Popular Music

[Grazioso]

I guess I can respect this perspective.

From my perspective however, as a person who was certainly shaped by popular music (actually I cringe using such a term) I see a lot more of the influence and crossovers than maybe someone who would need to do a lot of research because of their lack of familiarity. I grew up listening to a lot A LOT of jazz, and lots of rock as well, with a focus on some of the less common sub-genres (hardly "popular" music). I have listened to a wide range of music in general and don't have a hierarchal placement for each genre necessarily. I know a lot of work goes into classical music, and a lot of genius. But then again, I have heard incredibly talented jazz musicians who can compose on a moments notice stuff that someone sitting down at a desk couldn't do over the course of a week.

I digress, but I get a little bitchy when people hold classical music as some sort of pinnacle of genius. It really is not necessarily true. Especially considering jazz, especially considering where jazz came from (a very undervalued, dehumanized class of people during a terrible time in our history, somehow creating the most interesting music of the 20th century by far).

And I think jazz DID have a major impact on composers. And there is a lot of crossover too, lots of composers who got into jazz, and vice versa. Leonard Bernstein was a big jazz fan, and at that he loved the avant-guard jazz (he was one of the first to champion Ornette Coleman).

You can hear a major jazz influence in Bernstein's own music.

I could go on, but I need to go to bed, cause I have 18 miles to run at 5 in the morning...

I see it rather from the same perspective. Classical music may generally be more sophisticated or complex than much popular music, but to place it at the pinnacle of some musical hierarchy misses a number of points, such as the incredible sophistication in modern jazz, to use your example, and the fact that music serves multiple functions and is enjoyed on different levels. I've heard rock songs that are musically nowhere near as complex as your average symphony yet hit me in the gut emotionally and capture my imagination more. Many people enjoy dancing or singing along to music, and from that perspective classical is a dismal failure, not some acme of musical achievement. How many people dance minuets these days? How many untrained singers can keep up with Bach or Wagner?

I agree, too, that of Western musical developments of the last century, the birth and evolution of jazz is more exciting and interesting (both musically and culturally) than the concurrent developments in the classical music world.

[Steve]

I see it rather from the same perspective. Classical music may generally be more sophisticated or complex than much popular music, but to place it at the pinnacle of some musical hierarchy misses a number of points, such as the incredible sophistication in modern jazz, to use your example, and the fact that music serves multiple functions and is enjoyed on different levels. I've heard rock songs that are musically nowhere near as complex as your average symphony yet hit me in the gut emotionally and capture my imagination more. Many people enjoy dancing or singing along to music, and from that perspective classical is a dismal failure, not some acme of musical achievement. How many people dance minuets these days? How many untrained singers can keep up with Bach or Wagner?

I agree, too, that of Western musical developments of the last century, the birth and evolution of jazz is more exciting and interesting (both musically and culturally) than the concurrent developments in the classical music world.

There's much to agree with in that post, Grazioso. However, I believe sonic1 has misinterpreted my post. I ever indicated that classical music was nessecarily above popular music in some sort of hierarchy- now that would be snobbery. I've just tried to demonstrate that people like myself, who don't find much pleasure in popular music can still appreciate classical music because the two are more or less seperate spheres of influence. While I won't deny that popular music has had its influence, I don't believe that famililarizing myself with it is as important/crucial as being familiar with other classical composers writing in that style. I wouldn't deny the merits of another genre of music, but I just haven't found anything there thats really suited me.

[sonic1]

There's much to agree with in that post, Grazioso. However, I believe sonic1 has misinterpreted my post. I ever indicated that classical music was necessarily above popular music in some sort of hierarchy- now that would be snobbery. I've just tried to demonstrate that people like myself, who don't find much pleasure in popular music can still appreciate classical music because the two are more or less separate spheres of influence. While I won't deny that popular music has had its influence, I don't believe that familiarizing myself with it is as important/crucial as being familiar with other classical composers writing in that style. I wouldn't deny the merits of another genre of music, but I just haven't found anything there thats really suited me.

I never argued that you had to enjoy or even understand popular music. I was just arguing that it was important, and more so than just other elements of art and culture, because it IS music. And the beginning of the thread did smack of a bit of classical snobbery, which got me to posting contrary. And this coming from someone who has a collection that spans the entire history of classical music-not just someone who has skimmed the genre.

