Your Top 10 Favorite Composers

[Madiel]

Trouble arises when some people try to extend this legitimate area of comparison and to put, for instance, Beethoven and Tori Amos on the same list. It is only then that we ask --- in vain --- to be presented with at least a modicum of evidence beyond the obviously incontrovertible and unfalsifiable "I like them both the same" that musically, philosophically, intellectually and aesthetically they can be compared and that the comparison yields none better than the other.

No, trouble arises when you don't read the title of the damn thread. Because you can't possibly have had the title of the thread in mind while writing this absurd paragraph.

[Madiel]

PS But thanks all the same for highlighting these two. You've reminded me that I have both of their signatures in the same book. Beethoven's on the outside of a travel diary that my parents gave me before heading to Europe, and Amos' on the inside from when I met her in Vienna.

Musically, you're right though. I'd more readily compare Amos with Chopin, but he just fell off the draft list. It was a damn close thing though. If only his work had been a bit more varied.

[Ken B]

I won't give my list, just note that it incorporates men from multiple continents born centuries apart, who speak a variety of languages, none of them sharing a native tongue with me by the way, who wrote music for 1 to several hundred performers, dozens of kinds of instruments, with and without words in again a variety of languages, or varying lengths and forms using varied harmonic systems. Not a variety remotely comparable to that of pop music all written during my lifetime of course, but what can a narrow soul do?

[Todd]

On the contrary, if anything we reject such comparisons.

I suppose there's some truth to that: the self-appointed cultural elite of GMG (which is pretty self-explanatory if you have a dictionary handy) denigrate popular music as inferior, as "bad", as something that can be made "better", or perhaps something that could have been made better if it hadn't already been done much better in the past than can ever be done now or in the future, yet offering nothing substantive in terms of falsifiable (such fancy philosophizing) arguments as to what that means, or to what (objective?) evaluative criteria are used in making such assessments.  My bad, I mischaracterized what the self-appointed cultural elite wrote.  The self-appointed cultural elite have not made comparisons.  The self-appointed cultural elite have, without even deigning to so much as listen to much, if anything, in the way of modern pop music, already decided what it is and what it can be.  Had you not so expertly used bold type in your quote, I would amend the sentence, but alas, it is not to be.

[Jo498]

I regret having been drawn into that silly classical vs. popular discussion because I am not really very interested in that. As I mentioned several times, my original point was different. Namely that the absolute dominance of popular music is crippling for the development of musical tastes. It is a "closing of the musical mind" that music equals "music" in the framework of Anglo-american popular music of the last 60 years. Sure, present company is excluded because we here all listen to a broad spectrum.
But facts like that people refer to everything as "song", that the organization of downloads, databases etc. are all tailored to popular music based on songs are all evidence for that dominance. (Imagine that someone would expect all books to be like comic books and would be surprised about a book without illustrations and considerably exceeding the typical length of comic books. By the absurdity of such a scenario we see how much worse the situation is for music than for literature.)
The dominance can hardly be denied and the second claim is very plausible from what we know about cognitive development, imprinting etc. (Orfeo conceded the gist of that second claim as true, of course without my implication that it was "crippling".)

As for me not knowing what I am talking about wrt popular music. It is true that I never really was into popular music. There is obviously a lot I have never heard and of course I am not following any recent development (I am just too busy with music I care about for that).
But I think I have heard enough of the "classics" or well known songs/albums from the 1960s through the late 1990s to have a good impression. If I include folk (which is admittedly more than half of it), I have about 50 discs with popular music on my shelves and I have heard a much broader spectrum because there was a time when I went out more frequently and I also have a brother who is very interested in popular music beyond the "mainstream" (and we are both in our early/mid 40s, so no 60s nostalgia). On that basis I am rather unimpressed with the variety and the more sophisticated stuff I have heard, e.g. "The Wall" is still basically only songs (There is nothing wrong with "only songs" and I admittedly have not heard some of the other "Art rock" stuff from the 70s/80s, apparently it didn't really stick anyway and most pop reverted to the formats that fit its purposes better). 
There is a lot I do not dislike but hardly anything I care to listen to on a regular basis. (There is also stuff like most rap and some of the "screaming" heavy metal/punk/hardcore variety I absolutely detest and would switch off immediately. I also admittedly detest many more general aspects of current (popular) culture but that's beside the point.)

The "self-appointed cultural elite" nonsense I am not going to comment on. I never claimed any of that although I deplore that words like "intellectual" or "cultural elite" have become invective (and not only the words but the very concepts behind them).

[Karl Henning]

. . . but what can a narrow soul do?

Enlarge, boy, enlarge! 

