Your Roots

Wow, it seems I've missed a very invigorating discussion.

Here are my thoughts:

On the pop music vs. classical debate: I approach both of these types of music with the same ears but different mindset. With pop music, I tend to listen openly to everything (from doo wop to psych to hiphop to emo). My intentions in listening, however, aren't the same as they are when listening to classical music. I realize that the latest track by Beyonce is NOT going to include an in depth use of form. Nor is it going to generally last more than a few minutes. What I do look for, however, is how 'packaged' the song is. Does it draw me in? Can I 'get' what the performer is singing about? Is it real? For me pop music is something I listen to when I want to just chill and not think about anything. With classical music, I tend to listen to the details with greater attention. Does the composer utilize form appropriately to his/her ideas? Is there sufficient development of his/her ideas when needed? Does the work sufficiently provide a clear progress from start to finish (not progression, but sort of like flow)? I could go on, lol.

I learned a long time ago, when I was many of your guy's age, to listen to the two separately and appreciate both. You don't pick up a 5 page comic book and expect to read Tolstoy and you don't pick up Beyonce and expect to hear Mahler.

On Age and Understanding Music: Who ever thinks that people uniformly hear music from childbirth to death are horribly wrong. Your hearing and comprehension constantly changes throughout your entire life. I can remember listening to Marilyn Manson and the Spooky Kids as a teenager. The music then was so raw to me. Now, I throw them in to gather a little nostalgia and am just taken aback at how 'un-raw' it is to me now. I hear packaging all over it - something that at the time I didn't hear. I also notice changes in listening to classical music. As a child, I used to follow the melodies and now.. I tend to aurally explore the textures. At times, I'll listen to how the bass underpins and supports the other parts. Other times, I'll listen to how the composer sets up the various layers. In another 30 years, I'll probably listen to music differently than I do today. Thus is life. So, it's fully understandable that Graham will probably like things he dislikes now and dislike things he likes now - that's just normal.

One thing I don't think is right, though, is to practically insult Graham for being young. Shame, Shame, Shame to see adults resort to that. Good job!

I'm not sure if packaging is the best way to approach the music, though you can defs make the argument that they're inextricably linked. But I think there is interesting form in even a simple ABA -- why use that drum sample instead of another one with the same beat that appears earlier in the song? Why did the EQ change? The classical equivalents are something like "why use spicatto when it was martelo earlier?" "why did the dynamics of the orchestration change?"

Separation is fine and dandy, but ultimately, it's all music, and can and should be considered on the same playing field. Don't forget that Liszt can be argued as a rock star...

I'm not sure if packaging is the best way to approach the music, though you can defs make the argument that they're inextricably linked. But I think there is interesting form in even a simple ABA -- why use that drum sample instead of another one with the same beat that appears earlier in the song? Why did the EQ change? The classical equivalents are something like "why use spicatto when it was martelo earlier?" "why did the dynamics of the orchestration change?"

Separation is fine and dandy, but ultimately, it's all music, and can and should be considered on the same playing field. Don't forget that Liszt can be argued as a rock star...

Sure it is. Pop music (in ALL of it's subgenres) is meant to be consumed like a product - even in the more avant garde genres. All those considerations are made to enhance the ability of the music to be consumed by the buying public. Hence the reason that, despite genre, every song will follow a similar formula (intro, verse, chorus, verse, chorus, sub-chorus, instrumental, chorus, outro). In the last 20 or so years, this formulization has really gotten worse in my opinion - but I still listen and enjoy. Despite the fame that some Romantic composers achieved, like Liszt, they still composed music that was exceedingly varied - even more so when one compares them to the lifelong work of many bands/artists from 1940 - onwards.

As for the Liszt as Rock Star designation: Yes, let's talk about the superficial image of the romantic artist in the same manner as the superficial image of the pop artist. Certainly one lead to the other. However, I think from that similarity the remainder just sort of falls flat. Liszt was, afterall, a composer and he had clear artistic vision in his work that lead -long after his days as a concert pianist- to quite some experimental leanings. This is in stark contrast to say, Mick Jagger, who from the start of his performing career till now has maintained the exact same image AND the exact same formulaic use in his musical work. Similar image =/= similar creative evolution/style.

