I hate pop music

Here's an essay on why I hate pop music I wrote not too long ago for a weblog. Are there any other people out there who think the same way?

WHY I HATE POP MUSIC

I hate pop music, I hate it passionately and I hate it more and more. I hate its childishly simplistic tunes, lyrics and song structure, its lack of musical invention and its formulaic nature. I hate the superficial lifestyle culture that is associated with pop music and the way it has become an unavoidable part of our Western culture. I hate the undeserved exposure and attention pop artists get in the media, as if there is any news value to the notion that pop singer X has divorced for the nth time or that pop singer Y has shaved her head completely bald. I hate the hype surrounding the release of a new album by supposedly “great” pop artists and bands, as if people are awaiting a new masterpiece in the vein of Bach’s St. Matthew’s Passion.

The older I get, the more I detest pop music in almost all of its subgenres (from mainstream pop and rock to metal to punk to funk to rap and hiphop to techno and dance to reggae/ska to whatever these different pop genres are labeled), which – like all expressions of popular culture – I see as a form of regressive, degenerate culture infantilizing Western society. Never before in the history of Western music, has popular culture dictated people’s conception, definition and taste of music to such a disproportionate extent. Although there has always been a distinction between music for the masses (or “popular music”) and a more sophisticated music for an elite (or “art music”), never before has popular music pushed art music to the cultural margins the way it does nowadays. Even the higher educated and more cultivated people (those who were traditionally more into art or classical music than the lower educated) seem to have lost interest in classical music, preferring the Rolling Stones over Beethoven. Classical music is dying a slow and silent death in a cultural ghetto; long live the stupidity and vulgarity of pop music!

Yes, pop music is simplistic, vulgar, shallow and uninteresting when compared to classical music. The musical talent of so-called great pop musicians is negligible compared to the talent of truly great classical musicans and the creativity involved in pop music compares to the creativity involved in classical music the way a Neanderthal compares to a highly developed modern human: Pop music has nothing of the melodic and harmonic invention, musical variety, structural and formal richness, intricate counterpoint and intellectual and emotional profoundness that makes classical music so great.

I wouldn’t hate pop music so much, if it didn’t have this enormous, widespread cultural influence (these days, even the most infantile pop “artists” with hardly any musical talent at all can become highly influential cultural icons whom everyone is talking about...), if it weren’t so omnipresent and if you could ignore it (which you can’t, because there’s pop music everywhere – on tv, in the supermarket, in restaurants, bars, clubs, shops, gyms, gas stations, airports, etc.). For 99% of the population, pop music is the only music that counts, the only music that exists. For these people, classical music is a museum piece that only exists if they happen to get exposed to it in some way.

Moreover, pop music promotes a way of listening that destroys the ability to appreciate classical music. Generally, you don’t listen to pop music for deep emotions, rich structure, intricate counterpoint, melodic and harmonic invention, etc. Most kids listen to pop music for superficial features, such as “a nice beat”, a singable tune or a lifestyle feeling that is expressed in the music. Listening is perhaps the wrong term here, for most pop music isn’t even actively listened to, it is merely passively consumed. Since pop music is so omnipresent, many people nowadays regard music as nothing but auditory wallpaper: something nice one can relax to and which doesn’t require a lot of attention, something that is passively heard while at the same time engaging in other activities such as reading a book or cooking. This way of listening promoted by pop music is detrimental to the appreciation of classical music. To really appreciate classical music, it is necessary to concentrate, listen actively and make an effort to grasp the deeper intellectual and emotional meaning of the music.

