Bringing Together Classical and Popular Music

Here's a question often asked of composers: "Why do you do it? Classical music isn't really relevant anymore, is it?" For the first question, I suppose our answer is generally something like this: "because I love to, and I love the music."

But I've been thinking, why isn't classical/concert music more relevant? Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins, Muse and many other major, respected, and popular new bands tightly integrate classical and romantic era elements into their work. In Radiohead's case, all the way down to something that could be transcribed and played by the pianist Christopher O'Reilly.

From musicians I've met in Chicago, it seems to me that there is a vacuum of knowledge of chord progressions, harmonization, orchestration, etc on the part of rock/indy/alt-rock/hip-hop/etc bands, and a glut of it on the part of us, the composers, who usually work in isolation.

Should composers be making more outreach into popular music? If so, what genres? How should we go about it? Are any other composers already doing it?

Jazz.

Although there are already many extremely musically literate jazzers, the more of us art music types who get into jazz the better. :happy:

motion seconded. jazz is the way to go. the people who write jazz, I find, often have a more impressive theoretical background then the classical types. they do all sorts of fun things with chords and such as well. jazz is the place for me, let me tell you :happy:

BTW you have a most excellent avatar, Rienzi. Some very cool facial hair stroking action there.

Although not much of a jazz musician, I've played with several excellent jazz pianists. They all have extremely good theoretical backround as do I. More so them then me though. :happy:

Agreed. Good avatar.

Well, any way you can express yourself is fine by me really. But I suspect (suspect only), but if you do live in the 21st century and do live in that area, the automated filters, will intergrade in your music, no matter if you write a concerto!

That said, I feel that bands like Radiohead, dEUS (yup, those too) and Muse (with more classical, than contemporary elements) are the ones who do the great job today.

It seems to me that jazz has the same problem as classical though: the new generation of songwriters/musicians didn't grow up listening to it, so they don't write using its style when they start writing their own stuff. Classical instrumentalists and (to a much lesser extent) jazz instrumentalists don't play much music newer than 40-50 years, since the latest generation of music makers don't write for them anymore.

At the same time, jazz and classical are abstract enough to be at the heart of everything...that's why I'm thinking more on how to integrate it into the new styles I mentioned in the first post.

nikolas: You guessed right, I live in 2007. I'll check out dEUS, thanks for the head's up.

Totalitarianist: Thanks -- I always pose like this for pictures :happy: It drives some people crazy.

My name is Mark, Totalitarianist is my user title :happy:

see, what you mentioned, Rienzi, is that people in jazz don't listen to it growing up. oh yes they do. any good improviser has listened to bird, seen the duke, and monk, and they adapt their styles to suit them. I think that it's great that people write stuff that is different from before, because really, I'm not nearly as big a fan of that really gritty blues from the 50s as I am of modern day bop. (or anything that bird did, naturally).

I personally steer away from modern music, just stick to classical. But I have nothing against modern music with classical music incorporated.

I agree a lot of classical musicians seem to like jazz out of modern music - probably the most common modern music liked by classical musicians. I think that classical music should be incorperated into today's tack - I mean pop music - and shallow people who like tacky music - I mean ordinary citizens who listen to pop on a far too frequent basis - should be informed that this music is based on classical. They might not bear quite so large a grudge against Mozart then!

There, hope that makes sense (it probably doesn't!).

Sorry, I don't quite bear that big a grudge against modern music, just the fact that classical isn't considered important any more.

see, that won't work. it's the princible that everyone hates classical, in today's society. there is actually a version (done by someone, I forget) of Beethoven's fifth that was done in the hip-hop mode, and people loved it. then they put that behind kayne west's golddigger, and it sounded awesome, and everyone loved that. it's just that if something used violins, forget it. that's modern society for you.

what I hate about modern music? modern pop, that is? EVERY FRICKING DRUM PATTERN IS THE SAME! GAAA! my god, get some creativity. anyhow, that's just me venting.

Re: hip hop and pop, the knowledge we gain from composing music in old forms is mainly lost on today's listener -- they have different "ears" than they did 100 years ago. That's why they don't care about how many times these drum patterns have been reused.

It seems like if composers were to make a habit of arranging and orchestrating the work of modern musicians (who are largely music theory unaware), their music's power and range of expression would be all the greater, like with Radiohead, Muse, et al.

