classical music vs pop,etc

[jehangircama]

this is a topic i have argued about with friends and family many a time without success. i personally do not like most modern music, like rock, rap, etc. some pieces i find interesting and pleasing to the ear. however, no rock, rap or pop music has ever affected me in any way. it is, and this is the argument i normally use, entertainment. on the other hand, most of us on this  forum can easily get lost listening to classical music (ie, baroque, romantic, classical, post-romantic, etc). it affects one's soul to the very depths. this is the case for me at least. that's why i call classical music an art, and therefore music. imo music is an art, while pop, etc is entertainment. i do not call it music as music is an art form. what are your opinions on this subject.

[paris]

i listen many different styles, not just classical (although thats my no.1) i like some rock stuff, trance, techno, jazz, pop..you gotta se my ipod haha..first ''song'' (piece  ) is chopin nocturne and after it goes dj aligator 

[jehangircama]

that's called variety
but what about the topic? is it right to consider entertainment as art?

[stevie]

all music is art, what is good or not isnt able to be defined absolutely, it is defined by the individual.

and to answer which is superior between the 2 worlds of music(which i have done before)-
neither is absolutely superior, because this would depend on what makes certain music superior to other music, in your own opinion.

bear in mind that the average person is much more suited to enjoying popular music than classical, simply because it is easier to digest, and the typical human brain(a person with average musicality) simply would take too much effort to comprehend, let alone enjoy, a more complex classical work.

is something superior because only a select few are able to appreciate it? this is something to think about.

classical music isnt only less popular because of the lack of real exposition without prejudice, its simply an inferior type of music to most people.

just like most people with more developed musical brains crave more complex music(making a generalization here) and will find other music inferior.

which is better? harry potter or the randomly divine comedy?

[johnny-boy]

Music is music is music. There's good and bad in every genre.

I think what you need is a little visit from Western Willy to straighten you out.
https://www.artistcollaboration.com/~johnny-boy/Western%20Willy.mp3


John

[Tash]

we've actually been discussing this kind of thing in out music education lectures- making a point about pop music being entertainment, thus it shouldn't really be something you focus on a lot at school (you would teach kids about the film american pie in english would you?!), and you should be teaching them something new, that they don't have rammed down their ears everyday. so i believe that pop music is purely for entertainment and money making purposes, which is fine. whilst classical 'art' music can also be used for entertainment it has something more, and is more interesting to those who like to analyse music!

[gilad]

there are many ways to define one thing.
 it is for each individual to make their own meaning and definitions in life.
what is for one is not for another.
in psychology for example there have existed many schools of thought-psychoanalysis, behaviourism,existentialism,etc.
they all aproach the same subject matter in different ways with different ideas.
the same is true for genres of music imho.

[donjuan]

It all depends on the background of the person you ask for the opinion.  Maybe if I lived in Harlem, I would like Blues more because it tells a story of the painful life I would have led.  (Just wrote my research essay on "Sonny's Blues," btw)

But I find myself listening to all kinds of music, from Beethoven to Bon Jovi.  But not rap, i just cant get into that..

[lilypiano]

"classical music isnt only less popular because of the lack of real exposition without prejudice, its simply an inferior type of music to most people."


I think a lot of people don't really know what classical music sounds like.  They barely listen to it and only have a vague perception of it. They think it all sounds the same.  I think if people spent more time really exploring classical music, they would realize how exciting and interesting it really is.   I don't think enjoying it should be limited to only people with musicality. 

[jehangircama]

i agree. its sad that most people refuse to make the effort to truly understand music. that's why i guess modern music is much more popular, it doesn't require anywhere near the amount of thought that classical music requires.

[johnny-boy]

I posted this on a composer's thread a couple weeks ago. I think it applies to this topic but from a composer's viewpoint.

I guess the bottom line on composing is to please ourselves. If in turn we find an audience, that's great.

I think as long as music is well done there will be an audience no matter what style one is composing.

I'd rather find a small selective audience that truly appreciates my music than to have a large audience of trend seekers that just want to appear hip.

I don't think any genre has a monopoly on excellence. Scott Joplin in his own way was just as great as Beethoven.

Best, John

[jehangircama]

that's quite sensibly written.

[jas]

I don't know if I agree that all music can be considered art, for many reasons. First of all, there are disagreements on the fundamental question of what music actually is, which kind of puts a spanner in the works. Then there's the question of what art is. Again, not everyone agrees.

For those who believe that the classical v. pop debate is completely subjective, one of the big questions in the aesthetics of music is whether or not a piece of music has a value independent of the subjective one that we give it. If this is the case then a work could be great without anyone ever knowing, or the ones we generally agree to be great are in actual fact a bit rubbish. Britney Spears could be a better musician than Mozart and we'd never know (though that's possibly on the more unlikely end of the spectrum...). Others think this isn't the case at all, and that all value judgements are just that - judgements, and that there's no objective value in a work at all.

I believe that generally, pop is inherently inferior to classical. Its form, harmonic structure, instrumentation, etc. are much more basic - you usually get little or nothing more from it by listening to it again and again. And many believe that it's a mere distraction. How many of us actually listen to pop, like we would with classical? I know I don't, though others might.

I suppose it depends what it is that you value in music. If it's a well thought-out formal structure, or the feelings you get from listening to it, or a few minutes of escapism, or clever harmonic movement, interesting instrumentation, a good singing voice, whatever, different genres of music embody these traits to different degrees. Pop music has its value, just as classical does. These values are mostly pretty different, but that doesn't necessarily mean one is the more worthwhile (although, speaking personally, I would say classical music's values are more beneficial that pop's are).