I guess also that someone making such a strong argument about the importance of popular music to classical composers, who admits to not having much experience with it, is a bit presumptive. Not to sound snobbish myself, but before one makes statements about popular music one should familiarize his or herself with it.

I don't mean that to come off as snippity as it sounds BTW.

[Steve]

As I have indicated elswhere, I do have significant experience with popular music. I have looked into a great deal of it, but not discovered much to my liking. I also contend that you are exaggerating the influence of popular music on classical. Just because popular music is a form of music, that does not demonstrate that it has head any more effect on composition than literature or the arts. I've argued that popular music, like other aspects of culture simply frame the environment that the composer wrote. While that information, much like background knowledge to a method actor, is non-essential to appreciating the work. When I encounter a piece of music, be it Brahms, Haydn, Mozart-- I can immediately see the tangeble influence of other composers. Its not very often, unless I'm listening to someone like Grieg, that I can detect the influence of popular music. I do not believe then, speaking as someone who is relatively familar with popular music, that experience with this genre of music is nessecary to be able to more fully appreciate the classical which I love.

Much of the reason that I have not been drawn to popular music, has been that I have never found it to be intellectually stimulating in the profound sense that classical is. Perhaps composers sometimes dip into simpler genres of music, but I don't imagine Beethoven would bend his knee to a folk musician as he would to Handel.

[sonic1]

oh...I think we just need to agree to disagree. Of all the popular music out there, just considering jazz alone would ignore one of the hugest musical innovations of the century. How can such a huge movement in music not have an impact on composers. I just don't believe it.

[Steve]

How can such a huge movement in music not have an impact on composers. I just don't believe it.

Petitio principii.

[Cato]

oh...I think we just need to agree to disagree. Of all the popular music out there, just considering jazz alone would ignore one of the hugest musical innovations of the century. How can such a huge movement in music not have an impact on composers. I just don't believe it.

(My emphasis above.)

Believe it, at least in part.

Because Jazz offered something new, it was absorbed into the classical tradition by those who found something inspiring in it.

Rock offers very little for the modern "classical" composer, except electrical amplification: Hendrix, Lennon, and company all offer major and minor chords, and not much else for expanding the vocabulary.  You occasionally have e.g. an electric bass guitar being used in classical works (e.g. in Penderecki's Utrenja but the way it is used is not idiomatic to rock music at all).

You can talk to me about the rhythmic drive and beats of rock music, and how original they are, and I will send you back to the early 1900's to be spanked by Ives (Sym. #4), Stravinsky (Le Sacre), Schoenberg (Erwartung changes rhythm an average of every 4 seconds), Bartok (!!!), Varese (!!!!!), etc.  As far as electrification of music is concerned, that is a reason why Stockhausen appears on the Beatles' album cover for Sgt. Pepper.  Otto Luening should not be forgotten in this area.

So the influence would seem to be in the opposite direction, with rock composers/performers wanting to be accepted as classical ones (e.g. Billy Joel, Paul McCartney, Stewart Copeland), but so far their efforts are not impressive.

[Grazioso]

Rock offers very little for the modern "classical" composer, except electrical amplification: Hendrix, Lennon, and company all offer major and minor chords, and not much else for expanding the vocabulary. 

You will hear far more than just major and minor triads in rock. One thing that rock offers that you won't find in classical (with perhaps a few odd exceptions), is a certain combination of tone colors. Just as classical music, jazz, etc. are marked by the predominant use of a certain group of instruments, so is rock. I've yet to hear any classical music that sounds like an extreme metal band playing full bore, cranked up to 11.

Similarly, even Stravinsky or Bartok sound rather restrained compared to the full-on aggression and speed of some rock music.

Much of the reason that I have not been drawn to popular music, has been that I have never found it to be intellectually stimulating in the profound sense that classical is. Perhaps composers sometimes dip into simpler genres of music, but I don't imagine Beethoven would

Understandable, but I'd wager you're part of a small minority in seeking intellectual stimulation in music. It seems the great majority of people listen to music for emotional stimulation alone.

