Popular Music

[greg]

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 reason they didn't have an influence is because hardly any composers ever use electric guitars, and obviously you can't get those types of sounds on the violin. But........ hey, there's always Glenn Branca, the only guy I can think of who combines avant-garde rock with avant-garde classical to make something completely original.

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.

Well, you might be happy to know that I'll be one of the first to have rock influences in my classical music- when I write electric guitar concertos. That'll be a while off, though.

Also, on the Finale, Sibelius, and Noteworthy websites, a LOT of the amateur compositions on those sites sound like music from people who listen to more rock than classical, even though it might be a classical piece for orchestra. The only thing is, all of them sucked- if you were to use rock influences in classical, it'd have to be done a different way, or by composers who are better.

[karlhenning]

But many American and Australian composers will freely admit an influence of The Beatles or others.

But, what is the influence?  If it boils down to "I like listening to this at times, so it's got to be somewhere in the mix," I don't know that it really rises to the status of influence.

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.

Points well taken, though if there has been snobbishness here, I've largely missed it.

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.

I agree.  Seems to me though that there's been a bit of a tussle here . . . you and I seem to share the idea that jazz falls under the broad category of popular music (and if it does not entirely fit into that category, I wonder if it will ever cease to straddle it).

[sonic1]

The reason they didn't have an influence is because hardly any composers ever use electric guitars, and obviously you can't get those types of sounds on the violin. But........ hey, there's always Glenn Branca, the only guy I can think of who combines avant-garde rock with avant-garde classical to make something completely original.

Ah, I just realized that Sonic Youth has used tonal colors probably not heard before in music. Whether or not that has an impact on composers is unknown to me. But yes, it would be difficult to reproduce them with acoustic instruments. The clanging metalsmith sounding textures, combined with chords (and accompanying microtonal drone strings) is hugely innovative. They use distortion pedals that were made for them, and the chords they used probably came from experiment rather than premeditation. Even to this day they probably don't know exactly all the notes in the chords they use (and what do you call chords with microtones??).

(I am a big SY fan btw, despite their predictability as of late)

[karlhenning]

(and what do you call chords with microtones??)

"Out of tune"

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Just kidding! 

[Cato]

Ah, I just realized that Sonic Youth has used tonal colors probably not heard before in music. Whether or not that has an impact on composers is unknown to me. But yes, it would be difficult to reproduce them with acoustic instruments. The clanging metalsmith sounding textures, combined with chords (and accompanying microtonal drone strings) is hugely innovative. They use distortion pedals that were made for them, and the chords they used probably came from experiment rather than premeditation. Even to this day they probably don't know exactly all the notes in the chords they use (and what do you call chords with microtones??).

(I am a big SY fan btw, despite their predictability as of late)

"Xenharmonic" is the term you are looking for to refer to chords using microtones.

Again, here we see the influence of classical on rock: microtonal experiments go back to the early 1900's.

I will send Sonic1 to experience Alois Haba, Ivan Wyschnegradsky, Julian Carrillo, Ben Johnston, Easley Blackwood, Johnny Reinhard,

and of course Harry Partch !!!

[johnshade]

~
Anthony Storr in his book, Music and the Mind (1992), has this to say:

"It is only since the 1950s that the gap between classical and popular music has widened into a canyon which is nearly unbridgeable."

I generally agree with this; however, I am not intending to put down 50s/60s rock and roll. I was attracted to this music as a teenager. Having lived through this period, I realize the impact this new music had, and is still having, on our culture. I have to say, however, that I have no attraction for current popular music. I'm not knocking it, I just don't understand it.

[sonic1]

I know these composers (I have a lot more music experience than you are giving me credit for). I know full well microtones are not new to music. It is HOW they are used that was original with Sonic Youth. Actually the closest I can think of to how Sonic Youth uses microtones comes from jazz: Don Ellis. He used microtones in a similar manner with albums like his Live in 3 2/3/ 4 Time, released in 1966.

