What the heck does “advanced music” mean, in your opinion? Give us an example of someone from the last forty years or so who has “advanced music”.
Pierre Boulez
György Ligeti
John Adams
Tan Dun
Elliott Carter
To name several.
No, his argument is about the fact that pop music has done for music as an art form what fast food has done for human nutrition.
Most of the arguments against pop music in this thread seem to be music snobbery where Classical>Jazz>Rock>R&B/Disco>Rap>Pop.
I’ve seen the fine cuisine/fast food analogy made about Classical vs. Jazz even though instrumental technique is comparable and creativity of improv makes up for lack of compositional complexity. I’ve seen Wynton Marsalis dismiss rap out of hand even though rap can be considered a direct descendant of jazz. I’ve seen a classmate claim that rap is not art because he could do it and if he could, then anybody could and if anybody could then it isn’t art. His premise was faulty because he couldn’t rap(at least not well).
If the OP enjoys classical and thinks pop music is shite, he should just say so. No need to try to convince others that they should agree.
That’s a pretty stupid argument, then. It doesn’t even work as an analogy. A comparison between music as an art form and cooking as an art form would be one thing, but nutrition is a science. Claims about the nutritional benefit of certain foods can be scientifically tested and proven. Claims about the health of an entire art form cannot.
I also note that when it comes to food, there’s not much correlation between artistry and nutrition. Haute cuisine is not necessarily very healthy, even compared to fast food. mswas mentioned foie gras earlier, which is quite high in saturated fat and cholesterol. There are plenty of fine restaurants serving up meals that are less healthy than a Subway sandwich or a McDonald’s hamburger. Just because something is artistic or skillfully prepared doesn’t make it good for you.
Miles Davis
Well then lets unconfuse you. We’re not talking about memorization of trivia.
/me is listening to Right Round by Flo Rida right now, so that clearly isn’t it. I also had lunch at McDonald’s.
There are similar scientific/mathematical principles behind Music too.
Yeah, I am not talking about nutrition I am talking about gourmet vs fast food. Are you going to argue that there is no merit to this? If you were buying a date dinner would you take him/her to McDonald’s and say you like it just as much as Hangar Steak in a Bordelaise sauce, or the same as Sushi? Do you claim that there is no difference between those things?
You can’t 'advance music" if no one hears it. Classical music, as a popular art form, is dead. I agree that these are fine composers, but the fact is that very few people care about them. Moazrt and Beethoven were the popular music of their time, but that was hundreds of years ago. Since the advent of recorded music, rock and pop has been able to express musical textures that are impossible to achieve in “classical” music. Don’t get me wrong, I love the great classical composers. I also love Latin, Cubism, and La Nouvelle Vague - but they’re not still relevant. The Beatles advanced music in the 60’s far more than any serialist composer could ever hope to.
I don’t understand. So it’s not worth anything to create something that is really good, if it is relatively simple? Why? Für Elise is also relatively simple compared to many other classical pieces. So it’s not an achievement to have written that?
So you don’t dislike pop music or fast food. But it’s clear from your earlier posts that you value the artistry of classical music more than that of pop music.
It’s true that a 40 minute concerto has more musical content than a 4 minute pop song. That’s by definition. You’re writing for an orchestra and not a band. But Michael’s genius comes from the fact that he was able to craft, admittedly with help, pop songs that became no.1 hits consistently for much of his career. So did Springsteen. So did Madonna. and when they die you will hear people spout about their genius.
Who cares if a sonata has more notes per bar than a pop song. What were you listening to when you lost your virginity? The first dance at your wedding? What song gets the party started at the family reunion? That’s what people are recalling when they reminisce about Jackson’s genius.
I’m not sure those two belong in the same phrase–Beyonce can actually sing well.
You’re wrong about how few people hear it, and about how little influence it has.
No, they weren’t the “popular music” of their time. Neither was anywhere near being the most famous composers of their day, and it is totally impossible to compare them the industrialized, heavily marketed, media-based fast-food of pop music now.
