Popular Music

[Steve]

No, it wasn't. You are confusing popularity with what is generally referred to as popular music. The two aren't symptomatic of each other, much like you don't need to belong to a 'classic' period to be considered a classical composer. Those terms are only relative and their semantic connotations are only partially correlated to the styles and genres they are trying to express.

Agreed.

[The Mad Hatter]

Thanks for not typing a rant!   

No, I am rather acquainted with them, through my kids, and remain unimpressed.

As far as "tone colors" in rock, and speed, again, I am not impressed by combining 2-4 guitars.  In the later 70's and 80's synthesizers do help to improve the pallet, but that again comes out of the electronic experiments of the 1950's, and was not invented by a rock group, vid. "Switched on Bach."

Speed?  Aggression?  See Liszt, Paganini, Prokofiev, Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Bartok (Miraculous Mandarin outdoes Rob       Zombie any day!) 

But, you're actually missing the music here - a combination of two or three guitars, a bass and drums is no more or less complex than two violins, a viola and a 'cello. Between technical innovation (yes, it does exist in rock as elsewhere) and electronic manipulation, there is a wealth of tone colour to be found in these combinations.

Apart from which, the musicians I mentioned aren't really guitar based: Brian Eno only uses it as a background instrument; Keith Jarrett is a pianist; Radiohead have done some great stuff with guitars, but since 2001 have been far more interested in electronic music; and Tom Waits can make it sound (as he seemingly can with any instrument) like the guitar itself is a heavy smoker.

Josquin: jazz wasn't always complex, and was certainly popular when it began. How would you define 'popular' music?

I'm also curious as to what people on this forum - particularly those arguing against popular music - think of the traditional world musics.

[sonic1]

Either I don't understand your definition of popular music, or you don't understand the history of jazz, which was the popular music of its day before it got too squirley for the average person and before the Beatles/Elvis/etc came along.

I have more to say to the above but I have to go to work.

more later.

[greg]

I think the whole argument with which is more innovative- popular music or classical, is not really an argument you can prove one way or the other.
It depends on who you're comparing..... it's true much of rock uses just power chords, or minor or major triads almost all the time, but then you have a lot of rock that doesn't. Sonic Youth, for example, where very discordant and used all sorts of guitar effects. Steve Vai and Joe Satriani often have atonal solos, which is always fun. This one song by Joe Satriani, Woodstock Jam is made up of a repeating oddly-timed bass figure that repeats for 15 minutes while all he does is solo with melodic fragments and uses different spaceship noises that remind me a lot of Stockhausen, then it culminates into a gloriously demonic, atonal ending.

Most of the rock stuff nowadays is pretty simple, and not original at all, or only a little. There's guitarists and bands out there who ARE pretty creative, but they aren't recognized because of course, most people people don't want something interesting, only something accessible.

[Cato]

But, you're actually missing the music here - a combination of two or three guitars, a bass and drums is no more or less complex than two violins, a viola and a 'cello. Between technical innovation (yes, it does exist in rock as elsewhere) and electronic manipulation, there is a wealth of tone colour to be found in these combinations.

Apart from which, the musicians I mentioned aren't really guitar based: Brian Eno only uses it as a background instrument; Keith Jarrett is a pianist; Radiohead have done some great stuff with guitars, but since 2001 have been far more interested in electronic music; and Tom Waits can make it sound (as he seemingly can with any instrument) like the guitar itself is a heavy smoker.

Josquin: jazz wasn't always complex, and was certainly popular when it began. How would you define 'popular' music?

I'm also curious as to what people on this forum - particularly those arguing against popular music - think of the traditional world musics.

As I mentioned earlier -       -  I am acquainted with your triumvirate and am not impressed, regardless of the instrumentation.

I have already mentioned Jazz as quite fine, and there are all kinds of it, simple to complex: certainly Bartok was impressed by Art Tatum, as I am.

Sonic1 is correct, except for the use of the definite article in calling Jazz "the popular music of its day" as it co-existed with other popular styles.  Certainly it came to dominate in the long run.

But you are forgetting the main point of my post some days ago: the influence of rock music on contemporary classical seems to be nil, unlike what happened with Jazz in the 1920's and beyond.

When Elliot Carter in his dotage sees fit to somehow incorporate Brian Eno, etc. into his music, when Penderecki transmogrifies Mr. Waits, when Rautavaara or Saariaho start to sound like the Go-Go's or the Wilson sisters of Heart, then one can accurately claim that Rock has influenced contemporary classical composers.