The way microtones were used with the above composers were mostly in the melodic lines, or added into a chord played at once, not sustained and shifting. Maybe the closest I can think of in classical music is Giacinto Scelsi, but his music was very minimalist and sustained long chords over a period of time-the presence of microtones in SY's music was done by downtuning or uptuning drone strings, but the chords were changing in a similar speed as you normally see in popular music. The chord choices were also original. Very dissonant, though often resolving to some slightly altered major chord. The resolution chords came off sounding resonant, with a slight tension from those microtonal down or uptuned strinds. Don ellis accomplished this with the creation of his four-valved trumpet. Harry Parch's music was very clunky, and much more percussive than anything (I have just about everything I know he recorded). Alois Haba (funny you should mention HIM) derived his inspiration from from folk singers who would get into dispute with people playing tempered instruments. Very great to bring him up, because he is quoted as saying he got his inspiration for using microtonal melody lines from those very folk singers.

Ivan Wyschnegradsky invented that quarter-tone piano. Carrillo differed by demonstrating the possibility of writing for sixteenth of tones (rather than just quarter or third tones). Yada yada...the methods with SY were generally a bit different. Many of the composers you mentioned derived their influence of using these tones from Indian music, African music, and other world musics which date far back before ANY western composer even thought of using such tones-for it was the consonant sound for them (our consonant sound developed much later).





I may not be communicating this well, forgive me if I am not. I just ran 8 miles (with lots of hills, so the blood is not all in my brain at the moment).

jared

[sonic1]

"Xenharmonic" is the term you are looking for to refer to chords using microtones.

I meant each chord individually, not the general terminology.

[greg]

(currently playing "Cross the Breeze" on my Ibanez) 

[sonic1]

jazz is a form of popular music imo, mainly dabblers....it often uses simple song forms based on legacy changes (yawn), most of it features junk composition and indulgent pointless homophonic block chord fumbling (i.e. Keith Jarrett). it's musical backwater and the players just seem to be in it for themselves. it is very narrow musically speaking compared to the art music tradition, then again it's been around for a lot less too. jazzers are typically very tribalistic and narrow i have found. little do they realize that there is more music to be heard elsewhere...i hear more music in 3 bars of good writing then 30,000 bars of meandering self absorbed noodling that jazz often presents...

for me, popular music is good for a blast of joy or an adrenalin rush but that's about the full extent of it...its nowhere near as rich and profound as the art music tradition. most serious artists found in popular music (including jazz) stand in awe of classical music and would be very ill at ease trying to play it, and the ones that have tried can attest to this.

wow. Who have you been hanging out with? Most jazz musicians I know double as symphonic players, or have extensive classical collections. I have read a bit of jazz history and biography, so hearing these kinds of uneducated statements kind of bugs me. Most of the great jazz composers, especially the modern ones, were great fans of composers, and they all had their favorites. And this is despite great class/race issues to overcome.

There is a lot of shit jazz out there, don't get me wrong. And a lot of cop-out composing techniques, like using old changes, or modal styles. But there is a lot of jazz out there that does more than that.

you know, I am really suprised to see people write stuff like this. I would think one would try not to come off so...I don't know. But what I was saying about before about music snobbery is displayed well here.

I mean, it would kind of be like me talking about most classical music players being geeky dull and ignorant of most of the music they play, which is a stereotype that exists out there, but would be rude, and terribly overlooking a lot of talented interesting people. The way you talk about "jazzers" is a little offensive.

[jochanaan]

jazz is a form of popular music imo, mainly dabblers....it often uses simple song forms based on legacy changes (yawn), most of it features junk composition and indulgent pointless homophonic block chord fumbling (i.e. Keith Jarrett). it's musical backwater and the players just seem to be in it for themselves. it is very narrow musically speaking compared to the art music tradition, then again it's been around for a lot less too. jazzers are typically very tribalistic and narrow i have found. little do they realize that there is more music to be heard elsewhere...i hear more music in 3 bars of good writing then 30,000 bars of meandering self absorbed noodling that jazz often presents...

Strange; that's not what I've found since I started playing jazz again...

[The Mad Hatter]

But, what is the influence?  If it boils down to "I like listening to this at times, so it's got to be somewhere in the mix," I don't know that it really rises to the status of influence.

Ah! I found one of the quotes:

Strawberry Fields Forever ends with a false fadeout - when the music returns its turned upside down - nothing is as it was - and toward the real end John Lennon says "I buried Paul." When the record came out people in America went crazy trying to find other clues that Paul McCartney was really dead. DJs played Beatles records backwards on the radio, and as a result some very strange music - and a lot of noise got broadcast. This piece is about that noise.

