Classical lovers condenscending [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Classical lovers condenscending



Wireworm5
06-04-2006, 08:14 PM
When I read reviews of an album by someone who likes classical music they usually give bad reviews because the music is not technically complicated. Not that I know what the heck they are talking about since I am not trained in music. Frankly I find most classical boring, maybe because it is too complicated. But mainly I think its the sqeaky violins. Violins are great when used appropriately.
Usually in any application the simpliest method in acheiving functionality is the best and requires the most intelligence. I would think this applies to music as well. If you can acheive a theme using the simplist method it'll sound better than a complicated arrangement.After all I think we are only capable of absorbing about 5 instruments at a time.
Metallica S&M is a good example of this. Some of the songs are overwhelming to absorb with the entire orchastra playing. But 'NO Leaf Clover' where the orchestra compliments the band and doesn't dominated the song is an absolutely stunning piece of music.
It seems to me technical training has blinded classical lovers from enjoying some very good music because it is to simple, for which I'm glad to be ignorant..:)

Dusty Chalk
06-04-2006, 08:51 PM
I think we are only capable of absorbing about 5 instruments at a time.Speak for yourself.

Why do you remind me of Mayonaise?

Pat D
06-05-2006, 07:51 AM
When I read reviews of an album by someone who likes classical music they usually give bad reviews because the music is not technically complicated. Not that I know what the heck they are talking about since I am not trained in music. Frankly I find most classical boring, maybe because it is too complicated. But mainly I think its the sqeaky violins. Violins are great when used appropriately.
Usually in any application the simpliest method in acheiving functionality is the best and requires the most intelligence. I would think this applies to music as well. If you can acheive a theme using the simplist method it'll sound better than a complicated arrangement.After all I think we are only capable of absorbing about 5 instruments at a time.
Metallica S&M is a good example of this. Some of the songs are overwhelming to absorb with the entire orchastra playing. But 'NO Leaf Clover' where the orchestra compliments the band and doesn't dominated the song is an absolutely stunning piece of music.
It seems to me technical training has blinded classical lovers from enjoying some very good music because it is to simple, for which I'm glad to be ignorant..:)

Squeaky violins? I was first tempted to say you should try some better speakers, except a check of your profile indicates you have speakers which are quite good. Well, then, you either need better recordings or perhaps you should turn volume down. Our ears are most sensitive in the upper midrange-lower treble area, so listening louder than the intended level may throw off the perceived balance.

What reviewers are you talking about?

BTW, not all classical music lovers are technical trained in music.

JohnMichael
06-05-2006, 08:04 AM
I became interested in classical music from an Emerson, Lake and Palmer recording of Pictures At An Exhibition. I wore that record out and one day while shopping for records I saw in the classical section Pictures At An Exhibition by Mussorgsky and directed by Riccardo Muti. I bought that record and enjoyed it very much and thought maybe classical isn't so bad after all. Next came Scheherazade by Rimsky-Korsakov and another piece of music to love. Still with little or no musical training I have amassed a large amount of classical music that I enjoy all due to a 70's rock interpretation.

Wireworm5
06-06-2006, 12:23 AM
Squeaky violins? I was first tempted to say you should try some better speakers, except a check of your profile indicates you have speakers which are quite good. Well, then, you either need better recordings or perhaps you should turn volume down. Our ears are most sensitive in the upper midrange-lower treble area, so listening louder than the intended level may throw off the perceived balance.

What reviewers are you talking about?

BTW, not all classical music lovers are technical trained in music.

Here's an example from another site, due to possible copyright issues I won't be specific.
"Absent was the rendering of any striking point counter-point or development of any counter balance sub elements within this new age symphonic blend. He has utilized the requisite synthesizer mix along with his symphonic scoring to attain a level of mere mediocrity..."
HuH ??
Now I did not rate this album a 5 either but there were 3 very good songs that he never even mentions.
Another album by same artist which received an album or year award, (alot of people must have thought it was pretty good). I thought it very good except for one song. He writes the album off as being to simple.
What makes this artist good is his use of instrument sounds that takes you to an imaginary place in your mind. But somehow this is lost on these individuals because of their techinical analysis.
I know we all have different tastes in music. The point I'm making is that the technical trianing of some classical people forces them to analize and discard music that is good because it is too simple.
As for violins I can listen for about an hour whether it be Beethoven's 5th or Leahy. I think its a great instrument. Just not as a lead instrument.

bobsticks
06-06-2006, 06:16 AM
I suppose I take a different perspective on this. If the review were aimed at musical laypeople, then perhaps the choice of analytical specifics might be innapropriate for the target audience, but I cannot necessarily find fault with the results based on certain criteria. It seems as though the reviewer disliked the work and gave very specific reasons rooted in musical theory. Fine, I appreciate specifics. You seem to like the work because,well, you like the work...and that's fine too.
I like most genres of music to some extent. My collection includes heavy metal, rock&roll, reggae, jazz, blues, bluegrass, acid-jazz, electronica, industrial, and classical. Each category has examples of music that touches or moves me and therefore, to me, is a valid expression. That having been said, it's hard to argue that certain styles do not require more musical knowledge and implementation of talent to create. To dismiss the review because you aren't familiar with the terminology is a bit of a reckless.
Then again, everyone hates the smartest kid in class...

Good listening to all

-Jar-
06-06-2006, 06:48 AM
Ever read a serious Metal fan go on about how Nirvanna sucks and has no talent?

How about a Prog head talking down about punk rock because it's "just 3 chords"

Or a Blues fan going on about wanky prog rock?

I don't think it has anything to do with classical or rock or whatever.

