Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Pop culture you say??no thank you

I don't want this to be offensive to anyone who might have a liking for this sort but i just wanted to express what i really thought about this matter, and just see what other people think

I think popular culture is invading our mind if i might say, everthg that is passed on to the larger public loses a great deal of value simply because it has become of public use
What i don't like about this is the way people accept it without bothering to look for alternatives....and then expect you to do the same!

what does this have to do with piano you might ask
Well it's pretty simple really, whenever someone asks to "play me sthg my dear man" i'm reluctant to play the great pieces of the repertoire simply because they get bored and almost never listen till the end, but i won't go into playing those disastrous popular pieces everyone likes so much

If classical music is brain candy than i think popular culture is intoxicating. Beatles?Lennon?Rock?PLEASE!! these people don't even come near the worst composer!
what have they done?commercialized a few hundered flat pieces??died of drug overdose?They are mearly commercial icons for the stupid public to worship as if they were some sort of gods

Let me give you an example of true musicianship....The Bach family comprises over 22 composers and musicians and J.S. Bach has over 1000 compositions accounted for.....
Franz Liszt dedicated nearly 60 years to his instrument

I would like to know what others think about this matter

I'd disagree with your comment on the Beatles, they were 4 very talented musicians. I think this works both ways - while you might shun popular culture, I'm sure they have a similar view on yourself - "Why do you listen to music that is hundreds of years old?". And the answer is not "because it is better", it is because you enjoy it more. I think that the idea that classical music is in anyway better than other music, well it pushes the community further away from other musical communities, which is the opposite of what is needed.

Wise comment......really, don't think i would have thought about the fact of enjoying it more

but objectively speaking, you can't tell me that you look at popular forms(rock?heavy metal?pop?) the same way you might look at baroque or romantic

i've truly tried not to be too uhm..."racist" about this thing, but i guess i couldn't bring myself to respect them, i'm getting there i suppose
but you're right it might have been too agressive to say this, apologies to anyone who might read this

It takes time to sort the junk from the good stuff. Shakespeare was the Stephen Spielberg of his day. No one was more of a superstar than Liszt, the quintessentiial pop music idol. "Lisztomania" wasn't invented by Ken Russell.

So do you like any pop music at all? Sinatra, etc., or is it all just cr@p to you?

This reminds me of something I read back in the day when the Beatles were still together. A young jazz musician looked down on pop music, believing it to be inferior to the jazz music he loved. But then one day he heard a Beatles song "We Can Work It Out", and it opened his eyes, so to speak, and it completely changed his mind. And the truth is, just like classical, you can listen to pop music without really 'getting it'.

Writing song melodies and composing classical pieces are two different crafts. Leonard Bernstein recognized this, and wrote an essay on this subject which was in a book I had some years ago. He found classical composing easy, but writing a good song melody difficult. When he had to write melodies for West Side Story, it gave him
a new respect for the talent of the melodist.

Take the melody in the last movement of Beethoven's 9th. A nice melody, sure, but both Lennon and McCartney have written many melodies better than that one.

But if you can't appreciate a good pop melody, well, that's your loss.

Some of the best things I've heard were at some point "pop" pieces given a virtuoso piano arrangement. (And I have a hankering to do the same for many others. I analize the music for what it is on the written page--not the top-40 artist's voice/interpretation). I think one has to separate the voice du jour from the composition. I can think of many "pop" or "rock" bits that I think will stand the test of time and might be our great-great-grandchildren's "classical". In my own family, my mother, aged 72, myself 50, and my nephew 30--three generations--all regard Pink Floyd's "Wish You Were Here" as our favorite musical composition/album. Aside from us liking it, it has been continuously on the charts, along with Pink Floyd's earlier "Dark Side of the Moon" for roughly 30 years. Some of the classical composers should have done so well. I can think of many other examples. One of the most spectacular performances at Carnegie Hall in recent memory was David and Linda LaFlame's performance of their suite released decades earlier on the album "It's a Beautiful Day". Some of this stuff *will* be the new classical. If you open your mind and ears, there's excellence in composition in some unexpected places, both in the classics of 200 years ago and even now. Reminds me of that old Parliament song, "Free Your Mind and Your @$$ Will Follow"... :p

I agree with ChickGrand. It all about the music that can stand the 'test of time'. Bach and Beethoven must be good because its hundreds of years old and we still listen to it. I very much doubt that the Beatles or Pink Floyd are going away any time soon either, and will probably have a similar status to classical toward the end of the next century. But seriously, who actually still listens to Peter Andre or Hearsay?