Being a composer of (contemporary) classical music, I am constantly reminded that this great long tradition of classical music, which has evolved for centuries from Machaut to Bach to Mozart and Beethoven to Wagner, Mahler, Sch

I agree completely, have a nice story about that tho, I was just in my schools talent show, and I performed a classical piano piece, Schumann's Aufshwung, my competition was hiphop dancers, heavy metal rockers, salsa dancers, teeny boppers etc. and I ended up winning the show! I'm not trying to brag here. But this is a nice example of how when people are Actually exposed to classical music, because they really don't even get a chance to hear it, they atleast will value it over stupid pop, I was judged by a rocker, hip hopper and an english teacher.. heh well ok not ur typical panel but its promising.. it means we have a chance

sounds to me that maybe you are getting on a high-horse and generalizing.... Can you say which sort of pop artists & styles you are referring to? Believe it or not some very good pop artists exist - although I am not sure you will hear them on the radio much.

The essay kind of falls under the category of "I hate pop music because of a few artists that suck"

Now, surely you haven't listened to ALL of the pop music there is. What about Nat King Cole? If you're simply looking for complexity in pop music, Cole had some very complex harmonic structures and rhythms in his music. What about Jose Feliciano? Feliz Navidad and Malaguena aren't exactly the most simple pieces in the universe.

Seems to me that you seem to be generalizing quite a bit about pop music. I'd suggest you listen to a bit more before you decide to hate it all. You're falling into the old trap of being a rather hateful sounding musician, a good musician should be able to appreciate music for who the artist is.

Not all artists have the same level of understanding of music theory as others do. So what if a piece only has three chords? So what if the melody is simple and easy to remember? If the artist is writing something they love, then who the heck are you to criticize that?

There ought to be room for both in this world. And I'm not convinved classical music is in its death throes. I think I'm right in saying there's something of a craze for Western classical music in the Tiger economies of SE Asia at the moment. Classical music is flourishing in unexpected places.

I believe strongly that if music education in schools is improved so it consists of more than just buggering about on a keyboard in a practice room for an hour you'll be halfway there. The national curriculum did nothing to nurture my love of classical music because it didn't expose me to the classics. Not all kids will like classical music, but at least give them a chance to! Put some Bartok on at full volume, or some Mahler or even some Beethoven: something that will shatter the image of classical music as "boring". And do this at an early enough age, don't wait till the kids are doing a GCSE or A-level!

Creating a broad-base of understanding amongst the population is the way we need to go. Work from the bottom up.

Here's an essay on why I hate pop music I wrote not too long ago for a weblog. Are there any other people out there who think the same way?

WHY I HATE POP MUSIC

I hate pop music, I hate it passionately and I hate it more and more. I hate its childishly simplistic tunes, lyrics and song structure, its lack of musical invention and its formulaic nature. I hate the superficial lifestyle culture that is associated with pop music and the way it has become an unavoidable part of our Western culture. I hate the undeserved exposure and attention pop artists get in the media, as if there is any news value to the notion that pop singer X has divorced for the nth time or that pop singer Y has shaved her head completely bald. I hate the hype surrounding the release of a new album by supposedly “great” pop artists and bands, as if people are awaiting a new masterpiece in the vein of Bach’s St. Matthew’s Passion.

The older I get, the more I detest pop music in almost all of its subgenres (from mainstream pop and rock to metal to punk to funk to rap and hiphop to techno and dance to reggae/ska to whatever these different pop genres are labeled), which – like all expressions of popular culture – I see as a form of regressive, degenerate culture infantilizing Western society. Never before in the history of Western music, has popular culture dictated people’s conception, definition and taste of music to such a disproportionate extent. Although there has always been a distinction between music for the masses (or “popular music”) and a more sophisticated music for an elite (or “art music”), never before has popular music pushed art music to the cultural margins the way it does nowadays. Even the higher educated and more cultivated people (those who were traditionally more into art or classical music than the lower educated) seem to have lost interest in classical music, preferring the Rolling Stones over Beethoven. Classical music is dying a slow and silent death in a cultural ghetto; long live the stupidity and vulgarity of pop music!