I personally think popular music styles, including rock and hip hop, are legitimate styles to be used in moderation. I listen to everything from classical to hip hop... most of my choices in the midrange, and I think all types of music are to be respected in their own way and appreciated. I definitely agree, however, that most people spend too much (if not all) of their listening time to popular music and it's sad that production values are more important than musical values today. And that wouldn't bother me so much if most people knew and respected what a mixing engineer does as much as a trained composer... but that's not the case either.

The main problem stems from when atonal music came into being. The general public doesn't get it and therefore won't stand for it. The average person on the street won't pay high prices to hear a concert of music they don't understand. Just like you wouldn't pay top dollar to eat food that is very much an acquired taste. So they went somewhere else...popular music. If you wish to write in a classical style and have people like it, you need to study the works of those who have been dead for a long time but whose music lives on. What did they do that made their music so much more tangible for the average Joe. The vast majority of people who attend concerts or buy CDs are not musicians. Hang out outside a popular concert venue and ask those going to the concert why they are going. Look for the common responses and then write music that fits that cross-section.

I would set my bet high to the wager that all of the "Popular" music that is available today will be unknown once our generation dies. To say nothing of lasting hundreds of years. Britney Spears was hot stuff...for a year or so. Our grandchildren and great grandchildren will say, "Who were the 'Smashing Pumpkins'?"

Ah, again we have a food analogy. It's probably the best way of describing music I've heard so far.

I would set my bet high to the wager that all of the "Popular" music that is available today will be unknown once our generation dies. To say nothing of lasting hundreds of years. Britney Spears was hot stuff...for a year or so. Our grandchildren and great grandchildren will say, "Who were the 'Smashing Pumpkins'?"

Hem...

Do not compair Britney to the Pumpkins please. PLEASE!

I'm sorry to tell you, but already generation that was not born when the bands were "high" still listen to that music (Beatles, Stones, Queen, Dorrs, etc). When you still listen to music recorded in 67 or something you cannot simply dismiss it, that it will die when the generation dies.

And for the fact, I didn't learn about the above from my parents, or older, but from my peers.

I want to believe that bands like Radiohead or Muse, or the Pumpkins will be heard years after.

Being popular for the shake of being popular is not THAT great, but being popular because you're good, is great, isn't it? :thumbsup:

And btw, to bring food in. I, personally don't fancy eating food as it was COOKED 200 years ago. I prefer something... newer, or at least cooked with modern appliances. How about the rest of you? :huh:

And btw, to bring food in. I, personally don't fancy eating food as it was COOKED 200 years ago. I prefer something... newer, or at least cooked with modern appliances. How about the rest of you? :thumbsup:

It's difficult to get me to listen to anything more than 150 or so years old. I mean, yes, there is good music before that, but I know far too many musicians who get into the "museum" aspect of music. When I hear Mozart, Beethoven... I turn it off. It's been done. It's not that I don't like it, it's that after the 200th time, I don't really need to hear it again. When I go to a music store, why do I have to look at 100 different orchestra's renditions of Beethoven's 5th? Is there nothing else out there to record? Have no other composers lived since then?

This is a major reason I don't like going to orchestra concerts. I'm tired of hearing the same 100 or so "Classical Top 40" pieces repeated ad nauseum. Orchestras have created an environment where they have conditioned their audience to never expect anything new... which is also picked up by the orchestra itself. They have turned themselves into a dying museum art. (In My Opinion. Yours may differ.)

:-)

(mutters something about actually answering the question posed by the OP)

Bringing together classical/jazz and pop music can be done, but I think that pop music is fundamentally flawed due to the reliance on lyrics. Since most average people don't understand music (and have never been taught how to understand or appreciate music), they latch on to the lyrics, the beat, and ignore the rest. Unless you can overcome that kind of ignorance of music in general, it will be a slow process to really get any progress from a synthesis of classical and pop.

it is completely relevant that especially in indie, there is a classical influence present (probably the biggest, check out Joanna Newsome's album Ys)...now a couple generations back is was much more existent in a broad range of styles (some that come to mind, Bacharach, The Beach Boys and Beatles, Frank Zappa, Chicago, Yes and other hoards of prog-rock bands, Deep Purple, Billy Joel, Queen, etc.), but I see a possibility of a similar renaissance, but more underground...The only problem, if that's what you call it, with classical composers combining rock and pop, is being equally familiar with the pop idiom and knowing that the pop comes first...it's obvious that most classically influenced groups are not classical composers or were first (excepting Bacharach, Zappa, and Robert Lamm of Chicago, of those I listed), so history has proven that few composers have crossed that bridge...so I wouldn't really expect flying colors from someone who isn't well seasoned in pop knowledge and fandom...it's a completely different compositional process...I don't feel like going into a big explanation but I'd describe it as you are compressing the whole development of a symphony into 3 minutes...

