is as diverse as classical music, and varies with complexity, just as any other genre, so please dont underestimate it.

[stevie]

And by the way, metal is as diverse as classical music, and varies with complexity, just as any other genre, so please dont underestimate it.

this is wrong

it is more diverse than most non-metal fans give it credit for, but classical music is more diverse than any other form of music, by a very long way, only jazz can possibly compare, but even then - cnote-for-note composed jazz , is actually classical music(ie- kapustin)

[Torp]

but classical music is more diverse than any other form of music

Would you care to elaborate on this?  I'm curious what makes classical music so much more "diverse" than any other form of music.

Is it key changes?  Harmonic structure?  Tempo?  Time signatures?  What?

[meisel]

this is wrong

it is more diverse than most non-metal fans give it credit for, but classical music is more diverse than any other form of music, by a very long way, only jazz can possibly compare, but even then - cnote-for-note composed jazz , is actually classical music(ie- kapustin)

My point was that most people looks upon metal in a "stereotype" of way. Classical music is absolutely diverse, but im not sure if its the most diverse genre. The term classical is also quite "blurry". But what i am sure of, is that the more you look into a genre, the more you discover new subgenres and influences in them.

[stevie]

Would you care to elaborate on this?  I'm curious what makes classical music so much more "diverse" than any other form of music.

Is it key changes?  Harmonic structure?  Tempo?  Time signatures?  What?

yes, with complexity comes diversity, thats all

My point was that most people looks upon metal in a "stereotype" of way. Classical music is absolutely diverse, but im not sure if its the most diverse genre. The term classical is also quite "blurry". But what i am sure of, is that the more you look into a genre, the more you discover new subgenres and influences in them.

im a big metal fan, classical music isnt a genre/

classical music (i hate the term, btw) in my definition = any music that is composed, and is above standard popular music , in terms of complexity/subtlety.

this is an interesting definition, because it can include metal, afterall - what is metal?

if the metal follows a standard pop song form, then it is a pop song, if the metal is more like dream theater or any other progressive/ambitious band, then it could actually be called classical music if it were composed and written out before it is performed.

the point is that the term 'classical msuc' to me is all-inclusive, and strictly it can include some forms of metal, whereas - metal is a genre of popular music, and is held by its constraints.
when it isnt held by its constraints, it actually can be considered 'serious/art' music.

to make it clear, 'classical music' is neither a genre, style, or anything absolutely definable, and thats why it is the most diverse form of music, if you can call it a form.

and to compare the possible diversity inherent in popular music compared to classical music - compare it to chess and checkers - due to the innte complexity that is posible in the limitless boundaries of the term 'classical music' , it can be, and IS far more diverse than any form of popular music.

[Torp]

the point is that the term 'classical msuc' to me is all-inclusive, and strictly it can include some forms of metal

Ah, ok, I see where you're coming from.  When you use "classical" as the all-encompassing category then by definition it is the most diverse.

I was glad to hear mention of groups like Dream Theater as they were who I had in mind in the metal category that I thought in some ways are fairly complex.

[stevie]

most of the ignorant masses define 'classical music' as ....anything composed for orchestra by old dead dudes.

naturally this is an ignorant misconception...

dream theater are a great band, but even so, i dont find their music that complex.
the way this could best be understood is by looking at a score of a dream theater song and a score of a 20th century classical piece.

also, im interested in what you guys define 'metal' as , anyway, because i think it is an inherently restrictive term.

[Torp]

because i think it is an inherently restrictive term.

Most any descriptive terminology tends to generalize and restrict.  This is often what makes it difficult to have meaningful conversations about anything.

I have a tendency to be attracted to music in the "progressive rock" category.  But, what exactly is progressive rock?  I really have not idea.  Dream Theater doesn't sound anything like Spock's Beard who don't sound anything like Porcupine Tree who don't sound anything like Gentle Giant or Yes.

I wouldn't tend to put any of the above in the category of "Classical" music.  When listening to NPR Classic radio I've yet to hear them spin up any of the aforementioned groups.