Yes, pop music is simplistic, vulgar, shallow and uninteresting when compared to classical music. The musical talent of so-called great pop musicians is negligible compared to the talent of truly great classical musicans and the creativity involved in pop music compares to the creativity involved in classical music the way a Neanderthal compares to a highly developed modern human: Pop music has nothing of the melodic and harmonic invention, musical variety, structural and formal richness, intricate counterpoint and intellectual and emotional profoundness that makes classical music so great.

I wouldn’t hate pop music so much, if it didn’t have this enormous, widespread cultural influence (these days, even the most infantile pop “artists” with hardly any musical talent at all can become highly influential cultural icons whom everyone is talking about...), if it weren’t so omnipresent and if you could ignore it (which you can’t, because there’s pop music everywhere – on tv, in the supermarket, in restaurants, bars, clubs, shops, gyms, gas stations, airports, etc.). For 99% of the population, pop music is the only music that counts, the only music that exists. For these people, classical music is a museum piece that only exists if they happen to get exposed to it in some way.

Moreover, pop music promotes a way of listening that destroys the ability to appreciate classical music. Generally, you don’t listen to pop music for deep emotions, rich structure, intricate counterpoint, melodic and harmonic invention, etc. Most kids listen to pop music for superficial features, such as “a nice beat”, a singable tune or a lifestyle feeling that is expressed in the music. Listening is perhaps the wrong term here, for most pop music isn’t even actively listened to, it is merely passively consumed. Since pop music is so omnipresent, many people nowadays regard music as nothing but auditory wallpaper: something nice one can relax to and which doesn’t require a lot of attention, something that is passively heard while at the same time engaging in other activities such as reading a book or cooking. This way of listening promoted by pop music is detrimental to the appreciation of classical music. To really appreciate classical music, it is necessary to concentrate, listen actively and make an effort to grasp the deeper intellectual and emotional meaning of the music.

Being a composer of (contemporary) classical music, I am constantly reminded that this great long tradition of classical music, which has evolved for centuries from Machaut to Bach to Mozart and Beethoven to Wagner, Mahler, Sch

*rolls eyes*

I'm not going to bother addressing anything specific...'cause it's all wrong.

To those who 'hate pop music' - Obviously you're all listening to the wrong artists. It is possible to be creative and artistic in a popular vein - hell Radiohead are possibly the most creative and innovative musical ensemble anywhere, period...and they're WILDLY popular.

Sure, a lot of it is cookie-cutter crap, engineered to suck up your allowance - but, seriously. Before you condemn an entire genre, check it out. Don't be discouraged by what you hear on the radio, on tv, in the supermarket, in restaurants, bars, clubs, shops, gyms, gas stations, airports, etc. That stuff is there for a reason - and not because it's innovative or interesting. Please, think a little more before you say things like that okay, kids?! It makes you sound like an elitist snob.

Gianluca - pretty much everything you said, stems from a very narrow-minded and ignorant view of pop music. So please, put down the Britney Spears and High School Musical soundtrack, and go buy some new CDs... you'll be surprised at how many deep emotions, rich structure, intricate counterpoint, melodic and harmonic invention you'll find; and how seriously talented some composers and musicians really are.

...

*needs an exasperated eye-roll smiley, and almost included a list of 'good' pop artists*

So biased... So one sided on SO many things...

Contemporary concert hall music is dying only because it is full of fools and ignorant one sided people (and no, I don't mean you, although it does seem so. I don't know you so I can't make any such assumptions, I mean some people that I know). Healthy contemporary concert hall music has no complexes against anything, has no trouble enjoying Beyonce and has little problem with popularity!

I'm also part of the contemporary "scene" (although rather distant and not very interested, thus rather invisble...) so don't think that I'm not including myself into it.

On very small specific issues:

1. since when should music be complicated to be worthy? If something is put with effort without ignorance, then it should be ok. I don't mind if Beethoven spent months writing something and I don't care if Mozart made it in secs. The quality is evident! Same with many pop artists, bands, etc

2. Pop music includes some amazing stuff that you wouldn't believe. Sure it is tonal most of the times, but yet there are some pretty fancy stuff, if you consider that they still remain popular!