I think that qualifies, for a start... And, as I think I mentioned before, Philip Glass has collaborated with David Bowie, and Gavin Bryars with both Brian Eno and Tom Waits.

It's more generally found its way more into jazz than classical, though. I've heard a considerable number of excellent jazz arrangements of songs by The Beatles and Radiohead.

[George]

Ah! I found one of the quotes:
I think that qualifies, for a start... And, as I think I mentioned before, Philip Glass has collaborated with David Bowie, and Gavin Bryars with both Brian Eno and Tom Waits.

It's more generally found its way more into jazz than classical, though. I've heard a considerable number of excellent jazz arrangements of songs by The Beatles and Radiohead.

Yes, I love what Brad Meldau does with some of those Radiohead songs. Then there's the classical piano versions of Radiohead songs by O'Reilly, which I enjoy but don't think come off as well as a whole. 

[Grazioso]

jazz is a form of popular music imo, mainly dabblers....it often uses simple song forms based on legacy changes (yawn), most of it features junk composition and indulgent pointless homophonic block chord fumbling (i.e. Keith Jarrett). it's musical backwater and the players just seem to be in it for themselves. it is very narrow musically speaking compared to the art music tradition, then again it's been around for a lot less too. jazzers are typically very tribalistic and narrow i have found. little do they realize that there is more music to be heard elsewhere...i hear more music in 3 bars of good writing then 30,000 bars of meandering self absorbed noodling that jazz often presents...

for me, popular music is good for a blast of joy or an adrenalin rush but that's about the full extent of it...its nowhere near as rich and profound as the art music tradition. most serious artists found in popular music (including jazz) stand in awe of classical music and would be very ill at ease trying to play it, and the ones that have tried can attest to this.

That's either a well-executed bit of trolling or a loud display of ignorance. I can only recommend broader and deeper listening to and studying of jazz to gain a more accurate, informed picture of what it's about and how it functions (including its hallmark openness to and adoption of musical ideas from outside its putative boundaries).

As for meandering, self-absorbed noodling, you can find plenty of that in classical music, too. If you want to compare genres as a whole, then you need to consider both the best and the worst of each, which means not just "Beethoven's masterpieces versus a third-rate jazz artist on an off day". But trying to perform an X vs. Y comparison of two disparate things is rather futile.

To call jazz "very narrow musically speaking" is quite shocking: Try Ellington, Zorn, Braxton, Sun Ra, Taylor, etc. You can go from Louis Armstrong's Hot 5 recordings to three-hour melodramas to third-stream symphonic/jazz hybrids to free jazz that barely sounds like jazz as it's typically construed. Jazz boasts huge range of instrumentation, piece lengths, styles, moods, etc. It's nothing if not varied. And like classical, it's just as willing to stretch or break accepted forms and norms as to adhere to them. In fact, it's probably more willing to set aside rules when need be.

[karlhenning]

It's more generally found its way more into jazz than classical, though. I've heard a considerable number of excellent jazz arrangements of songs by The Beatles and Radiohead.

That is one of the jazz traditions, of course:  the "standards" which are to some degree or other personalized in a cabaret(-ish) act.

[johnshade]

jazz is a form of popular music imo, mainly dabblers....it often uses simple song forms based on legacy changes (yawn), most of it features junk composition and indulgent pointless homophonic block chord fumbling (i.e. Keith Jarrett). it's musical backwater and the players just seem to be in it for themselves. it is very narrow musically speaking compared to the art music tradition, then again it's been around for a lot less too. jazzers are typically very tribalistic and narrow i have found. little do they realize that there is more music to be heard elsewhere...i hear more music in 3 bars of good writing then 30,000 bars of meandering self absorbed noodling that jazz often presents...

for me, popular music is good for a blast of joy or an adrenalin rush but that's about the full extent of it...its nowhere near as rich and profound as the art music tradition. most serious artists found in popular music (including jazz) stand in awe of classical music and would be very ill at ease trying to play it, and the ones that have tried can attest to this.

Although I like some jazz in small doses, I generally agree with your opinion of jazz and popular music.