People write from their perspective. If music doesn't make sense to them from their perspective, of course, they aren't going to "get it"

I try to appreciate music from all perspectives, so my collection is very diverse, from Mahler and Shostakovich (classical) to Dead Kennedys and Black Flag (punk) to King Crimson and Yes (prog) to Iron Maiden and Mastodon (metal) to ....

well you get the idea.

Sometimes people just need to "put on new ears" so to speak.

It can be quite fun.

Don't generalize about classical fans because of a few "snobs"

There are plenty of snobs that listen to other kinds of music as well...

-jar

Troy
06-06-2006, 08:14 AM
Jeez, where do I start?

You can listen to more than 5 instruments if they are not amplified. Orchestras have 12 man violin sections because it adds volume. Generally, they are all playing the same notes anyway.

If you don't like violins, don't listen to classical music featuring that instrument. There's plenty that doesn't. (Pat? Help him out) I feel that way about the soprano sax (sure to induce vomiting, thanks to Mr. G) so I just avoid it.

Classical music snobs are a stereotype. Still, stereotypes are stereotypes for a reason. But it's not always that cut and dry. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

There are plenty of editorialists and reviewers that I completely disagree with so I just avoid them. Please, do the same.

Orchestras shouldn't play with rock bands anyway. Rock is so loud that orchestral instruments just get lost in the mix. The orchestra overplays to be heard and you end up "overwhelmed." Use those instruments as accent or pull the band way down in the mix. I've always felt rock bands performing with orchestras is just about the most pretentious, desperate reach for legitimacy a band can make, but that's just me.

If you don't know what "counterpoint" is, look it up.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=counterpoint
Counterpoint is used in most music, not just classical. No, ya don't have to go to Harvard on it, but jeez, learn the basics of how music works and you will enjoy all your music more. I will agree with you that that partial review you posted is amazingly over-written and florid. Awful stuff. I'd kick the guy's butt if I was his editor, but the gyst of the information there . . . well, you owe it to yourself to understand the simple mechanics of how music works.

dean_martin
06-06-2006, 08:57 AM
If you don't like violins, don't listen to classical music featuring that instrument. There's plenty that doesn't. (Pat? Help him out) I feel that way about the soprano sax (sure to induce vomiting, thanks to Mr. G) so I just avoid it.



I'm the same way w/soprano sax, but I did find one exception to the general rule that Mr. G ruined that instrument forever: Coltrane's version of "My Favorite Things."

Resident Loser
06-06-2006, 09:07 AM
(1)When I read reviews of an album by someone who likes classical music they usually give bad reviews because the music is not technically complicated.

(2) Not that I know what the heck they are talking about since I am not trained in music.

(3) Frankly I find most classical boring, maybe because it is too complicated.

(4) But mainly I think its the sqeaky violins. Violins are great when used appropriately.

(5)Usually in any application the simpliest method in acheiving functionality is the best and requires the most intelligence. I would think this applies to music as well. If you can acheive a theme using the simplist method it'll sound better than a complicated arrangement.After all I think we are only capable of absorbing about 5 instruments at a time.

(6)It seems to me technical training has blinded classical lovers from enjoying some very good music because it is to simple, for which I'm glad to be ignorant..:)



(1)Maybe they (whoever they are?) give things a bad review simply because they're bad? Simple? Try some Andres Segovia's or Yo-Yo Ma's solo works...can't get much simpler...one man/one instrument...It's the piece that matters...if it has a melody, it can be done simply or it can be framed within a complex orchestration..."Simple Gifts", the Shaker song, has a beautiful melody whether it is sung solo a' capella or if it's part of Aaron Copland's Appalachian Spring...a good tune is a good tune...

(2)Not many people are...it's the music that matters...Classical music is an acquired taste and if your first bite is not enjoyable, chances are you won't try a second...I think JMs mention of Mussorgsky's Pictures At An Exhibition is an excellent introductory piece...there are movements (the "pictures") that just plain kick @$$...Started out as a solo piano piece and has received a few orchestrations, most notably by Rimsky-Korsakov (although not the first). Most of the times it's on a disc with Night On Bald Mountain which, if for nothing else, is good background music for Halloween...Both give metal a run for the money...

(3)Complicated? Let's simplify things...If you think of the various sections of an orchestra as a single instrument we can reduce this seeming complexity...Strings, woodwinds, brass, etc. can only, generally speaking, play one note at a time...the reason there are so many instruments in each section is to produce volume...yes, harmonies can be produced, but let's keep it simple for now.

Think of your average power-trio: Guitar, bass, drums. A guitar, of the six-string variety, can play single notes...it can also play a chord...with a barre-chord, that's six notes = to six orchestral instruments playing in harmony...A bassist, limited to four strings, can do likewise...has the potential of four more "instruments" so-to-speak...a drummer has four appendages...bass drum, hi-hat with his feet and any combination of snares, toms, cybmals, etc...On top of that add a vocalist or two or three and you have a small orchesta's worth of potential combinations...Pump it out of a few Marshall stacks and gee, it sorta' becomes a bit more complex that you thought it was. Listen to groups like Yes, ELO, early Heart, Queen...really ain't so simple...get involved with synths or multi-traking and all bets are off!

(4)Yeah, it hate it when folks play Whack-a-Mole with them...You probably won't like a lot of Vivaldi then...well maybe someday...I think Itzhak Perlman might think otherwise...you're right, violins can grate, but again it's the recording and other things...listen to David Crosby & Graham Nash's "Wind On The Water" or Pete Townshend's "Street In The City"...symphonic...

(5)See #3 above.

(6)See #s 1 & 3

I've come a long way from Jan & Dean, Dylan And the Stones in the early 60s and Zepplin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath, etc. later on and while I still like and listen to them, classical and jazz have evolved as my preferred choices...add some Allison Krauss/Union Station, Zydeco and R. Carlos Nakai's Native American flute music into the mix...you simply outgrow simple l-lll-V chord progressions, pentatonic scales and 4/4 time...It's the melody man...Glenn Miller anyone?

jimHJJ(...A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H...I got a gal...in Kalamazoo...)