3. Classic composers as much as anyone else need to be out, meet people, network, go to concerts etc; and f*cking Classic FM has made sure to make starts those morons G4, G5 or whatever they are called! Do you detest those as well? Or Jenkins? Or all those HUGE pianists, who are stars on their own right? Do you think that Richter was less in the newspapers? Maybe chicks didn't chase his car, but he sure was a star. ;) Moreover why should beautiful people be retained from public? If I was beautiful like Jenna Jameson, I'd be sure to hit the pRon industry! Why not after all? (<-of course I'm exagerating, right?)

Were we in a pub together I would agree 90% with you! ;) I can't say that I find much reason for Britney's existance or the come back of Spice Girls, but I sure own more than 300 pop records (rock, pop, even hit 85/86/87 from when I was bellow 10 years old ;))

Psst. The idiots from my class all love crappy mainstream music and even they know High School Musical sucks.

Your argument, as I understand it, basically comes down like this:

Pop music is stupid and simple because

1) classical music is so much more complicated, and pop music is full with uninteresting, simple features.

2) it is used a lot as background music.

some arguments against these:

1) different kinds of music focus on different aspects of things you can do with sound. Gregorian chant ONLY focusses on one beautiful flowing line that has as less elements of repeat as possible, and little bit on the text it is based on. Even rithem and the highest point in the melody are almost always linked. Yet we call this classical music.

Modern pop music, I believe is mostly homophonic, this means that counterpoint does not play a role. It is not a good idea to even look for counterpoint within pop music, it does not exist. Also, pop music is a vocal genre which produces mosly short songs. The focus here is on 1: repeating harmonic patterns (which are based on classical cadences but ignore most of the rules) with a repeating rithmic pattern repeating each bar.

The rithmic patterns is, nowadays, usually where the complexity is (this is exactly why rap exists at all!), try to listen to some modern pop music to analyse what happens rithmically within one bar. Complex syncopation often plays also a big role. This is why this kind of music is also danced to.

The focus however to me seems to be even more on text and melody. In pop music that is never meant to dance to this plays the biggest role. Even still good melodies in pop music also use heavy sycopation.

Another example I want to give is Indian classical music. It uses no harmony at all. It is however very complex in all the different scales (classical music from baroque to classical, which is very popular uses only 2(!) different scales, even pop music uses more (pentatonic blues scale, jazz scales, church modes etc.).

My argument against 2) is that the concert hall didn't exist at all untill the Romantic period. In the time of Mozart is was normal that people talked during performances, only in the Romantic period it became customary to be silent during performances. So many of the classical music played today was performed as background music, this does not mean that people didn't listen to it or enjoyed it.

Thanks for reading my post,

Niku

I agree with one or two of your points, but I'm afraid you are massively over-generalising pop music here. Listen to some of the music suggested thus far, then see if you still feel the same way :thumbsup:

Some have contended that I’m generalizing about pop music. I know I am generalizing to some extent and that there are always exceptions to the rule, but there’s nothing wrong with generalizing if the vast majority of the cases supports your generalization. And the vast majority of all pop music I’ve heard (once again, I’m talking about pop music in the broadest sense of the term, covering all its subgenres, from mainstream pop/rock to hiphop to rap to heavy metal to punk to techno to reggae, and so on) sucks when compared to the richness and profoundness of classical music (also in the broadest sense of the term, from Machaut to Palestrina to Monteverdi to Bach to Mozart to Beethoven to Wagner to Mahler to Debussy to Stravinsky to contemporary classical).

Some have also asserted that good pop music does exist. The notion that pop music is musically inferior to classical music in many respects, doesn't exclude the fact that there are a few pop artists and bands out there showing genuine musical creativity in their songs. I personally, however, find this supposed creativity in pop music still a farce when compared to the creativity shown by the great classical composers. Radiohead was mentioned as an example of good pop music (true, I liked their albums Ok Computer and Kid A when I was younger). Indeed, they are an original and creative band according to the standards of pop music, but when compared to the standards of classical music their music suddenly isn't that special anymore... I mean, compare the creativity it takes to make an album like Ok Computer to the creativity it takes to compose a St. Matthew's Passion or a Mahler symphony - it's a no-brainer that the former is not a patch on the latter.

