Do you think too much pop/rock music can be a waste of time?

[Rinaldo]

The sad truth is that this whole "everything-goes, everyone-is-an-artist, there-is-no-objective-greatness-or-bullshit-in-art" crap is pervasive in the contemporary culture, and it is an equally sad reflection on the selfsame culture that anyone daring to question this pop(ular) consensus is automatically equated with a racist or a Nazi.

'Everything-goes' ≠ 'everything that goes is wortwhile'. While I do believe there is some measure of objectivity to be reached when talking about art, mainly when it comes to the craft that might be required to, let's say, compose an opera or perform a demanding piece, the fundamental problem is: art evolves through time and what you find great or terrible is informed by your subjective context (e.g. cultural surroundings, intelligence, experience, taste.. even mood!).



Duchamp is BS? Cage a hack? A lot of intelligent, knowledgeable people disagree. Why are they wrong and why are you or James, both of you - and I'm not being ironic here - intelligent and knowledgeable as well, right?

[Monsieur Croche]

~ The Millennial Whoop ~

https://www.youtube.com/v/MN23lFKfpck

...heading back to the OP, it is just as possible to say:

too much Medtner is a massive waste of time.

too much Beethoven is a massive waste of time.

too much Bach is a massive waste of time.

too much Xenakis is a massive waste of time.

...and in a particular context, each of the above would be true.

[Jo498]

is just pretentious pseudo-artistic pseudo-philosophical shit, would I not be labeled "an arrogant asshole"?

I don't think so. Duchamps was probably mainly making a dadaist point about what is visual art. The very point of that piece is to stir  confusion and you might be termed ignorant but not arrogant. That's different with music. And the most hotly debated contrast here is not provocative or dadaist avantgarde vs. more traditional "great art" but "traditional art music" vs. contemporary popular music.
Another difference is that visual art, even the controversial kind can nowadays often make quite a bit of money whereas avantgarde music is usually a money sink... so it tends to get a free pass because we admire everything and everyone that makes lots of money.

With literature I see again slight differences. I do not think anyone would defend that it is just personal preferences between "Fifty Shades of Grey" or Dan Brown novels and, say Roth or Bellow. But I think there is more "middle brow" stuff in literature. I have no problem to agree that some of the better popular music is roughly equivalent to such "middle brow" stuff, say, John Le Carré or also some crime fiction, the better SciFi and other stuff. Some of it might not be my cup of tea but it is not worthless and even more than good entertainment. And I could also concede that quite a bit of classical falls into this category although "middle brow" classical probably petered out with the demise of operetta. For me this still leaves a vast amount of classical music, most of what are the recognized "Great Works" way above "middle brow" and at a level I have not heard any popular music approach.
(Of course the boundaries are fuzzy. But I think one of the most pervasive fallacies in such discussions is that fuzzy boundaries should mean that no sensible boundaries, criteria, value judgments etc. exist at all. This is simply wrong. There are many clear cases and often not that many boundary cases and very few of them are important. So what if operetta or hungarian dances/rhapsodies are on the boundary? This does not make Brahms' symphonies or violin sonatas or Wagner's operas any less clear cases of serious/high culture/preferred adjective.)

But a lot of popular music is in my impression closer to Dan Brown or worse. It is such that I would hardly get pleasure from it as background entertainment (actually I really detest that contemporary popular music (and usually the worst kind) is playing EVERYWHERE in the background in public spaces or anytime one switches on the TV or some radio stations).

And to me it also seems obvious that many smart and educated people are only vaguely aware that there is music not conforming to the "paradigm" and usually the restrictions mentioned by Monsieur Croche of (mainly anglosaxon) 20th+21st century popular music. Evidence: "song" for all kinds of musical pieces. The domination of contemporary popular music dominates the perception of what music typically is to an extent IMO not true in other arts.

[Florestan]

Are the Bollywood movies "sentimental trash" because the actors are bad, or because they are Indian or because Indians want to make such movies or because your cultural reference makes them look sentimental trash?