Thus, we are still left with two different styles/genres.

On 7/14/2011 at 2:42 PM, Ferkungamabooboo said:

I'm not sure if packaging is the best way to approach the music, though you can defs make the argument that they're inextricably linked. But I think there is interesting form in even a simple ABA -- why use that drum sample instead of another one with the same beat that appears earlier in the song? Why did the EQ change? The classical equivalents are something like "why use spicatto when it was martelo earlier?" "why did the dynamics of the orchestration change?"

Separation is fine and dandy, but ultimately, it's all music, and can and should be considered on the same playing field. Don't forget that Liszt can be argued as a rock star...

Your one of those bizarro people who sits and listens in amazement as the lost tribal man beats violently on a tree stump or a garbage lid. Heck you sound like you would get lost in a nice dish-shattering session.

Your one of those bizarro people who sits and listens in amazement as the lost tribal man beats violently on a tree stump or a garbage lid. Heck you sound like you would get lost in a nice dish shattering session.

This sort of post doesn't really do well to further present an intelligent conversation.

This sort of post doesn't really do well to further present an intelligent conversation.

This sort of post doesn't really do well to further present an intelligent conversation.

/troll

So... Yanni, is he pop or classical?

I know I would. How quickly sound goes from blue to pink when a dish breaks is pretty amazing, if you ask me. Then again: I like to study and be familiar with all aspects of sound, not just the limits of how it was harnessed a century ago :thumbsup:.

Even in *this* century a dish breaking is still a dish breaking.

This sort of post doesn't really do well to further present an intelligent conversation.

/troll

So... Yanni, is he pop or classical?

Let's see.... trying to stop a thread that has resulted in 1 member getting quite upset = troll/?

Come on, Justin. Certainly you can read, right?

I don't think anyone was really getting riled up. It's been a civil debate (other than Voodoo's jabbing at Heckel's age).

o_O

also yes it is time for this to END. this part of the thread is OFFICIALLY CLOSED.

Your one of those bizarro people who sits and listens in amazement as the lost tribal man beats violently on a tree stump or a garbage lid. Heck you sound like you would get lost in a nice dish shattering session.

Bizarro? Sure. I'm a big fan of noise music -- i find it to be interesting to find pseudo-intentional patterns. But to say something like that might also include like African drumming, which I think is a little off to not study simply because it's a "tribal man" and not a dude in a white powdered wig beating violently on something.

So if anyone wants one particular definition of "brilliant yet complex pop music" (mine), here's some examples.

Gentle Giant:

Not totally my thing anymore, but is pretty much the definition of "complex, classically oriented prog rock". The counter-argument for every discussion like the one in this thread.

Punch Brothers:

Bluegrass reaching its potential. This band has (unsurprisingly) mad classical influence, but this song? Pure, dissonant pop. Hooks galore.

SiKth:

Warning: death-ish metal with potentially grating vocals. Metal is a fascinating genre simply because of the purely dissonant tonal language it tends towards, and nowhere is that easier to see than siKth. If you get past the potentially annoying vocals and metal timbre of the music (which like, none of you will, I'd guess), the rhythms and tonality is incredibly ambitious and complex. Like, INCREDIBLY complex. Yet still...it's pop music, or at least it uses the form of pop music. Yea, it's metal, but in terms of chorus/verse/bridge sort of structure, it's pop.

Björk:

You all know her. But particularly on the album Vespertine, she pushes hard. I'm not gonna talk about it, because I think this song in particular speaks right to the soul. If you disagree, we don't have much to talk about.

Just my two cents. If you peak harder at pretty much every one of these artists, you'd find that they all love classical music. But times are a-changin', so they don't make classical music.

EDIT: Damn, composer phil dude. We joined the same date, yet you been buuuusy post-wise! Already like 13x my post count...

Let's see.... trying to stop a thread that has resulted in 1 member getting quite upset = troll/?

Come on, Justin. Certainly you can read, right?