[The Mad Hatter]

Cato: I could type a long rant bringing up the names Brian Eno, Radiohead, Keith Jarrett and/or Tom Waits, but I'm far too tired and stressed at the moment for it to make a great deal of sense if I do. Suffice it to say that if you can't find something in these musicians to appeal to you, then you're listening to them wrong.

[sonic1]

There is much more to music than suggested in the posts above, even technically. Miles Davis played lines in his music that is not even very easy to chart on staff because of its rhythmic complexities (same with Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Charles Mingus, etc). The rhythms of jazz ARE quite original. Every time someone tells me to listen to this or that piece of classical music as an example of rhythms that date before the jazz era, and supposedly the "source" of the rhythms I find myself some comical relief. It is never even close.

Jazz stemmed originally from poor blacks who has some influence from the classical tradition (and popular folk traditions including french, american, and others), but took it to a very new and different place. Yes, jazz musicians were incredibly influenced by composers, the relationship is reciprocal. But the point is not that jazz musicians came out of nowhere and gave music a charge. The point is that many innovations in music of the 20th century DID indeed stem from jazz. Classical composers did NOT originate every innovation, ESPECIALLY in the 20th century.

One of the great things about jazz is that you can play whatever you want without anything in front of you to dictate. Composers dictate on paper what the players are to play leaving very little up to interpretation. The major limitation here is the fact you are confined to what you can communicate on paper from composer to musician (yes there are exceptions but not for the most part).

Jazz uses "charts" or "fake sheets" which are guides, but often allow soloists to play whatever their heart desires, which does not limit them to what is on paper, or even what is possible to put on paper. Believe it or not, there is music outside the (notice the wording here) convenient possibilities of charting. I mean, yes, one can try to chart one of the more complicated lines from Miles Davis but the staff would get so ridiculous as to probably cause more confusion than not. This is especially true the more "out" jazz gets (Davis being just a doorway).

Many many composers attribute high praise for jazz, including Bernstein. Anyone who knows anything about Bernstein knows he was a major jazz nut, and that his music is highly influenced by jazz, and Bernstein is arguably one of the giants in 20th century music. And yes, Bernstein heavily influenced jazz too, but I am not arguing otherwise. I think this goes much farther than "cultural" inspiration. Especially in the 20th century where many of the best musicians were jazz musicians. In Europe, today, you especially see this trend.

Just as it would be ridiculous to imagine popular music without the influence of "serious" music, the reciprocal is also true. You can't just make out all popular music to be Brittney Spears.

[dtwilbanks]

Amen, brother!

[karlhenning]

Classical composers did NOT originate every innovation, ESPECIALLY in the 20th century.

No argument there, whatsoever.

[sonic1]

Oh, and I have not even breeched the subjects of chords and tonality. Particularly in the 60, in jazz, we saw some pretty unique combinations. This did inspire the music tradition at large.

Another important thing about popular music, is that it dictates, like it or not, what the average listener is going to accept. You may try to argue that this is not important to a composer, but you'd be an absolute fool. And this is coming from someone who loves the boundaries pushed-who loves the avant-guard. Most composers are very very aware and influenced by what people will accept. And popular music is what primes most people. 20th century music got very complex and people took large chances, probably largely because jazz pushed the popular ear to new places. That made a lot more people willing to listen to more complex music. This HAD to give a lot of composers a lot more freedom than previous.

[sonic1]

I realize that culture plays this same role (allowing composers to go to certain places). But if one is to argue that popular music is no more important than any other cultural element, than one can also argue that ALL music is not more important than cultural influence, including classical music itself.

[Cato]

Cato: I could type a long rant bringing up the names Brian Eno, Radiohead, Keith Jarrett and/or Tom Waits, but I'm far too tired and stressed at the moment for it to make a great deal of sense if I do. Suffice it to say that if you can't find something in these musicians to appeal to you, then you're listening to them wrong.

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!) 

[Josquin des Prez]

oh...I think we just need to agree to disagree. Of all the popular music out there, just considering jazz alone would ignore one of the hugest musical innovations of the century. How can such a huge movement in music not have an impact on composers. I just don't believe it.

Easy. Jazz is not popular music.

[sonic1]

Easy. Jazz is not popular music.

It is not now, but it was particularly during its most influential period.

