I am becoming a High School Teacher (teaching Grades 8 - 12), and I only intend to teach either Jazz music or Classical....Pop music from these days has nothing in Music theory to teach, except how to repeat the same 4 *** chords over and over again. Music has come from a very sohpisticated piece of art in the 1700's and 1800's to a pathetic washed up of simple crap in todays society. Why don't teenagers like Classical Music these days??? Because some idiot deemed that it was cool to listen to music of today, and all these gullible teenagers are dumb and stupid enough to swallow this crap. People are too interested in trying to fit in and adjusting to suit other peoples image of themselves... I say that Britney and bloody Snoop Dog and Silverchair should NOT and I mean this very clearly.... SHOULD NOT BE STUDIED in High School. Because if we do teach this crap in High Schools... then our kids are going to become vaccuous morons who couldn't give a crap about history and just want to be cool....The same goes for TV... You think - 30 years ago - you didn't have any of this Digimon or Pokemon, Beyblades, Yu-gi-oh crap thats on TV.... Kids are rotting their brain cells and are going to become less intelligent, and stupidity is on the rise. To think of the enormous potential of studying Classical Music, compared to the incredibly limited educational material in pop music... There is no such thing as appreciating Pop Music... there's nothing to appreciated... It's some dinky chord all recorded on some crappy keyboard input into some cheesy computer that adds effects, sound and reverb all in a matter of an hour or two.
im against it, but if it's a factor that might lead into interest into studying music, then why not? that's what music education is about. we can't go against the music that appeals to the kids, we can actually use it to our advantage.
You know the difference? Your mind is as closed as a brazil nut and they have open minds.
kids are just individuals; maybe more than you snobs are.
I don't think Britnety Spears is devoid of musical content and just because you don't like that musical content it doesn't mean it's objectively lacking.
Let's talk about semplicity: who in the world ever said that if music is simple and imply just two chords it is worthless.
There tons of country and rock songs that use just three chords ... and they work!
How can you not understand that's what makes music infinite and always unique and creative: the skill of making few element work
The world is full of simple music that works. In fact the baroque and classical and postmodern world is full of simple music that works.
Oh just so you know ... you're not that one that can say whether a music works or not
old music like Heart Wind and Fire
First of all we've more freedom nowadays and you can see that there's not a single style but a very melting pot of style and sounds
Remember Bartok? He and other contemporaries wrote about and kind of shaped a new conception of music where melody is secondary and rhythm and rhythmic variation are the focus.
But we need to stop to think that it's our duty to put a sort of control on what people listen.
I also think that in music and this forum there's a lot of preconceptions.I don't believe in preconceptions, I believe in trying before judging
Btw: I don't like rap ... mostly
Make this a very good lesson in humbleness and start to look beyond your nose
Some words come to mind:stereotypessnobberyidiocyclosed mindedness
And of course I'm not a native english speaker [...]'start to look beyond your nose'
But we're talking about music, about judging the sounds [...]So consumism, fake sounds, songs produced interely in a studio are not meaningful criteria. [...]What i've never understood it's the either-or attitude when there's no need to make wars to choose the ruler of the musical world.
Well, your argument is perfectly legit if you're talking about LISTENING. But this thread was about STUDYING current pop music in school. I am not against listening to any of the music you're arguing for. I like a lot of it. But I don't think there's anything worth studying there. You can't get nearly as much musical or educational value out of it as the types that are generally studied. The problem is, I'm talking about music theory, which is what I think of when somebody talks about "studying music," and you're talking about recreational listening.
No!! I would consider that the worst form of child abuse!!
au contrer. I have listened to plenty of Britney (my friend was once part of a support act!). I have no problem teaching kids a wide variety of styles and with popular media BUT i do insist that it be good quality material. Britney - huh! No way!!!
Stupid topic... but I will chime in anyway. A merit of a certain piece of art is mostly objective, although there is some subjectivity involved. Why can't people at 88street accept that? They are so naively entrenched with the stupidly quixotic idea that pianism is subjective and we cannot really judge the value of a certain interpretation. Anyway, to draw an analogy to literature, a common comic book is simply does not have as much literary value as the classics do. There is nothing to analyze, study about; unlike works of Shakespeare, there is simply not much thought and depth that was conceived by the creator, thus, leaving us with nothing to look for. Likewise, most mainstream music does not offer any for us to think about and explore deeply into emotions (as cheesy as that sounds, that is the best I can word it). My proposal simply, then, is to study good music. What is good music? A music that has been carefully and genuinely conceived by the composer. A music that coherently combines the intellect of the brain and the passion of the heart. There is much we can learn from these masterpieces.Perhaps, the more controversial and important question may be: where can we find good music? To this, many are tempted to say that it's all subjective. But, alas, good music is absolute and not subjective. There may be preferences, but good music is good music. Well then, I believe most classical music constitute as good music. Some of the more refined non classical acts, such as Pink Floyd, Radiohead, King Crimson and the jazz revolutionaries, can be called good music. And these, and these only, deserve a place in the classroom.
Stupid topic... but I will chime in anyway. A merit of a certain piece of art is mostly objective, although there is some subjectivity involved. Why can't people at 88street accept that? They are so naively entrenched with the stupidly quixotic idea that pianism is subjective and we cannot really judge the value of a certain interpretation.
The problem I find with most (not all) pop music is that it is SO formulaeic. It has the same essential components in it and is frankly not that inspired. Now its true much classical music is formulaeic too - I wouldnt consider that the best stuff to teach either..we should be bringing music which will enchant and inspire students . Having said that it all depends what you want to get out of a class. If you want them to understand the basic construction of muisc of the music they listen to and to be able to write and perform very simple and stereotypical paraphrases of the pop genre then thats what you must teach. But then dont be surprised when there is no market for classical music 20 years down the line.
Well very well BUT lets hope the next Mozarts and Beethovens escape the comprehensive system in that case because that is certainly not the way the great masters of pervious generations were taught. How can you ever get a real feel for structure and form unless you are taught whole works. How can you express yourself intelligeably if you have no syntac. Mozart Beethoven Chopin - all the greats were profound geniuses BUT they still studied the rudiments, thesy still wrote their pastiches of Bach and palestrina. They knew their harmony inside out. They knew their sonata form and modified sonata forms and the rest. You dont learn those principles without studying complete works in detail and frankly most modern music dosent stand up to that much scrutiny. Sorry if that disappoints - but really its true. The mass education recieved in music today lets down those who would seriously consider musical careers. It simply dosent furnish them with the necessary skills. In my piano class at college I was one of only 2 people who didnt come from private school background with specialist music training. In addition that other one person had been at a junior department saturday school of a conservatory where they had recieved theory and support work training. I held my own because I studied theory in my spare time on my own and actively sightread books upon books of material from all genres. I didnt get into conservatory on the strength of my school music training - id still be hacking of fur elise today if I hadnt taken matters into my own hands.