Let's see.... trying to continue a thread that has resulted in you getting quite upset = troll?

Come on, Jason. Certainly you can read, right?

:laugh:

:dry:

wtf is this.

On 7/14/2011 at 5:49 PM, jmontroy said:

Björk:

You all know her. But particularly on the album Vespertine, she pushes hard. I'm not gonna talk about it, because I think this song in particular speaks right to the soul. If you disagree, we don't have much to talk about.

That is a pretty cool song, but I would rather it be someone who was trying to sing in tune with a pleasant tone. But it is still in that Pachelbel realm. It works itself into a frenzy building on the same chord structure. It just builds interval upon interval without changing much. It repeats and repeats and repeats all along adding more to the orchestration to build the sound up up and away. I think it is pretty cool, but still have to call it what it is.

wtf is this.

A much more telling betrayal of our roots than simply name-dropping ever would give?

A much more telling betrayal of our roots than simply name-dropping ever would give?

It's for the better. The intent of the thread was not to be a repository of name-lists, but rather a peek into deeply-held convictions, etc. etc.

Let's see.... trying to continue a thread that has resulted in you getting quite upset = troll?

Come on, Jason. Certainly you can read, right?

:laugh:

I'm not the one who got upset. Don't you have something better to do than write ridiculous posts? I thought you were busy re-writing Mahler? :P

I thought you were busy re-writing Mahler? :P

Perfect. That's my new signature thingy :P

I'm not the one who got upset. Don't you have something better to do than write ridiculous posts? I thought you were busy re-writing Mahler? :P

This becomes my sig as well. Wow!

What I grew up listening to as a kid was Britney Spears and the Backstreet Boys, so I guess those are my roots.

That is a pretty cool song, but I would rather it be someone who was trying to sing in tune. But it is still in that Pachelbel realm. It works itself into a frenzy building on the same chord structure. It just builds interval upon interval without changing much. It repeats and repeats and repeats all along adding more to the orchestration to build the sound up up and away. I think it is pretty cool, but still have to call it what it is.

Call it what it is? And what is that?

It is a simple song. That's pretty much the point, as I'm sure you'd agree. As to Björk singing out of tune, I don't know what you're talking about. The style doesn't necessitate pitch-perfect intervals and such, so she slides around a lot. But as to not singing in tune, well...she agrees note for note with the studio recording, so there it is.

Glad you liked it though...the Punch Brothers song is really something else too, if you get the chance.

I think disliking a certain genre doesn't point out the fact that one disrespect/dismiss it. Personally, I don't quite like rock too for a reason, but that doesn't mean whenever the radio plays something rock-y I'll change channel immediately. And as Graham has rightfully said!

But I do agree with VoodooChild(wow that's a cool name btw) that as we grow up, we get to see different perspectives of the music that we once probably disliked, and find things in it which we may grow to like. It all takes time to sprout familiarity and vision.

Lots of replies in here since I last checked this thread... quite a debate. Obviously I can't reply to everything but I would like to say that my posts about "discovering the glory of rock music" and hitting puberty were meant to be jokes... of course every joke has a hint of truth.

And what's wrong with tribal men beating tree stumps?

All right, this is a reply both to the topic and to the debate. I really want to put my two cents in here even though the debate seems to be fizzing out. First of all, background. I'm 18, just out of high school, about to start college as a non-music major. Music is something I love and write occasionally but I don't think it's my life's calling, so to speak. I'll continue to play the oboe in college, but as a chemical engineering major with about 110 non-elective hours to finish (despite massive AP credit >.<) I'm not sure how much music I can pursue.

Anyway.... First of all, NYCheckelphone, you're a beast. I didn't even know what a heckelphone was until I was 15, lol. And I identify with you considerably. Or at least somewhat.

Second of all, VoodooChild and Ferkungamabooboo, you both sound a lot like Rush Limbaugh. People don't want to listen to either of you for basically the same reason. Couch your messages in more civil terms, please. Jokes may be jokes, but jokes like that hurt people, get people angry, and destroy your credibility. (PS I'm not super liberal. I'm actually a moderate conservative. But I can't stand Rush Limbaugh </randomtangent>)

Second of all, yes, I like like classical the best of any genre. By a lot. There's a good reason for this, although ultimately I can't explain it. Here's my musical story, and maybe I can answer some of the questions about "snobs" who "hate all music except classical."

