I hate pop music

we are the Auto-Tune generation...

but I LOVE listening to music in the car.... :whistling:

That's not what I was referring to. Artists might not be able to nail each song in one take, and might combine a few takes to get the part "perfect," but if they're at all decent, they can actually play the parts they write well. Otherwise seeing them live would be a miserable experience.

Can you really consider a live concert and a studio recording on a pop band/artist? Apart from the very few who can do it (Radiohead, dEUS, Moby, from what I've seen), the quality varies greatly! It's like they're making "cover" songs of their own songs, to play live!

Either way, what we call production, post production and mastering is not something that really happens (mostly that is) in live concerts.

Of course classic artists also have different takes, etc, but the phenomenon is hugely lessen that on the pop music! Not that I consider it a problem, but just that classical music is aimed at a live setting (otherwise called "concert hall music" for that very reason) and pop music is aimed at a studio, where everything is possible.

Either way, a classical record, will aim to simulate the experience of listening to the artist on a live environement: the concert hall, or a studio with various reverbs attached (very carefully though). The pop record is aimed for listening at your mp3 player, or speakers, or studio monitors, etc. Not to simulate anything. Going to a pop concert you get so many different elements, not to be found in the record, that it is completely different. While in classical music, everyone STFU so that they can listen to an almost CD quality performance and go home happy! ;)

I am VERY much intrigued by the above differences, because I'm working on something, thus the comments. ;)

Can you really consider a live concert and a studio recording on a pop band/artist? Apart from the very few who can do it (Radiohead, dEUS, Moby, from what I've seen), the quality varies greatly! It's like they're making "cover" songs of their own songs, to play live!

Of the popular music bands I've seen live (several dozen would probably be an accurate estimate, not as much as I'd like to, but a decent start), all of the bands that I've really respected have been able to get it fairly close. Of course the little quirks, the third and fourth layers of guitars, that kind of stuff, has to be lost, but the musicianship and skill I hear on the recording is still there. I'd be very disappointed if I saw a "pop" artist at a performance and their playing was much worse than it was on the album.

Either way, what we call production, post production and mastering is not something that really happens (mostly that is) in live concerts.

Oh, I realize that. I love studio editing, production - that kind of stuff fascinates me. But I still don't think a serious artist should use technology to give the illusion they're a more talented artist than they are. If you can't play a part for a song you write, you should practice harder - not get the computer to do it for you. There are a lot of fascinating, valid uses for technology and computers, but fudging sloppy performances is not, in my opinion, one of them.

I think that we are talking about different things, probably.

Production techniques and studio "magic" for me is just further composition techniques. Sound design, etc, as well. I can't seperate a song and break it down to chords, etc, and miss the layering, different guitars, etc...

But yes, I do see your point and do agree. :)

topicstarter:

1.) it's easy to generalize + it makes your point of view less interesting.

2.) hate is a strong word, don't throw it around like that.

3.) you're an elitist, get loving over yourself and accept people make choices for themselves. some people can't appreciate bach's 'groundbreaking' music since they just can't be bothered. don't forget people are different and they have the right to be different.

"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

topicstarter:

1.) it's easy to generalize + it makes your point of view less interesting.

2.) hate is a strong word, don't throw it around like that.

3.) you're an elitist, get loving over yourself and accept people make choices for themselves. some people can't appreciate bach's 'groundbreaking' music since they just can't be bothered. don't forget people are different and they have the right to be different.

1) Generalization makes a point both more parsimonious and more forceful (that

Still waiting for that music... ;)

3) Oh but I accept that people have the right to be different and choose to listen to whatever music they like. The question is, how great actually is the freedom of choice (with respect to musical genres) that kids growing up in this society have, if each day they are exposed to an almost exclusive diet of pop music? (The same could be asked for religion

why is there such a need to get people to listen to classical music and 'reject' pop-music?

i must be missing something.

why is there such a need to get people to listen to classical music and 'reject' pop-music?

There isn't. We're experiencing elitist posturing from musical bigots.

;):whistling:

i do believe some people actually feel this way though.

muse...they are the best live band you will see, they are the best sample 'pop' music has to offer in terms of live ability

i do believe some people actually feel this way though.

I work in both the 'pop' and 'classical' worlds. I enjoy writing art music and music for performance by instrumentalists, but I also enjoy writing and performing music of the 'fusion' and 'metal' persuasions.

Two summers ago I was working on a project based on the seven deadly sins. A large influence of mine was Opeth. Essentially I wrote an entire album, with a lot of the material being made up spontaneously and worked a little. Eventually I wound up with a cohesive and, I feel, well done album of music.

I now mostly focus on art music, since as a comp major it is my duty to learn how to write well for each instrument. While the metal album was mostly natural talent, the stuff I'm working on now is more refined. My talent is still there, I'm just working on the material I create to make it better.

I think that is one reason 'elitists' feel like they are justified in disliking pop music; because it's easier to create and it requires less refinement.

However, this is ridiculous if one considers that it took Metallica over a year and a half straight to record Metallica, their best selling album ever. While that sort of time-commitment is rare and usually unnecessary, it does help disparage any theory of pop musicians not putting in as much effort. I'm just pointing out that this group took an insane amount of time to make sure that what they were creating was the best possible product.