Then again, when I'm in cities that have "metal" stations I never hear the above on those stations either.  I hear groups like Disturbed that, while I happen to enjoy some of their songs, I find tend to have songs that operate in a fairly restricted emotional range.

Dream Theater, to me, has become less complex over time.  However, where I think much of their complexity lies is in the arena of time signatures.  I've rarely encountered any classical music (using the term in the sense of old dead dudes) that moves in and out of complex time signatures the way these guys do.  I've seen this some in Jazz, but that seems to be limited to the basics of 7/4 and 5/4 (Dave Brubeck comes to mind).

I really have no interest in music categories other than for the ability to find the CD easier when I'm buying.  I find "good" music in just about every category.  I find a lot more "bad" music than good in just about every category too.

[I Love Xenakis]

Just make her listen to some Xenakis or Penderecki or Ginastera.

[perfect_pitch]

So anyway..... Do you beleive that Classical Music is a higher form of music?

Yes!    I would explain why, but it isn't necessary.

[Derek]

Your sister apparently hasn't heard Opeth. If not quite as complex and subtle as classical music, a band like Opeth certainly is in touch with what really makes music beautiful. Their songs are frequently 10 minutes long or longer.

So yes...Opeth is an exception as far as metal goes...but I hesitate to say that classical music is really a "higher" form of music...I might like it better...but "higher?" What does that mean anyway?

[Siberian Husky]

MY GOODNESS

Its amazing to see all these responses.

You know..its really a let down when you are apart of your community, and you feel as if alot of those around you think so self righteously.

This is the kind of behaviour i try to avoid in the "classical scene."

I make it a point in my life not to undermine any kind of music. Instead of stratifying music into degrees of quality or superiority, i organize it in a way that it should be. These are different forms, not higher or lower forms.

This is a classical piano forum, so your question was somewhat of a deadend to begin with, of course we will all praise classical music for its unique ability and outstanding structure as far as musical construction, tonality, melody, etc etc. But you can not sit there and tell me that it is of higher form.

Its a much greater feeling when you accept all differences as equals, and learn to differentiate real higher forms of anything from personal preference.

Its that arrogant type of attitude (whether you go about it peacefully or not) that contributes to many people HATING classical music. To tell you the truth, in my younger days, i disliked classical music not for it being classical music, but for the croud involved with it.

I hated being undermined by classical listeners simply because i wasnt schooled or exposed to classical music.

"Different Strokes for Different Folks"

When you are Christian, you dont impose your faith onto a Muslim, Jew, or any other different religious believer simply because you think it is right.

When you wear the color blue and love the color blue, you dont audaciously assume it is 'higher' than red simply because, to you, it feels this way.

We are stressed to learn equality from an early age, or atleast this is what i am under the impression of.

You know, it feels good to be able to go to a hip hop jam and immerse myself in the croud and be one with people celebrating hip hop and its cultural preservation. Then turn around the next day and show up at a piano recital or Tchaikvosky concerto and discuss the movements, musicality, and expression in the piece(s) with those around me in full confidence and comfort.

sorry for the excessive rant..these things just urk me..and whether its a big deal to you or not..it contributes to the glass ceiling

[pianistimo]

irk, siberian.  it's irk.  (ok.  my grammar isn't perfect either - and probably spelling ) and, perhaps you are right.  the less said, the better.  just doesn't work to tell people what music they should listen to.  and, you'll be able to relate to a lot more people if you at least know a few songs in each genre.  i sort of 'tune out' when i'm hearing my daughter's music - but the youngest has all the words memorized (except she substitutes her own words sometimes).

[JCarey]

You make some great points, Husky. However, I'm not sure whether or not I agree with you. On one hand, you're right, it's really all subjective. However, on the other hand, I can't imagine that any piece of music apart from the classical genre could possibly be as great as, say, Beethoven's 9th symphony, Rachmaninoff's 3rd concerto, or Mahler's 2nd symphony.

Let's get this straight, I love Rock (I have a Led Zeppelin CD in my car right now), I worship Jazz and I can appreciate Hip Hop. However, I would never go as far as to say that any piece from any of those genres could ever compare to a Beethoven symphony, no matter how wonderful it is.

