The gap between serious und popular music

I often wonder why there is such an massive gap between popular and "serious music". You don't really find something like that in literature or visual arts.

By that I don't only mean, that there is very little contact between classical and popular musicians, but also that there is a huge difference quality/creativity-wise.

Why do 99% of Pop/Rock musicians fear writing a piece that lasts longer than 5 minutes, using a form other than ABAB, and using at least a few accidentals?

I believe that the lack of mutual influence between pop. and serious music is a reason why so much of contemporary classical music feels so anachronistic.

What do you think about this? What is the reason for this?

You don't really find something like that in literature or visual arts.

Do you really think this? Have you been to a bookstore in your life?

Do you really think this? Have you been to a bookstore in your life?

I understand you. I meant that in other arts the gap is not as massive as in music.

I dunno, Leaves of Grass and the newest Dean Koontz book are sure to be taken at very different levels. And certainly Transformers 2 and an art piece...

I challenge the original thought, though. You've got metal, which from the beginning was about long songs with dubious form structures. Don't believe me? Pick up Sabbath's first album. 5 songs covering 45 minutes...

Ever hear of AOR or it's big daddy, prog rock? Mr. Roboto isn't your 3-minute hit. Nothing on Yes's Fragile is particularly short, except the little classical silliness.

You've got jazz, which during its time as a true popular music, split off and did 45-minute skronk albums and things like that. And jazz was the big daddy of the crooners and things like that, some of whom had really interesting albums.

You've got 80's new wave, which had a pretty art-music perspective. You have 90s post-rock and math-rock, which was the heir to prog. You have bands now, like Clutchy Hopkins, that are building songs like movie cues.

In short: look harder.

I dunno, Leaves of Grass and the newest Dean Koontz book are sure to be taken at very different levels. And certainly Transformers 2 and an art piece...

I challenge the original thought, though. You've got metal, which from the beginning was about long songs with dubious form structures. Don't believe me? Pick up Sabbath's first album. 5 songs covering 45 minutes...

Ever hear of AOR or it's big daddy, prog rock? Mr. Roboto isn't your 3-minute hit. Nothing on Yes's Fragile is particularly short, except the little classical silliness.

You've got jazz, which during its time as a true popular music, split off and did 45-minute skronk albums and things like that. And jazz was the big daddy of the crooners and things like that, some of whom had really interesting albums.

You've got 80's new wave, which had a pretty art-music perspective. You have 90s post-rock and math-rock, which was the heir to prog. You have bands now, like Clutchy Hopkins, that are building songs like movie cues.

In short: look harder.

Also.. you have guys like Nico Muhly (among others) that sometimes get called (rightfully so) some sort of classical music, but sometimes it sure sounds like some sort of bizzare indie music.

I dunno, Leaves of Grass and the newest Dean Koontz book are sure to be taken at very different levels. And certainly Transformers 2 and an art piece...

I challenge the original thought, though. You've got metal, which from the beginning was about long songs with dubious form structures. Don't believe me? Pick up Sabbath's first album. 5 songs covering 45 minutes...

Ever hear of AOR or it's big daddy, prog rock? Mr. Roboto isn't your 3-minute hit. Nothing on Yes's Fragile is particularly short, except the little classical silliness.

You've got jazz, which during its time as a true popular music, split off and did 45-minute skronk albums and things like that. And jazz was the big daddy of the crooners and things like that, some of whom had really interesting albums.

You've got 80's new wave, which had a pretty art-music perspective. You have 90s post-rock and math-rock, which was the heir to prog. You have bands now, like Clutchy Hopkins, that are building songs like movie cues.

In short: look harder.

To me it doesn't really seem right to call most of that stuff "pop" though. Most people would consider these things relatively obscure today, I mean its probably a lot easier to find someone who is a die hard classical fan than someone who would sit through a 20 minute Yes tune. The real pop music of today, like what gets played on top 40 radio is absolutely nothing like these things.

That was exactly my thought. I know Progressive Rock like early Yes and Genesis (who I adore!) very well, but this kind of music hasn't been remotely popular for at least 30 years. When I talk about "popular music" I mean music that is about as popular as Dan Brown and J.K. Rowling ^^

Well, then you should clarify what you mean by popular music beforehand...