A few points I would like to outline:

*Regarding the performance of music, listen to bands such as Dragonforce and Dream Theater. These people are amazing at their instruments, and can easily recreate it on stage.

*Regarding hip-hop/rap - the genre today is largely used for clubs. While the latest "Party like a Rockstar" or "Soulja boy" has very little musical merit, it does have societal merit, which is its primary function. While I personally do not put on either of these songs to entertain myself, it is nice to play at social events. You certainly aren't going to play Schoenberg when kickin it with your friends.

*Regarding Pop music (things like Britney, Christina, Clay Aiken) - remember that these types of songs (as well as their predecessors, Mariah, Whitney Houston, etc.) are to showcase the artists themselves. Also, they do not write the songs, but there are teams behind them, creating the music. It's not so easy to write a song as catchy as "I Will Always Love You" or "Crazy". That is a talent itself, and to disregard that would be most pretentious.

And to the original poster:

I'm curious what you would consider music such as Soca, Calypso, Bata, and other world music styles. Bata, for instance, it often several drums going for an incredibly long period of time. Would you classify this as 'classical' music, or 'pop'? Certainly, it is the pop music of Africa, yet if it were performed for the radio-going crowd, they would be easily bored. Also, you may have answered this, but what do you classify Jazz? Jazz was once pop music as well.

why is there such a need to get people to listen to classical music and 'reject' pop-music?

i must be missing something.

Please read my post properly Robert. There was nothing I said in that which implied people should reject pop music....

I'm not sure religion is a good analogy as you cannot believe in two religions at once where as I can listen to Stravinsky and REM quite happily. And if I were to discover a new band or piece I liked, I wouldn't be rejecting my old tastes in the same way a religious (or atheist) convert would have to reject what they were brought up with.

BUT, and here's where I think we differ, I'm not convinced the blame for their listening tastes (if indeed blame is the right word, which it isn't actually) lays squarley with pop artists and the big 4 record labels as you've been implying. It's not that classical is being squeezed out, as I'm not sure it's there in the first place for many children!

Blaming that vacuum on another genre is not right and certainly not helpful. We need instead to examine how we get kids exposed to classical music; and that means looking at our school system, embracing new technologies, reviewing arts funding, looking at outreach programmes etc. Leave your personal prejudices against pop aside as I don't think they're helpful when addressing what is, I agree with you, an important issue.

I think I was pretty clear that I don't think people should necessarily change their original tastes. There's nothing wrong with listening to popular music; I'd be a hypocrite if I said there was.

This is about opportunities, better musical education, and getting people excited about exciting music. If, after being given the opportunity to hear classical music a child doesn't like it, that's fine!

What is a shame, is that kids aren't even given the opportunity to hear classical music. That's not to put the blame on pop music, but just stating a point of view as a musician and composer.

I have more sympathy with a relativist's argument than with Adorno's (Gianluca's) in this debate. Logically there is no reason why one music is better than another and to claim society will somehow be damaged by "regressive listening" (Adorno's term, not mine) is ridiculous. Despite this though, I still think it's a shame that the opportunities aren't out there for kids to hear what is a huge part of our musical heritage. And, as musicians and composers, I'd be surprised if too many of you disagree.

I hope that's cleared that up Robert.

i was refering to the overal attitude of this topic. i chose reject (WITH quotation marks) for lack of a better word.

still though, i think kids should be able to 'discover' classic(al) music for themselves, it shouldn't be introduced to/forced upon them (not more than it is already).

and again, sorry for any 'hostile-sounding' replies, it's mostly because of the language barrier (mostly, some of it is still hostility :P).

muse...they are the best live band you will see, they are the best sample 'pop' music has to offer in terms of live ability

YEAH! Muse is good and radiohead is similar to muse and also has some interesting stuff.

I don't have a problem with the essay, sure there are bits that i don't agree with but it's hard to avoid that with such a contrversial topic. There are many exceptions to your argument. (as in any argument)

If you want an argument that nobody will object to try "Why i hate rap" then everyone will agree with you that rap is barely music.

^^ as cake starts out delicious and full of flavor before you eat it, rap started out as poetry. eventually they both turn/turned into crap

...eventually they both turn/turned into crap

That's when it came out the other end, right? :musicwhistle:

Anyway, I'm a bit annoyed that this thread is alive again...

Anyway, I'm a bit annoyed that this thread is alive again...

How dare someone have a controversial opinion!! Blasphemy!!!!111!one!!

Especially one that is incredibly narrow-minded and refuses to acknowledge other schools of that.

Especially one that is incredibly narrow-minded and refuses to acknowledge other schools of that.

Narrow minded is subjective. It is your opinion. I doubt you have any scientific evidence backing you up.

narrow-minded - definition of narrow-minded by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

I find someone who is unwilling to at least concede that, though they do not personally enjoy something, it may have merit anyway to be fairly narrow-minded, and you don't need a definition to see that.

Do you not agree?

I agree, but there are scientific ways of having a "bad" piece.

Oh God, here we go again...

Oh God, here we go again...

Pop music is the wrong term for it, because Mozart, Beethoven (etc.) are also "pop" artists.

There is "pop" music that is good, and there is pop music that is social interaction. One is music, one isn't.