Ok obviously, my first article was a bit too aggressive, let me rephrase what i wanted to say

What i wanted to say is that everyone is free to listen to what music they thinks is best but it's not necessary to try and group everybody under the same genre of music.you might tell me that's excatly what i was doing in my first article, yes, i've re-read it and i believe i haven't phrased it right(i was merely giving an opinion not trying to "convert" anyone to my music)

just because i don't like pop music doesn't get me to hate every pop fan alive or force them into listening to my choice of music, i criticize yes, i'm free to think what i want, but i don't take reject people from society and refuse their existence, what i'm against is the people who rule you out just because i don't share their view, i've had it with people telling me:oh you like that music?but it's so boring, try some hip-hop or whatever, hasn't anyone gone through this?

frankly, what i said still stands, beatles, pink floyd fans, you like this music, good for you, just don't expect me to like it too

and honestly, beatles and pink floyd, deep purple and such are legends ok, so be it, but are you going to tell me that you truly believe there isn't pop commercial garbage on the market these days??

We have this discussion once in a while.

There's lots of crap classical music, and there's lots of crap popular music. Most people who know anything about music know it's very hard to write a good pop tune.

Why does it have to be "my music is better than yours?" Listen to what you like.

There is a lot of commercially hyped crap out there, for sure. But there is still good music being made, and really, when you get down to it, the basic scales, chord progressions, and the notes used, are no different than the same ones that Bach, Beethoven, Chopin, Liszt, Joplin, and Rachmaninoff used. If everyone were grouped under the same genre, there wouldn't be a such thing as genre.

We all like what we like, play what we play, and if we are performing, then our listeners are the final authority on whether or not we have communicated the music to them in a meaningful way.

I started a thread about this a year ago. You may want to check it out:

http://www.pianoworld.com/ubb/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?/topic/2/8203.html

Classical music is better than pop music (in general). It takes more to appreciate than pop music (in general). It also gives more when you appreciate it than pop music (in general). The people's appreciation of music that seem to like pretty much only what is popular is often of a drastically more superficial kind & influenced by extra-musical factors (such as peer pressure) than that of those who love classical music.

If somebody wants to argue with me about this, please, first read not thoughtlessly the thread I gave a link to.

Antonius, I agree with you (in general) but it's tragically shortsighted to condemn something JUST because it's popular as seemed to be the intention the initial poster. Beethoven, Liszt and Chopin were pretty "popular" in their day as well. Popularity is the result of accessibility and most classics get to be that way because they are accessible as well as enriching.

"it's tragically shortsighted to condemn something JUST because it's popular as seemed to be the intention of the initial poster."

I didn't notice such an intention... Apart from that, I agree with what you say, and admire your choice of words.

I rest my case.

Bosendorfer88 said: "i'm reluctant to play the great pieces of the repertoire simply because they get bored and almost never listen till the end"

I can appreciate your frustration--I'm sure everyone from Liszt down to the humblest salad tosser has faced an indifferent audience at one time or another.

But is it possible that in your eagerness to educate the hapless ruffians you're forgetting to put life and enjoyment into your playing?

When our hearts are lined up behind our fingers is it not true that most audiences deserve more--not less--credit than we give them?

If you shove classical down the throats of people who don't know anything about classical and couldn't care less, then you're being a boorish and rude performer, and of course, people aren't going to stick around to listen to something they don't want to hear.

I think an important factor is that pop music has degenerated in the last 40 odd years. Nowadays in some cases, as long as you can shout along to a heavy beat, you may be in a position to be able to sell millions of records, whereas in the past some pop performers had at least a small bit of musical training. Additionally, the whole record / CD selling business wasn't so apperance orientated in the past (I'm referring to things such as manufactured boy and girl bands here).

