Piano Pop...do we hate it?

[silkatly]

I'm a sucker for piano pop...you?

[eminemvsrach]

Honestly I don't think pop piano is that bad...... Yes it can be too simple sometimes, but it's really relaxing. lol. This might be just my opinion, but I like all types of music just as much......

[retrouvailles]

Piano pop, to me, is just a nice name for piano music written without any sort of compositional skill, whether it be in terms of harmony, form, melody, or whatever that is just soothing and nice to listen to to the average person (although, the fact that it sounds good could be construed as a virtue that it has). No offense, but take some lessons, dude.

[goldentone]

.

[gyzzzmo]

releasing the sustain pedal from time to time wouldnt hurt

[silkatly]

the sustain pedal doesn't release because Finale 2008 is playing the song.

[antichrist]

I dont care about them,so I won't hate it

of course its no where as elegant as classic

but playing them might take some skills too,just take more lessons

[birba]

I'm a sucker for piano pop...you?

A little of that can go a long way.  Can you honestly say you don't get bored half-way through?

[arumih]

I don't think I've ever heard the term piano pop...but to me it seems less piano solo, and more piano accompaniment. If you add a vocal line to this to make a full-fledged song, it could go somewhere. I'm not exactly sure it's the kinda song I'll want to listen to, but it could fall into the adult contemporary category, or some kinda feel-good/you can conquer anything song.

I've tried to learn this type of music, well a piano solo version of Evanescence's Good Enough. A brilliant song, in my opinion, but it's the mix of voice and piano and other instruments that makes it the complete package. Playing and learning it on its own was very boring. If that's what piano pop is, I'll pass.

[pianist7]

It may not be highly intellectual, but it has heart and emotion. I think it's fine.

[gyzzzmo]

It may not be highly intellectual, but it has heart and emotion. I think it's fine.

It might reflect some marihuana emotion, but its just too dense to have any heart.

[antichrist]

It might reflect some marihuana emotion, but its just too dense to have any heart.

its just some fragments, would'nt have a soul,but theres emotion, at least

[nanabush]

I actually didn't mind it.  The part near the end was pretty cool!

I applaud you for not throwing your computer out the window before finishing writing your song -  Some things about Finale bother me, and I don't think I've finished one thing in full with that program.

I like Garage Band on Macs 100000X better than Finale or Audacity, or any other freeware bs pc's have.  I like being able to see the sheet music for what you improvise.  I hate clicking in individual notes in finale.  Microsoft should step it up and make Windows come with a preloaded music creation software where your computer keyboard can replicate a piano keyboard like Mac's have

[tranquillis]

"pop piano" is a ground to be tread lightly, some pieces are great (certain musical scores/ movie soundtracks) others are downright awful, It's all subjective really-- one man's trash is another man's treasure

[gyzzzmo]

"pop piano" is a ground to be tread lightly, some pieces are great (certain musical scores/ movie soundtracks) others are downright awful, It's all subjective really-- one man's trash is another man's treasure

I dont know if its that subjective. Good music has a couple of traits like originality and suprize that objectivly distincts itself from rubbish music (doesnt mean rubbish music cant please people).

[tranquillis]

I dont know if its that subjective. Good music has a couple of traits like originality and suprize that objectivly distincts itself from rubbish music (doesnt mean rubbish music cant please people).

Your definition of "great" music is subjectively different than anyone else's. True there's a fine line between Bach and new age "riff-raff", but in other areas the boundaries are unclear. For example, music is like poetry. I may say I like a Keats poem and you may counter by offering a Lord Byron lyric; One is not necessarily "better" then the other. On the other hand a lesser known poet may write something that speaks to the heart and soul of a particular reader. Among literary circles and academia, the piece is considered a product of the times, one that holds little value. The beauty of the piece, however, lies in the eye of the beholder, no matter its innumerable deficiencies, according to us. How can we say something is "rubbish" when it means so much to so many? That "classical" piece may be, by anyone who knows anything about music, infinitely, better in all aspects, but a simple "unoriginal" piece according to you may motivate a young child to learn to play the piano who, after years of experiences comes to appreciate "classical music". Had they never heard the "rubbish" and gone strait to music many consider to be perfection, they may have been unmotivated to even take up an instrument. Some music is universally sublime, some piece's are technically masterful, and some just speak to the heart. Who are we to discredit such powerful forces motivating the sentient and mysterious interstices of thought and emotion that guide and prod our fellow man?