SORRY Troy, our posts crossed in the virtual mail...

Pat D
06-06-2006, 10:37 AM
Jeez, where do I start?
That's my reaction to your request in the next paragraph!:confused5: But you and others make a lot of good points.


If you don't like violins, don't listen to classical music featuring that instrument. There's plenty that doesn't. (Pat? Help him out) I feel that way about the soprano sax (sure to induce vomiting, thanks to Mr. G) so I just avoid it.
Where to start? Well, there are lots of music for solo instruments or which are not violins such as piano, cello, viola, oboe, clarinet, basson, flute, organ, guitar or lute, glass harmonica, etc. Sometimes they play with piano accompaniment.

There is quite a lot of classical music composed for guitar or arranged for guitar. Indeed, people who say they don't like classical music often seem to like it on guitar, and not just Spanish culture music, wonderful though a lot of it is. Christopher Parkening Plays Bach is very nice, and Sharon Isbin, John Williams and others have recorded Bach's Lute Suites.

Some of Villa Lobos music is written for orchestras of cellos, including the famous Bachianas Brasilieras No. 5 for soprano and 8 cellos.

I think Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition as arranged by Ravel is an orchestral work not dominated by the violins. So much music has massed strings, such as many symphonies, concertos, tone poems, and so on, it seems to me a shame do without, but still there is a lot of music left.

There is a lot of good music for bands. The old Mercury recordings of Frederick Fennel and the Eastman Wind Ensemble of march music by Sousa and others still sound excellent. Fennel also made the famous recording of the Holst Band Suites with the Cleveland Symphonic Winds on Telarc (sounds wonderful over my new speakers!).

I also like brass music, but some recordings can be quite bright. The Wallace Collection, Canadian Brass, Empire Brass, Edward Tarr, Guy Touvron and other brass ensembles have made some excellent recordings.

Single violins are often recorded rather brightly, I have to say, but still there a lot of chamber music recordings which are pretty mellow. The Quartetto Italiano's recordings of string quartets by Beethoven, Debussy, Haydn, and Mozart shouldn't sound unpleasant. The Vlach Quartet (of Prague) has recorded a lot of Dvorak's String Quartets and they sound very nice, nothing harsh there.

Vocal and choral music are another big area. Choral groups are often not well recorded, too, and many speakers don't do so well with them, either. But wireworm5 has a good set of speakers. My wife and I enjoy Reflections with the Roger Wagner Chorale on EMI, and it makes good bedtime listening.

One can often find a good collection of music at the public library and so can listen without buying. There may be a good classical music FM station, but I gather they are getting fewer and fewer in some parts of the world.

BradH
06-06-2006, 01:46 PM
When I read reviews of an album by someone who likes classical music they usually give bad reviews because the music is not technically complicated.

I think the reviewer was more concerned with the music being technically correct. This is the failing of many academically trained theorists. As Eno pointed out, they don't understand that with pop music each song is a self-contained world where the rules of the game are re-created every time. Classical reviewers will never understand this so they keep talking about "lack of counterpoint", etc.

Pop music takes a far more humanistic approach, you might say. It's basically folk art using feeling and emotion as its guiding principle (although rules abound even here). Making it work takes skill and lots of it, unless you concede that all pop music is worthless because it's "simple".

Keep in mind, there are old reviews of, say, Prokofiev and Shostakovich where they get panned for not being "correct". You still here it to this day. Mussorksy couldn't orchestrate, etc. But these works are still popular with the classical audience because the Humans love it.

Dusty Chalk
06-06-2006, 02:00 PM
Here's an example from another site..."Absent was the rendering of any striking point counter-point or development of any counter balance sub elements within this new age symphonic blend. He has utilized the requisite synthesizer mix along with his symphonic scoring to attain a level of mere mediocrity..."Do you accuse people of talking down to you every time you don't understand something? Well, then I guess I'm condescending (note: correct spelling), because I try to choose my words carefully, as well. There is nothing wrong with analyzing music -- in and of itself. There may be something wrong if one spends too much time and energy analyzing, and not enough time appreciating.

I mean, it's another thing if you disagree with them, and on that point, I agree that it's hard to argue coherently (the "...dancing about architecture..." analogy comes to mind), as it usually just reduces down to aesthetic resonances, and everyone's "resonance points" are different.

BradH
06-06-2006, 03:23 PM
the "...dancing about architecture..." analogy comes to mind

Bingo! That's just it. The theorists are obsessed with the architecture of the music and little else. Wireworm is right, they're condescending as hell. But the "complexity" debate confuses the whole issue. There's plenty of complex music that the theorists would browbeat because it doesn't follow the rules. It's not "structurally sound". In a sense, they are dancing about architecture.

Dusty Chalk
06-06-2006, 08:59 PM
Actually, my point was that when talking about music, there are two things to talk about -- one is the technical aspect, and the other is the "it sucks"/"it rocks" debate. Being as that the latter is entirely subjective, that leaves only the former to talk about. Hence, that is what they talk about.

Resident Loser
06-07-2006, 08:17 AM
...Devil's advocate here...




(1)they don't understand that with pop music each song is a self-contained world where the rules of the game are re-created every time.

(2) Classical reviewers will never understand this so they keep talking about "lack of counterpoint", etc.

(3)Pop music takes a far more humanistic approach, you might say. It's basically folk art using feeling and emotion as its guiding principle .

(1) Jumpin' butterballs...get real...re-created!!!!!!...re-hashed is more like it...pop is probably the most formulaic and derivative example of musical entertainment...As I said earlier...pretty much the standard l-lll-V chord progression, sometimes a relative minor thrown in, melodies in pentatonic scale and a regular incessant beat, mostly 4/4 time...little or no polyphony, more or less homophonic in nature, with little or no dynamic range, no tension or resolution in composition...just look at the pop icons...can you say cookie-cutter?