If one takes as cultural reference the Vedas, Mahbharata and Ramayana the Bollywood movies are still sentimental trash.

[The new erato]

There's lots of trash in modern visual art (and other arts as well), but this painting:



is simply making a totally different statement from this one:



I don't think they were ever meant to be comparable. They are about totally different things, just as Lennon, Cage or Beethoven are operating in completely different contexts.

[Florestan]

There's lots of trash in modern visual art (and other arts as well), but this painting:



is simply making a totally different statement from this one:



I don't think they were ever meant to be comparable. They are about totally different things, just as Lennon, Cage or Beethoven are operating in completely different contexts.

My favorite Magritte is The Seducer:



And yes, Beethoven and Chopin were not the best choices. I should have picked, say, Schubert over Lennon and Richard Strauss over Led Zeppelin: songs compared to songs.

[Florestan]

Folks, just as an aside -- and a glimpse into the types of spam that the moderators deal with every week -- the original poster, ostensibly from Los Angeles, was actually posting from Vietnam, and cut-and-pasted the initial post from a longtime (apparently) Talk Classical poster. (The tone and punctuation, and the way the profile was completed, made me suspicious and I checked the IP against the multiple sources we use to determine if an account is "real.")

Though the account has been deleted, I decided not to delete the thread itself, since some of you have posted thoughtful replies.

Such is the Internet in 2016...sigh.

So carry on! 

--Bruce

[The new erato]

Yes, Schubert vs Lennon/McCartney is a more realistic comparison than Lennon/McCartney  vs Parsifal.

But much as I am into Lieder, and a great admirer of Schubert, I wouldn't point blank say that anything by Schubert is a priori better than anything by said songwriters (or Cole Porter, Rodgers/Hart etc for that matter).

I think that that kind of comparison is extremely different to make. On a scale of emotional impact (and not artistic judgment whatever that is), songs like Der Zwerg, Erlkønig and Gretchen am Spinnrade impacts me more than any Wagner opera. But so do some of Lennon/McCartneys best work. I wouldn't use that as proof to claim that Schubert's songs are more artistically valid than Wagner.  But neither can I claim that they are far superior to the best of Lennon/McCartney.

And I'm not even sure I care as long as they all bring me joy, sadness, excitement etc. 

[Florestan]

There's lots of trash in modern visual art (and other arts as well)

The worst thing about it is that those who call it by its right name, ie trash, are dismissed as ignorant dimwits unable or unwilling to appreciate and enjoy the subtle beauty of such "art". Of course, the best and the brightest being the "artists" themselves and their promoters --- in fact, a very lucrative coterie, as Jo mentioned.

[The new erato]

Yes, it's become much more about the artist than about what they make. If they define themself as artist, and do something that makes you take notice, then it's art. The sad thing is that I think people like Magritte, Duchamps and Cage actually had valid points to make. But I suspect those points these days have been done to death.

[Jo498]

I don't think "Hard Day's Night" or even something pretentious like "A day in the life" were meant to be comparable to Beethoven's 5th or "Erwartung". But listeners who are deeply emotionally attached to many songs or even "icons" of contemporary (for large values of "contemporary", so roughly the last 70 years or even 100) popular music often do not want do see obvious differences.

There are also differences between the typical classical Lied and typical pop/rock song; Monsieur Croche mentioned some. That does not imply that every exemplar of one genre is necessarily superior to any of the other. But I don't recall any Beatles (to stick with them) song I would put even close to Schubert's Doppelgänger (or dozens of others) in emotional impact.
(Interestingly, although Lieder/Art songs should be most accessible to listeners of popular music they seem a niche even within classical music...)

[Florestan]

Yes, Schubert vs Lennon/McCartney is a more realistic comparison than Lennon/McCartney  vs Parsifal.

But much as I am into Lieder, and a great admirer of Schubert, I wouldn't point blank say that anything by Schubert is a priori better than anything by said songwriters (or Cole Porter, Rodgers/Hart etc for that matter).

