I hate pop music

I feel like I can't express myself since so many other people are saying what I want to say... :happytears:

Most of the counterarguments of those disagreeing with me boil down to people trying to convince me that good pop music does exist (with some adding that there’s also crappy classical music).

Read more carefully what I said. I never said that all classical music is superior to (or more complicated than) all pop music. Besides, I have already stated that I agree that there is some good (maybe even great) pop music out there, but that this music can only be considered good or great compared to other pop music. Yes, according to pop standards, Radiohead is a great and highly creative band with fresh and original ideas, breaking conventions and exploring new territories, yet in my opinion their creativity pales in comparison to the creativity evident in the truly great masterpieces of classical music. Sorry, but you simply can’t put Radiohead on the same level as Bach or Beethoven in terms of musical creativity and genius, that would be a joke.

So, I do agree that there is some good pop music out there, but that doesn’t mean that I am contradicting myself (Nikolas!). The fact that there are exceptions to the rule, doesn’t change the rule. So I will repeat what I see as "the rule": In general, classical music is far more advanced, refined, sophisticated and intellectually and emotionally challenging than pop music. So far, I haven't heard one convincing argument against that, apart from the mention of some exceptional examples of relatively good pop music. I believe there’s nothing unfounded or overgeneralizing about the statement above. Come on, it’s something you can hardly deny or you're fooling yourself, but of course that doesn’t exclude the existance of exceptions. (Similarly, one can state that the Dutch - statistically the tallest people in the world - are taller than the Japanese - among the shortest people in the world –but that doesn’t mean that there are no short Dutch people or tall Japanese people....)

But you are still discussing about complexity in classsical music and simplisity in pop music, while you said (unless mistaken, cause I'm on a really slow connection these days and can't look back) that it doesn't make difference if it's complex or not and gave examples about Schubert actually! You are contradicting yourself exactly to that point: you need to decide if more complex music makes "better music" or not. You do need to read more carefully to what the rest of the people say in here (including my own posts), I think ;)

And you still compare Radiohead to Bach Beethoven and the rest: WHY?!?!?!??? Are they not different? Does it matter in the end if one is "better" than the other, and why should Radiohead be more advanced, refined and sophisticated than classical music anyways? I feel tons more challenged by Radiohead than I've done for most contemporary music I've heard in the past 4 years... go figure I guess...

Alan, your calling me a snob to me seems like a sign of argumentative weakness...

Nikolas, let me briefly discuss some of your points.,

I mean, yes, in rather general terms I will agree that mos (if not 99%) of pop music is simpler. SO WHAT?

I wouldn’t have any problem with that, if pop music wouldn’t have this terribly overrated cultural status. Note that I am not saying that everyone should listen to classical music instead, but I feel that in general, classical music doesn’t get the status, attention and recognition it deserves. Pop music gets so much attention that even those who might potentially take an interest in and appreciate classical music get so little exposure to classical music that they eventually never get the chance to learn to enjoy it. Furthermore, I feel there’s something unfair about a society in which a spoiled pop artist with hardly any musical talent may earn tons and tons of money for performing just one infantile pop song whereas an accomplished classical musican with a musical talent that is so much huger and rarer may be struggling to make a living in music.

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?)

I sort of see what you mean, but then, I think the originality of a piece always has to be judged in relation to the time in which it was created; when Beethoven wrote his late works such as, say, the Grosse Fuge, it sounded so shockingly unlike anything heard before, so judging this piece in relation to other works created in that time, it is highly, highly original. Of course, it doesn’t sound so shocking anymore to our ears nowadays, but that’s simply because we live in a different time and a lot of things have happened in music since Beethoven.

Contemporary music in large quantities SUCK BIG TIME!

I strongly disagree with that. There’s crappy music being produced in all genres, in all times. I don’t think there’s relatively more crap being produced within the field of contemporary music. It may seem like this because: (a) we are not yet so familiar with the language of most contemporary music – once we get more familiar with it, we will start to enjoy more and more contemporary music; and (b) a lot of crap from earlier periods (baroque, classical, romantic) has already been filtered out since the crappy pieces didn’t stand the test of time. One can just as well find a lot of good music and masterpieces within the field of contemporary concert hall music (think of Boulez’ Pli selon pli, Berio’s Sinfonia, Ligeti’s Grand Macabre, Xenakis’ Pleiades, Birtwistle’s Mask of Orpheus, Stockhausen’s Licht, Reich’s Music for 18, to mention but a few).