(2)Obviously you don't understand that counterpoint is just one facet of classical music and is primarily contained in music from the renaissance and baroque periods with J.S. Bach as one of the prime exponents of the style...Not all classical music exhibits it and it is not limited to that genre; Many jazz pieces contain contrapuntal melodies as does progressive rock...True folk music and rounds, such as songs like "Row, Row, Row Your Boat: are examples of counterpoint.

(3)Do you realize that Mozart was the pop of his day? That he and many other classical composers, notably Dvorak, actually used folk melodies as the basis for larger and more complex pieces...The majority of pop's appeal is to the masses and the consumer mentality...easily disposable, eminently forgettable...

jimHJJ(...mostly annoying...)

BradH
06-07-2006, 12:08 PM
...re-hashed is more like it...pop is probably the most formulaic and derivative example of musical entertainment.

If cookie-cutter pop icons want to re-create the same rules for themselves repeatedly then that's an artistic failing on their own part. It's not the fault of pop music itself. But even the best rock and pop artists aren't going to utilize your laundry list of technical terms with each song. Those rules are irrelevant to whether a song works or not. You either get this or you don't. Now, that may sound condescending and that's not my intent but I'm convinced some people just don't get this.


(2)Obviously you don't understand that counterpoint is just one facet of classical music...

I said "lack of counterpoint, etc." so obviously I do understand that.


(3)Do you realize that Mozart was the pop of his day?

Yes, but we're not in his day so pop is something different, namely folk art. As for pop music being folk art, I should've said in the earlier post that it was today's folk art. Yes, Mozart and other composers (especially in the operatic form) were the pop artists of their day but it wasn't considered folk music. (Insert Downfall of Humanity theme here). The folk themes used later by Dvorak, Khatchaturian, the so-called Russian Five and many others in the nationalist movement were all expanded into "larger and more complex pieces" as you say. It wasn't strictly folk art in their hands, hardly anything reproduced by gypsies around the campfire. So I stand by my point that modern pop takes a more humanistic approach. I don't want to lean on that too hard because I find much of the Romantic era and onward to be very emotional music. (That was its intent, after all.) By "humanistic", I mean pop is far less rules-based, using emotion as a guide to whether a song works or not.

MindGoneHaywire
06-07-2006, 12:27 PM
.....

Troy
06-07-2006, 03:20 PM
If cookie-cutter pop icons want to re-create the same rules for themselves repeatedly then that's an artistic failing on their own part. It's not the fault of pop music itself. But even the best rock and pop artists aren't going to utilize your laundry list of technical terms with each song. Those rules are irrelevant to whether a song works or not. You either get this or you don't. Now, that may sound condescending and that's not my intent but I'm convinced some people just don't get this.


Define "pop music." We talking Brittany Spears or The Beatles? Ashlee Simpson or Yes? Tony DiFranco or Paul Simon?

I think you guys are choking on your semantics.

BradH
06-07-2006, 07:28 PM
Define "pop music." We talking Brittany Spears or The Beatles? Ashlee Simpson or Yes? Tony DiFranco or Paul Simon?

All of the above.

Resident Loser
06-08-2006, 05:43 AM
(1)If cookie-cutter pop icons want to re-create the same rules for themselves repeatedly then that's an artistic failing on their own part. It's not the fault of pop music itself. But even the best rock and pop artists aren't going to utilize your laundry list of technical terms with each song. Those rules are irrelevant to whether a song works or not. You either get this or you don't. Now, that may sound condescending and that's not my intent but I'm convinced some people just don't get this.

(2)I said "lack of counterpoint, etc." so obviously I do understand that.

(3) As for pop music being folk art, I should've said in the earlier post that it was today's folk art...So I stand by my point that modern pop takes a more humanistic approach...I mean pop is far less rules-based, using emotion as a guide to whether a song works or not.



(1)When I say cookie-cutter, I don't necessarily mean an "artiste" who constantly follows the same blueprint from release to release. I'm referring to an industry wherein a look or a sound is repeatead ad infinitum...where clone after clone of a certain type is offered to the buying public.

My so-called laundry list of technical terms is a simple fact of life...A key signature dictates what it will contain as does the mode of chord progression...even atonal/12-tone/serial compositions follow rules...Pop and/or rock must have a melody, preferably along with a "hook" and be accessible to the buying public...More neophytes will come to jazz via Miles Davis' Kind Of Blue than with B!tches Brew or Coltrane's Giant Steps than A Love Supreme...however more exposure to the genre, will allow the listener to progress beyond the basic repertoire.

(2)An earlier quote of yours: I think the reviewer was more concerned with the music being technically correct. This is the failing of many academically trained theorists. As Eno pointed out, they don't understand that with pop music each song is a self-contained world where the rules of the game are re-created every time. Classical reviewers will never understand this so they keep talking about "lack of counterpoint", etc.

A bit of a blanket statement there...As I asked earlier in the post."Is it characterized as bad simply because it is bad?

Since counterpoint, or any other compositional device, is strictly a matter of the composers intent, there is no requisite inclusion of any or all of them...Taking a critique out-of-context is misleading...I doubt any critc would bemoan the lack of something that is not required simply for the sake of denigrating a piece (although I agree there are snobs out there)...The question that comes to mind in this instance is: did the composer attempt some sort of embellishment that was simply beyond his or her grasp? Was bad bad? Does it drone on and on with no end in sight; nothing to break up the monotony? I can think of more than a few current performers/groups guilty of this type of malevolence.

(3)On this we diverge completely and absolutely: Pop as folk art!!! I'll put some holes in that theory big enough to pass Clive Davis through.