I remember as a young child, listening to my mom play the piano, and listening to music that was meant to imitate nature. I also listened to Wee-Sing Dinosaurs, and as any good 5 year old boy, I liked to pretend to be T-Rex and eat people. :D Soon, my mom was giving me piano lessons, but she was also sick and couldn't make me practice much (I was like 7 or 8). I stopped after a while.

Long story short, I took piano on and off for a while, and joined band in middle school, but couldn't find any music I liked to listen to. Then I heard Dan Coates' arrangement of Pachelbel's Canon in D for piano (at about age 14) and something happened. I'd heard it before but something was different. Something inside me responded at a fundamental level. Here was a beauty I'd never heard before. That was when I really started to like classical music, when I became aware of its beauty and power. You have to dig a little to really get anything out of classical music, and I finally learned what that meant. From there, I was hooked.

As for the genre debate, I first want to define what we're talking about as I understand it. For the purposes of the present discussion, “classical” seems to be any music written solely as art, ie art music, and “pop” seems to mean any music written/produced for more commercial/popular appeal purposes. So “pop” in this context also includes any other popular genre, ie rock, hip hop, etc, etc. Basically an “art vs popular music” debate, and the argument is “Why can't you appreciate popular music as art too?” vs “Well, art music is just... more artistic.” Before I give my opinion, let me say that I think any attempt to persuade or coerce someone into responding a certain way to any music when they've already listened to it and responded an entirely different way (“Why don't you like rock? You close-minded fool.” “I tried listening to it. I just don't.”) is itself close minded. Art is such a subjective thing that telling other people what they should or shouldn't think of it is often pointless. There's a book called Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance that argues that we all know what quality is, even if we can't define it. I beg to differ. We each have a slightly different definition of what quality is, so we can reach a lot of consensuses, but there are always bound to be dissenters, particularly in art.

Now, why I like classical music the best. It's simple, really. I can't explain it. Classical music communicates to me with an emotional depth and clarity like no other type or style of music can. Does it do that all the time? Nope. Lots of the time I just listen and think “that sounds good” or “that's kind of boring.” Maybe I'll listen for harmonies, textures, whatever, but a lot of the time I come away fairly uninspired. Classical music also calms me and helps me focus to a certain extent, so I like that aspect too.

But sometimes I make that deep emotional connection with the music, and then all I can do is cry and let it flood over me. I listen to classical music because sometimes that happens. That has never happened to me with any other style of music, even music with a fairly direct emotional content (like Josh Groban singing You Raise Me Up, for example). Classical is the only music that has ever made me cry. I can't explain this at all. Why should some arrangements of organized sound mean so much more to me than all the rest? I have no idea. They just do. I apologize if that offends you, but don't insult me over it.

I do listen to other music sometimes though. In particular, since I'm finally almost fluent in Spanish, I've been listening to Latin music recently. I had a phase where I liked Rush a lot, a while back (which I'll admit is considerably deeper than most recent popular music). And my church sponsors youth dances, which I've attended since I was 14, where they play a lot of recent popular music. It's fun to listen to. You get the toe-tapping rhythm and beat that classical doesn't give. And the connection to dance helps. I don't like much country or swing, but can I tell you that swing dancing with an attractive member of the opposite sex (read: a pretty girl ;) ) is ridiculously fun? Best workout ever, I tell you what.

But in the end the adrenaline, the beat, the fun, while it has its value, seems shallow and superficial compared to that rich, deep current of raw cathartic emotion I can get out of classical music sometimes. Again, I can't explain this. Maybe someday, I'll experience the same kind of emotion from other types of music as well. It seems like the depth at least could be there in groups like Rush, and Evanescence, although neither of these have really managed to evoke a deep emotional response in me. But for right now it just doesn't happen and you're wasting your breath to insult me or tell me I “should” feel something I honestly don't.