What Pop music owes to Classical

[Roehre]

....
Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are much greater composers than the two named above, but they (even the Great Mogul) never lost sight of their public.
....

Mozart's publishers asked him to stop composing piano quartets, as the public didn't want them. Beethoven was more than once snubbed because of delivering a work which wasn't to the taste of his public, or the person who commissioned the work, the Mass in C op.86 one such an example, the Kreutzer Sonata another. And didn't he shout to Schuppanzigh that he didn't think of the "bloody strings" when composing?

[Quijote]

You'll be answering to the Don for that!!

I'm not taking the bait !

[Michael]

I was merely highlighting one area in which much of today's music is lacking. Obviously, melody in "serious" music is not an end in itself - but it is the soul of music - and I do believe certain composers do not possess it in a remarkable degree.

I picked the names Birtwistle and Schoenberg at random to illustrate the huge gap between accessible music and the esoteric stuff which is deliberately aimed at a small (and by implication, superior) audience.

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are much greater composers than the two named above, but they (even the Great Mogul) never lost sight of their public.
Granted, it took a while for the public to catch up but it was never their intention to aim their compositions at a niche audience.



.

[Roehre]

Totally. Any of these composers would put the Schoenbergs and the Birtwistles to shame.

This only shows you haven't a clear idea what defines the difference between being a tune-smith and a composer.

It is significant that not one single tune of Kern, Loewe or Rodgers has either symphonic potential or is used as theme for a variation set by composers like Walton, Schnittke, Arnold, Hugh Wood (as Mozart and Beethoven did with the tune-smiths of their times). Wood e.g. used Burwell/Parish's "Sweet Lorraine" for a variation-mvt in his pianoconcerto op.31 from 1991.

They are nice to hear and certainly enjoyable, but that is not what "classical" composition is about. These tunes are impossible to develop, inert entities.

Before you start pointing to e.g. Mozart for the tunes: his music as well as Beethoven's was according to many critics of their days tuneless and extravagantly difficult to comprehend.

As far as Schönberg is concerned: the scherzo of his 2nd string quartet -the one in which he leaves tonality- is a perfectly singable and real quasi-viennese tune, one of many examples to be found in his output (including the dodecaphonic works).

[Peter]

Totally. Any of these composers wuld put the Schoenbergs and the Birtwistles to shame.

You'll be answering to the Don for that!!

[Michael]

Yes, and of course there are also the 'in-between' composers (neither classical nor pop but incorporating a bit of both) whose melodies continue to astound. I think of Jerome Kern, Frederick Loewe and especially Richard Rodgers. Listen again to a verse of Rodgers' Edelweiss. That leap from the second to the third note shows - to use that expression again - genius.

Totally. Any of these composers wuld put the Schoenbergs and the Birtwistles to shame.

[PDG]

One of them being the ability to write a good tune. Many "pop" composers (especially in the 1960's) would put a lot of modern "serious" composers to shame.

Yes, and of course there are also the 'in-between' composers (neither classical nor pop but incorporating a bit of both) whose melodies continue to astound. I think of Jerome Kern, Frederick Loewe and especially Richard Rodgers. Listen again to a verse of Rodgers' Edelweiss. That leap from the second to the third note shows - to use that expression again - genius.

[Michael]

The Germans could now and then write a good tune:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZviYmTMpBXE

[Peter]

One of them being the ability to write a good tune. Many "pop" composers (especially in the 1960's) would put a lot of modern "serious" composers to shame.

I agree Michael - there is the most terrible snobbery amongst 'serious' musicians that denigrates the 'tune', but in reality how many even great composers were great writers of melody? Schubert without doubt is one, but others such as Verdi or Puccini are vilified because of that very trait, daring to write a beautiful melody that everyone loves except the critics! In reality it is no mean feat to write a fine tune as Elgar said 'it comes rarely in a lifetime'. In our modern world, complexity and the intellect have lost touch with the simplicity and beauty of life.

[Preston]

One of them being the ability to write a good tune. Many "pop" composers (especially in the 1960's) would put a lot of modern "serious" composers to shame.

I want to add to this. Often times, based on what I have heard, I wonder if a lot (I know some can) of the modern composers can write a good tune, also. Or a tune at all for that matter. Maybe it's not their style but I wonder if they could even do it?

Also, look what the 20th century classical enthusiasts revere - Copland, Stravinsky, etc. I admit they had some musical skills and good skills with orchestration but in no way do they move the way much popular music has. What should I like the hoedown - yes, at times I'll listen to it - but I have heard things far more moving than that. Truthfully I think most of Copland's music is tosh. No deep emotion or feeling. Nothing that makes you want more. And the same with Stravinsky.

And, I think that what is important - is not the complexity of the music - but what moves us - that is the true nature of music.

It's like there is a war going on between modern and traditional - but this war is based on stereotyping. Not all modern is the same as not all traditional.

[Preston]

One of them being the ability to write a good tune. Many "pop" composers (especially in the 1960's) would put a lot of modern "serious" composers to shame.

Well said, Michael! The rubbish I hear with a lot these avant-garde composers is nonsense. It reminds me of the age old saying - someone asks "why is it genius" another answers, "it's genius because you can't understand it". Lol!

No, but seriously - agreed.

[Michael]

I admit the greatest geniuses come from classical music but many of the classical composers do not match what some of the pop musicians are coming out with.

One of them being the ability to write a good tune. Many "pop" composers (especially in the 1960's) would put a lot of modern "serious" composers to shame.

[Preston]

I would like to say, and will (lol), that I urge people who are devout classicists and feel that it is the only "true musical art" to try and open their minds - for there are some exceptionally talented popular musicians.

What I don't like about a lot of classical enthusiasts is they just immediately go against popular music. Yet, what I get a great kick out of, is that while going against popular music they expect the musicians to sit on stage in tuxedos, for truly royal elitism.

I admit the greatest geniuses come from classical music but many of the classical composers do not match what some of the pop musicians are coming out with.

Again, there are some exceptionally talented and musically gifted popular musicians.

It is like a lot of you just knock music because it is modern - without ever giving it a fair chance.

[Michael]

I'm afraid if it came to the crunch, there would be absolutely no contest.
Nobody equals the Black Spaniard of Bonn.

[Quijote]

Hmmm.
I have Book No. 1 and it is rather good. I also have another of the books listed, "Revolution in the Head" .... so it seems Mr Goodall is a Beatles fan. Maybe I should forgive him his Beethovenian deafness.
Maybe.

I knew you wouldn't miss that one, Michael. In fact when I read the Guardian article I had precisely you in mind. Ah, so now we see you confronted by divided loyalties !!!!