Starting with the simple definiton of the term, the authors of folk art do not have any formal or academic training...By this we mean Uncle Bubba who crafts bent-willow furniture as gifts or for his own use or early Grandma Moses before she was classified in the atrtsy-fartsy term of primative or the subjects of the WPA efforts to seek out oral and aural traditions of the backwoods...

From the days of the "spoon/moon/June" of Tin Pan Alley to the Brill Building and Hitsville and even studios like the Hit Factory, pop has been product for the consuming public...Churning out song after song after song and following rules, it made no difference if you were a Julliard grad or an apprentice who learned their lessons by rote, or a producer or an engineer, that traning and experience removes pop from the purview of folk art. The aforementioned media mogul Mr. Davis himself, recently on national tee-vee referred to "...units sold...", hardly a term normally associated with any sort of legitimate art. I recall Joni Mitchell's lyric "...stoking the star-makin' machinery behind the popular song..."

And if someone wishes to cite the indie/internet dissemination of music as folk art, I see it simply as an end run around the media-based, corporate swine with the intent to achieve the same end...

jimHJJ(...ain't nothin' folksy about it...)

MasterCylinder
06-08-2006, 09:02 AM
I agree with most of Loser's comments..............in my music college days we were taught counterpoint as a common technique of composition. It was a junior-level course and guess what it was called ? ...... "Counterpoint"

In addition, once you get the hang of it, you create a dramtic effect to a melody.

Jon Anderson and Chris Squire have utilized this technique often......there are others but YES comes to mind first when I think of counterpoint.

Regarding the concerns of the OP -- I guess I was just lucky because I was the rare garage-rocker that went to music school at University and therefore I can love it all.

My CD changer is likely to have Liszt - Zappa - Dream Theater - Harry Nilsson
and many other odd combinations.

It's all good !

MasterCylinder
06-08-2006, 09:05 AM
And one more thing:

The comment about not absorbing more than 5 instruments at a time......................I think Mozart just pissed his pants.

Resident Loser
06-08-2006, 09:28 AM
...and just what does anyone expect from new age anything?

Talk about droning and monotonous...Usually a series of arpeggiated chords, synth swells, the ocassional call of a humpback whale or the sounds of a flock of loons on a lake...Wrap it up, tie it with a bow and take it away...WOW man, like f-a-a-ar out!...Most of it sounds like bad Pink Floyd...

jimHJJ(...although to some, that last statement might seem redundant...time to crawl back into my pyramid...aromatherapy anyone?...)

BradH
06-08-2006, 01:54 PM
My so-called laundry list of technical terms is a simple fact of life...A key signature dictates what it will contain as does the mode of chord progression...even atonal/12-tone/serial compositions follow rules...Pop and/or rock must have a melody, preferably along with a "hook" and be accessible to the buying public.

Actually, you're right on this one. Here's what you said: "pretty much the standard l-lll-V chord progression, sometimes a relative minor thrown in, melodies in pentatonic scale and a regular incessant beat, mostly 4/4 time...little or no polyphony, more or less homophonic in nature, with little or no dynamic range, no tension or resolution in composition." So what? You just described basic pop/rock in technical terms. (Dude, where's my counter balance sub elements?) It only proves my point that pop/rock is far less rules-based. I should've caught that earlier.


(2)An earlier quote of yours: I think the reviewer was more concerned with the music being technically correct. This is the failing of many academically trained theorists. As Eno pointed out, they don't understand that with pop music each song is a self-contained world where the rules of the game are re-created every time. Classical reviewers will never understand this so they keep talking about "lack of counterpoint", etc.

A bit of a blanket statement there...As I asked earlier in the post."Is it characterized as bad simply because it is bad?.

According to whom? Does the person doing the characterizing actually listen to all that university computer-generated numbers theory crap that nobody listens to? There's an extreme spectrum of opinion on how music should be appreciated. How far do you want to take the objective measuring process? What level of psychosis are we dealing with here? Now, obviously, that's an extreme example from the far end of the musical theorizing spectrum but I think the general public needs to be aware of how far some of these academics have crawled up their own a-holes. How much of that ivory tower attitiude has filtered down to the average classical music reviewer? Hopefully not much but I'm still skeptical of describing pop/rock in terms of music theory because it will almost always come up short and it does little in the way of describing the emotional content of the music, that's where the meat is. (After all, the Brill Building can be described in one sentence of music theory.) Here's another question: Does the emotional content of pop/rock lie in the music or the listener? With pop/rock, it's all very subjective as others have pointed out. Again, this is where the meat is and academics don't like that because it can't be annotated and measured.


The question that comes to mind in this instance is: did the composer attempt some sort of embellishment that was simply beyond his or her grasp?

Happens all the time. But I wish I had a dollar for every pop/rock musician who's talked specifically about not having formal training and are happy about that. The explanation they give is universal: "I was able to explore something I otherwise wouldn't have because it was wrong." Even prog bands say unfettered exploration is more important than formal training.


On this we diverge completely and absolutely: Pop as folk art!!! I'll put some holes in that theory big enough to pass Clive Davis through.

Starting with the simple definiton of the term, the authors of folk art do not have any formal or academic training...By this we mean Uncle Bubba who crafts bent-willow furniture as gifts.

You just described R.E.M.'s first album. It was the musical equivalent of the funky, weird, backwoods folk art around the Athens area. Sounds instead of willow sticks.


From the days of the "spoon/moon/June" of Tin Pan Alley to the Brill Building and Hitsville and even studios like the Hit Factory, pop has been product for the consuming public...Churning out song after song after song and following rules, it made no difference if you were a Julliard grad or an apprentice who learned their lessons by rote, or a producer or an engineer, that traning and experience removes pop from the purview of folk art.