Frankly, I think it's a waste of time comparing any genre to classical music, because they're so different. I suppose somebody could write a very complex Rock piece with multiple movements and melodies... but then, could it still be considered Rock?

I suppose it comes down to the question: How does one define "classical" music?

[musik_man]

I think any blanket statements that Classical music is superior are wrong, but after some thought, I also disagree with statements that all genres are equal.  It's really a cultural thing.  By that I mean that every genre has an individual culture and this culture dictates the qualities of music.  Baroque music valued polyphony, heavy ornamentation and to a degree improv.  Classical music valued grace and subtlety.  Romantic music put personal expression above all else.  Twentieth century classical obsessed itself with experimentation.  There is one thing though that unites these periods, and that is a respect for composers who showed a mastery of harmony, counterpoint, form, etc.  Musical education was valued highly in these genres, and it shows.  All of classical music has seen itself as art music, with a huge focus on quality.

Alot of today's music values things that don't translate into good music.  Pop music values simplicity and stage presence(aka having a nice set of breasts.)  Punk Rock values lack of musical knowledge and rebellion.  Indie music values a lack of success in the corporate world.  As I think most of us can see, disliking anything over the absolute simplest music, such as the case of punk, is going to lead to a genre having a huge amount of sh*tty music.  All of these cultural values are going to have an effect on the music, not always a positive one.  Bebop jazz valued technical skill.  A good amount of bebop is a sax player saying absolutely nothing in his solo, but saying absolutely nothing at 300bpm!

Now, before anyone flames me, I'm not suggesting that all pop music is bad.  There are people like Simon&Garfunkel and the Beatles to disprove that.  What I am suggesting is a variation of the Sturgeon principle, that 90% of all art produced sucks.  The variation is that from genre to genre this percentage varies.  Classical music may only have 50% while rap or punk rock may be at 98%.  The truth of this is revealed by who's popular in each genre when the genre occured.  Beethoven was famous in his day.  Miles Davis was famous in his day.  Compare that to punk and rap, with the Sex Pistols(who couldn't play their instruments) and Snoop Dawg respectively.  Groups that value ideas that result in good music are much more likely to value good music.  Even Siberian Husky has said as much, that you won't find good rap in the mainstream.  You will, however, find the best classical and jazz in the mainstream of their genres, even if you were to go back in time to when they were developing.  This magnifies the difference.  Punk/rap produces worse music on average and also is unlikely to support the good music that is made.  When you take that into account, it's no wonder why many people see all punk/rap as terrible.  It takes a dedicated listener to find the stuff that isn't.

The values of different types of music are also going to affect the quality of the greatest compositions.  Beethoven's 4th PC blows  away Led Zeppelin IV or Sgt Peppers, even though those are two great albums.  The best classical would even eek out a victory against Kind of Blue, A Love Supreme, or Mingus, Mingus, Mingus, Mingus, Mingus(was that the right amount of Minguses? )  Can you imagine pop group spending 25 years to write a 16 hour work like Der Ring?

So in a sense, I really do think Classical music (and Jazz and prog rock to a lesser extent) are superior forms of music.  And I can't say that there's any elitism involved with my position.

BTW this is one of my longest posts.  I've always wondered how rambly(a made-up word for 'containing much rambling and pointless tangents') my writing is.  Any opinions on that would be appreciated.

[dave santino]

I think the one thing that comes out of this is that music in general i pigeon-holed into people-friendly genres so that the mass buying public don't actually have to switch on in HMV or Virgin, they can just walk over to the heavy metal section or classical section and know they are in their "Safe" zone. It would be far better for music as a whole if all preconceptions of genre and style were discarded and everyone approach new music with an open mind and no preconceptions about what it should or shouldn't be. As to whether classical music is a "higher art", I find it quite snobbish to say that, as everything depends on who you are. I recently had this discussion with a punk-pop fan. I was trying to explain to him why I class Planet X and Dream Theater as more worthy of recognition than, say, Blink-182 or Green Day, citing their complexity, virtuosity and musical innovation as major reason why I considered them better. However, that is only my point of view, and I would not expect anyone to change their mind as to what they listen to just because I say so, and I would never be as presumptuous as to say that the music I like is a "higher art" than that of someone else.