It's not a matter of "pleasing" them with "rubbish" music, but of "guiding" them toward "great" music, using the agent of subjective emotional satisfaction, to obtain that higher stairway where the gods of music have passed, resurfaced, and impressed their ingenuity among countless aspirers to those divine, unadulterated tones

[gyzzzmo]

The definition of good (quality) music has nothing to do with what it means to people, or how it pleases people. That ofcourse is subjective and doesnt have to be linked to the quality.
But i'm convinced you can objectively judge (till some point) the difference between 'rubbish' and 'quality' music.

Simple proof of this for me is that most people who play abit of piano can improvise stuff like the piano pop posted above.

[pthebig]

I've never heard the term "piano pop", too, but I think it sounds good at all...

on my opinion every epoch has better, or worse music, for myself I like music of all epochs!


by the way, sorry for my bad english, but I'm a typical german, who has to study a lot in order to speak a foreign language, I'm open for betterings everytime!

[tranquillis]

The definition of good (quality) music has nothing to do with what it means to people, or how it pleases people. That ofcourse is subjective and doesnt have to be linked to the quality.
But i'm convinced you can objectively judge (till some point) the difference between 'rubbish' and 'quality' music.

Simple proof of this for me is that most people who play abit of piano can improvise stuff like the piano pop posted above.

Can we agree to disagree?  

It is my opinion that if we all sought objectivity as the ultimate measure, there could be a panel of judges. Each would systematically rank "This" as "Quality" or "that"as "rubbish"; What if someone liked the Beatles and the judge considered the music as "beneath" them? What if the local nomads on 23rd street considered Mongolian throat singing as the only "true" and "inspired" music? My point is this; yes the true Masters put out nothing BUT quality; and a large consensus taken today would agree that much of the music put out status quo is indeed "rubbish." Then again, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement  "i'm convinced you can objectively judge (till some point)" but the key is "till some point" Apollo and Bach sit in the heavens, stooped in perpetual thought, seldom emanating a few "twangs" of lyre and organ; I think this inspiration has perhaps touched certain modern musicians today, yet the ambivalence of the divine "twang" is  widespread, and its influence obscured

[antichrist]

Compare the structures,tone colour,composition skills
you simply know which is better and greater, it's pure objective

but which sounds better - the piece over there can beat all Chopin Beethoven,because thats all subjective

[gyzzzmo]

Can we agree to disagree?  

It is my opinion that if we all sought objectivity as the ultimate measure, there could be a panel of judges. Each would systematically rank "This" as "Quality" or "that"as "rubbish"; What if someone liked the Beatles and the judge considered the music as "beneath" them? What if the local nomads on 23rd street considered Mongolian throat singing as the only "true" and "inspired" music? My point is this; yes the true Masters put out nothing BUT quality; and a large consensus taken today would agree that much of the music put out status quo is indeed "rubbish." Then again, I wholeheartedly agree with your statement  "i'm convinced you can objectively judge (till some point)" but the key is "till some point" Apollo and Bach sit in the heavens, stooped in perpetual thought, seldom emanating a few "twangs" of lyre and organ; I think this inspiration has perhaps touched certain modern musicians today, yet the ambivalence of the divine "twang" is  widespread, and its influence obscured

How about my statement/'proof' that its not quality music since so many people can improvise stuff like this? I think that should imply that it hasnt reached the 'till some point'-point