But in any case, popular music is at least greatly indebted to classical music. I don't really think there is much of a bridge. People just tend to create one, mentally.

(Plus, you also have guys like Yanni, Andrew Lloyd Webber, and Yngwie Malmsteem :laugh:)

It's all so relative...

I think there is one major difference between pop music, and neo-classical music. Pop music gets danced to. Sure classical music has dances, but those dances are starting to old. Right now it seems people would rather rock out. That's also true when they listen on the radio, why not rock out? It's easier than listening to an orchestral piece. That's not exactly my opinion, but I can see where it's coming from.

Another reason for the distance comes from some of the other pop songs seem to have another meaning or they relate to people well too. You know, the slow songs. (I should listen to some more pop so I can give examples, and help my credibility). Slow songs with lyrics and are about what is conceived as life. It's harder to read feelings and experiences like that in a string piece with no lyrics.

Those are the two biggest factors I see in the "gap" between classical and pop.

Another important difference between art-music and pop-music is the fact that pop-music is most often made to speak to a general public in order to make money out of it. So in order to sell this type of music commercial music has to be around 3 minutes or people will lose there interest. I has to be easy on the ear. So i can't be to adventures. It's a product and whatever sells best is best. You compare to things which exist for a different reason.

I don't think the "gap" between any art is wider than any other.

Show me any "serious" work, and I can easily find a suitable "anti-art" counter-example.

You say old progressive is out-dated and nobody listens to.. what about NEW progressive. Dream Theater, Symphony X - these guys have 24 minute epics that are adored by thousands, symphony X actually begins one with a symphony orchestra, and goes on to tell the story of Homers' Odyssey.

As for the pop charts, It's already been said, People nowadays don't want to musically think, they want to dance or connect emotionally to simple lyrics like 'I love you but i cheated on you' or 'you cheated on me but i still love you' or 'we cheated on each other but we both love each other' etc.

And as far as a business goes, which is exactly what the charts are, this means success, not the addition of sharps and flats etc.

Robin, I think the flaw in your example is that there is no artistic intent in That's so Raven - the show is meant to entertain children and sell merchandise. I think a show like 'Lost' has more artistic intent.

Now, I don't know anyone who works on That's So Raven, but I'm assuming, because if there were artistic intent, it would probably stand out because it wouldn't fit...

Robin, I think the flaw in your example is that there is no artistic intent in That's so Raven - the show is meant to entertain children and sell merchandise. I think a show like 'Lost' has more artistic intent.

Now, I don't know anyone who works on That's So Raven, but I'm assuming, because if there were artistic intent, it would probably stand out because it wouldn't fit...

I wasn't saying anything about "artistic merit" or "intent"... I was addressing the original post claiming that music has a greater divide between the Serious Art and the Pop Schlock.

I think a show like 'Lost' has more artistic intent.

Being uber-pretentious doesn't neccesairily mean you have "artistic intent". :P

I think that you can't say that pop isn't serious music as a generalisation, because there is pop music out there that actually does have depth, and is highly musically interesting/'serious'.

You could however say "There's a gap between music that is written specifically for commercial purposes, with no other intention or particular point behind it, and music that has just been written for expression"

And in saying that you are almost proving your point anyway, because it's obvious there's A MASSIVE GAP.

But you just can't call pop music 'not serious'.

There are many extremely popular artists that have made it high in the charts but write 'serious music'

eg.

Garbage

Evanescence

Muse

No Doubt

Missy Higgins

Ben Folds

Greenday

Blink 182

Paramore

Coldplay

Vanessa Carlton

Pete Murray

Avril Lavigne (Yes, some of her stuff IS a little overly commercial, but she DOES write her own music)

And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

Although, obviously, artists who have their music written for them would more than likely come under that 'non serious pop' idea.

Jake

I think that you can't say that pop isn't serious music as a generalisation, because there is pop music out there that actually does have depth, and is highly musically interesting/'serious'.

You could however say "There's a gap between music that is written specifically for commercial purposes, with no other intention or particular point behind it, and music that has just been written for expression"

And in saying that you are almost proving your point anyway, because it's obvious there's A MASSIVE GAP.