The evidence so far shows an influence in the other direction, as I wrote earlier:  STOCKHAUSEN and Glass came before Joe Satriani.  Greg proves my point here with more evidence.

And pop music is fun stuff: but it ain't Bruckner, buster!     

[sonic1]

I think we are having a problem with definitions here. When I think of popular music, I am thinking of music that is made by people who are not necessarily classically trained, at least as composers are, and the music is listened to by a the culture at large. Jazz at one time was largely listened to by a lot of people. It may be that some of the audience had to have white players to listen to it, but none-the-less jazz was the popular music for a little while. I mean, come on guys, swing??? It dominated for a while.

And then there are all the different periods way before jazz, the popular folk musics of each region which effected composers greatly. Can we imagine a lot of Bartok without his hungarian folk music influence? I realize there is probably a difference between folk music and popular music, but talking about all these different periods in one conversation makes definitions difficult, because before radio, and recorded music, what exactly would you CALL popular music? I would say the folk music of each region was generally the popular music of the day, and that popular music was more regional than before.

Anyway, that is a digression. But there seems to be an effort to amputate Jazz from popular music, and I don't understand why. You will have to work harder than just TELLING me that it isn't.

It had the majority of radio play at one time, it dominated the recording industry at one time, most people when they went dancing, danced to swing at one time....what about that ISN'T popular??

[sonic1]

Regarding rock music:

I will admit that rock music has a relative minor influence on classical music. Of course that also depends on who you are talking about. Brian Eno's influence on the minimalists for example cannot be overlooked.

Someone mentioned sonic youth: they used a lot of very innovative techniques, like microtonal drone strings, and such. But I won't argue that Rock had a huge influence on composers musically.

[The Mad Hatter]

As I mentioned earlier -       -  I am acquainted with your triumvirate and am not impressed, regardless of the instrumentation.

I have already mentioned Jazz as quite fine, and there are all kinds of it, simple to complex: certainly Bartok was impressed by Art Tatum, as I am.

Sonic1 is correct, except for the use of the definite article in calling Jazz "the popular music of its day" as it co-existed with other popular styles.  Certainly it came to dominate in the long run.

But you are forgetting the main point of my post some days ago: the influence of rock music on contemporary classical seems to be nil, unlike what happened with Jazz in the 1920's and beyond.

When Elliot Carter in his dotage sees fit to somehow incorporate Brian Eno, etc. into his music, when Penderecki transmogrifies Mr. Waits, when Rautavaara or Saariaho start to sound like the Go-Go's or the Wilson sisters of Heart, then one can accurately claim that Rock has influenced contemporary classical composers.

The evidence so far shows an influence in the other direction, as I wrote earlier:  STOCKHAUSEN and Glass came before Joe Satriani.  Greg proves my point here with more evidence.

And pop music is fun stuff: but it ain't Bruckner, buster!     

European composers, probably not. But many American and Australian composers will freely admit an influence of The Beatles or others. But you must bear in mind that the music itself is still young - it's only been here for fifty or so years - and many of the people who will be influenced by it haven't established themselves internationally yet. Most of the composers you named are rather beyond the stage of absorbing influences at this stage - except for Glass, who did in fact write two symphonies based on the music of David Bowie.

Also, when did this become a debate as to which music had the greater influence on the other? Is that important? Or is it about the worth of the music alone? And what makes music valuable? We could talk about extended techniques (Mozart had no use for these) or expressiveness (not an idea Stravinsky was fond of), or beauty (Boulez can be described as a lot of things, but this isn't one of them), or complexity (which doesn't really allow for Mahler leading to Copland).

Can you answer two things for me, by the way? Firstly, what do you think of 'World' music? That is, the various traditional musics? And secondly, when you were listening - specifically to Eno and Radiohead (as the other two are considerably more conventional, I may deal with them later) - what were you actually listening for?

[Cato]

Mad Hatter wrote:

[i

]Firstly, what do you think of 'World' music? That is, the various traditional musics? And secondly, when you were listening - specifically to Eno and Radiohead (as the other two are considerably more conventional, I may deal with them later) - what were you actually listening for?

[/i]

1. World music is the wrong term: that is the synthesized Madison Avenueized stuff.  Traditional folk music has some things which interest me, but I will admit to liking Dvorak e.g. and what he does under the influence, rather than just hearing a Czech folk tune unadorned.