I agree that schools and education are a not to be overlooked part of the problem.

.

damn nikolas, you reply too fast :) I can't keep up with your speed of replying...:)

Well, Gianluca, you certainly burst onto the YC scene with a bang, didn't you.

Most new members post a few "hi, I'm Bob, I liked your piece" posts before posting inflammatory essays on the relative merits of unrelated musical genres.

Well, just so you know, welcome to YC.

Hopefully this thread isn't an indication of all of your future posts?

But you are still discussing about complexity in classsical music and simplisity in pop music, while you said (unless mistaken, cause I'm on a really slow connection these days and can't look back) that it doesn't make difference if it's complex or not and gave examples about Schubert actually! You are contradicting yourself exactly to that point: you need to decide if more complex music makes "better music" or not. You do need to read more carefully to what the rest of the people say in here (including my own posts), I think ;)

No, I said that at times, I can enjoy a Schubert l

Well, Gianluca, you certainly burst onto the YC scene with a bang, didn't you.

Most new members post a few "hi, I'm Bob, I liked your piece" posts before posting inflammatory essays on the relative merits of unrelated musical genres.

Well, just so you know, welcome to YC.

Hopefully this thread isn't an indication of all of your future posts?

Thanks for giving me such a hearty welcome... I'm just trying to stir up some discussion, that's what discussion boards are for, aren't they?

So... Does it matter if it's "better" or not? more "complex" or not? Do you really see my point? More complex music = better music ? I hardly believe that really. But you seem to do so, was it not for the Schubert comment.

BTW, why is the fault of pop music that contemproary classical music is suffering greatly? Do you think that if Britney was not around people would value more Stockhausen? Or ligeti? Or Boulez? Cause I really don't... ;)

I will strongly stand by my simple comment: Classical music is at fault for what is happening to it (with Classic FM and all rubbish surounding it) and contemporary music is suffering from autism. Simple comments that are in the heart of what bothers you!

Really. Pop and classical are SO hugely different... They simply don't appeal to teh same audience 90% of the times! For that 10% I would say that maybe you have a point, but if 99% does not care about classical it's the fault of the musicians, the conductors, the stars and the composers and not of the audience, nor of the "simplistic" pop songs.

PS1. Do you usually compare mellons with oranges? Which is "better"? And if so, is it the fault of the bannana that the mellons don't sell?

PS2. Of course welcome. You do see that I'm enjoying the discussion, right? ;)

PS3. You have "in quotes" your own reply, which I missed apparently when writing this post. Keep it in mind please

All aboard the fail boat (the original post)

BTW, why is the fault of pop music that contemproary classical music is suffering greatly? Do you think that if Britney was not around people would value more Stockhausen? Or ligeti? Or Boulez? Cause I really don't... ;)

You've completely hit the nail on the head here. Gianluca's essay really boils down to two things:

1) He doesn't like pop music.

That's fine, we all have opinions and your reasons are valid enough. I have no argument with your not liking pop, that's up to you.

2) Pop music is the cause of a decline in classical music

This is the point I disagree with and the point that is so contentious in your argument. Nobody cares if you don't like pop music and pretty much everyone will agree that classical music and musicians probably deserve better than certain talentless miming pop singers who earn huge amounts of money. It's your linking of these two things as though they are cause and effect that's causing controversy in this thread.

I have sympathy with your argument that many musicians deserve better (though this is not necessarily something new; Mozart, after all died a pauper) but we musn't use pop music as an easy scapegoat for the problems that exist. Nikolas has already suggested some possible causes for the problems:

if 99% does not care about classical it's the fault of the musicians, the conductors, the stars and the composers and not of the audience, nor of the "simplistic" pop songs.

And I would add to that, once again (as I feel it's very important) it's the fault of our schools! Expose kids to classical music. Don't neceassarily hold it up as a beacon of perfection but at least give them a chance to hear what's out there!! This is so important.