Dave

[steve jones]

I dont tend to rate musical 'worth' in proportion to its technical and theoretical properties. That would be pointless, right? Afterall, music is intended to make us feel something, its art.

So with this in mind, I tend to rate music by what I feel when I listen to it. Fortunately, I am very open minded. And I tend to find merit in most styles. I honestly dont thing there is any higher form or lower form of music. There is only DIFFERENT types.

You mention metal music. Let me ask you, have you ever heard a classical piece that inspires you to mosh?

Probably not I would think.

Now, that is just one demostration of how powerful metal music is. The noise and the chaos is designed to communicate something that no classical music can.

The same could be said for dance music. I used to love going out to techno all nighters, and I would become hypnotised by the music for hours on end. This is something that only this music can do to me. I dont know if its the repetitive nature of the 4/4 rhythms or what, but I can really trance you out.

Once again, classical music is completely in capable of having such primevil control over you.


However, if you are taking purely about the music in a technical sense, then I agree, there is little in contempary music that will rival it. The tonal system in ingenius, as is the orchestra. A true pinnacle in human achievement!

[stevie]

if classical music embraced 'beat' more, then it could have those powers

the interesting thing is that classical music has music that is more furious and agressive than virtually any metal, the only difference is that metal music has a constant energy.

you cant really mosh to classical music because the energy isnt constant, there is no beat hammering throughout the whole thing.

if classical music were to embrace this aspect of music more, it would not cease to be classical music, and this is something i am very interested in seeing expanded upon.

[Derek]

It seems to me that when classical music is written, at least in the case of Baroque, Classical, Romantic, and a very few modern composers and amateurs,

There is an overriding assumption held by classical composers that Truth and Beauty is there to be found, and the composer actively searches for these.

All other genres are primarily about having fun or "letting it all hang out" and that sort of thing, though occassionally that search for Truth and Beauty becomes part of the creative process in other genres as well...

It is simply more prevalent in classical music, so perhaps it IS reasonable to say that it is a higher form---not because the music is always better, but because the attitude and motivation behind it consists of higher and purer things.

It might be likened to the difference between a video game programmer and a geometer in a university. The video game programmer might come up with graphics that are just as if not cooler looking (on the outside...one could liken this to a hip-hop beat) than what the geometer comes up with, but the geometer discovers deep Truths (harmony, melody and rhythm all working in concert) about the universe and that is his motivation.

[ted]

I think that those, like me, who enjoy in their music an overriding quality of what, for want of a better term, I call intellectual contemplation of beauty, will naturally gravitate toward works which generate this sensation. Emotion, even very strong emotion, can be present but it is "once removed", so to speak. Wordsworth's "emotion recollected in tranquility" seems to me to concisely capture the spirit of the process. Most popular genres, on the other hand seem to involve a much more visceral, here and now, participation, both in the act of generating the music and in that of listening to it.

I find it quite hard to put this into words. It is somewhat akin to the difference between contemplating a universe one has created and actually being a part of it. Some folk prefer the former sensation and some the latter. In many types of music the generating process itself can heavily involve a creator, even at the physical level (a Jarrett improvisation comes to mind) but the result, once created, becomes an object of abstract beauty onto which the contemplative listener is at complete liberty to project whatever thoughts enter his mind.

So while I hesitate to use the words "higher" or "lower" in relation to these matters, it seems to me that most classical, baroque, romantic and so on, however emotional in spirit or vocabulary, also possess this quality of serene contemplation of beauty, of involvement once removed. Many other genres, on the contrary, are very seldom contemplative.

 

[steve jones]

if classical music embraced 'beat' more, then it could have those powers

the interesting thing is that classical music has music that is more furious and agressive than virtually any metal, the only difference is that metal music has a constant energy.

you cant really mosh to classical music because the energy isnt constant, there is no beat hammering throughout the whole thing.

if classical music were to embrace this aspect of music more, it would not cease to be classical music, and this is something i am very interested in seeing expanded upon.

