I hate pop music

Make sure you desperately grasp onto music being devine. I'm sorry, but it's not. :(

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.

I would say that it's still music, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it has musical substance. It has links with other types of music (I'm presuming we're talking about club-oriented music,) but certainly few people will obtain significant musical growth from listening to it or studying it.

No doubt it has connections with music. Humans have genetic connections with plums as well.

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

Geez, let's not retread that whole "music is physics" argument again.

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

How does something cease being music if it has a function in social interaction? I'd like to hear your definition of "music."

When music is appreciated for being music. Using it as social insurance is not appreciating the music, this reflects the music also.

A hell of a lot of music throughout history was written for social functions and not purely as music to be appreciated in a dark room by yourself and it's none the worse for it.

A hell of a lot of music throughout history was written for social functions and not purely as music to be appreciated in a dark room by yourself and it's none the worse for it.

And I don't like offenbach, as it is the same thing.

So music has to have a higher purpose than to purely entertain for it to be any good?

I wrote this essay as a freshman in college, do with it what you will:

To Be or not to Be…Music

It is hard to differentiate between great and terrible art. At what point do random strokes become genius work? Often what is superb art to one person will be an eyesore to another. The same can be said about music. Music can be described in a multitude of ways. To some it is the structured patterns of notes and rhythms. To others it can be anything that flows and stirs up emotion. Often people will argue that a certain of genre of music is not in fact music. These people are confusing their own disinterest with the quality of the music. One cannot simply declare that a certain piece is or isn’t music. Where the line is drawn between music and non-music is vague, and can be drawn around two areas: conventional and abstract.

The conventional idea of music is that of structure. Music is supposed to be somewhat predictable. These notes will fit with these chords, and these chords will lead to those chords. Music from the Baroque and Classical periods would fit into this category. In this definition of music, there are several identifying factors. Often the music is metered and involves standard instrumentation. Orchestral and pop music are conventional forms of music. Nobody denies that Mahler’s Fifth Symphony is music; it is an obvious and accepted fact because of the instrumentation and complexity of the piece. Even in the more aleatorical orchestral pieces, music is made by the interaction between the instruments.

Excluding those who deny a song the classification of music due to their own personal bias (such as one denying that the genre of ‘rap’ is music solely based on their distaste for it,) nobody denies that popular music is to be called music. In popular music the instrumentation may vary; however, in almost all instances the music is metered. An exception might be with more atmospheric music along the lines of Enya. Most popular music is in 4/4 time, and the listener can tap along. Drums helps the listener identify that it is indeed music, regardless of what else is going on.

The more controversial side to music would be the abstract type. Often more abstract pieces will have bizarre instrumentation and abnormal presentation. A lot of contemporary improvisation is abstract, with no clear melody or harmony. Abstract music is often referred to as noise by the uneducated. This category is more about the actual sound being produced and the atmosphere it creates than the actual relationship of the notes to each other. An example of a controversial piece that many do not classify as music is entitled “4’33”” by John Cage. The piece is written in three movements, with each labeled ‘Tacet’ (which means ‘do not play’.) There is nothing in this piece that would otherwise be considered music. The performance then becomes about the surrounding noises. Because the performer has no instructions other than not to play, each performance of “4’33”” is different. In some instances the performer may throw open doors to the street. In other cases, he or she may hit the piano, or fold up the music. The audience becomes as much of the piece as the performer, and are just as involved. If the audience is attentive, they will notice sounds they have never paid attention to before such as people breathing, moving about, air conditioners, and the wind outside. In another setting, these external noises would most likely not be considered music whatsoever. However, because attention has been drawn to them, this could be considered musical.

Therein could lie the definition of music. When sound is produced in an organized manner, or when attention is drawn to existing sound in a performance setting, it can be classified as music. This would obviously include any mainstream, pop, or orchestral music. This definition also encompasses the more experimental pieces, such as “4’33.”” Random street noise is not music unless a performer indicates that it is. Obviously this is a limited definition, as many people could easily find music in nature, where no sound is organized and no one is in a performance setting. Bird’s chirping is often classified as music. In this way, perhaps music could be whatever the listener wants it to be.

Music is an abstract concept. Like color, it can be subjective, different for each person who experiences it. Just like how one person’s red could be another person’s green, one person’s love song could be another’s lament. With such a wide criteria for judging, each example must be taken on a case by case basis. There can be no clear-cut definition for music. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, some say. So is music.

So music has to have a higher purpose than to purely entertain for it to be any good?

Music that is purely used for the purpose of social wank, with no effort or time spent on the piece is not music.

Care to give us an example?

Music that is purely used for the purpose of social wank, with no effort or time spent on the piece is not music.

I'm guessing you mean Elevator Music?

Music that is purely used for the purpose of social wank, with no effort or time spent on the piece is not music.

I love how 95% of your posts are SO absolute and actually deal with defining things that already got a definition. ;)

No doubt it has connections with music. Humans have genetic connections with plums as well.

...........:whistling:

Music that is purely used for the purpose of social wank, with no effort or time spent on the piece is not music.

All music has time or effort spent on it. It doesn't spring out of nothingness.

Unless we're talking about improvisation

Music that is purely used for the purpose of social wank, with no effort or time spent on the piece is not music.

Wow, I bet you're just the life of the party, aren't ya? And I thought I was a tight donkey.

I think this is a worthless argument, as all music has merit, and to attempt to disparage that would require both an ego and an ignorance of extreme magnitude.QUOTE]

*clap clap*

Oh please, not all music has merit. What about the guy who wrote that scrafty 9/11 song?

HAVE YOU FURRGOOOOTT'N

Oh please, not all music has merit. What about the guy who wrote that scrafty 9/11 song?

HAVE YOU FURRGOOOOTT'N

I assume you are being facetious?

If it is music, I don't hate it.

There is no scientific way of knowing what is good and bad music.

The reason for this is that music is not a cultural absolute in the sense that everyone plays within the "tonal" or "dodecaphonic" systems. These systems are based on artificial hierarchies placed upon sound wavelengths, based on mathematical relationships laid out by Plato and Aristotle (the former for the math, the latter for the hierarchy of tones). While the mathematical relationship certainly exists, it's not the only set, and deciding that one set of relationships is important and "good" while the others are not is ridiculous. For example, what about African music? Different tuning systems abound throughout Africa and the Middle East, and all of that music is for social purposes - either ritual, or entertainment, or to send messages.

And honestly, ArcticWind17 -

you call yourself a composition student - and yet you close yourself off to a huge range of music because it's used for "social wank" and naught else. Do you actually ENJOY music? Or do you, like a pick-up artist, only pursue it because controlling it makes you feel good about yourself?

It just seems like the real wankery is to declare yourself above certain types of music simply because it's not designed for a concert hall. It comes across as elitist, west-centric, closed-minded, and, honestly, stupid.

There is some pop music I really like, and then some that I don't like so much. Same with classical.

Oh please, not all music has merit. What about the guy who wrote that scrafty 9/11 song?

HAVE YOU FURRGOOOOTT'N

I don't EVER- and I mean EVER- want to hear you say that again. :angry:

I don't EVER- and I mean EVER- want to hear you say that again. :angry:

Sure, whatever you say kid

I think everything has basically been covered. But what about the likes of Vivaldi, he rarely, if ever strays from I V i, chords in his compositions. Is this simple and bad music then.