I hate pop music

Oh btw, I have absolutely no idea what color is in season now. that is an analogy. =/

Pop music is a state of mind.

Another brilliant statement from Rkmajora! :D Care to elaborate? ;)

Pop music is a state of mind.

You're a state of mind

Pop music is a state of mind.

Yeah, retardation.

Yeah, retardation.

This was (again) unnecessary.

Can we really separate music into different ontological categories? I.e., this is deep and meaningful, this is shallow. Or does that sound like those goofy philosophers who try to ascertain ultimate reality amidst a perceived sea of illusion and say "This is real, this is true and the rest of the universe is crap!"

Didn't Stravinsky once say, "Music is incapable of expressing anything but itself"? What is harmony? Surely it exists outside of human activity, even that which is believed to have been conceived by human activity. Do you believe music is the essence of things like Wagner, and then, to insult a harmony, would be to insult some other things in the universe that emits that harmony with their vibration? Or are these the same things that the philosophers put in a separate ontological category from ultimate reality?

I think these are questions you should ask yourself, if you deem pop or any music unworthy. I say I like this and I don't like that, for the sake of having an argument, not because I fervently believe in the objective superiority of Wagner and Strauss' music

It is you who are painfully naive and humanistic, if you hold a true opinion for or against a harmony.

Fine if you think Mozart, Bach and Schubert (whom the real Wagner admired by the way) are dry (a painfully naive view if you ask me) or if you would rate Radiohead's work as good as or maybe even better than Bach or Beethoven. Undoubtedly, there are also people out there who would rate Britney Spears or Beyonce as musically talented as or maybe even more talented than Bach or Beethoven. To quote Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry, opinions are like assholes, everyone has one. I personally believe that the level of musical depth and sophistication found in the greatest achievements by geniuses such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Debussy, Stravinsky, etc. is not to be found in any pop music and I may only hope that this view continues to be shared by many other people.

Are you sure? I know an awful lot about Wagner; he was found of Beethoven, Bach, and Mozart but I never read or suspected Schubert, whom one of his earlier "enemies", Schumann, exalted. Chopin, perhaps, through Liszt, but I doubt Schubert.

Secondly, can we really call Wagner and early Stravinsky sophisticated? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the Forging Song or Firebird Suite?

I believe that, depth is not found in sophistication - it is found at the very center, downward and into, rather than up and away from.

I also would sometimes rate Radiohead's work as good as or maybe even better than Bach or Beethoven.

Hmmmm, not so sure whether I agree with you here. Pieces can be both brilliant AND elegant, although maybe this is not always the case. But what else should I expect from somebody with the nickname "Wagner"?? :P

I was saying, that brilliance = elegance, which is opposite primal.

Secondly, can we really call Wagner and early Stravinsky sophisticated? Is that what comes to mind when you hear the Forging Song or Firebird Suite?

Don't give away your ignorance....

The ballet Firebird is QUITE "sophisticated" and worthy of in-depth study.

The funniest thing in this "discussion" is that both sides are tossing accusations back and forth, and making the SAME mistakes they are accusing each other of making!

There is (let us stick to this word for now) "sophisticated" pop music, just like there is "less sophisticated" classical music.

The real distinction between the two "genres" has nothing to do with complexity, or sophistication of the harmonic or melodic material.

There is classical music for one or a few instruments, there is pop music that requires QUITE large an ensemble.

There is pop music that is quite developed and lengthy listening, there is classical that flies by in under 3 minutes.

The intention of the music should be where you examine any differences.

Johann Strauss waltzes, polkas, and gallops were meant to be danced to. They were "dance music". In a way, they were a form of "pop" music at that time. A bridge, if you will, between the concert stage and the real popular music of that time (which classical was NOT).

Unfortunately, I know very little contemporary pop music, and most of you would probably be shocked to know what pop music I actually DO listen to and enjoy. But I know that those songs I do listen to, I don't listen to the same way I listen to a symphony, or sonata, or concerto.

I don't expect a pop song to push me to introspect, to make me consider what it proposes. I expect it to make me feel things. And it does. I don't expect intellectual stimulation from it.

When I listen to contemporary classcial music, I expect to feel something. I expect to be pushed as well to SOME intellectual stimulation. To discover something new, something further, every time I hear it.

That's very different from my expectation of pop music.

Does that mean that pop music can't do that?

No.

It means that I just don't listen to that kind of pop.

Listen to Michel Fugain et le Big Bazaar... that's intellectual pop! The songs are fun, can be skimmed, but! if you listen closely, there's more. There's a message, there's something beneath the surface.

Is that any less of an achievement than a symphony?

Not in my opinion.

It's just a different KIND of achievement.

Why compare?

That was my only word on this topic, I will now let the children go back to their bickering. And I use the term "children" with a certain affection... I've been following this thread, and am amused that some of you are coming up with heavy musicological terminology yet not having the real academic baggage to defend the position you take.

