I hate pop music

It's all taste, Z. Anyone can like anything, but it all depends how they were brought up. I personally like every tipe of music but Rap (is that music...? :P). I just can't understand why we can't just leave this thread to rest... Nothing is being accomplished by this thread other than pissing each other off over an inarguable topic.

Music = Music. That's all I have to say. =]

EDIT: I completely agree with nhomas, his points were well-thought out.

and people like beethoven are popular during his time.

Even Beethoven's audience was only a very small part of society. Much smaller than his audience today at least. The average working man of his time might not even have known of him.

In the last century or so, I would argue that art music has moved further away from the pop extreme of things.

I'm not even sure of that. Medieval and renaissance liturgical music ("high art") and folk music ("low art") are two completely different worlds. And it took 20th century composers like Bartok or Gershwin to really take the roots of "popular music" of their countries seriously and incorporate them into "classical music".

While a lot of contemporary "classical" music is indeed extremely different from popular music, popular music has also never been taken as seriously and incorporated as much into "classical music" as today.

The problem is not with pop music, it's with what is popular. If we are to separate all music into "art music" or "pop music", then there is so much amazing music that is not anywhere near getting on the radio, and no one can possibly lump all pop music as lacking merit. To do so would be utterly narrow minded and presumptuous. It's a similar problem with Rap/Hip-Hop. So may degrade those two genres as lacking any sort of musical direction, when in actuality a lot of it can have stuff to say. However, what's on the radio...is just for dancing. And you don't need anything except a beat to dance.

Nor can one disparage art music, for obvious reasons.

The reason much art music is no longer popular is simple: it's too long. We are the microwave generation; we expect our food to be cooked in thirty seconds or less. Likewise, we expect our radio to play a song for two and a half minutes. As it is, the average person cannot sit through a Mahler symphony.

The art world needs to reclaim land, and the way to do it is not by dismissing popular music or popular culture. We need to embrace everything and make it better. There is a ton of musical merit in Baroque, Classical, and Romantic music, and it even takes musicians a while to appreciate it. I could not properly appreciate Bach until several years into my musical education. What of those who have no musical education, and only "Hollaback Girl"? We need to draw them in, by making them feel like we want them to listen to us. There is too much stigma associated with art music, in that its patrons are stuffy and snobbish, which is in part true.

Just my two cents.

There is too much stigmata associated with art music, in that its patrons are stuffy and snobbish...

Really? :huh: :P Wasn't that Madonna?

...it's funny how two letters can really mess you up, eh!

No. I definitely meant 'stigmata'.

...

Man.

The reason much art music is no longer popular is simple: it's too long. We are the microwave generation; we expect our food to be cooked in thirty seconds or less. Likewise, we expect our radio to play a song for two and a half minutes. As it is, the average person cannot sit through a Mahler symphony.

That doesn't explain why Webern isn't more popular though ;)

In the end, people make the music they want to hear, or they make music they want to make them rich. Who are we to judge someone's ambitions? Pop music, or more specifically dance music, maybe be 'uncultured' as someone put, but its about dancing, so in that respect, its absolutley brilliant. Ever been anywhere with loud dance music, you HAVE to dance, its compelling.

Pop music, or more specifically dance music, maybe be 'uncultured' as someone put...

Again, that's just one man's opinion. Many people out there will believe 'pop' music to be as or more cultured than classical music. It's a matter of perspective, nature, and nurture...

...

No. I definitely meant 'stigmata'.

Sure you did... who needs coherent sentences anyway? ;) :whistling:

...Man.

No. I definitely meant 'stigmata'.

...

Man.

Wow!

So THAT explains the red stains on my keyboard when I work!!!! :sadtears:

P.S. I REALLY think you meant stigma.

No. I definitely meant 'stigmata'.

...

Man.

No, I know you meant "stigma"

Stigmata is sores and markings, I don't think that's very relevant to music at all

Stigmata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stigma is just intolerance of people because of certain beliefs or visual attributes, in this case it's people that like pop music versus "non" pop

Stigma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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,

I don't know about what you listen to, but most of the popular music I listen to doesn't have lyrics or melodies that could be meaningfully called "childishly simplistic." That is a pretty nebulous term though; I'd like a more precise definition.

its lack of musical invention and its formulaic nature.