Dont forgot the timbral aspect aswell - I have never heard any classical instrument that sounds like a line of cranked stacks!

Part of rock musics appeal is that element of 'noise', manifested in the chaotic inharmonic content of the 'wall of sound'.

[steve jones]

It is simply more prevalent in classical music, so perhaps it IS reasonable to say that it is a higher form---not because the music is always better, but because the attitude and motivation behind it consists of higher and purer things.

But who are you (or I) to say what is higher and purer? They say that there is nothing as pure as hate, and this seems to be the motivation behind a lot of the harder styles of rock and metal.

We are talking about art now, you cant qualify something as higher or purer in an objective sense.

[Derek]

There are multiple definitions of the word pure.  Though pure hatred may mean "hatred without any tinge of love or compassion", pure in another context means something inherently pleasant and beautiful.

I personally don't like, as many of you will agree, the sneering attitude stereotypically associated with the classical music world.

So perhaps narrowing it down to "purer" would be the most reasonable, higher sounds too snooty =)

[jas]

I had a big argument with my sister the other day. She listens to a lot of really loud heavy metal which I can hear all over the house. So I went into her room told her to turn it down and asked her why she listened to such simple mindlessness. She flipped, telling me that Metal was just as good if not better than Classical music. I pointed out to her that not only do most of the songs only last about 2-4 minuets, but they usually consist of about 2 chords, and go at one speed and volume: Loud and Fast. But Classical music is incredibly more complex, is louder, faster, and more chaotic. Not to metion that Classical Musicians have to relay dynamics with their bare hands unlike rock roll stars that have amps to do it for them. I feel particulary insulted when I give her a cd to listen to (this time it was Shostakovich 5th symphony) and she  listens to it less than a minuet and throws it back to me saying she dident like it and she dident want to waste her time. Sheesh.....

My sister is the same. I don't understand people who say they don't like classical music. They're dismissing out of hand about a millenium of music without so much as listening to it.

Jas

[steve jones]

They just have difficulty relating to the music. For example, I dont like Thai food, its way to 'different' from what I consider good food. But maybe if I lived in Thailand for a few years and got to know and understand their cuisine, I might come to love it?

The same could be said about music. I mean, consider classical dance music - I cant imagine it inspiring many young people these days, as it is about as close to what they consider dance music as it is being death metal.

Sometimes it takes time to get used to things. There have been styles of music that I hated at first listen, but grew on me over time. Eventually, these styles often become among my favorites.

PS. I actually love Thai food, but that wouldnt have served the analogy very well 

[stevie]

Dont forgot the timbral aspect aswell - I have never heard any classical instrument that sounds like a line of cranked stacks!

Part of rock musics appeal is that element of 'noise', manifested in the chaotic inharmonic content of the 'wall of sound'.

a distorted cello has a far harsher sound than the average distorted guitar, due to the richer basic timbre.

but its interesting that you mention this because standard rock has the most simple harmonies of all popular music, simpler than country, and only matched by techno.

as i said, this is why rock music will have a more constant energy, but the lack of harmonic complexity inherent in only using 'anti-harmony' timbres, will mean that incredible harmonic climaxes can never be produced, and this is where much classical music gets its power.

[rimv2]

Bands you classical elitist should listen to:

Linkin Park

Tool

Korn

Mars Volta - (particularly The Widow and Concertina)

Nine Inch Nails

Rolling Stones

Metallic

System of a Down

Saliva

Slipknot

D12



These are just a few. You should all listen to more without bias before assuming that classical is the holy grail of music.

Then you should all accept that no matter what the genre, good music is good music.


Much like with religious disputes, It'll probably never happen- but I have faith in you all.

[emmdoubleew]

Anyone who claims a form of music is technically better than another is elitist, closed-minded, arrogant and stuck-up.

No more, no less...

[steve jones]

I am a big NIN fan as it happens. Reznor is god!!!


Stevie,

Harmonically much of rock is pretty simplistic stuff. But far from all...

Satch might be a poodle haired fret board wanker, but he instills enough technique and theory into his works to make your average classical pianist's hair curl.