But shouting along to the beat was the basis of the first blues and gospel. Always, things go full circle and new things are created out of the old, again and again... It's fascinating.

when my teacher played for gigs, he'd bring some classical and pop music with him and play both or whatever people there in the mood to hear. he told me that he'd start with Bach prelude in C usually, then sight read whatever in the books he took with him, even Fur Elise and Moonlight 1st movement are on his list or even some Chopin noctunes (one of popular ones he called as 'benefit concert piece' or 'fund raising for children piece').

Frank! You included Joplin in there with all those classical music greats! Like the door-to-door salesman sticking the foot in the door, you've left open a crack where jazz can sneak in!



But I agree with your point. Years ago listening to LvB's third movement of 27,2, I thought, "This guy very nearly rocks". My live-in XSO realized it, too. When the movement finished, that woman who'd spent a lifetime in after parties on back-stage passes at rock concerts, instead of saying, "Would you please turn that off and go to bed!" (It was Sunday night late with work looming), said instead, "That was incredibly beautiful", in a way I knew she'd been obviously moved. And that's the point of any music.

Rubinstein playing Beethoven *moved* her.

Frank's point that "...if we are performing, then our listeners are the final authority on whether or not we have communicated the music to them in a meaningful way", strikes me as precisely the point.

Musical notes are like Latin word "roots" underlying language(s), that evolve and take on new meanings and shadings over time with each slight degree of reconstruction. Changing the syntax of an expression, or a syllable of a word can modify the meaning. It does not make any less true the original root concept nor diminish the beauty in that original concept. But the new word or expression only conveys the new idea if the listener is then educated to understand the meaning--the precise definition. Until then, it's just meaningless babble or noise.

A musical "genre" is like a dialect of language. The words might seem distorted to the unfamiliar, but when you parse it out from the bit that's familiar, the idea expressed might be every bit as meaningful and even beautiful in its expression as something you might have said otherwise in your own dialect. And sometimes there's a whole new logic and understanding revealed in simple syntax. And sometimes the message *is* just different and wholly outside your sensibility.

There would never have been any new music, even classical, if the Beethovens, Chopins, and DeBussys hadn't imposed their own musical sensibility on that language to get *their* message across. Contemporary performers are not different in that regard--in wanting to say something that expresses their unique sum total emotional/intellectual outlook in language that makes a listener take notice and to hear the message that comes from their heart.

I shudder to think we'd be listening to only Bach if Beethoven hadn't come along and rocked out. :p If our ancestors hadn't listened to him with an open mind, there'd have been no room for Gottschalk, then Joplin, and the jazz greats that have followed.

People I know who love music, love lots of kinds of music and are open to listening to things that challenge their ability to interpret it and find meaning in it. There is more truth than words to express it. So we keep inventing new ones. Music is the same.

(I'm biting my fingers to keep myself from typing, "There's even some truth in some Country and Western". Some truths are just too horrible to contemplate. )

Hahaha.. Right on, ChickGrand! :b:

I love music of all kinds, with the possible exception of rap, but even rap has its redeeming moments: Some years ago, there was a group called PM Dawn that was primarily piano based, and really turned out some beautiful stuff...

I have to say that the music of the 1890's through the 1940's is what really appeals most to me. Ragtime, Stride, Jazz, Swing, Big Band, Blues, Bop... I was born late.

1. Maybe you should contemplate whether it's the listener's fault or the musicians fault?

Why do people appreciate Liszt, Horowitz, and Lang Lang? Because they CAPTURE their attention. They don't just sit there, play the notes, and expect everyone to kiss their feet.

OK, so? You think that Daniel Powter or The Fray are just sitting there doing nothing?

I would take this as a great opportunity to encourage others to listen to classical music.
1. If you aren't willing to listen to new things, why should others be?

2. Are you going to tell me that there isn't classical garbage?

Nuff said.

I hope this isn't TOO offensive. :rolleyes:

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!YES!!!!!!!!!!!YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You are 200% right (is there such a thing? ) There are so many activities that are so elitist that they prevent people without certain means to access them. I think that if we want to let others access it, then we have to make it accessABLE. We have to work to help classical music transcend its sphere by reaching out to make it more accessable. We can't just sit on our pedestal and say "we rock, you suck" (pun INTENDED). If we do, it'll just go into the garbage pile that every other elitist thing tends to go to in this age of the middle class.

