'Art' and 'Pop' - Why?

It's not enough to say:

without backing it up with something a little more substantial.

Nevermind he did it TWICE.

If tokke is going to cry censorship here, I'll ready my LOLs.

Divides only stop people from learning from each other.

Today, the more versatile & diverse your writing, the more work you can get.

Film composers have probably absorbed the most from everybody else in the "art" world. Here's Don Davis incorporating polytonality, sound-mass and post-minimalist techniques into his music:

Totally "pop"

Or what about John Williams? I crack up every time someone calls his music "romantic." His roots are actually in jazz. For decades he was a session pianist for jazz bands, worked with Henry Mancini, and did jazz film scores.

"Romantic" music

Hmm, what's that at 0:10? Coudl it be a Bbm7(b5, b9) chord? Used as a dominant? I wonder what Schumann piece JW stole that from? :P:P:P

When I first analyzed this score I had no idea why he used this chord instead of a straight V7. But from what I have managed to learn since, it's nothing special when you look at it from a jazz theory point of view.

---

I'm going out on a limb here, but my impression is film composers are mostly really eager to learn+incorporate from the other styles out there. It's (some of) the "art" composers who look down on commercial music.

It reminds me of the people who say humans are "more evolved" than bacteria. How is that true? We're both still reproducing and evolving and changing. And things are changin' and shakin' in the commercial music world as much as in the art music world.

I don't like this division of "art" and "pop" or "commercial" music, both are constantly exchanging ideas and music.

Divides only stop people from learning from each other.

Today, the more versatile & diverse your writing, the more work you can get.

Film composers have probably absorbed the most from everybody else in the "art" world. Here's Don Davis incorporating polytonality, sound-mass and post-minimalist techniques into his music:

Thanks to film composers we end up with modern techniques being used almost exclusively in horror movies. After all, the main theme for, say, harry potter is not 12 tone is it now? Film composers unless they're working indie are restricted to norms and rules, they're "versatile" only where they're allowed to be and use whatever techniques only where they're allowed to use them.

I'm going out on a limb here, but my impression is film composers are mostly really eager to learn+incorporate from the other styles out there. It's (some of) the "art" composers who look down on commercial music.

I don't like this division of "art" and "pop" or "commercial" music, both are constantly exchanging ideas and music.

If you don't like the divisions, stop using them. Likewise, writing music for films doesn't automatically make anyone more open or less open to anything. After all, there's a lot of movie music that, because of the constraints placed by the market, sounds according to formulas devised for max sales. In that sense, yeah, it's OK to like it I suppose but it's obviously transparent there's clear reasons beyond any artistic vision that it's written the way it is and that's scrafty imo.

*ignores Weca's post for the moment*

Why to I dislike postmodernsim? Because it doesn't make sense. In its purest form, it says that there are no absolutes. Well that can't be true, because the very notion that "there are no absolutes" IS an absolute. Also, it implies that everyone is right, that everyone's music has equal value. That just isn't true. People are prone to like some type of music over another. Why do we call Beethoven and Bach inherently better than Britney Spears? They are musically better and more aesthetically pleasing than some oversexed teenager saying "Opps, I did it again." It simply isn't. There's a reason why we call, say, Beethoven's 5th or Bach's B minor Mass masterpieces, because they are! The random song on the radio or the random military march played by the local band (in 1850) would not be as good as the symphony played in the concert hall.

Call me a classical elitist if you want, but those absolutes DO exist.

(These are the reasons that have nothing to do with my faith, though that is a big part of why I believe there are absolutes because I've seen them and had to deal with them.)

There's a reason why we call, say, Beethoven's 5th or Bach's B minor Mass masterpieces, because they are!

Says you, and since your opinion is not universal, whoops. Same'ol same'ol.

Thanks to film composers we end up with modern techniques being used almost exclusively in horror movies.

It depends on what "modern techniques" you mean; that's a broad label. I think you could find 20th-century techniques in action and adventure films.

Film composers unless they're working indie are restricted to norms and rules, they're "versatile" only where they're allowed to be and use whatever techniques only where they're allowed to use them.

I agree in fact I was going to write something to that effect. That if film composers are "behind the times" it's really due to directors & producers, who rarely let you "experiment" on their films, but want you to do the tried and true.

If you don't like the divisions, stop using them.

I will :)

"Film" is not a division though. It's ecumenical. After all it covers people with such diverse backgrounds as Hans Zimmer, James Newton Howard, and Howard Shore.

there's clear reasons beyond any artistic vision that it's written the way it is and that's scrafty imo.

All it is, is writing in a style that meets audience expectations for the form. 18th century symphony composers and 19th century opera composers and early 20th century ballet composers were doing the same thing, no?

Ok smartypants!!

Why to I dislike postmodernsim? Because it doesn't make sense. In its purest form, it says that there are no absolutes. Well that can't be true, because the very notion that "there are no absolutes" IS an absolute.

Yes....it's a confusing exception, eh!! Okay....I'll give you that.... Let's rephrase it to : "[in music] The only absolute is that there are no absolutes" ...

Because, I defy anyone to show me an actual proovable musical absolute that pertains to the artistic merit or value of a piece, or composer, or note, or chord, or ... ANYTHING.

I dare you!

Also, it implies that everyone is right, that everyone's music has equal value. That just isn't true. People are prone to like some type of music over another.

I think you just killed your own argument! It's precisely because we're individuals with our own personal musical preference that there are no absolutes. Cultural, religious, geographical, social differences make for an infinitely varied palate of opinions, tastes and dislikes.

Why do we call Beethoven and Bach inherently better than Britney Spears?

Who said that?!

They are musically better and more aesthetically pleasing than some oversexed teenager saying "Opps, I did it again." It simply isn't. There's a reason why we call, say, Beethoven's 5th or Bach's B minor Mass masterpieces, because they are!

OH! SNAP!! You were presenting your opinion and as a verifiable fact!! OOPS!! YOU did it again!!

Come on Tokke! Use your noggin. I'm pretty sure there's more than a handful of people on this planet who would not consider Beethoven or Bach's music to be masterpieces.... I expect there's many who've not ever HEARD of Bach or Beethoven!!! Absolute WHAAAAT!!!??

The random song on the radio or the random military march played by the local band (in 1850) would not be as good as the symphony played in the concert hall.

Call me a classical elitist if you want, but those absolutes DO exist.

You're a classical elitist.

If you can't fathom the idea that it's likely that Ubuquuntu Sh'mabufalaan in Mozambique and Hayoun Hiu Ng

Tokke, it seems to me you are letting philosophy/politics get between you and the music. Isn't that just shutting the door on a lot of composers?

All it is, is writing in a style that meets audience expectations for the form. 18th century symphony composers and 19th century opera composers and early 20th century ballet composers were doing the same thing, no?

Which is why I loathe Rossini and so on. Ughh...

No argument there.

Why to I dislike postmodernsim? Because it doesn't make sense.

Translation: I don't understand it.

In its purest form, it says that there are no absolutes. Well that can't be true, because the very notion that "there are no absolutes" IS an absolute.

Eh, it's certainly an immense oversimplification of postmodernism to say that it stipulates that "there are no absolutes", especially since basically every philosopher we label as a postmodernist has a slightly different interpretation of this.

I mean, personally, I like Nancarrow's Studies for Player Piano and CAKE's Comfort Eagle much more than I like Beethoven's 5th. What are you going to do about that? Call me a philistine and walk away in a huff?