here are some of my favorite classically influenced recordings, mostly of past generations (in order of favorite, most-least)

Pet Sounds- The Beach Boys

SMiLE- Brian Wilson

Odessey And Oracle- The Zombies

Chicago II- Chcago

200 Motels- Frank Zappa

Sail Away- Randy Newman

The Look Of Love Collection- Burt Bacharach

Days Of Future Passed- The Moody Blues

In The Court Of The Crimson King- King Crimson

Close To The Edge- Yes

Song Cycle- Van Dyke Parks

(mutters something about actually answering the question posed by the OP)

Bringing together classical/jazz and pop music can be done, but I think that pop music is fundamentally flawed due to the reliance on lyrics. Since most average people don't understand music (and have never been taught how to understand or appreciate music), they latch on to the lyrics, the beat, and ignore the rest. Unless you can overcome that kind of ignorance of music in general, it will be a slow process to really get any progress from a synthesis of classical and pop.

Hmmmm... Lots of so-called "art music" relies on lyrics(Jean Coulthard Song Cycles anyone?). I would argue that pop is more interested in a hook. The hook of course, is something catchy; it doesn't have to be melodic. Lots of metal acts have hooks that are purely rhythmic. Think of Limp Bizkit screaming "I did it all for the nookie!". Then there's the melodic ones; I'm think of U2's "Every Breath You Take". The hook usually arises from a combination of natural feeling chord progessions(I-V-vi-IV has been done way past death) and simple melodic movement; unless of course it's James Brown screaming "Make It Funky" in which case it's totally rhythmic and the harmony is just there to provide added colour.

These things are all over the classical repetoire as well. The melody from Beethoven's 7th, second movement comes to mind as something that is very "hooky".

And so on....

Let's not overlook one important point, too... you almost never see anyone who can compose both the intelligent, mind-teasing, complex music, AND the catchy, popular, simple music. In fact I can think of only one counter-example, and that person works in a popular style that's influenced by classical music, anyway. If you think writing pop is so easy... piece of cake compared to full orchestra, right?.... then you try writing something catchy and simple. In a popular style. It's not as easy as you might think to make something that people can enjoy without chord analyzing, without horn and bassoon doubling, without multiple movements. They're two different styles altogether. Pop does not come directly below "art music" on the musical complexity tree; it's on a different branch entirely.

What about Arvo Part?

His music has depth but is also quite catchy. I've caught myself humming bars of his music here and there.

Leo: Atonality is definitely where the break between composers and the public came from. To master writing symphonies for orchestras, now that's cool...writing the weirdest possible song? Bah. It only captures the attention of specialists and other composers.

Stevemc: Indie is where classical influences are most useful? Interesting! Also check out Regina Spektor. Indie is definitely ripe for composer / songwriter collaboration -- it's usually just one or two people who just want to put music out, and don't necessarily "know the whole game", especially re: music theory.

Lord Skye: Yeah, classical and pop are definitely completely different animals. Mozart straddled both in his day -- simple piano songs vs his Symphony #40 for example -- but these days few concentrate all their energies in both. Though, it seems like few people who have, like Joanna Newsom or Regina Spektor, are the ones who draw people's attention to classical.

hi newbie here...

just glad that modern artists ( like regina spektor) have a touch of classical in their music...

i've been in despair seeing my fellowmen idolizing irrelevant novelty songs which are non sense...

btw, i'm a filipino... there are a lot of good artists here but since most people enjoy those senseless novelty songs the good artists try to fit in...for money too i think... it's just sad because they are not able to give out their real music...

Modern music here (to me) sucks... at least some are still with class but they are very few...

Combining a touch of classical and jazz to some music here will be great. Good for changing the standards of music here coz it's honestly going down...

I feel that it's my duty to mention that heavy metal can incorporate heavy classical influences. Just listen to Cynic, Death, Symphony X, or Atheist. Plenty of bands like them (and not like them) have a classical influence (however blatant or subtle) in their particular style of heavy metal. The same bands also have strong jazz influences.