2. Anything of interest.

"Many American and Australian composers will freely admit an influence..."

Many?  Start naming names!   

[The Mad Hatter]

Mad Hatter wrote:

[i[/i]

1. World music is the wrong term: that is the synthesized Madison Avenueized stuff.  Traditional folk music has some things which interest me, but I will admit to liking Dvorak e.g. and what he does under the influence, rather than just hearing a Czech folk tune unadorned.

2. Anything of interest.

"Many American and Australian composers will freely admit an influence..."

Many?  Start naming names!   

Wish I could (though Gavin Bryars and Philip Glass come to mind) - I'm trying to recall a lecture I attended three years ago...until I find my notes at least, I'll concede this point to you.

World music may be the wrong term for 'traditional folk music' - that's just a semantic point, no more than throwing two artists like Radiohead and Britney Spears into the same category. I don't really listen to much of either - I used the term 'world music' to differentiate from the specific tradition of one country or another.

Fair enough if you don't like popular music - I just don't understand how such a vast array of different styles can be written off so completely.

[Grazioso]

But, you're actually missing the music here - a combination of two or three guitars, a bass and drums is no more or less complex than two violins, a viola and a 'cello. Between technical innovation (yes, it does exist in rock as elsewhere) and electronic manipulation, there is a wealth of tone colour to be found in these combinations.

Actually, you can wring far more varied tone colors out of that typical rock combination of instruments than a string quartet. The guitar alone, when electrified, can sound like just about anything thanks to electronic effects and synthesis.

It had the majority of radio play at one time, it dominated the recording industry at one time, most people when they went dancing, danced to swing at one time....what about that ISN'T popular??

Of course jazz was popular music during swing's heyday, but with certain socio-economic shifts and the birth of "modern jazz" with bebop and all the various post-bop styles--when the music's complexity and intellectualism started to rise exponentially--it ceased to be popular in either sense.

[Cato]

Wish I could (though Gavin Bryars and Philip Glass come to mind) - I'm trying to recall a lecture I attended three years ago...until I find my notes at least, I'll concede this point to you.

World music may be the wrong term for 'traditional folk music' - that's just a semantic point, no more than throwing two artists like Radiohead and Britney Spears into the same category. I don't really listen to much of either - I used the term 'world music' to differentiate from the specific tradition of one country or another.

Fair enough if you don't like popular music - I just don't understand how such a vast array of different styles can be written off so completely.

(My emphasis!)

Please read carefully!  I DO like popular music!!!  Haven't you noticed all the groups I mentioned?  I will admit - in public -to liking The Monkees and the The Beach Boys!  I am not "writing them off"!

What I am disputing is the contention that Rock 'n' Roll has been somehow influential on contemporary classical composers: it is just the opposite, as mentioned earlier.

[The Mad Hatter]

(My emphasis!)

Please read carefully!  I DO like popular music!!!  Haven't you noticed all the groups I mentioned?  I will admit - in public -to liking The Monkees and the The Beach Boys!  I am not "writing them off"!

What I am disputing is the contention that Rock 'n' Roll has been somehow influential on contemporary classical composers: it is just the opposite, as mentioned earlier.

Sorry, I was speaking more generally, rather than just of you. But please don't tell me that you think influence can only work in one direction - surely I don't need to cite examples to dispute this? No, rock, pop, electronica, dance, etc., etc., have not had a great influence on classical yet. But that neither takes from its value as music, nor suggests that it will never happen.

Grazioso: that's actually what I was getting at.

[Cato]

Sorry, I was speaking more generally, rather than just of you. But please don't tell me that you think influence can only work in one direction - surely I don't need to cite examples to dispute this? No, rock, pop, electronica, dance, etc., etc., have not had a great influence on classical yet. But that neither takes from its value as music, nor suggests that it will never happen.

Agreed!  But after 50 years, if Rock 'n' Roll ain't had an influence yet, I'd say it ain't gonna never!   

But who knows?  Maybe somebody will produce an incredible Variations on a Theme of Kathy Valentine and then...!

[karlhenning]

Please read carefully!  I DO like popular music!!!  Haven't you noticed all the groups I mentioned?  I will admit - in public -to liking The Monkees and the The Beach Boys!  I am not "writing them off"!

A few months ago I read, not so much a curious book, but a book curiously then to be found at the museum bookshop, wherein I learnt that "The Archies" as a studio fiction were something of a spite move by the producer of the Monkees when the latter tried too hard to have some say in what they were doing . . . .