[Karl Henning]

I regret having been drawn into that silly classical vs. popular discussion because I am not really very interested in that.

If the intent is immiscible contrast, I am not much interested in that, either.  There is a practical sense in which I am clearly "on one side," since my artistic endeavors are nothing like pop music. (Or, I don't know, maybe my recent dabbling in electronic efforts qualifies as a point of similarity.)

I find the comparison/contrast exercise of interest, even of quite practical interest, frequently.  I don't think there is any need to apologize for the activity.

[North Star]

But I think I have heard enough of the "classics" or well known songs/albums from the 1960s through the late 1990s to have a good impression. If I include folk (which is admittedly more than half of it), I have about 50 discs with popular music on my shelves and I have heard a much broader spectrum because there was a time when I went out more frequently and I also have a brother who is very interested in popular music beyond the "mainstream" (and we are both in our early/mid 40s, so no 60s nostalgia). On that basis I am rather unimpressed with the variety and the more sophisticated stuff I have heard, e.g. "The Wall" is still basically only songs (There is nothing wrong with "only songs" and I admittedly have not heard some of the other "Art rock" stuff from the 70s/80s, apparently it didn't really stick anyway and most pop reverted to the formats that fit its purposes better).

And what about something like Charles Mingus' Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, then?

[Brian]

And what about something like Charles Mingus' Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, then?

Still (in another thread) my nomination for the Great American Symphony  0:)

[Karl Henning]

Still (in another thread) my nomination for the Great American Symphony  0:)

Save that it is definitely a chamber ensemble 

[Ken B]

Still (in another thread) my nomination for the Great American Symphony  0:)

In what sense is it current pop music? I mean, isn't it rather obviously art music? Form over 50 years ago? 

[Brian]

In what sense is it current pop music? I mean, isn't it rather obviously art music? Form over 50 years ago?

I think you must have quoted the wrong person, but Jo498 was talking about 70s rock albums, anyways.

[Ken B]

I think you must have quoted the wrong person

That would be true no matter whom I quoted on this thread.

[Todd]

Namely that the absolute dominance of popular music is crippling for the development of musical tastes.

What evidence do you have for this assertion?  And what, precisely, is meant by "musical tastes"?  Part of the point of what I wrote is that broad assertions are made without evidence, and then vague and intrinsically elitist proclamations are made, and the assertions, without objective or at least thoroughly reasoned arguments, appear to be nothing other than an "I have good taste (as I define it); I don't like it; therefore it's bad" type syllogistic argument.  This weak argument is exacerbated by the fact that it is based on little, if any, listening.

Now, of course, no one need like pop music, or movies, or pop culture generally, and that's quite fine.  As an example, I listen to almost no rap music, because my prior experience with it has not been positive.  That written, I know there are some musically substantive acts in the genre.  Some of the music has already lasted decades and receives accolades from the purported experts in modern music (ie, critics and academics), and some will last for decades, or centuries, more.  Some of it may well be contemporary high art.  I do not see any evidence that rap music's existence has been deleterious to society or culture, or that it has crippled the development of musical taste.  I just don't like much of what I've heard.  But my preference is purely subjective.  I know that.

[Jo498]

The overwhelming factual dominance of popular music is not in dispute, I hope.

In fact, almost everything else is so marginal compared to it, that this is already some evidence of the conditioning. The conditioning hypothesis also fits well with what we generally know about cognitive development, learning etc. It fits well with tons of anecdotal evidence, e.g. that many listeners of popular music stick to their teenage favorites, that most classical listeners start as teenagers and that the theory seems wrong that people somewhat "automatically" switch from popular to classical around 30-40 or so.

I do not know if there is conclusive scientific evidence. I am not even sure how this should look like and how it could be done without impossible "experiments on humans" (namely isolating children).
There is evidence that people who listen to classical and/or jazz usually have broader tastes, namely that they listen to popular as well (this also correlates with socioeconomic status, I read one such paper more than 10 years ago but I cannot find the link anymore). I you google "musical taste status" you will find both popular and scientific articles. There seems to be an ongoing debate in that branch of sociology whether "omnivorousness" or exclusiveness of musical tastes conveys more "cultural capital".

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cars.12068/abstract;jsessionid=B40B548CDDE9CD526CF73CFB84EF744A.f01t02

But as we probably have discussed elsewhere a lot of that research is fairly shallow.
Actually those very studies show the incredible dominance of the forms of popular music. Because they also tend to have "classical" as one genre (sometimes opera as another which is also problematic because opera is not disjoint with but a species of classical) whereas pop, rock, christian music, whatever are treated as alternative genres, each supposedly of equal weight or relevance as classical.
This is like investigating reading preferences and grouping "highbrow literature" in one class and compare this to classes like superhero comic, franco-belgian comics, graphic novels, Science fiction, Fantasy, books with vampires etc. Namely you take "serious stuff" from many hundred years and cultures together in one block and compare it to lowbrow or middle brow genre stuff from the last 50-80 years and divide up the latter into many subgenres.