It's a good point. Maybe I could stretch it and call the Brill Building and Tin Pan Alley schools of folk art. Maybe. But, again, the art was in the ability of those songs to evoke an emotional response in the listener no matter how similar the songs were from an academic perspective. To achieve that, you've got to approach each song in different ways according to the indiviual singer's style and abilities. It goes back to Eno's point about each song being an individual world. With pop/rock, you can annotate the music with something like "perform with balls for eight measures" but who knows what you would get into the mic? Keep in mind, there are no happy accidents in classical music performance but the pop/rock world incorporates them if it works.


And if someone wishes to cite the indie/internet dissemination of music as folk art, I see it simply as an end run around the media-based, corporate swine with the intent to achieve the same end.

Poor Uncle Bubba. He can't sell his chairs because then he wouldn't be a folk artist

Resident Loser
06-13-2006, 09:20 AM
Actually, you're right on this one. Here's what you said: "pretty much the standard l-lll-V chord progression, sometimes a relative minor thrown in, melodies in pentatonic scale and a regular incessant beat, mostly 4/4 time...little or no polyphony, more or less homophonic in nature, with little or no dynamic range, no tension or resolution in composition." So what? You just described basic pop/rock in technical terms. (Dude, where's my counter balance sub elements?) It only proves my point that pop/rock is far less rules-based. I should've caught that earlier.

...the vast majority of pop tunes adhere to basic tenents...without analyzing each and every possible variant, no matter how slight it might be (and unfortunately time and space constraints preclude that route) how exactly does one objectively describe any musical genre without pointing out the salient points of it's composition...even using lay terms? A melody may seem lyrical to one person and droning or atonal to another...the lyrics "deep" or banal depending on POV...


Opera in a nutshell: A musical overture usually a medoly of various musical themes to be expanded upon during the performance...Two young star-crossed lovers kept apart out of jealousy by a bad man, usually singing bass, usually in a position of power ...some musical moments, the requisite introduction of inane supporting characters...yada-yada-yada...a 16ton weight from the deus ex machina eliminates the bad man...the rest live hapily ever after...or the young girl dies, one or the other...

Jazz in a very-reductionist nutshell: The introductory theme is introduced in toto and each and every player takes a crack at an improvistional foray into musical excess with varing levels of success...maybe some key changes...

Just because someone may be able to quantify good or bad composition relative to known yardsticks doesn't make them condescending. Simply having a wider range of knowledge or experience used to be something to aspire to, now it's fodder from criticism?

Contrary to your idea, pop/rock is rules-based and more importantly dreck-based and derivative...pretty much dictated by what sells.




(1) There's an extreme spectrum of opinion on how music should be appreciated. How far do you want to take the objective measuring process?...

(2) Hopefully not much but I'm still skeptical of describing pop/rock in terms of music theory because it will almost always come up short and it does little in the way of describing the emotional content of the music, that's where the meat is...

(3) Here's another question: Does the emotional content of pop/rock lie in the music or the listener?... With pop/rock, it's all very subjective as others have pointed out.

(4) Again, this is where the meat is and academics don't like that because it can't be annotated and measured.

(1), (2) and (4)...Who exactly is asking for an emotional level to be objectively quantified? If someone criticizes droning, boring compositional technique as droning and boring because it goes nowhere, well..that's the way the cookie crumbles...One can take the chords C, F and G, drop a homophonic melody onto a good piece of poetry and create a masterpiece...I'd venture a guess untold numbers have been produced with such a simplistic and definitely low-tech methodology...however, in those cases the whole is simply greater than the sum of it's parts...in most other cases, it's just repetitve cr@p.

(3) The music is either good or bad, the listener either likes it or dislikes it and depending on his or her POV and affinity to the performer is either transfixed or sent screaming from the room...For the full impact, pharmacological aids may sometimes be required.


Happens all the time. But I wish I had a dollar for every pop/rock musician who's talked specifically about not having formal training and are happy about that. The explanation they give is universal: "I was able to explore something I otherwise wouldn't have because it was wrong." Even prog bands say unfettered exploration is more important than formal training.

POPPYCOCK and a true cop-out...Most likely said with a dismissive wave of the hand and a brushing-back of the hair...yeah, that's the ticket...All great artists (particularly those in the visual arts) took what they learned doing the same ol' same ol' and improvised and built on those abilities...impressionism rose from realism...the same holds true for music...being able to understand more than the basics doesn't restrict you, it enables one to see the deeper contextual relationships in music, opening doors the untrained eye can't even see...Other untrained composers have (for lack of better words) a God-given talent or an innate musical sensibility that allows them to stand well above the crowd, they are few and far between...and certainly conspicuous by their absence in the current available crop.

I have never met a musician (myself included) who didn't wish they knew more theory or were more proficient at specific abilities...

imHJJ(...and I've met more than a few...)

Troy
06-13-2006, 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BradH
Happens all the time. But I wish I had a dollar for every pop/rock musician who's talked specifically about not having formal training and are happy about that. The explanation they give is universal: "I was able to explore something I otherwise wouldn't have because it was wrong." Even prog bands say unfettered exploration is more important than formal training.

POPPYCOCK and a true cop-out...Most likely said with a dismissive wave of the hand and a brushing-back of the hair...yeah, that's the ticket...All great artists (particularly those in the visual arts) took what they learned doing the same ol' same ol' and improvised and built on those abilities...impressionism rose from realism...the same holds true for music...being able to understand more than the basics doesn't restrict you, it enables one to see the deeper contextual relationships in music, opening doors the untrained eye can't even see...Other untrained composers have (for lack of better words) a God-given talent or an innate musical sensibility that allows them to stand well above the crowd, they are few and far between...and certainly conspicuous by their absence in the current available crop.