Good pop isn't any less inventive than a lot of classical. I'd say pound for pound, classical actually adheres to formulas more strictly than pop, especially in periods like the classical and baroque era that tended to have very exact conventions about what harmonies were appropriate, what the structure should be, what ensembles were allowed, etc.

Overall I'd say the best classical is typically more original than the best pop, though. A number of great classical composers over the centuries have created entirely new ways of looking at harmony and at music in general, in ways that are basically unprecedented in pop music. However, given the relatively short time popular music has been created with the intent of being deep personal expression and art, it has created a remarkable amount of innovative artists.

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.

Oh, me too, believe me. Many if not most serious fans of popular music dislike the attitude of the media. I'm not sure this attitude in the media is at all the fault of the music, though.

I hate the hype surrounding the release of a new album by supposedly

Pianoman, that was a wonderfully well-put response.

Very even-handed.

Aside from agreeing wholeheartedly with pianoman (and most likely misspelling a few words in this last sentence), there are a few things I'd like to add.

1-2 years ago, I loathed pop music. I thought that it was something that didn't deserve to be considered an art form. I thought rap was to art as an apple was to an orange.... on completely different levels (I still don't consider rap music, and never will, but anyways- and all the rap that I've been exposed to has included very questionable lyrics- actually, I just saw Kelly from Regis and Kelly do a rap segment, which was hilarious).

Then I actually started to listen to more popular music... not pass it off as something that is less than art. Someone who wrote those pieces was trying to pass on an emotion, a feeling, a concept... the same thing that a classical composer (even one from the baroque) was attempting to do. Just because it's not as complex contrapuntally, or doesn't contain as grandiose chordal structures as the later romantics doesn't mean that it is base. Music is merely a vehicle for words, ideas to be transmitted. If the writer or singer or whatever (yes, very technical) managed to transmit those words or ideas in the correct emotional context, then it's an art, regardless of whether or not I personally like it.

Nowadays, I've come around to listening to more pop music... not often, but I can at least appreciate it as music.

I see this thread's back but gianluca's gone.

Methinks he didn't get the response he was expecting!!

BTW RE:

I would say a larger reason for the decline of classical music's popularity, besides the unfriendly if not hostile attitudes of 20th century composers to the public, is the existence of snobby attitudes like the one you've expressed in this post. How interested do you think someone is in listening to your music if all you do is tell them their music is garbage? This seems like possibly THE most effective way to turn people off towards classical music.

Very well put indeed!

No, I know you meant "stigma"

Stigmata is sores and markings, I don't think that's very relevant to music at all

Stigmata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stigma is just intolerance of people because of certain beliefs or visual attributes, in this case it's people that like pop music versus "non" pop

Stigma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Right, I get those two mixed up occasionally. After my initial post I double checked it and fixed it. Though I must remember sarcasm does not transfer well over the internet.

No, really?

Pianoman, I will briefly respond to some of your points.

Good pop isn't any less inventive than a lot of classical. I'd say pound for pound, classical actually adheres to formulas more strictly than pop, especially in periods like the classical and baroque era that tended to have very exact conventions about what harmonies were appropriate, what the structure should be, what ensembles were allowed, etc.

I am talking about melodic, harmonic and rhythmic invention. Even what is considered good pop music usually doesn

Hmm? I'd say my taste in music is less dictated by my culture than would be possible in any previous time - using the internet and other communications mediums, I can find out about artists and composers I never would have known about and hear genres ranging from the most simplistic punk rock to the intricacies of Webern, Shostakovich, etc. Anyone who's really serious about music and has access to decent internet can find out about more artists than he or she would ever have known about in, for example, the 18th century.

Popular culture is forced upon us, not explicitly in a stalinistic way, but implicitly by its overwhelming, unavoidable and ubiquitous dominance. Unlike you, most young people nowadays will probably never find out about any other music than pop music, because for them, pop music is the only music that exists. Although we are free to choose whatever musical genre or style we like to listen to, one may wonder how great this freedom is in a society where a lot of kids get exposed to an almost exclusive diet of pop culture....