[Madiel]

Actually those very studies show the incredible dominance of the forms of popular music. Because they also tend to have "classical" as one genre (sometimes opera as another which is also problematic because opera is not disjoint with but a species of classical) whereas pop, rock, christian music, whatever are treated as alternative genres, each supposedly of equal weight or relevance as classical.
This is like investigating reading preferences and grouping "highbrow literature" in one class and compare this to classes like superhero comic, franco-belgian comics, graphic novels, Science fiction, Fantasy, books with vampires etc. Namely you take "serious stuff" from many hundred years and cultures together in one block and compare it to lowbrow or middle brow genre stuff from the last 50-80 years and divide up the latter into many subgenres.

But this is exactly what I criticised you for doing in the opposite direction. You complain about the lack of division of classical, but up until now you've insisted on avoiding divisions of pop music. When I observed that my nephew can subdivide heavy metal, you dismissed the idea out of hand.

You can't have it both ways. If you want people to recognise all the variety within your preferred kind of music, you really ought to have the courtesy of recognising all the variety within the kind of music you don't prefer.

[Jo498]

I think you must have quoted the wrong person, but Jo498 was talking about 70s rock albums, anyways.

In any case I did say nothing at all about Jazz which is what Mingus is usually classified under.

Historically, Jazz from the 30s to the early 60s is probably what should be studied to understand how popular music in today's sense (pop, rock etc.) largely replaced Jazz as popular music. And at the same time some strains of Jazz became more and more esoteric. I wonder what happened earlier: (Some) Jazz becoming less popular and more difficult to appreciate or the popular (proto)Rock music of the 1950s being more popular than Jazz among younger people and then the arising of complex and less accessible Jazz because it had became a music for aficionados already.

And again, single examples cannot disprove general trends and tendencies. Correct my if I am wrong but my impression is that the 70s/early 80s "Art Rock" with concept albums and sometimes breaking up the typical "song" into freer and more adventurous forms remained or reverted to a niche thing. Some of the very musicians who were associated with that genre reverted to more traditional songs fairly soon (e.g. Genesis).

[Jo498]

But this is exactly what I criticised you for doing in the opposite direction. You complain about the lack of division of classical, but up until now you've insisted on avoiding divisions of pop music. When I observed that my nephew can subdivide heavy metal, you dismissed the idea out of hand.

You can't have it both ways. If you want people to recognise all the variety within your preferred kind of music, you really ought to have the courtesy of recognising all the variety within the kind of music you don't prefer.

Sorry, but this has nothing to do with preference. The point is not the lack or overabundance of divisions. The point is that BECAUSE the general song format of Anglo-american popular music since the mid-20th century (for lack of a better term) with its standard features is so pervasive that small divisions become important (often in a tribalist way because there is an accompanying youth culture, many divisions are socially more important than musically - the same distorted shouting and brutal sounds are used in supposedly "leftist" punk and in neo-nazi leaning music of some Scandinavian or German groups).

If you don't agree that a Monteverdi Madrigal, a Bach Toccata, a Schubert song and a Wagner opera are objectively and obviously (far) more different from each other than song classified as "hard rock" and "death metal" I simply do not know how to explain this because for me this really is a obvious starting point and nothing I could offer as explanation or elaboration would be as obvious as this starting point.

(That said, there might be good sociological reasons for such classifying, although often they seem merely to be imported from the record selling business.)

[Madiel]

If you don't agree that a Monteverdi Madrigal, a Bach Toccata, a Schubert song and a Wagner opera are objectively and obviously (far) more different from each other than song classified as "hard rock" and "death metal" I simply do not know how to explain this because for me this really is a obvious starting point and nothing I could offer as explanation or elaboration would be as obvious as this starting point.

Again, you deliberately pick two things from popular music you can regard as close together, and pick several things from classical music that are as far apart as you can think of.

This is my whole problem, the habit of making consciously unfair comparisons. You're not picking the popular musical examples to be far apart, you're picking them to be close together. The straw man nature of what you're doing is obvious.

[Madiel]

Heck, I can get further apart than that picking items from a single band.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2OmNmV3y4Y

vs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYmxHN4z7k

vs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=552CM7Syslw


are a better representation of the width of popular music than anything you would offer when you're trying to prove your own argument that it all sounds the same.

That's one band and one singer on all those three tracks.