But even in 'simple rock', dont let the simple C, F, G type progressions fool you. The multilayered guitar beds used in modern rock stuff has more harmonic voices than might initially be apparent. Quite often a contrapunctal octave line plays above parallel fifths in the bass, and high inverted triads and extended chords.

Also, it is not uncommon for rock music to incorporate modal keys, pentatonics etc.

Now dont get me wrong, rock and roll is not going to compare well against classical music in terms of 'theoretical' composition. But I think there is often a little more going on than meets the eye (and this is often done to 'ear', rather than some preconcieved notion of what sounds right and what doesnt).

Btw, since when did the symphony orchestra contain overdriven cellos? I want one! 

[steve jones]

Anyone who claims a form of music is technically better than another is elitist, closed-minded, arrogant and stuck-up.

No more, no less...

Honestly, I think you can make that claim objectively. Technical and theoretical aspects can be quantified and as such, the claim that one piece or style is technically more advanced or 'better' is semi valid.

My problem is with the artist side of things. You certainly cannot say that some type of music is better than another, as music is art, and art is subjective.

Then again, I am not including Eminem in that statement. You can call his 'music' whatever you like 

[stevie]

i meant standard rock you hear on the radio, im not saying its bad music, just sorely lacking in richness in that huge area of music called 'harmony'.

i said in a previous post that in a universal sense, no piece of music is absolutely better than another.

BUT, a piece of music can be said to be better to an individual or mass of individuals if it suits their musical appetites and needs.

as i said before, there is a very good case to say that popular music is superior music because it is always more geared to appeal and be easily digested by the largest audience.

but the opposite case also may be said, that the more musical people among the population, those who can musically digest and comprehend more complex music, are more geared to appreciate music that feeds them what they need.

[rimv2]

i meant standard rock you hear on the radio, im not saying its bad music, just sorely lacking in richness in that huge area of music called 'harmony'.

i said in a previous post that in a universal sense, no piece of music is absolutely better than another.

BUT, a piece of music can be said to be better to an individual or mass of individuals if it suits their musical appetites and needs.

as i said before, there is a very good case to say that popular music is superior music because it is always more geared to appeal and be easily digested by the largest audience.

but the opposite case also may be said, that the more musical people among the population, those who can musically digest and comprehend more complex music, are more geared to appreciate music that feeds them what they need.

There are classical pieces that are less "rich" and still sound beautiful. So the same can occur with rock.

Poprock is geared to the masses. Other rock bands play with their own styles, and opinions about these bands are as much divided as opinions of Mozart and Chopin.

My love of Mars Volta is equally matched by my love of Chopin. I've never looked at a Chopin prelude and said to myself this is far too simple to be good, or this is far to complex to be sensical.

i meant standard rock you hear on the radio, im not saying its bad music, just sorely lacking in richness in that huge area of music called 'harmony'.

There is no standard rock.

Harmony cannot be dissociated from the rhythmic aspects of music. In particular, the use of dissonance and consonance can generate, by the tensions it creates, a powerful forward momentum

If they had a lack of 'rich' harmony they'd be boring and no one would listen.

[meisel]

It should be mentioned that some music isnt the same without its simplisity. To make a certain feeling, you sometimes need a simple (and unpolished) sound.

When making bread, you might wanna stick with wheat flour, yeast and water, not mixing in moose meat and tabasco.

Imagine punk played like a Mahlers symphony.. 

[stevie]

true

but the point is that, the majority of those people that have the capacity to comprehend and enjoy more complex music, will do so.

most people who can play chess, dont often prefer checkers.

[timothy42b]

Ted's comment reminded me of a discussion in the book "Music through the Eyes of Faith."

The author suggests that a piece of music will fall on a continuum from very shallow to very profound.

The listener's attention can vary from very detached to deeply engaged. 

The experience is a combination of both factors.  The choice of music must depend somewhat on setting.  Background music will be annoying if it demands attention, it should be less profound, etc. 

With music now ubiquitous at a low level in the background of every aspect of life, we are probably being trained NOT to pay attention.