(Continued in my next post...)

Alan, let me briefly comment on some of your points.

2) Yes, every music has a structure, but classical music often has a structure which is way more complex, refined and ingenious than the often simplistic and predictable song structures found in pop music.

3) That point of mine was meant to illustrate the ridiculous cultural status pop music enjoys today.Apparently pop music has so much value to so many people in our culture, that we are even interested in the personal lives and opinions of pop artists even though they are often nitwits with little musical talent.

5) See my comment on the “complexity issue” below.

7) Classical music is not written anymore? I’m not talking about the classical style (Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven) but about classical music in general, including contemporary classical music (e.g., Boulez, Carter ) which sure is classical music still being written today.

Now on to the “complexity issue” (as addressed by Nikolas, Niku and Alan). Nikolas asked the question: “since when should music be complicated to be worthy?” Let me make clear that I’m not saying music should be complex in order to be worthy. At times I can really enjoy, say, a Schubert l

Alan, let me briefly comment on some of your points.

2) Yes, every music has a structure, but classical music often has a structure which is way more complex, refined and ingenious than the often simplistic and predictable song structures in pop music.

3) That point was meant to illustrate the ridiculous cultural status pop music enjoys today.

Apparently pop music has so much value to so many people in our culture, that we are even interested in the personal lives and opinions of pop artists even though they are often nitwits with little musical talent.

5) See my comment on the “complexity issue” below.

7) Classical music is not written anymore? I’m not talking about the classical style (Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven) but about classical music in general, including contemporary classical music (e.g., Boulez, Carter ) which sure is classical music still being written today.

Now on to the “complexity issue” (as addressed by Nikolas, Niku and Alan). Nikolas asked the question: “since when should music be complicated to be worthy?” Let me make clear that I’m not saying music should be complex in order to be worthy. But I do believe that a certain degree of intellectual and emotional complexity At times I can really enjoy, say, a Schubert l

I don't think a causal link between the rise of popular music and the decline of classical music is that clear. One could, for example, make just as good an argument blaming classical composers themselves and modernism for audiences switching off to classical music.

If people want to listen to pop music that's fine. If they want to hold it up as great music that's also fine. Why does this bother you so much? Clearly you don't see it as deserving of any cultural status but others do, including, as you've seen from the posts in this thread, people who understand music well.

As I've said in my earlier post, one of the main reasons for classical music being ghettoised is the fact that kids aren't exposed to it and that primarily is the fault of our schools more than anything else. Get kids listening to classical music at an early age and many will love it. Some won't and some, like you, may decide to listen to it exclusivley. But most, I believe, will probably choose to listen to both pop and classical.

I don't think a causal link between the rise of popular music and the decline of classical music is that clear. One could, for example, make just as good an argument blaming classical composers themselves and modernism for audiences switching off to classical music.

If people want to listen to pop music that's fine. If they want to hold it up as great music that's also fine. Why does this bother you so much? Clearly you don't see it as deserving of any cultural status but others do, including, as you've seen from the posts in this thread, people who understand music well.

As I've said in my earlier post, one of the main reasons for classical music being ghettoised is the fact that kids aren't exposed to it and that primarily is the fault of our schools more than anything else. Get kids listening to classical music at an early age and many will love it. Some won't and some, like you, may decide to listen to it exclusivley. But most, I believe, will probably choose to listen to both pop and classical.

Couldn't have said it better!

I think the difference, in general, is that pop "artists" do not care about there art as much as classical composers do. Most pop "artists" are really only in it for the money. I'm not saying they don't enjoy the music and that they suck but they don't seem to have a genuine interest in bringing there art form to the same level that classical music as risen.