And on the inherent-value thing, I think that it's true insofar as there's a general consensus that's been developed and ingrained over a period of several hundred years, which makes it more-or-less fact. But it'll almost definitely change over time. There are some pieces of music that just are better than others, and we can say that with reasonable objectivity. But the fuzzy areas outweigh the clear-cut ones by a long way.

It's an interesting subject but it's a mind-melter!

Jas

[prometheus]

Most music isn't art. It was never intented to be and it isn't by most definiitons of art.

Some classical music is pure entertainment also. Not all classical music is art. Entertainment music can still be of high quality. But often this is wasted talent and effort because it does not try to be music. It tries to be entertaining.

You don't try to convince friends and familiy. Actually, even if one were stupid enough to do so it would have no use because the people need to hear the music before there is anything to talk about. Now I strongly oppose the stupid 'talking/reading/writing about music is like dancing about architecture'-argument but you cannot describe music to someone. One needs to hear it and then you can talk. You aren't going to convince anyone through words about the power of some kind of music, ever.
People need to come to you. If you are knowledgable about music and people want to know something they will come. If they don't come, don't waste your words. Really, trying to convince someone some style of music is worth listening often falls on dead ears. People are stubborn, conservative and close-minded.


If someone is going to talk about the music of Britney Spears then one does not talk about Britney Spears. If one does talk about Britney Spears one can not talk about music.

is something superior because only a select few are able to appreciate it?

Any other argument that one would make to claim classical music is superior to some other forms of music will generally be stronger than this one. I am not sure why you used this one since it is not consistent with the other things you wrote. One would predict the writer would continue with a strong argument and then try to refute that one, not with one that is obviously non-sense.

Tash made the argument from the cultural point of view. American Pie has no cultural value (yet..., and one would hope it will never be, but it is not impossible either. Our culture may degrade that in the future American Pie is one of the prime examples of where it went 'wrong'. Now I should add that I have never seen the movie so I don't know what I am talking about exactly.). If one teaches about music it is easy to see that the cultural significance is a very small one. The same goes for literature. Both music and literature require skill, craftmanship. Maybe being a ciniast will one day also require craftmanship but at it stands now it is quite primitive and crude.
The point being that the fact that American Pie is culturally insignificant and therefore not worth the time in english class has nothing to do with the quality of the craftmanship, which this discussion is about. At least I think it is. Crap can be, and sometimes is, culturally significant and it does get it's time in language, culture or literature class.

Music is music. Yes, but this is only relevant to a musician, or rather a true musician. Music may be utter crap but one can always learn something from it or see some little element that shows promice or one bit that could have grown into something aestetically pleasing, etc. But this requires a 'carpenter's eye' and it doesn't really have anything to do with enjoyment, art and all that.

Most people refuse to understand it, hmm yes. But do you make any effort to understand Homer? Shakespeare? Or maybe even Joyce? What about other arts? Picasso or some other craft of art. Have we musicians put any effort into that? Hmm, I haven't eventhough I have some of the books of the writers I named in my bookshelf. Eventhough I do have the intelligence and time to do it I haven't done it (yet). Of course the fact that I spend a lot of time on music means that I have less time for other arts.
Sure, music may be the superior art, according to most, but that doesn't mean people can't make other choices. Am I a lesser person when I don't understand literature? It does require a lot and a lot of effort and time.
Those people that are able to spend their time in understanding art are a large minority, even in the rich western world.

Someone once said that chess is a great game, but an utter waste of intelligence. I think this is incorrectly credited to Einstein, who was an ok chess player because he was once a roommate of Lasker. This is true in some sense. All art is utter waste of time and talent. Shouldn't we focus on something more important instead? What about history? If you focus your resources on history you will get an utter different perspective on the world. You will understand how many things have happened, that were once very important and which only a few people care about today. And about how many times history repeats itself. This is all very enlightening.
What about the sciences? If you spend your time on those you can really learn something. Sure, in a sense music is both a mix of science and the utterly bizarre notion of human sociology, the most bizarre field of thought and research ever, combined with a special kind of love and passion, but from the point of view of science that is a pretty poor combination.
Then you have the functional crafts. They can require just as much skill and craftmanship but when you can build a sturdy chair that lasts you can do something 'useful' instead of sculpting a 'silly' statue out of wood.
But when you add to human society then this can be called futile as well. The only think human society does it foster humans, which are utterly worthless creatures. So maybe the best thing to do is 'waste' your crafmanship on something no human cares about. Something done for the sake of nu human. In that case the resulting work of art transcends human pointlessness.

Let's face it. The only worthwhile thing mankind has done, apart for caring for itself, both in the worst and most virtuous ways, which has obviously no value to anyone that is not a human, is producing a collection of wonderful chess games, magnificent statues, stunning paintings and great pieces of music.

[fencingfellow]

Here's something to think about too:

What we call classical music has *never* been particularly popular.  More people have always listened to the popular music of the day.  Yes, Mozart was a great composer, and many people would travel to see and be seen at his operas and concerts, but this was chiefly the upper classes.  When the average person wanted to hear some music, he'd go to the pub and hear some good folk music, or listen to a minstrel.  Their music was certainly very different from the high classical music we all know and enjoy.  I would suppose that an average person from 1840 wouldn't have been a huge fan of Chopin (though this particular example may be faulty given all of Chopin's influences from folk music).

It is easy to try to discuss how today's music is such a step in the wrong direction from the classical music of previous centuries, but it is a moot point, because the latter did not arise from the former.