Regardless, Mozart and Beethoven both wrote music at least in part for an audience that was expected to understand something about the structure of music, since their patrons were usually accomplished amateur musicians themselves.
Sexiness, marketability, youth: all the most absolutely essential determinants of the success of pop music now were irrelevant in Mozart and Beethoven’s day.
What comes closest to the popular music of prerecorded times is folk music.
That’s just clueless.
I doubt it. For certain, you don’t understand a thing about them.
Of those composers I named, only one used serial methods in any form. I bet you can’t even name which one, nor would be able to even if you heard their music.
Pop music has destroyed the ability of most people to actually use listening as a primary activity. It has added a bunch of irrelevant components to “musical” success that have nothing to do with music at all (e.g. sexiness, youth, marketability as I said earlier). That is why pop music is comparable to fast food. Fast food has ruined our country’s health. Pop music has ruined people’s ability to enjoy music. Music is little better than wallpaper now for all but a very few people, and pop music is entirely to blame.
All these people crying about their love for MJ: I bet less than 10% of them ever listened to his music as the main thing they were doing. If they had, they’d realize immediately how vapid it all is.
Uh, no. The principles behind music are really pretty different from those behind nutrition.
*Take it up with Knorf then, he’s the one who said you were talking about nutrition.
*I don’t eat beef, so I guess I do like McDonald’s burgers as much as some fancy steak – that is, not at all.
*It’s funny that you think sushi isn’t fast food. I guess you’ve never been to Japan.
*Uh, no, I don’t claim that there is no difference between a hamburger and sushi. I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between the two items. (It’s not hard, they don’t even look alike.) So what? I don’t think anyone here has tried to argue that Michael Jackson’s music was indistinguishable from that of Mozart of Beethoven. But speaking as someone who wasn’t even a Michael Jackson fan, it’s obvious to me that his musical accomplishments required significant talent, skill, and effort. This isn’t true of being a burger flipper, a job that can be hard work but that almost anyone can be trained to do. Michael Jackson may not have been Mozart, but he had more in common with him professionally than he did with the kids working at McDonald’s.
Frankly I thought Jackson was vastly overrated and fairly formulaic. However, he hit a huge moment in the early 80’s with Thriller and he should be respected for that. Other than that he’s output was iffy at best. Still, shame he died though I find all of this gnashing of teeth over him to be a little odd given thast he was a non-entity (other than as gossip fodder) for a long time.
I would say most of them were dancing or listening to the radio or watching MTV. Just because you don’t sit down with a glass of chardonnay and put on Off the Wall, it does not diminish pop music. Just as listening to Mozart while you study or prepare dinner doesn’t diminish the listening experience.
It’s not the same thing as driving and talking on a cell phone.
Lovely comparison, except Jackson wrote neither the tune nor the lyrics, nor did he do the arrangement. Not surprising, since he was 14.
Motown was a factory, not an artist’s loft, and here is how the recording session probably came about: Jackson arrived and was given the songs he was to record that day. Barry Gordy or another member of The Corporation ran him through a song a few times then they recorded it. They then did the next song.
Like Sinatra or Joe Cocker, Michael Jackson was a pop song stylist, and a pretty good one (his dancing outshone his singing, which might make him Fred Astaire). This was not music for the ages, but music for one age, and fifty years from now our descendents will see it as “quaint,” like people today view Al Jolson. That is, those who have heard of him; most people will not.
This is about the dumbest thing I ever read. It’s perfectly possible to enjoy both classical and pop music. Nowadays I listen mostly to classical music. Last weekend I went to an opera, and I’m going to another one next weekend.
But I still enjoy certain pop songs when I hear them, and that includes many of Michael Jackson’s hits.
(sigh) It’s hard for some Classical music buffs to understand that what Mozart, Beethoven, et al, wrote WAS some of the Pop music of their day. Venetian gondoliers would attend opening night performances, if they hadn’t been let into rehearsals or given the sheet music of the projected A-Sides by the composers, to both drum up business for the performances, but also for sheet music sales.