Pop music is in its infancy but because so many pop artists don't really give a scraggy(as compared to classical composers who lived and breathed the stuff) the artistic aspect actually suffers.

Only knowing 3 chords or because" it sounds" good not a good enough excuse. Why limit yourself because you too lazy to learn or expand your horizons? If it sounds good with 3 chords just think how it would sound if you knew 4 chords? Sure you might still choose to use those 3 chords but then you made an artistic decision based on what worked best and not because you were to lazy to learn the 4th chord. Its one thing to be choosy and another to be limited.

Most contemporary genres now days don't seem to have any drive to improve there art. The average person has such a limited attention span and limit musical understanding that if you took one hit song and transposed it people would think its a new song.

I mean, come on. Lets be honest here. I don't think anyone says complex is better but there is something to appreciate in being true to the cause. Is pop music really about the music? Mostly not. Is rap really about the music? mostly not. Can you say the same thing about classical?

The reason why it doesn't grow is because the people who listen to it don't expect it to. Thats a disgusting excuse IMO. And now look what has happened. Music has become just another method of making money.

(And no, I don't think all pop is bad. I just see that it isn't going anywhere and has become way to commercialized by corporate america)

The reason why it doesn't grow is because the people who listen to it don't expect it to. Thats a disgusting excuse IMO.

How condescending! Most people don't want to sit there analysing their music. Music is entertainment as much as it is art, or at least it should be.

Pop entertains people. It can do more than that but that's primarily what it's for and it's good at doing that. If people want a deeper musical experience then classical is probably more suited, but many people don't. And who's to criticise them for that?

The problem is some people do want to listen to classical music but don't know how to appraoch it.

Many people seem to find the whole notion of "classical music" really scary. It's pulling down the barriers (and as I keep saying this is best done at a young age) that will prevent further ghettoisation of classical music, not being patronising about people's tastes or generalising about pop music.

...The notion that pop music is musically inferior to classical music in many respects, doesn't exclude the fact that there are a few pop artists and bands out there showing genuine musical creativity in their songs. I personally, however, find this supposed creativity in pop music still a farce when compared to the creativity shown by the great classical composers.

All you're proving is your (unfounded) bias against pop, and towards classical. Open your ears, dig into the music. Also, there's just as much scrafty and shallow classical music being produced these days. It's a matter of experience, knowledge and familiarity.

You're familiar with the workings of classical music, and are applying these principles to evaluate 'worth' in pop music. You're not looking for the right things, because there's a richness and profundity in much pop music - your ears just aren't tuned to find it.

I mean, compare the creativity it takes to make an album like Ok Computer to the creativity it takes to compose a St. Matthew's Passion or a Mahler symphony - it's a no-brainer that the former is not a patch on the latter.

Don't ask me that, because (for me) it's not a no-brainer. I think there's considerably more creativity behind (specifically) OK Computer [easily on of my picks for top 10 music albums of all time] rather than Bach, or Mahler...

Please bear in mind that I'm coming from a drastically different perspective than you.

Oh and Niku, those examples you give

Some of my favorite compositionally worthy "pop" albums you should listen to (mostly through 60's-70's)

Anything Burt Bacharach

Anything Frank Zappa

Pet Sounds- The Beach Boys

Sgt. Pepper's- The Beatles

Eli And The Thirteenth Confession- Laura Nyro

In The Court Of The Crimson King- King Crimson

Chicago II- Chicago

Blue- Joni Mitchell

Close To The Edge- Yes

A Wizard, A True Star- Todd Rundgren

Dark Side of The Moon- Pink Floyd

Songs In The Key Of Life- Stevie Wonder

Aja- Steely Dan

Skylarking- XTC

Smile- Brian Wilson (best compositionally, imo)

I can't really take you THAT seriously when you use words like "farce", "supposed creativity" and other even worst in your posts. And here we were discussing if there are snob people in classical music! :D HA!