Popular music pushed art music to the margins? Look at the attitude of 20th century composers like Boulez and his modernist ilk and it becomes quite clear that modern classical, in its drive for avant-garde quasi-invention, invention that strives more for "new concepts" than truly excellent, moving music, is responsible for its own place in the margins. Pop music filled a huge gap that classical musicians and appreciators created themselves.

Why blame Boulez and the like for this? Modernism was a natural and logical step in the evolution of Western art music. I

Pianoman, I will briefly respond to some of your points.

I am talking about melodic, harmonic and rhythmic invention. Even what is considered good pop music usually doesn’t have the melodic, harmonic and rhythmic richness and invention found in most classical music. True, in the baroque and classical periods, there were certain strict conventions most composers adhered to, but the greatest composers achieved immense creativity within these conventions. So even while Bach’s music adhered to certain rules and conventions of those days, it can hardly be called formulaic, for it doesn’t simply rely on these conventions, but rather treats these conventions as musical constraints, within which the composer can be highly creative. This cannot be said for most pop music in the charts.

A lot of pop producers (those producing songs for teenybop nitwits like Britney Spears and Beyonce) simply rely on formulas while there’s hardly any truly creative invention involved in producing this stuff.

Did it ever occur to you that they might NOT be trying to be inventive?

And what exactly in your mind is true creative innovation?

Not ALL music has to be new creative or inventive, you seem to have alot of anger towards pop musicians. What the heck exactly makes them worse than a classically trained musician?

You're really coming off as being a bigot when you talk like that

Well, to be perfectly honest, I sense some hypocrisy in your statements Gianluca. You seem to be calling people who like pop music close minded idiots who know nothing of geniunely "good" music (whatever the hell that is) yet you are the one who seems to be dismissing EVERY single genre of music that isn't classical. I'm curious as to how much you actually listen to pop music. You don't seem very familiar with it and you aren't very specific. You continually just refer to it as just "pop music" yet name no specific artists. Surely, if ALL pop artists suck then you'd at least be able to name a few names. I strongly dislike rap and rarely listen to it but even I could give you about five names of rap artists who I hate. Also, may I ask what the point of starting this thread was? Some people here have made very valid points but you seem to be very stubborn and set in your ways. So if you were so determined to maintain your opinion on classical music, then why start this thread? Were you expecting a bunch of people to rally with you then you'd all march out onto the streets and protest the horror that is pop music?

These are honest questions. I would type my own feelings on pop music but I'd like to better understand your position first.

I am talking about melodic, harmonic and rhythmic invention. Even what is considered good pop music usually doesn

Popular culture is forced upon us, not explicitly in a stalinistic way, but implicitly by its overwhelming, unavoidable and ubiquitous dominance. Unlike you, most young people nowadays will probably never find out about any other music than pop music, because for them, pop music is the only music that exists. Although we are free to choose whatever musical genre or style we like to listen to, one may wonder how great this freedom is in a society where a lot of kids get exposed to an almost exclusive diet of pop culture....

"In a Stalinistic way"? Geez, don't hold back on your hyperbole now.

Why blame Boulez and the like for this? Modernism was a natural and logical step in the evolution of Western art music. I

What do you hear more about new atonal composers - that their music is affecting and profoundly emotional, or that it is "innovative"? I can tell you what I hear more. Yes, many atonalists were brilliant and created brilliant works, but others were hacks more concerned with their "revolution" than actually writing interesting music.

Actually, you have put your finger right on Gianluca's weak point right there.

He speaks continuously of "innovation" and rejects anything that isn't "innovative" by his definition.

That narrow-minded obsession with "new" is a black hole that sucks the "creativity" from you and prevents you from communicating via your music.

Besides, atonality and "experimentalism" are so pass

Well, don't get me wrong, innovation is one of the main things I look for in music - every piece of music needs to have something to distinguish itself, and innovation in form, harmony, or what have you is one of the best ways to do that. I also enjoy modern-era music a lot, including some atonal writers. But I find the attitude of many atonal composers, Boulez in particular, very shallow in regards to innovation. There's still a lot of innovation to be done in tonal music; atonal music isn't the only possible progress. And serialism wasn't, in my opinion, inevitable at all.