But you just can't call pop music 'not serious'.

There are many extremely popular artists that have made it high in the charts but write 'serious music'

eg.

Garbage

Evanescence

Muse

No Doubt

Missy Higgins

Ben Folds

Greenday

Blink 182

Paramore

Coldplay

Vanessa Carlton

Pete Murray

Avril Lavigne (Yes, some of her stuff IS a little overly commercial, but she DOES write her own music)

And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.

Although, obviously, artists who have their music written for them would more than likely come under that 'non serious pop' idea.

Jake

No... no, they don't. All those artists are blantantly commercial and have had a history of caring more about the money/popularity than the actual artistic merit of their music.

Evanescence used to masquerade as a Christian band and Amy Lee has had a history of firing band mates for not following her own self-centered agenda.

No... no, they don't. All those artists are blantantly commercial and have had a history of caring more about the money/popularity than the actual artistic merit of their music.

Ok well i'm not 100% sure about blink 182, or coldplay, and yes of course, all of them have been produced, but that certainly doesn't take away the artistic credit of their music.

I am fans of most of those bands/artists, and have researched most of them deeply.

Evanescence most definately do not write for commercialism, and in fact, their label lets them do pretty much whatever they want. Evanescence is pretty much just the vocalist anyways, she writes almost 100% of the music. Every single song written by Evanescence has a story behind it, how, and why it was written. Sure, there are 'fillers' on their first album that really have no true purpose or story, but, alas, they were not the singles. Most of Evanescence's songs are quite old, and were not just written because they had to be or just to make money. Fro example, Evanescence released an album before they were picked up by a record company, and the song 'My Immortal' was on that album.

There was 200 copies of that album made, and sold, in one town, when the evanescence members were about 18.

That song 'My Immortal' was one of their biggest hits. It was not written to be sold commercially, it was written to express the loss of a dead relative.

Vanessa Carlton, believe it or not, writes her own songs, and if you actually listen to the lyrics, most of the songs are about more than just 'He broke up with me I love him so much'.

Onf of her songs, "White houses" was banned from the radio because of some of it's content. You don't write for commercial purposes just to get your song banned. The record company would never have let that happen... so she isn't completely controlled by selling albums.

Greenday, writing since they were in highschool, have only really seemingly become really commercial with the release of American Idiot (I love that album all the same), but Billy Joe also really does believe in what he's saying/writing, and he's written about political things in most of their albums.

Their older stuff is certainly not commercial. Can you really call putting a fiddle into an acoustic guitar song with vocals that aren't processed, 'commercial'?

Avril Lavigne just likes to take the piss out of everything nowadays, she's great. Almost all her music is written by her and a co-writer (I think it's her husband actually?) Once again, unfortunately, newer stuff is more commercial. On her first and secind albums though, you can hear the difference between her singles and the rest of her album. The singles are highly, highly produced, but they were painted in the same way as the rest of the album, and in context with the album, they fit in there artistically.

And

HOMG

I just read the bit where you said Evanescence used to masquerade around as a christian band and amy lee has a tendency to fire bandmates. You just said that to the wrong person.

Ok, for a start, Evanescence has NEVER claimed to be a Christian band. Ben Moody, the ex-guitarist (who LEFT the band in the middle of tour, who was NOT fired) was the only one in the band to ever bring up christianity in an interview, but he never said 'Evanescence is a christian band'. Amy Lee, has said in many interviews that Evanescence are NOT a christian band, and she forced their singles OUT of the Christina charts. Is that commercial? No. Is that Christian band masquerading? No.

As for the firing of her bandmates for her own Agenda...

Original Band mates:

Amy Lee

Ben Moody

David Hodges

Rocky Gray

David Hodges left before their first album was released.

Will Boyd and John LeCompt joined the band for touring.

Ben moody left, in the middle of tour, in October 2003. He was replaced with Terry Balsamo.

Balsamo co-wrote almost EVERYTHING in the second album.

Will boyd left because he didn't want to tour again.

He was replaced with Tim McCord.

Evanescence toured, and, unfortunately, Amy had to ask John LeCompt to leave, because he was only touring/in the band for the money, and wasn't putting any passion into the band.

He was commercial.