In other words, for God's sake, just calm down, stop arguing for nothing, and go write some music... pop or classical, doesn't matter. Go express yourselves. THAT'S where it matters.

And with that I bid you all happy holidays.

michel

Don't give away your ignorance....

The ballet Firebird is QUITE "sophisticated" and worthy of in-depth study.

I did not mean it wasn't worthy of being studied or that it would not be liked by cosmopolitan gays who like to point out perceived inadequacies so they feel like social and intellectual superiors, but that, by Stravinsky's own philosophy, was not intended to be sophisticated in the sense of the word that gianluca was using it.

I did not mean it wasn't worthy of being studied or that it would not be liked by cosmopolitan gays who like to point out perceived inadequacies so they feel like social and intellectual superiors, but that, by Stravinsky's own philosophy, was not intended to be sophisticated in the sense of the word that gianluca was using it.

is that a slur?

if so, you've just meritted yourself an infraction.

I thought it was just as eloquent, necessary and perceptive as your remark.

I thought it was just as eloquent, necessary and perceptive as your remark.

with the major difference that my comment wasn't an insult.

yours is actually against forum rules.

to say that Firebird is unsophisticated music is showing a distinct lack of knowledge and understanding of the repertoire (ie: "ignorance".. you might look up the definition of the word. it's not ALWAYS an insult, you know).

Wilson

YouTube - Our Prayer

YouTube - Surf's Up

YouTube - Don't talk (put your head on my shoulder) - The Beach Boys

Zappa

YouTube - Frank Zappa - Redunzl (RDNZL) - Stockholm 73

YouTube - Frank Zappa / Amazing Mr. Bickford "Dupree's Paradise"

Becker/Fagen

YouTube - Aja - Steely Dan

Fine if you think Mozart, Bach and Schubert are dry (a painfully naive view if you ask me) or if you would rate Radiohead's work as good as or maybe even better than Bach or Beethoven. ... I personally believe that the level of musical depth and sophistication found in the greatest achievements by geniuses such as Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Mahler, Debussy, Stravinsky, etc. is not to be found in any pop music and I may only hope that this view continues to be shared by many other people.

Wow, what a scallopy way of reluctantly accepting that other people may have opinions. I'm sure Robin will be overjoyed at this response!

HAHA...I've been away a bit, and am not going to bother to address this. I am glad Gianluca thinks it's naive...he makes me smile. I hope someday he figures it out.

I'm curious as to why you believe Radiohead are more creative than Beethoven, Robin.

I did not mean it wasn't worthy of being studied or that it would not be liked by cosmopolitan gays who like to point out perceived inadequacies so they feel like social and intellectual superiors, but that, by Stravinsky's own philosophy, was not intended to be sophisticated in the sense of the word that gianluca was using it.

I love your equal opportunity racism, Wagner :toothygrin:

*high fives Tomas*

I'm curious as to why you believe Radiohead are more creative than Beethoven, Robin.

I just listen/look for different criteria. It's hard to explain/define... and while I can appreciate and recognize the innovations and 'genius' of guys like Beethoven et al, something in most 'classical' music is....I don't want to say lacking, but...something in it, simply doesn't hit me in the same way. I also, may have slightly exaggerated and probably consider them equally interesting, but in substantially different arenas; depending on the element in focus...

I guess... :whistling:

*ducks*

In Ok Computer (and general with Radiohead) they have accomplished a bridge between contemporary compositional techniques (and the contemporary IS the important part here) and rock music. They are political beings all of them. Orchestrations and production are also equally important to the music (something that many don't get). Videos are also a part of their music! They are independant (one of the very few (yet) bands to be able to do that. NIN as well, dEUS as well, as far as I know). They do not limit their selves to C maj and 4/4 and even if they do, they make sure they do it the most insteresting way:

I can't find more youtube videos, although I'm sure they are around... (and I have all records, but of course can't start offering mp3s...)

I take Radiohead as... creators and don't limit myself to Ok computer (both links above are NOT from Ok Computer).

For rock musicians to go the extra steps it is ingenious!

For classical composers (as proven from his thread;)) to move to rock directions, it is ingenious!

HA! :D:D

Wow!

Those were amazing!

I'd heard the name Radiohead before, but had never heard any of their music. (I really listen to very little non-classcial music)

I particularly liked "Just".

WHY I HATE CLASSICAL MUSIC

I hate classical music. I hate it passionately and I hate it more and more. I hate its gratuitously complex harmonies, rhythms, and song structures. Its rejection of past successes in the neverending pursuit of novelty. I hate the pretentious, academic culture that is associated with classical music.

Well, I set out to try to rewrite your essay to turn it against classical music. That's about as far as I could successfully get while presenting my argument and maintaining your own sentence structure. I think that even that amount of essay has been informative. I do not agree with what is said in the preceding paragraph; like your own essay, it is full of generalizations and is filled with anger and bias. Nonetheless, I think it provides a great look into the different philosophies behind classical music and pop music.