[Steve]

There is much more to music than suggested in the posts above, even technically. Miles Davis played lines in his music that is not even very easy to chart on staff because of its rhythmic complexities (same with Coltrane, Eric Dolphy, Charles Mingus, etc). The rhythms of jazz ARE quite original. Every time someone tells me to listen to this or that piece of classical music as an example of rhythms that date before the jazz era, and supposedly the "source" of the rhythms I find myself some comical relief. It is never even close.

Jazz stemmed originally from poor blacks who has some influence from the classical tradition (and popular folk traditions including french, american, and others), but took it to a very new and different place. Yes, jazz musicians were incredibly influenced by composers, the relationship is reciprocal. But the point is not that jazz musicians came out of nowhere and gave music a charge. The point is that many innovations in music of the 20th century DID indeed stem from jazz. Classical composers did NOT originate every innovation, ESPECIALLY in the 20th century.

One of the great things about jazz is that you can play whatever you want without anything in front of you to dictate. Composers dictate on paper what the players are to play leaving very little up to interpretation. The major limitation here is the fact you are confined to what you can communicate on paper from composer to musician (yes there are exceptions but not for the most part).

Jazz uses "charts" or "fake sheets" which are guides, but often allow soloists to play whatever their heart desires, which does not limit them to what is on paper, or even what is possible to put on paper. Believe it or not, there is music outside the (notice the wording here) convenient possibilities of charting. I mean, yes, one can try to chart one of the more complicated lines from Miles Davis but the staff would get so ridiculous as to probably cause more confusion than not. This is especially true the more "out" jazz gets (Davis being just a doorway).

Many many composers attribute high praise for jazz, including Bernstein. Anyone who knows anything about Bernstein knows he was a major jazz nut, and that his music is highly influenced by jazz, and Bernstein is arguably one of the giants in 20th century music. And yes, Bernstein heavily influenced jazz too, but I am not arguing otherwise. I think this goes much farther than "cultural" inspiration. Especially in the 20th century where many of the best musicians were jazz musicians. In Europe, today, you especially see this trend.

Just as it would be ridiculous to imagine popular music without the influence of "serious" music, the reciprocal is also true. You can't just make out all popular music to be Brittney Spears.

Once again, I do not deny the merits of jazz, but in your posts you still don't escape the charge of petitio principii. That is your conclusion is suggested by the premises. Yes, jazz was influential on 20th Century culture- you will find no challenge that statement. But in order to successfully refute my posts, you will have to provide evidenciary support to the claim that jazz, and other forms of popular music, had such a significant impact on composers. I really don't see it.

As to this notion that popular music can gauge what the average listener will accept; I don't see the validity of this statement. Certain mediocre artisans may have to adjust their craft so that it might appeal to the masses, but I don't believe that composers are among them. Classical composers, like most great artists, do not subject their creativity to the fickle tastes of society. Perhaps, composers writing for Hollywood scores, or reruns of Broadway Musicals, need to be worried about this sort of thing, but the great composer, does, and should not. While he might be inspired by such inventiveness, the Jazz does not influence the composer in such a profound sense that other composers from the clasical tradition do. While on occassion I can see a more tangeable influence of popular music on comosers I enjoy, it pales in comparision to the powerful, direct influence of the other composers.

Jazz was an artistic phenonomenon of the 20th century- you will find no argument there. But, to say that it's influence was as direct and significant as composers from prior times, you will need to cite evidence for that. Simply stating that Jazz was a huge movement, which a great deal to offer society, does not demonstrate that it had a particularily important impact on the classical tradition. For that you either present evidence, or open your self to a charge petitio principii.

[karlhenning]

And there's the sort of mixed signals provided by a composer such as Stravinsky, e.g.  His various jazz/pop enthusiasms tended to be ephemeral and not to run at all deep, it seems to me.  Mostly, he remained himself throughout his career, and in all the twists and stylistic turns of his life.  Apart from creation of the odd minor work (the delightfully quirky Rag-time for Eleven Instruments, e.g.), I think it was no more a matter of jazz/pop influencing Stravinsky, than of Stravinsky finding a mirror of a small fragment of his musical self in this cultural 'artifact'.  (And, to be sure, genuine delight at something musically new to him.)

[Josquin des Prez]

It is not now, but it was particularly during its most influential period.

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.