Incidentley, I read this rather convieniently timed pieces of news in my paper today which kind of sums up what I've been saying:

Barenboim returns with warning on music lessons - Independent Online Edition > News

----

So Gianluca, I don't care that you don't like pop music, but I'd suggest you look elsewhere for the problems in the classical world. Scapegoating pop is an easy thing to do but it won't solve anything at all.

Read more carefully what I said. I never said that all classical music is superior to (or more complicated than) all pop music. Besides, I have already stated that I agree that there is some good (maybe even great) pop music out there, but that this music can only be considered good or great compared to other pop music.

Then WHY was this thread started??

Your argument is getting weaker- you started out by saying that you hated pop music, and now you claim that you hate most pop music.

Alan, your calling me a snob to me seems like a sign of argumentative weakness...

Whoa, whoa! Hold your horses there! While that may be the most reasonable assumption on that comment, weakness is not what motivated me to say that. The fact is, your statements only tells me that. That's what I meant when I said that. And it's the main reason that I have found that really tells me that you hate pop music.

In otherwords, I was talking to myself.

... in my opinion their creativity pales in comparison to the creativity evident in the truly great masterpieces of classical music.

Fair enough...opinions are allowed around here.

Sorry, but you simply can’t put Radiohead on the same level as Bach or Beethoven in terms of musical creativity and genius, that would be a joke.

Sorry, but I can. And I do, and I'm very serious about it. There's many artists I rate significantly higher that Bach or Beethoven in terms of creativity...

Again, I'm coming from a vastly different perspective....

Thanks for giving me such a hearty welcome... I'm just trying to stir up some discussion, that's what discussion boards are for, aren't they?

I have lost all my affinity for you... :P

Fair enough...opinions are allowed around here.

Sorry, but I can. And I do, and I'm very serious about it. There's many artists I rate significantly higher that Bach or Beethoven in terms of creativity...

Again, I'm coming from a vastly different perspective....

I come from a vastly different perspective than you; but I agree. Only the pathetic will feel that their heroes are objectively better than anyone else. As THe Emperor said, "Good is a point of view".

Personally, I feel that Mozart, Bach, Schubert, Haydn, Brahms, Handel and Tchai, are all very dry.

Furthermore, I feel that refinement and elegance is the opposite of depth...brilliance is a high-spinning thing, the opposite of primalness.

I can't possibly imagine someone saying Tchaikovsky's 6th symphony is dry, or his violin concerto.

Sure, I'm annoyed at the overwhelming dominance of pop music today - but I think the classical recording industry is in no small part to blame for that. We really don't need to hear every single violinist in the world recording the Beethoven violin concerto, and yet that's what the recording labels tend to give us. No wonder so many people find classical music "boring" - we pretty much have the same 200 or so pieces shoved at us over and over and over. And most of those fall into the "relaxing music" category, because that's what the suits in the boardrooms think we want.

There's a lot of good music out there that doesn't get recorded nearly as frequently, and that's what we should be trying to record. It definitely works as a business model: there's a reason why business is booming for Naxos while most of the other classical labels are struggling.

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

Furthermore, I feel that refinement and elegance is the opposite of depth...brilliance is a high-spinning thing, the opposite of primalness.

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 don't agree with the initial post, and my opinion has been said somewhat.

I'm for the music, I don't care if it's Avril Lavigne or Bach. I've walked out of a Tchaikovsky symphony concert because I was falling asleep, and I certainly don't retain a lot of the junk on the radio for more than four seconds after hearing it.

But that's just me.

To me it's completely uninteresting the state of classical music in the world or whatever cultural crisis may be going on. If I can't hear the music I want to hear, I will write it myself.

There is no reason to put anything on any pedestals of great importance, and much less to badmouth music which may as well have inspired people even if it may seem idiotic or worthless.

I don't see much difference between people dancing to Chemical Brothers or feelin' the groove with Hendrix or rocking out with AC/DC or Rammstein, and people being moved to tears by Schnittke or Peteris Vasks, Bach or Brahms.

So long as it helps unearth a little bit of who we are, music, no matter in which format it may come in, will always prevail.

True, there is not one simple cause for the decline of classical music. There's a long list of factors that have contributed to this decline, ranging from music education, or rather lack thereof, to Classic-FM-like exploitation of classical music as pretty auditory wallpaper (as Nikolas pointed out) to the image problem of classical music today. Still, I'd say the immense, ever-increasing dominance of pop music is also one of the most important factors belonging to that list.

