The gap between serious und popular music

I don't think there is this gap you speak of. Yes, there is music written with that aims to expand the boundaries of music, and there is also music that is written with no meaning other than to make money and be popular. In between these two kinds of extremes, however, there are countless other kinds of music that fill this gap. There are popular bands who write experimental music, and there are highly-trained composers who write popular music. Then there the missing definitions of "popular" and "serious." You can talk about this supposed gap between music, but it's just not black and white like that.

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 ~_~

Most of the people I know have attention spans of about an hour and finish a 300 page book maybe once a year...

EDIT: Unless it's Harry Potter.

FURTHER EDIT: Besides, I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Books and movies are completely different mediums than music. Books and movies generally have a story of some sort for the audience to hold on to. Even the most abstract of books and movies are still "about" something. Music (well, non-programmatic instrumental music anyway) is much more ambiguous. There are no clear words to "define" what it's "about" other than maybe a vague title or something. Music generally requires a lot more focused attention to get through than a movie or book. While art music can just be "pretty noise" to people, it generally requires the listener to hear form, motives, development, and counterpoint. For a non-composer (and even a lot of composers), this can be a lot to take in and you're even less likely to pick-up or retain this sort of information if you don't regularly use/understand it in practice (i.e. composing). Basically, my point is that music is a lot more esoteric and ambiguous than the other artistic mediums you described. A lot of art music (especially in the last 100 years or so) I'd say is written by composers for composers. For better or worse, many composers have stopped caring almost altogether about connecting with a large audience. If someone can't "understand" a piece of music, then they're essentially sitting through indecipherable (albeit maybe enjoyable) noise.

I got two songs that remind me of my wife: YouTube - Corinne Bailey Rae - Like A Star

and

YouTube - CHOPIN?? nocturne no.19 op.72 Fujiko Heming

I personally switch from popular music to classical music easily. It was how I was raised. Spending much time in both worlds, I feel that each just have different goals. When I write pop music, I don't want to give the world the next big idea or something to chew on, I want people to listen have fun, dance, and then go back to living.

When I write more classical pieces, I want people to get carried away with the music and appreciate the music on a deeper level.

So sure there will exist "gaps" but it really isn't always due to a complete lack of talent or a need to sell records, sometimes it's just about having fun.

Stars of the Lid

Everyone should take heed and listen to this group's output. Their slow unfolding of musical fabric and ability to sustain melodic interest over long periods of time is fantastic. WONDERFUL textures too.

Incredible.

People's egos are what cause the divide. "It's so easy to do that!" No it's not! Good music is good music, PERIOD. Most people can be arrogant and downplay pop music. However, EVERYONE CAN'T DO IT. That's right, if it's so simple then everyone should be able to make a hit.

I don't listen to rock (except Kid Rock), but I listen to a ton of RB, Jazz, and hip-hop. I choose not to do certain forms of it because it is irritating TO ME. I prefer the likes of the Roots, Mos DEf, and Kanye West. Lil Wayne just doesn't amuse me. Now, I might not his artistic development; however, it's still music wheter I like it or not.

i didnt really read the thread only the title and probably someone allreaydy said this

the gap is filled with a few artists there names are aphex twin frank zappa sonic youth mouse on mars mike patton hector zazou jasun martz and ornette coleman

but i dont like this way of thinking "serious music"

many of the 17/18th century composers are really talented and hardworking guys but they are way overated by their fans

i personaly don`t like vivaldi mozart beethoven and more

i like eric satie stravisnky webern debussy and more

but this is just my taste

there are many great creative genuisses within socalled pop music

and for the more famous ones(britney spears) there is a genuis behind the scenes

the producer who really can feel what the public likes

he became rich because he is good

i dont like brintney spears but all pro musicians are great and serious

I'll keep my nose out of the 'value' debate. The plain, simple truth is we live in a world of convenience. If enjoyment of a particular work involves more thought and effort in order to appreciate, the general public, by and large, will have a more difficult time appreciating it.

Simplicity, in and of itself, is its own virtue. It may be that art music is extremely different from popular music, but that doesn't mean it's less enjoyable or less popular. If it's convenient for the listener to understand and appreciate it, no matter the artistic merit, that's what drives the popularity, IMO.

Classical musicians have their collective head up their collective donkey. Here we are, pointing out the head-up-assery, but no one has the balls to (politely) point it out to the bald guy with a PHD.