No, honestly, you are contradicting yourself and still discussing how more complex classical music is, comparing OK computer to Bachs St. Mathews Passion, etc. I will whole heartily agree with Robin to say that Ok Computer, which involves GREAT production value, is a really important work and top 10 records of all time, and blah blah and so on. In addition to that, are you aware that Radiohead (since you brought them up) are using techniques also used by Messiean? (for example "just" find it on youtube), or the ingenious 4/4 which surely does not sound like that in "pyramid song" (youtube again) and other things.

I mean, yes, in rather general terms I will agree that mos (if not 99%) of pop music is simpler. SO WHAT? Making a production like the ones you listen (or don't listen probably) on the radio or the telly, or youtube takes A LOT more than sitting down and coming up with harmony and form and pitches etc. You may dislike it, but the fact still remains: To get the sound you get from a pop record you need plenty of more than just a DECCA tree mic setup and an orchestra (or even worst a solo piano! :D) I'd say that no matter how har Beethoven tried and no matter how big masterpieces are (which I do believe they are) Beethoven Sonatas for piano, are no more brainers than a grea pop song. And do remember that by todays standards in composition, harmony, counterpoint, etc, Beethoven is outdated composition wise! ;) It's no longer revolutionary to add an intro to a Sonata, or extend th exposition or the development by a few hundred bars!

So,

Should originality count towards the "value" of a music piece? I mean, sure for the time it was ONE HECK of a piece of music, but afer 200 years I can't see it no longer as original, but rather as outdated or if you want... a museum piece of art. I'd dare to say that some pop songs sound much more original than any Beethoven piece of music NOWDAYS! (see what I mean?)

What you failed to address about my post (probably on purpose? Don't know... ???) is this:

Finally I should stress that it

I'm personally of the opinion that music is music, its either good or bad, be it rock, jazz, classical or nose-flute.

There are crappy pop artists, and wonderful pop artists, there are crappy classical artists and wonderful classical artists.

for every Beethoven the classical world has seen it has had dozens of "paris hiltons" and other wannabes that have been forgotten since because they sucked. likewise, there are some horrible acts in pop music out there at the moment, mostly created to make a quick buck by large corporations, but we also have great songwriters like Carol King.

and that's true of every art form, look at painting, we see allot of old artists, but how many at any one time period and even less in a single region during a small time period, yet we look today and there are seemingly more painters than ever before, most of them are bad. Time forgets people who are not good in their field, so much so that after a while, it seems like there was a time that no bad could be done when in fact it was as bad as today, but history forgot the fluff and kept the important stuff.

unless I really try, I can't generally think of what crappy bands were "it" a few years ago, but I seem to never have trouble remembering those masterpieces, be it classical music jazz, pop or klingon drinking song.

it's okay for you to not like a certain style of music, every one of us does the same, what's not correct is to say that everything in that genre "minus a few exceptions" is bad, because thats true of EVERYTHING in art.

most classical music written is plain bad, but it doesn't survive the decades and centuries like the great stuff does so we don't see it as much.

but walk into any conservatory, musical academy etc, find where the composers nest, listen to the "great music" they are doing, most of it is garbage. the only reason they aren't being played on MTV is because they don't have enough money for breast implants or can't dance ... or both.

anyways... its 4am, im working in 3 hours, was trying to sleep and couldn't, although after writing this boring repetitive post, I'm thinking I'll be able to sleep :)

*Throws more fat in the fire*

Jazz today is caught in a vicious cycle in which radio and recordings have programmed a simple-minded music to appeal to a mass market -- the lowest common denominator. In so doing, they have cultivated an audience that is prejudiced against and largely incapable of comprehending anything more substantial than that which is regularly programmed for it. Commercial radio won't play jazz because the audience doesn't like it; the audience doesn't like it because it hasn't been exposed to it enough to begin to understand it.

Feel free to swap 'jazz' with any genre except 'pop-music'. ...

...

:shifty:

heh...

Exactly my thoughts! :D