Boesendorfer: Go to this site and listen to "Bad Day." Tell me if you absolutely can't appreciate it:
http://www.danielpowter.com

Ragtime is usually regarded as a precursor to jazz along with spirituals and blues.

Also, I agree that there's good and bad commercial music. (And that's what we're really talking about - not "popular" but "commercial.")

For me, there are bad commercial artists (Kelly Clarkson, Justin Timberlake, 50 cent, etc...)

But there are also good commerical artists - I think Brian Warner is brilliant (who here knows his stage name?), Shawn Carter (how about his stage name?) also seems very intelligent and has some very interesting ideas about music and its future, Thom Yorke (love him or hate him) has some very interesting musical ideas, and I've heard Dave Grohl give some very thoughtful interviews.

Thom Yorke is great... Christopher O'Riley turned out a couple of albums of Radiohead's songs and received mixed reviews for it, but I thought it was brilliant.

I think that raspberry ice cream is better than chocolate because it has more divergent flavors and is more difficult to make. This thread seems a lot like this. Music is too subjective and flexible to use terms like "better." When people say that music X is better, what they really mean is that it is what THEY like better.

The best musicians/composers in any genre work hard and are very talented. There are a lot of crappy pop/rock songs because a lot of people are writing and performing them. A significant portion of classical music is bad too.

Moreover, music that is harder is not necessarily "better." Some modern music (20th century "classical") is very hard to play, but many people, including musically educated and classical loving people, despise it. So better and more difficult are independent evaluations.

By the way, if you ever want to read a really bad (I mean REALLY bad) play, look up "Titus Andronicus" - by Shakespeare.

Well, obviously this has turned out to be quite a post

first of all to mr Frank, you really don't think i'm THAT stupid do you?of course i wouldn't play the appassionata or the 45min or so long tchaikovsky piano concerto to a person who thinks mozart is a type of cheese(i wasn't even surprised anymore when someone said "oh, so debussy is not a french fahion designer?" )
trust me i've tried attract my audience from another angle to classical music

to mr xyz2004, i actually TRIED some pop music before making myself an opinion, you wouldn't think i'd write such an "elitist" post, as you said, without knowing what i'm talking about
I've been from jazz to blues, to rock, even to heavy metal, pop, rap and back(with truly open mind)
to be completely honest, the only genre who trully appealed to me was jazz/blues, because it does have musical interest and is quite challenging to play unlike the diluted tunes of modern day "artists", the others genres, well....

you're possibly right about the classical music audience excluding herself, but it is in the pop culture itself to rule out classical music bluntly because pop is more merchandizable, a few years from now who would remember bad day?sold, used like a disposable toothbrush, i heard the song, cathcy tune, nice piano backing, talented singer, but unfortunately this man would retire from the music "business" before maturing his talents, that's what music is these days, a mere job


although i'm not a fan, old time musicians and performers (a lot of whom have been mentioned in the replies, Sinatra, Elvis presly, S.Joplin....) have my complete respect partly because as shellman has put it so well into words "some pop performers had at least a small bit of musical training"(well joplin had more than a small bit of training :p )
however, i do not believe idolated pop symbols such as the rolling stones(sex drugs and rock and roll, yes quite the genius musicians indeed) or madonna to name but a few exactly qualify as "music", excellent businesspeople, yes! musicians, no

sure you might say, beethoven was a drunk illetrate farmer from Bonn with no manners whatsoever, however he basically single handedly layed down the basis for romanticism....although britney spears is remarkably just as socially dysfunctional, she shares the IQ of a hyena(no offense to the hyena race)and i believe Darwin would consider his theory irrefutable if he had known Michael Jackson

it's not about my music is better than yours, i'm just giving a (corrosive i admit) opinion about an aspect of music/popular culture

I hate Bach - I bought a Virgil Fox album many years ago (yes, album) and it was just horrible. What pure crap....