What do we mean by influence?  My impression is, all right, the influence flows in both directions, but it is not quite an "equal but opposite flow."

So:  what are the influences of the classics upon rock 'n' roll?

What are the influences of rock 'n' roll upon (for want of a less loaded term) 'serious music'?

[sonic1]

Of course jazz was popular music during swing's heyday, but with certain socio-economic shifts and the birth of "modern jazz" with bebop and all the various post-bop styles--when the music's complexity and intellectualism started to rise exponentially--it ceased to be popular in either sense.

But the point is, it WAS popular music at one time. And many of the innovations i am speaking of didn't come out of modern jazz-though modern jazz certainly innovated music to a high degree. Most of the hugest innovations came out of jazz from its very beginning.

[Cato]

A few months ago I read, not so much a curious book, but a book curiously then to be found at the museum bookshop, wherein I learnt that "The Archies" as a studio fiction were something of a spite move by the producer of the Monkees when the latter tried too hard to have some say in what they were doing . . . .

What do we mean by influence?  My impression is, all right, the influence flows in both directions, but it is not quite an "equal but opposite flow."

So:  what are the influences of the classics upon rock 'n' roll?

What are the influences of rock 'n' roll upon (for want of a less loaded term) 'serious music'?

Yes, that's the story on The Monkees I have always heard too.  My brother and I recently caught their strange movie Head which featured Jack Nicholson as co-screenwriter: yes, the one and only!  Completely plotless, the movie is a forerunner of the stream-of-consciousness music videos found on MTV, parallel with some of the Beatles' movies.

I have heard melodies from Praetorius to Rachmaninoff abducted by various rock groups/singers.  Zappa and Robert Lamm of Chicago (and a host of others) have said a great influence on their musical thinking came from the experimental music of Edgar Varese.

[karlhenning]

Yes, that's the story on The Monkees I have always heard too.  My brother and I recently caught their strange movie Head which featured Jack Nicholson as co-screenwriter: yes, the one and only!

And, peculiarly, the first I knew of this cinematic endeavor (which I have not yet seen, naturally) was one of the photos illustrating this volume:



The picture is on the set, and Zappa holds some livestock on a tether.  Poignant synergy with the Läther album:

[sonic1]

I am out of this if we are just discussing rock music. My idea of popular music is more general, and I think popular music of modern times (right now) poses a number of huge exceptions to all the rules that came before. I also think it is way to early to tell with Rock music. I think Jazz is the weird exception in being a popular music that has already made its impact because of recording technology-so it is very different than any popular music that came before.

And with Rock, it comes during a time when people are the LEAST educated about music than they have ever been about music.

But, for those of us who are relatively young, whose ears were primed with Rock music wherever we go, it is hard to imagine it not having a significant influence or impact on us, and I mean in a musical way. And when I say that, I am actually a little dismayed by the thought, because in my opinion most rock music of the last few decades has been s**t music. The radio is a dismal place to find music, though...THANK GOD FOR INTERNET RADIO-that will probably save us all.

The musical influence will probably be somewhat more of a structural influence (structure of music) and also it, if not already, will influence the tone colors chosen. It is hard to say what other ways it will influence music (in probably more of a subtle manner).

I think the influences are also hard to list off-some are much less obvious than others and it would take some serious work, research, to look into how rock music will, and already has, influenced classical music.

But with rock music dominating all that we hear around us, and having such a huge impact on the recording industry, it is hard to imagine it NOT having an impact. But I am not prepared necessarily to make a great argument about popular music effecting composers if we are narrowing down to rock music. I just think, in general, popular music does influence classical composers. Even if choice of techniques are not innovative: if rock music influenced more usage of diatonic methods, that IS an influence, whether or not it is innovative.


Totally off the subject: does anyone know of any classical pieces that are about teenage angst?

[sonic1]

There are numerous examples of rock musicians expressing their classical influences, but I would like to hear more about composers talking about their rock influences. I know I have read about this somewhere and will have to try to dig it up. It may not be an obviously reciprocal relationship. One thing: classical composers are often a little snobbish about music, and don't necessarily want to admit they are influenced by rock music-just look at the reaction here already. It is almost cool amongst classical folk to say, " ah rock? Boring. Haven't listened to it since I was a teenager" or whatever. But I think there is more to the story.