I have never met a musician (myself included) who didn't wish they knew more theory or were more proficient at specific abilities...

I'm with Brad on this one. The minute you place rules on art, the minute said art goes stale and predictable. Art school teaches both technique and theory. Technique is very important, theory is not as important. I'll take a piece created by a truly inspired natural talent over art created by an over-educated theorist any day.

I'm not saying that I disagree that artists always wish they had more ability and understanding of their media, but their understanding of theory is NOT the crux of why the art they create is good or bad.

-Jar-
06-13-2006, 10:36 AM
I'll take a piece created by a truly inspired natural talent over art created by an over-educated theorist any day.


I agree Troy! This is the same Troy right?

:D

-jar

BradH
06-13-2006, 11:24 AM
...how exactly does one objectively describe any musical genre without pointing out the salient points of it's composition...even using lay terms?

One doesn't. Why does pop need to be described objectively? What would be the point other than to show how simple it is in most cases?


A melody may seem lyrical to one person and droning or atonal to another...the lyrics "deep" or banal depending on POV...

Yeah, I covered that. It's very subjective. The criteria for pop is in the hands of the people and not the academy. Meanwhile, professional rock critics pretend their career is relevant.


Just because someone may be able to quantify good or bad composition relative to known yardsticks doesn't make them condescending. Simply having a wider range of knowledge or experience used to be something to aspire to, now it's fodder from criticism?

It is if applied in a pointless manner. Applying known yardsticks to pop is pointless.


Contrary to your idea, pop/rock is rules-based and more importantly dreck-based and derivative...pretty much dictated by what sells.

Definitely in the hands of the people. And they're far more quixotic and fluid in their tastes than the academics. The rules for pop keep changing (see hip-hop) so that calls into question the very existence of long term rules for pop. Again....Eno....he nailed it.


Who exactly is asking for an emotional level to be objectively quantified?

Nobody I'm aware of. I'm saying it would be pointless to try. And yet the emotion is largely the point of pop/rock which you described perfectly with this bit here:


One can take the chords C, F and G, drop a homophonic melody onto a good piece of poetry and create a masterpiece...I'd venture a guess untold numbers have been produced with such a simplistic and definitely low-tech methodology...however, in those cases the whole is simply greater than the sum of it's parts...in most other cases, it's just repetitve cr@p.

So let's take those masterpieces where the whole is more than the sum of its parts. How can you measure that with music theory? You can't, you can only measure the simplicity of the parts. That's why the analytical approach misses the entire point.


...being able to understand more than the basics doesn't restrict you, it enables one to see the deeper contextual relationships in music, opening doors the untrained eye can't even see...

Those musicians weren't talking about understanding "more than the basics". They're talking about serious formal training.


I have never met a musician (myself included) who didn't wish they knew more theory or were more proficient at specific abilities...

Yeah, I never met one who didn't say the same thing (myself included). But a pop/rock musician will discard a rule if it gets in his way. That's because each song is the artist's own world if he wants it to be. The seriously formally trained are reluctant to discard the rules and this is the point those musicians were making. I've seen the comment an untold number of times.

I doubt we're going to see eye-to-eye on much of this. Good fun, though. I think we lost MindGoneHaywire in the first inning.

Resident Loser
06-14-2006, 08:54 AM
...to continue...and I beg your indulgence in some further musings...

I have come to the conclusion after many years as a mediocre and less-than-prodigious tunesmith, that a good song will transcend genre...makes no diff if it starts out as a simple melody accompanied by a neophyte musician...if it has legs, it can make the trip from pop to country, to jazz, to classical and vice-versa...If it absolutely needs to be done in one way in order to make it work, it has failed compositionally.

You can take the previously mentioned three-chord progression, and superimpose a simple melody consisting simply of the three notes of each triad, invert it or subvert it in a manner of your choosing...perhaps bring out the old diatonic "Marine Band" if you want to get away from pure and absolute homophony...attach a meaningful lyric and bada-boom: a song is born...

Next step is: Perhaps some finger-pickin' instead of a dead-on strum/strum/strum...It doesn't have to commit counterpoint, maybe just some simple harmonic content to provide a bit more interest...dare I say the word?...complexity!

Obviously one can go the counterpoint route...now that we're a-pickin', we can bring in another melody that can add to the harmony, perhaps create harmonies...layering simply adds texture and interest. Now hold that thought...

Quite some time ago a music critic for the London Times penned this:

"Their noisy items are the ones that arouse teenagers' excitement. Glutinous crooning is generally out of fashion these days, and even a song about "Misery" sounds fundamentally quite cheerful; the slow, sad song about "That Boy", which figures prominently...is expressively unusual for its lugubrious music, but harmonically it is one of their most intriguing, with its chains of pan-diatonic clusters, and the sentiment is acceptable because voiced cleanly and crisply. But harmonic interest is typical of their quicker songs too, and one gets the impression that they think simultaneously of harmony and melody, so firmly are the major tonic sevenths and ninths built into their tunes, and the flat submediant key switches, so natural is the Aeolian cadence at the end of "Not a Second Time" (the chord progression which ends Mahler's "Song of the Earth")."

The writers of the music were Lennon/McCartney and it is reported that Lennon, in response, mockingly remarked he thought Aeolian cadences to be some kind of "exotic birds".

Were John and Paul that deep? Did George Martin have a hand in any of it? Or did it just plain sound good? An after-the-fact analysis revealed things that may have been quite accidental, yet quantifiable; surely the majority of the record-buying public wouldn't know a tonic seventh from a gin and tonic...

Does today's music just sound that bad? Are the words meaningless? Is the music painfully rudimentary? I admit I've pretty much given up on contemporary music in favor of classical and early jazz. There comes a point in time that simplicity is boring and holds no challenge.