I then took up classical guitar and happened to learn a few Bach pieces, very good stuff, very pretty and easy to "hear" on the guitar. I started to look for Bach pieces......

One day I was going through my albums and came across the Vergil Fox recording and noticed two of the pieces I knew were on it, so I gave it a listen.......I can't explain it, but somehow he became a genius while I was off doing other stuff. I could hear the piece....wow, just wow....I now own 7 VF CD's - the man is unbelievable......Oh, yea, Bach's pretty good too.

"although britney spears is remarkably just as socially dysfunctional, she shares the IQ of a hyena(no offense to the hyena race)and i believe Darwin would consider his theory irrefutable if he had known Michael Jackson"

LMAO.

At least you're not about "my music is better than yours."
What IS your advocacy?

EDIT: You're treating opera with much more of an open mind than you're treating pop/rock music. Why not apply the same open attitude towards pop/rock?

I think that music has many subdivisions. What makes a genra good to you depends on what you ask of music. Classical music has many nice attributes, which are completely different to the attributes of lets say oldtime or folk... but equal in my mind. Music isn't always a soild color either.

In oldtime, music is half or less of what it really is. Its more about sharing, culture, divergence, escaping contemporary culture, celebration, living on the land, and less about complexity of the inner voices. If you need counterpoint your up shits creek, but not everyone is asking for it.

Not everyone wants or needs complexity, and not everyone wants or needs to feel intelligent.

Okay: What angle have you tried? Let's talk about that, because the one thing that Liszt, Elvis, Mozart, Thom Yorke, Big Mama Thornton, Janis Joplin, and Stevie Ray Vaughn all have in common, is (or was) the ability to connect with their audience, attract them, and keep them on the edge of their seats.

I never called, nor implied, that you were stupid. You made your statement and didn't elaborate on it at all. I'm not a mind-reader, so I only responded to what you wrote.

If someone hauls me off to a 50-Cent concert, no matter what kind of showman he is, if I'm not interested, I'm not interested, and I'd rather go have a beer in some live honky-tonk bar, because at least then, there's something in the music and performers that I can probably connect with.

See?

Well said, Jim!

I'm afraid that's not a very good place to rest...

What you quoted says that Beatles managed to become popular or "commercial icons" despite their bad music or "flat pieces"; it does not say that their music is bad because of popularity.

OK, sloppy logic. I admit it. I was reacting to his misanthropy more than anything else.

I'm afraid logical positivism is hopelessly superficial when dealing with aesthetics (and immediately related things, like the biology and psychology of human perception). In such a context, it's only good for developing blinding slogans. At best, it hinders aesthetic development by destroying the motivation, and frees from cultural responsibility, which can lead to pretty vapid and pointless things (dull philosophies make for dull people).

Oh, so now it's all right to talk about "the best", "crappy", and "bad" too...

Now you're setting up a straw-man argument...

Shakespeare's plays were never meant to be read. They are, after all, plays, not novels. What works on stage, doesn't necessarily work at all as reading material. "Enter Hamlet" "He dies" Ooh, what Drama!

I could have typed that post myself, Frank.

I particularly agree about Ragtime being the half-step to jazz. What I didn't realize until a couple of years ago was the earlier step Gottschalk made in his compositions moving music that direction. Now that I've taken up playing some of his work, it's very clear.

If you ever find a time machine, hit me up.

Quoting Antonius Hamus:
I was just making a point that it is difficult to argue that one form of music in inherently superior to another. Perhaps I did not do a great job of it. As for your reply, I'm still trying to understand it.

"Titus Andronicus" is a truly bad play. Acting it, reading it, staging it in your living room drunk, or watching it on video while taking a crap will not improve it much. I agree that plays are meant to be watched on stage, not read. But with "Titus," I'm afraid I will never have that opportunity. Let me know if you can find anyone staging it.

Here is a thought that never gets brought up in these discussions:

Maybe pop music today fades away because of the way the present generations were and are being raised.

We tend to live in a microwave society where everyone wants everything now. It is made even worse by the mentality of society to always have the next best or new thing.

Does anyone watch tv? The adds are pushing these ideas on us like crazy. Do we keep our cars, furniture, clothes, or anything very long anymore. What is in today is out tomorrow. Look at fassion, it keeps going around in circles.