JS

[Steve]

wow. Who have you been hanging out with? Most jazz musicians I know double as symphonic players, or have extensive classical collections. I have read a bit of jazz history and biography, so hearing these kinds of uneducated statements kind of bugs me. Most of the great jazz composers, especially the modern ones, were great fans of composers, and they all had their favorites. And this is despite great class/race issues to overcome.

There is a lot of shit jazz out there, don't get me wrong. And a lot of cop-out composing techniques, like using old changes, or modal styles. But there is a lot of jazz out there that does more than that.

you know, I am really suprised to see people write stuff like this. I would think one would try not to come off so...I don't know. But what I was saying about before about music snobbery is displayed well here.

I mean, it would kind of be like me talking about most classical music players being geeky dull and ignorant of most of the music they play, which is a stereotype that exists out there, but would be rude, and terribly overlooking a lot of talented interesting people. The way you talk about "jazzers" is a little offensive.

I too, have my qualms with what James had to say about the Jazz tradition. Certainly lumping together all Jazz musicians as narrowminded and lacking in skill would be a hasty generalization fallacy, and so, of course, a statemtn without validity. The statements of James that I have problems with involve the attributes of the musicians themselves, and not of their music.

I don't happend to be very fond of Jazz, or think much of its merits with respect to classical, but I can refrain from atacking the musicians themselves. This senseless rhetoric has no place among educated people.

[bwv 1080]

How many classical musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

How many can phrase like Miles or Louis?

Jazz is by no means inferior to classical.  It is just different, fully composed and improvised music offer different things - its apples and oranges.

[Steve]

How many classical musicians could improvise something coherent over the Giant Steps changes?

How many can phrase like Miles or Louis?

Jazz is by no means inferior to classical.  It is just different, fully composed and improvised music offer different things - its apples and oranges.

Well, they are of course very different entities, indeed, but equal..... 

[Steve]

i have heard all of the artists you have listed and way way more on top of that, and i still stand by what i said, you take the most enduring and greatest composers found in jazz, like Monk, Ellington, Joplin, Mingus or Corea for instance, or the best chordal improvisers like say Trane or Bird, and all of them are fine talents with their 'moments', but in a broad sense it?s rather earthbound and narrow in comparison to whats found in art music....

and i do like bits of jazz dont get me wrong, but overall when you take into account the fractured bits that are great, it doesnt quite compare to the content, focus and results presented in the very best of art music. you don't hear musical results of the same level and depth.

but as i said earlier, jazz has been around for a lot less, so your comparing roughly 100yrs of jazz history with close to 1000 of art music history and all it's evolution. so yes, musically it is quite narrow compared to art music, lots of jazz is merely homophonic. Solo-based with patchy results, which often amounts to some 'great moments' and loads forgetable compositions, that when the jazz dust settles aren't really worth listening to, certainly nowhere near compositionally to whats found in classical.

in terms of popular music, sure, jazz has contributed but compared with art music? Nah, you must be dreaming, it doesn?t offer much new at all and is rather crude in comparison....and just because some classical composers take inspiration or even graft certain stylistic surface-oriented things from certain elements of what's popular doesnt mean much. most of jazz's practitioners essentially dabble and sure, many have classical recordings for sure (you wouldn't be much of a serious musician to overlook it, it's a goldmine with the highest possible levels found in music period!), some of them have played and even recorded works also, took classical lessons in youth etc but overall it really doesn't come close at all, and there isn?t really a serious manifestation of it in the music, dabbling in otherwords.

jazz, by the very nature of it's process (trying to make music on the spot via improv) is just not really built to last like art music is, and its hard to apply the same level of rigour, thought and care under those circumstances, where each note has the utmost musical value, because you dont know whats going to happen next when its done on the fly. and improvising in and of it self isn?t anything special, all of the great classical composers where master improvisors too (ie Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Liszt, Messiaen etc) its a piece of cake to noodle thru harmonic sequences when you have all of that musical knowledge and tools available like they all did, so improvising is nothing new nor a jazz invention, it has existed since the earliest music was made, back in the day Bach used to improvise multi-voiced fugues for fun...anyway if you want to hear more modern and cutting edge music with richer and more profound content? dont listen to jazz (or any popular music) but go about 100 yrs back and listen to prokofiev, sibelius, mahler, messiaen, webern, bartok, boulez etc and those 'cats'....you'll soon discover that pretty much everything was covered far far earlier than jazz's inception.

Excellent response, James.