Continuing in this vein, here is a quote from the late modern composer Karl Stockhausen. He was asked to listen to some pieces of pop music (electronic, specifically) by Aphex Twin, Plasticman, etc. Here is what he said:

I wish those musicians would not allow themselves any repetitions, and would go faster in developing their ideas or their findings, because I don't appreciate at all this permanent repetitive language. It is like someone who is stuttering all the time, and can't get words out of his mouth. I think musicians should have very concise figures and not rely on this fashionable psychology. I don't like psychology whatsoever: using music like a drug is stupid. One shouldn't do that : music is the product of the highest human intelligence, and of the best senses, the listening senses and of imagination and intuition. And as soon as it becomes just a means for ambiance, as we say, environment, or for being used for certain purposes, then music becomes a hoe, and one should not allow that really; one should not serve any existing demands or in particular not commercial values. That would be terrible: that is selling out the music.

I heard the piece Aphex Twin of Richard James carefully: I think it would be very helpful if he listens to my work Song Of The Youth, which is electronic music, and a young boy's voice singing with himself. Because he would then immediately stop with all these post-African repetitions, and he would look for changing tempi and changing rhythms, and he would not allow to repeat any rhythm if it were varied to some extent and if it did not have a direction in its sequence of variations.

Aphex Twin responded:

I thought he should listen to a couple of tracks of mine: "Didgeridoo", then he'd stop making abstract, random patterns you can't dance to.

These two men clearly had completely opposite views on the purpose of music. Purely for convenience, we will say that Aphex Twin represents the "pop" view of music, and Stockhausen the "art" view of music.

The pop view of music says that music is made for entertainment; it does not serve any higher purpose. A piece's worth is measured by how catchy the melody is, how danceable the beat is, how many scantily clad women there are in the music video; et cetera. In some cases, the value of the music might be provided simply by a good performance. Take Kiss. Even Gene Simmons (the mastermind of the group) admitted that their music wasn't any good. The reason they were successful is that they were an amazing live act: they knew how to play the crowd, and put on a great show. In the "pop" view of music, we might as well retire the term "artist," because this is not art: it is entertainment.

The "art" view of music says that music exists for its own sake: it should be appreciated not as entertainment, but as a work of natural beauty. Art musicians seek out some higher aesthetic goal. Often, they are simply exploring the possibilities of what music can be. Writing with unusual amounts of dissonance, or complex time signatures, or unconventional playing techniques, are all examples of this type of exploration; or, at any rate, they were at their time, since they have now (arguably) been successfully explored.

Most music falls somewhere between these two extremes. All but the most inane, commercial pop music has some pretense of trying to create art. All but the most abstract, experimental art music is also trying to provide some modicum of entertainment to the audience. In the last century or so, I would argue that art music has moved further away from the pop extreme of things. All but the most sweet-toothed of pop listeners will appreciate Canon in D, for instance, but it takes a hardcore listener indeed to appreciate a lot of modern art music.

I assert that both goals of music have value. Different people will find their "sweet spot" at different points on the continuum. Personally, I am more on the pop side of things; I like to tap my toes to the music, and I like to get the tune stuck in my head afterwards. A lot of modern art music doesn't give me either of those things, so I don't listen.

Ehh, I'd rather not get into this debate and type paragraphs upon paragraphs of my opinions because I doubt anyone would read or care about my opinion. So, I'll leave you with these. Some string quartet arrangement of pop songs. After listening to a few of these, try to tell me that there is absolutely no beauty in modern pop music.

YouTube - 3 Libras-The String Quartet Tribute to a Perfect Circle (My personal favorite)

YouTube - The String Quartet Tribute - Radiohead - Paranoid Android

YouTube - Stinkfist-The String Quartet Tribute to TOOL

YouTube - Rose-The String Quartet Tribute to A Perfect Circle

(Note: Half of these arrangements, I don't even like the original songs)

On another note, I love Radiohead.

id also like to point out radiohead's (thom yorke's) favourite time signature is 7/8 and his favourite chord is 'Am/-5'

yeh, how conventionally 'pop'...

Holy crap @ the elitism in this fropic.

I was thinking about diving in, but I rather contend that it would be a severe waste of my time and there's nothing I can do to persuade the jaded, closeminded minds of the champions of so-called "art music" nor the frivolous, naive ways of the advocates of so-called "pop music". I sense that neither side is willing to open up enough to anything beyond their own personal experience and upbringing. And I strongly feel that both sides are deeply mistaken... as a spiritualist and philosopher I see music in a way that I'm sure very few others can relate to, and as a result, the concept of "music" itself is lost in translation.

i hate it because its simple and anyone can make a fortune while people like us who study hard are unable to make a living

but, i still respect their works. after all, if most people don like them they won't be popular. and people like beethoven are popular during his time. right now, its during a process of moving onto a new musical style---electronic

i can't listen to rock or pop all day but i can listen to classical

i just don understand y all my friend think its boring