I think that that kind of comparison is extremely different to make. On a scale of emotional impact (and not artistic judgment whatever that is), songs like Der Zwerg, Erlkønig and Gretchen am Spinnrade impacts me more than any Wagner opera. But so do some of Lennon/McCartneys best work. I wouldn't use that as proof to claim that Schubert's songs are more artistically valid than Wagner.  But neither can I claim that they are far superior to the best of Lennon/McCartney.

And I'm not even sure I care as long as they all bring me joy, sadness, excitement etc.

Fair enough.

In all honesty, I have yet to hear a Lennon / McCartney song that elicit the smallest emotion or passion or feeling in me. They all enter my right ear and leave my left one (or is it the other way around?) without any trace left in the process. And this actually goes for about 90% of the pop/rock music.

There are, of course, artists and bands that I enjoy hearing every now and then, mostly accidentally on my car radio, but overall I place the classical songs and Lieder far, far above any pop/rock I have heard / enjoyed.

[The new erato]

I don't think "Hard Day's Night" or even something pretentious like "A day in the life" were meant to be comparable to Beethoven's 5th or "Erwartung".

Of course, and they were never meant to be. Neither were Schubert's lieder meant to be comparable to Glucks's operas, though I'll concede they were closer to that tradition

But listeners who are deeply emotionally attached to many songs or even "icons" of contemporary (for large values of "contemporary", so roughly the last 70 years or even 100) popular music often do not want do see obvious differences.

Art is about emotion - I think none would prefer a meticulously constructed piece that doesn't move them in some way from something that connects to them?

There are also differences between the typical classical Lied and typical pop/rock song; Monsieur Croche mentioned some. That does not imply that every exemplar of one genre is necessarily superior to any of the other.

I agree, but again, context. A listener to a Schubert song coming from a polyphonic Renaissance traditon would fell them sorely lacking. Does that diminish them?

But I don't recall any Beatles (to stick with them) song I would put even close to Schubert's Doppelgänger (or dozens of others) in emotional impact.

But that is you, and your context (though I perfectly understand your point). In fact, there's even  tons of classical lovers that couldn't care less about Der Doppelgänger.... Or Der Leiermann ... one of the scariest pieces of music ever written, not withstanding metal bands with tons of amplificatiion, ligting effects and supposedly scary make up and costumes. Schubert really scares me, while those guys make me roll around in laughter at the silliness of the human race. A valid point of Expression of course, but hardly what they were seeking I guess.

[The new erato]

And this actually goes for about 90% of the pop/rock music.

I think that percentage should be higher considering all that's out there.

[James]

But I don't recall any Beatles (to stick with them) song I would put even close to Schubert's Doppelgänger (or dozens of others) in emotional impact.

I'd take the Beatles over Schubert any day.

[The new erato]

I'd take the Beatles over Schubert any day.

Because they have a picture of Karl Heinz on the Sergeant Pepper cover? As I said, emotional impact means a lot.

[James]

In all honesty, I have yet to hear a Lennon / McCartney song that elicit the smallest emotion or passion or feeling in me. They all enter my right ear and leave my left one (or is it the other way around?) without any trace left in the process. And this actually goes for about 90% of the pop/rock music.

And about 99.9% of classical music for me. Most of it is really quite dull.

[James]

Because they have a picture of Karl Heinz on the Sergeant Pepper cover? As I said, emotional impact means a lot.

Nope. I can honestly live without the Beatles & Schubert quite easily. But to be honest, they had a bigger impact on me and I'd rather listen to them than anything Schubert (Zzzzz) has done, if forced to choose.

[James]

Art is about emotion.

That's bullshit. Art can elicit different responses from people. Doesn't have to be just emotional. It can be intellectual too, or a combination of both. There is many ways of looking at it. And many people can and do relate to it (or any art) more than just cheap emotion. There are often many things to notice & appreciate.

[James]

Total Genius. Up there with BACH imo. And like a lot of Rembrandt .. just awe inspiring.