Another argument I've heard is that you cannot compare classical music to pop music, because they're too different -they're different traditions, they're made for different purposes, they use different aesthetics, etc. This may be so, but on the other hand, both genres also share the same basic fundaments: they both emerged as musical means of expression in the Western culture, they both make use of the same musical parameters - pitch, duration, timbre, dynamics, etc. -, they both use the same tonal building blocks (i.e., generally the notes of the equal temperament scales) and they both have the same conceptions of what constitutes the main dimensions of music - melody, harmony and rhythm -, therebye making it perfectly possible to compare both categories of music (or at least on those criteria that are relevant to both).

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.

heh...

There is one very HUGE difference between pop and concert hall music:

A. concert hall music (or classical if you like) is made for live performance almost exclusively (almost, although I've never seen any concert hall piece whose the composer, didn't have in mind how it would be played live, even in electronic pieces, or aleatoric, etc). This means that the concert hall pieces have some "attributes", like

i. sociality (a concert is a social event), which is hugely ipmortant

ii. interactivity between the audience and the performance! This, they are trying to extinct, but I can't admit it happening anytime soon or late!

iii. The chance of an error. We are being taught, as every performer, that the ideal performance is that of a CD! Totally wrong! Many pianists of the past, in the heat of the concert made many errors... Even orchestras. And I'm not talking about ignorance or irrisponsible performers but for real life simple errors, because of sweat etc.

iv. Almost all concert hall music needs to be playable! Ever seen a Sonata that cannot be played? (even so is it even 0.1% of the whole literature?)

on the contrary with pop music your starting point is almost exclusively... the media (tapes, vinyl, CD, DVD most recently). This means that:

i. No interactivity, no need of that

ii. no chance of an error

iii. same performance again and again

iv. listening to winamp is certainly not a social event!

v. No problem in having ANYTHING, no matter how weird or unplayble it is (imagine the aesthetics that can happen in this instance)

etc...

Apart from that (edited cause my kids hit enter)

It is obvious that all is opinion, but here we are discussing the reasons behind your opinion which is really interesting :) ! As I said I think that I kinda agree and especially after listening to some rubbish Greek pop music here, I can wholeheartily say that it was rubbish, alhtough many people think it is great art... I won't really talk about it to anyone here, but I can "safely" admit it with you and the whole of the public here! :D It was rubbish. But of course I'm comparing to British or US pop music (NIN, or Radiohead for example) and not classical music really...

And I would also urge myself to say that "foreign" music is not as successful here as it is outside of the country (in France, or other countries) and this is becasue we have many many Greek artists. So it does make sense in a way, what you're saying. I have to admit that!

but I'm still comparing pop with pop and commercial with commercial...

I'd say that, even if both are labeled music, they are hugely different and are coming from totally different perspectives.

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.

This was unnecessary.

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.

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

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.

I missed this for some reason. How long something lasts is no indication of its "quality" unless it's a car or something like that. Beethoven isn't "better*" than, say, Penderecki because his music lasted while music from his contemporaries didn't.

History is very selective, and the stuff that survives is because that stuff is/was popular. Not always the case, and indeed the whole thing is more to do with probability than with alleged "quality".

Thought I had to point this out, because it's a really common mistake apparently.

*Nevermind, YET AGAIN, that saying this or that music is "good" or "bad" is insane and gets us nowhere.

I beg to differ that complex music is good music, or simple music is poor music. It all boils down to the level of music intellect we all have. Individuals have different understanding and interpretations of music, and so do their definition of what is good and bad.

As to Pop music being the cause of the decline in popularity of Classical music, I again beg to differ. Lets just have an analogy. Fashion? Okay example, purple color is in season now. Does it mean that orange, which was in season last year, is unfashionable not BECAUSE of purple color?

NO! The purple color simply took over, as the case of Pop music taking over. It is the result, not the cause, and there can be no isolation of factors in that. Many which you and me do not know, afterall, I cannot probe into other's minds and dissect their music tastes.

well yeah this is all i have to say. =) I am a great pop fan and I also listen to tchaikovsky too, tho you might want to say I am more attracted to vocal music than erm instrumental music. =)