What Pop music owes to Classical

[PDG]

I love Cole Porter and Irving Berlin.
But the difference between Gershwin and any of the others you named is that the first could write beautiful songs, piano concertos, rhapsodies, a kind of symphonic poem (American in Paris) and even an opera, and managed to do his own orchestration too (the 2nd rhapsody the first work he did completely himself), as well as providing tin-pan-alley with musicals,
and the latter couldn't, and were depending on arrangers to get their work all well orchestrated.

The people you named are certainly 20C giants.
But they are not "classical" composers. Quite a lot of people of the Jazz scene or in rock-music on the other hand -though not classical- are IMO real composers. Only think of Zappa or Miles Davies to name but two.
They did something with their material, not just writing a melody and harmonize it (and leave the orchestral/instrumental colours e.g to arrangers)

I know where you're coming from on this, but Michael's point I'm sure was about the apparent lack of melodic invention in modern "classical" music, which is not to say that melody alone makes for great music, but it is surely an important consideration given that modern "classical" (or perhaps read "elitist") composers seem to be lacking in any other general, accessible direction, anyway.

I did say that Rodgers, Kern, etc were 'in-between' composers; I didn't call them symphonists or classicists or anything else. Other than that they had an ability to create wonderful melodies. I'd be interested in the name of any "classical" composer post-1970 who possesses such a talent. Please recommend and I'll seek out and listen.

Had computers been around at the time, I'm sure Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart would have used them. Who these days bothers to put quill to parchment? Rodgers, Kern, etc didn't arrange their own music because it was easier to let arrangers do it for them in the hustle and bustle of fast-paced 20th century America. But they COULD write for orchestra. They were trained to do it. Rodgers would usually conduct from a sight-read score in rehearsing the orchestra prior to a new musical debuting on Broadway. He also conducted Broadway performances such as the 1,000th of South Pacific.

Leonard Bernstein scored Candide but for West Side story, he let someone else do the chore, I believe. Interesting...

[Roehre]

Because music is the food of love (or so they say.)

[Michael]

Why do I keep getting hungry on this forum?

Because music is the food of love (or so they say.)

[Sorrano]

Why do I keep getting hungry on this forum?

[Quijote]

[...] this is a discussion with similarities to the differences between excellent cooks and excellent chefs. Both rightly are appreciated, but have to be appreciated differently.

I like the distinction you make, Roehre. Can it be applied to 'the symphony' (which has to appeal to a larger audience, rather like a 'canteen' has to nourish a large number of employees) and 'chamber music' (appealing to a more refined taste, rather like a gourmet restaurant)?

[Roehre]

Sorry, Roehre, but you're off-target here.

The three composers I mentioned are certainly that and not mere "tunesmiths" - a rather derogatory term. You might apply it to Irving Berlin, for example, who had no classical training or adeptitude at the piano, but not at the men I named. There are others I could have roll-called such as Sigmund Romberg or Cole Porter, and of course Gershwin.

These are all C20th musical giants whose music is accessed and accessible by infinitely more people than the recent, lifeless, unwelcoming state of "classical" music. In fact, I question whether the term should even be applied any more.

I can give many examples of these named composers writing and conducting if not symphonically, then certainly orchestrally.

I love Cole Porter and Irving Berlin.
But the difference between Gershwin and any of the others you named is that the first could write beautiful songs, piano concertos, rhapsodies, a kind of symphonic poem (American in Paris) and even an opera, and managed to do his own orchestration too (the 2nd rhapsody the first work he did completely himself), as well as providing tin-pan-alley with musicals,
and the latter couldn't, and were depending on arrangers to get their work all well orchestrated.

The people you named are certainly 20C giants.
But they are not "classical" composers. Quite a lot of people of the Jazz scene or in rock-music on the other hand -though not classical- are IMO real composers. Only think of Zappa or Miles Davies to name but two.
They did something with their material, not just writing a melody and harmonize it (and leave the orchestral/instrumental colours e.g to arrangers)

I don't think "classical" music is unwelcoming or lifeless, it's just requiring another way of listening -

this is a discussion with similarities to the differences between excellent cooks and excellent chefs. Both rightly are appreciated, but have to be appreciated differently.

[Michael]

Richard Rodgers who was mentioned above also features in a later concert at this venue. But the Beatles/Beach Boys/Beethoven programme beats all!
I wanna go!

[Quijote]

Shaken, not stirred.

[Quijote]

Re the concert programme above posted by Michael :
Like, totally awesome, yeah?
[Oh dear, he's trying to be 'hip'. Ed.]
Be quiet, Ed. Anyway, I'm signing up for the chamber music with Martinis and table next to the performers.

[Michael]

Re the above discussion, dig the first item on this concert programme for 2013, man! Fab! Gear, man!

http://www.calphil.org/concerts/walt...-concert-hall/






.

[Peter]

Roehre, I believe you are correct. The classical way was not catchy or singular melodies. It was a different style then. I would imagine many classical musicians could write a simple tune. But, I do believe that the classical style was not about that and that the composers did not think like that about music.

Does anyone feel I am write about this?

I think we're at cross purposes here - Roehre is using the term 'Classical' to refer to all 'serious' music as opposed to popular music, I think you are referring specifically to the classical style (c.1750-1830) and in that context I think we're all in agreement that melody was not as important as structure - indeed that was the point I was making, however melody did become very important to composers in the 19th century. Russian composers in particular had a problem because their folk-tunes were very self contained and since they were attempting to break away from the Germanic influence - for Tchaikovsky especially, this presented real problems because he was still conforming to the western forms of Symphony, sonata. Even if you take a German composer, Schumann for example, the problems that the rise of melody presented are evident in that his best music is generally to be found in his Lieder and piano works rather than big symphonic structures no matter how fine they are.

[Preston]

Roehre, I believe you are correct. The classical way was not catchy or singular melodies. It was a different style then. I would imagine many classical musicians could write a simple tune. But, I do believe that the classical style was not about that and that the composers did not think like that about music.

Does anyone feel I am write about this?

[PDG]

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.

Sorry, Roehre, but you're off-target here.

The three composers I mentioned are certainly that and not mere "tunesmiths" - a rather derogatory term. You might apply it to Irving Berlin, for example, who had no classical training or adeptitude at the piano, but not at the men I named. There are others I could have roll-called such as Sigmund Romberg or Cole Porter, and of course Gershwin.

These are all C20th musical giants whose music is accessed and accessible by infinitely more people than the recent, lifeless, unwelcoming state of "classical" music. In fact, I question whether the term should even be applied any more.

I can give many examples of these named composers writing and conducting if not symphonically, then certainly orchestrally.

[Peter]

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).

I'm not convinced that to be a composer one has always to produce music of symphonic potential - Schubert was known in his time primarily as a composer of Lieder and melody was intrinsic to his musical nature, regardless of what he was 'composing'. Moreover, this was a problem that most Romantic composers faced - the Romantics generally weren't the masters of form that the Classical composers had been precisely because melody was of more importance and didn't fit naturally into the structures they inherited - it is simply a different approach to composition. Beethoven I'm sure would have had no difficulty in producing 60 variations on 'Der Flohwalzer' if he could have been bothered!

[Peter]

I'm not taking the bait !

Probably wise!