Most of what I have heard is droning, plodding and repetitious or simply derivative...writers can't write...no significant diiference between verse and chorus, no coda, no reprise, no tension or release...zero dynamics...just a bland soundscape (actually calling it a soundscape makes it sound far more exotic than it actually is)...more like sonic tones of gray. Performers exhibit the energy of a tree sloth and they take themselves and their mumblings wa-a-a-y too seriously...He!! I'd rather watch and listen to DEVO...they know the joke and know everyone else does also...

People like Roy Orbison broke the rules..mis-matched, odd-numbered lines in stanzas, no seeming continuity and a disregard for accepted formula...he simply wrote what he felt...difference was he was good at it...his work has stood the test of time. Where will most of today's psuedo-icons be a short time hence?

So if writers can't provide a good lyric, is the music any good? If the music is simple to the point of tedium, does the lyric say anything? If it has nothing going for it and the performer is as bland as rice pudding, what can any critic do except to point out such shortcomings...

jimHJJ(...and I'm quite certain it's not a generational thing...)

BradH
06-14-2006, 06:37 PM
I have come to the conclusion after many years as a mediocre and less-than-prodigious tunesmith, that a good song will transcend genre...

Yeah, I've been saying that for years. Steve & Edie did a straight crooning version of "Black Hole Sun" by whoever the hell that was. It was amazing. Zep's "Rain Song" could've been done by any number of jazz singers. Is solid composition the key to that? Hmmm, interesting. Anyway, looks like bluegrass covers are all the rage now. I'm still waiting for the bluegrass version of Yes's "The Ritual"...still waiting...Queensryche, that's who did "Black Hole Sun". (Found that brain cell.)


and it is reported that Lennon, in response, mockingly remarked he thought Aeolian cadences to be some kind of "exotic birds".

McCartney was also amused by those reviews. It's an amazing phenomenon that I had a feeling would come up in this discussion. It raises the idea that someone could naturally compose technically complex and correct music if they're just damned good. In the Beatles' case, it apparently actually happened. Same with Brian Wilson according to Lenny (as Greg Lake called Bernstein to his face with a lit joint in his mouth...love that story).


Did George Martin have a hand in any of it?

No, just the orchestration in some of the later songs. It's interesting that The Beatles were writing songs complex enough to satisfy the heavy musos but were utterly out of their league when it came to orchestration. Even some of the classical composers take knocks because of a weakness in this area. Ravel was apparently a better orchestrator than Debussy, for instance, although some people can hardly distinguish between the two. George Martin told Lennon he had to transpose some sheet music for a French horn or something, I can't remember exactly. Lennon wondered why they couldn't just give him the same score as the strings. Martin told him the horn was in a different key. Lennon's response? "That's stupid!"


Does today's music just sound that bad?

Huge subject. This forum has had pages and pages devoted to that topic over the years. Huge debates on rap, punk, prog, etc. Personally, I'm reluctant to be too judgemental about that because I have no doubt that younger people are sometimes hearing something I don't, especially on an emotional level. But I'm convinced there's not much new under the sun these days in rock music. I loved the Britpop explosion of the mid-90's because they took the songsmith attitude of the 60's and combined it with the energy of punk & new wave. But it was like a voice in the back of my mind saying, "You know this isn't really all that innovative, don't you?" (Yeah, but it's awesome. Go away.)

At this point in time, there's a monstrous back catalog of rock that people 40 and under have never heard. They tend to get blown away when they're exposed to it if they're music lovers. (Ever play The Jam for a Green Day fan?) That's cool but troubling for the future of rock music. They should be saying there's nothing new there. It's not like they're in the sixties being turned onto big band swing. They're not being exposed to a different, older genre. It's just a lot of good music that more than measures up to today's rock. Maybe I'm an old fogey. Maybe rock is dead. Maybe the cutting edge mentality is employed by video game developers. I just don't hear people taking chances and selling huge numbers at the same time like they used to. But, to be honest, I really don't care either. There will always be good bands and artists around. There's still a lot of "world music" that's going to fuse into pop and rock in the coming decades. That's way overdue.


He!! I'd rather watch and listen to DEVO...

I used to pay money to do that very thing. Killer live band. Lotta DEVO fans around these parts.


Where will most of today's psuedo-icons be a short time hence?

Chris Squire was asked that question recently. I liked his answer: some will last, others won't, just like in the sixties.


If it has nothing going for it and the performer is as bland as rice pudding, what can any critic do except to point out such shortcomings...

They can say it's boring. Period. That's really the most valid thing a rock journalist could do in that case. Criticizing it using music theory doesn't make sense, partly because of the reasons I've outlined, partly because the reader wouldn't know what he was talking about and wouldn't care. Even if you could imagine a world where all younger musicians were struck by a burning desire to learn music theory they would still have to find something to say lyrically. If new songwriters think they're suffering because of every little slight that happened in their boring, suburban Gen Y upbringing then an advanced knowledge of harmonics isn't going to help that.

I think some innovation will continue but it won't be at the center of intense focus the way it was when rock was young. The market is much larger and more diffuse with the cutting edge happening under various radars while the corporate behemoths push two or three icons per year. That's how I see it playing out. Also, I'd still keep an eye out on the Brits. They like to publicly celebrate the hell out of new styles before they trash it and move on to the next big thing. That churning process could, again, result in some great new stuff. For awhile. But the rest of the world is coming online in a big way so who knows what will pop up. And I promise you, the lack of musical knowledge will not stand in the way of Brazilians or Chinese or Indian youth anymore than it blocked American garage bands cutting their teeth on the Stones, Animals and Yardbirds. There is good music. There will be good music. It's just not on the cover of Time right now. Maybe it won't be compositionally correct but the chicken-and-egg dance between pop artists and audiences will go on. Some of it will suck, some of it won't. Same as it ever was.