Rock Gray LEFT the band, because John left. He was NOT fired.

They were temporarily replaced with band members from 'Dark New Day'.

Terry is Touring with 'Cold' the moment, and Amy has not decided to fire him for not following her agenda.

He is STILL in Evanescence.

The two band members that actually contributed to writing the music for Evanescence are still there... what more could you ask for? The other members were hardly part of the band at all.

I strongly sugest that you don't solely listen to the media when trying to prove a point. The media twists everything. Duh. You should research before you speak.

Sorry for that rant, hope I didn't offend you, and it's all a little off topic, but i'm just trying to show you that just because you hear something on the radio, tv, or anything, does not make it true and you should certainly not use it as a basis for a point of arguement.

Ok I think i'm done here.

:)

I love a good debate! :D

Let's not have this turn into an Evanescence debate thread...please.

And I don't want to debate about No Doubt, but I would like to point out that what they were doing pre-Gwen Stefani solo era was pretty good, and fairly original as well.

I'm curious if dark dragon just wrote down groups that he/she likes as being groups with artistic goals, because thats kind of what it looks like.

Let's not have this turn into an Evanescence debate thread...please.

And I don't want to debate about No Doubt, but I would like to point out that what they were doing pre-Gwen Stefani solo era was pretty good, and fairly original as well.

I'm curious if dark dragon just wrote down groups that he/she likes as being groups with artistic goals, because thats kind of what it looks like.

Ok sorry fair enough. End of Evanescence debate :)

Yeah Gwen Stefani solo stuff is alot more commercially aimed I think, same with their album 'Rock Steady', but I think the band as a whole had an artistic aim.

No I didn't just write down bands I like... lol but yeah it does look like it haha. Sure I don't dislike them, but I wouldn't buy their cd or anything, or even bother downloading them.

I don't listen to most of them...

Pete Murray

No Doubt

Missy Higgins

Ben Folds

Greenday (Dislike their older, non-commercial stuff :P)

Blink 182

Coldplay (Really don't like them)

Avril Lavigne (like HER, but not so fussed on her music anymore)

But I LOVE Evanescence :D ^_^

As for the pop charts, It's already been said, People nowadays don't want to musically think, they want to dance or connect emotionally to simple lyrics like 'I love you but i cheated on you' or 'you cheated on me but i still love you' or 'we cheated on each other but we both love each other' etc.

And as far as a business goes, which is exactly what the charts are, this means success, not the addition of sharps and flats etc.

When did nowadays start, btw?

When did nowadays start, btw?

Sometime after "back then" but before "in the future", I imagine.

To me it's still strange that people can follow a 2hours long movie or a 600pages long book, but have problems listening to songs that last longer than 5 minutes ~_~

Well I would say there are many artists that bridge classical and pop music writing who admittedly might not be as popular but they exist and some of them can be fantastic. I'm coming from a slightly British slant but here are a couple of ideas:

Sigur Ros

Sufjan Stevens

Rufus Wainwright - has a really good mixture of commerical pop and fantastic interesting songs also just written an opera

Tori Amos

Mike Oldfield - though slightly old works like Amarok and Tubular Bells 1 and 2 have classical ideas Tubular Bells in particular was meant to be a symphony for pop instruments

Stars of the Lid - more ambient but with titles like apreludes in C# minor and canons and fugues they have classical ideas

Patrick Wolf

The Guillemots

I suppose all these take their music more artistically serious then one would imagine manufactured pop groups and therefore are arguably more 'classical' in intentions.

On the other hand classical composers also can be classified as rock/pop composers in some ways. Trying to avoid the triteness of bands like Il Divo and G4.

Philip Glass and many of the minimalists are very simplistic and accessible

Kalnin's Rock Symphony while totally awful deserves to be mentioned here

I'm not really sure what else to be honest.

But yeah, I think the gulf between the two is not as defined as it once was - I think that the gulf is not between classical and pop music but between more intelligently written music regardless of genre and commerical music.

Pop and rock music can be high art and have as much authenticity as classical music but also classical music can be commodified by cross over bands like G4 and Il Divo and become trite.

I'm think what I'm trying to say is that the distinction is not genre specfic but more the attitude of the composer.