I think pop music is forgotten because our society is allways looking for the next best thing. The other problem is that people do not want to accept it as "real" music so it is not taught and expounded upon. If it is not taught then it will not be remembered.

I think classical has withstood the test of time due to it being accepted and taught over the years.

I do not care one way or the other. If the music does not move me then I want nothing to do with it; I am speaking emotionally.

I also believe the internet is in the process of changing all this anyways. I think pop piano is just starting to take off as a method of teaching and it will appeal to all those that have been mystified by "commercialism". If that is all pop music is then classical music is in trouble. Once people realize there is a different approach to playing and the media/advertising sets it on fire then people will be lining up to learn how to play what they want to play.

Just my psycho words for the day.

1)"language doesn't really connect people, it divides them into isolated groups which then engage in a swordfight of double meaning words"-19th century anonymous

2)Musical and cultural diversity must be preserved because the current heading of pop culture is of total human standardization, one that does not behave in the same way as others is simply cast out

3)We have betrayed oursleves i believe when we agreed for society to think FOR us, and now we absorb this culture with no filtering

4)Any critic of crappy classical music is more than welcome, i was merely criticizing crappy pop music who is given overrated value because of commercial success and idolating fanhood

5)if i was too offensive in my posts it's because i fear that a certain culture is being threatened, and because i believe we need a choice, an alternative just for the sake of diversity
the day when everyone will listen to bach will be truly dreadful, yet the day when everyone will have a copy of "dark side of the moon" at home is equally as dreadful

6)some days i get the impression that the human brain has not evolved much since the middle-ages, a certain level of finesse and refinement is more than needed today

7)many of the GOOD pop music loses of its value because it is treated like objects to be sold

8)to see how this is in any way related to piano, go back to initial post

9)if this wasn't simple and clear enough, i don't know what is

PS:nice thread antonius

Bosendorfer,
You make some very good points. I agree that musical diversity (pop, classical, jazz, etc.) needs to be valued. Eventually, much of the music that people do not value will die away, leaving that which is valued by at least a small group. For instance, there are many classical pieces no longer performed because people do not want to play it or listen to it. In the end, however, I think that there is probably more musical diversity that we realize. The Internet is playing no small part in this.

Commercialization and idolatory in pop music certainly allows much of what is superficial and formulaic to become popular. I suspect much of this will be forgotten. Let's not forget, however, that classical music is also concerned with selling. Talk to people who work for Sony, Grammaphone, EMI-they are not in it for charity or for advancing classical music or the human mind.

As for standardization of pop music where "one that does not behave in the same way as others is simply cast out," that charge has also been made about classical music.

You are also right about the lack of evolution of the human brain since the middle ages. Because of the number and types of cells, and its astounding complexity, observable differences in the human brain will take much longer than several hundred years, perhaps tens or hundreds of thousands. Essentially, we have the same brain as our Middle Ages ancestors.

By the way, here is an interesting perspective (not necessarily mine) on the so called dying of classical music:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/28/a...p;ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

People of my parents' and grandparents' generations tend to like listening to music which was popular during their youth - so big band dance music, 50s rock & roll, etc. It seems quite acceptable to hear an older person humming Rock Around the Clock or something by Glen Miller. Even Beatles tunes seem to have passed into 'classic' status for this generation. Go to a social function where the average age is over 60 and you'll probably hear this kind of music being played.

I wonder if residential homes for old people are starting to hear Dylan, The Who and The Rolling Stones being played or sung by their residents. I struggle to imagine a 70 year old humming 'Jumping Jack Flash' (although Jagger himself isn't far off).

And in another generation will the old folks all be happily humming Sex Pistols hits? And after that grandparents will be playing Madonna or Take That or Eminem to their grandchildren and reminiscing about the good old days?

Somehow I can't imagine a 40th wedding anniversay celebration with the happy couple playing 'Smack My Bitch Up' because it was 'our tune'.

I wonder what we'll all be listening to when we're old(er). For classical music fans it's not an issue, but for someone who 'only likes pop' I wonder if today's hits will still bear listening to in 50 years' time.

Right on!

To each his own.