Popular Music

[The new erato]

Love Zeppelin, Hendrix, Zappa, Beatles, the McGarrigle sisters, Talking Heads, REM, etc,etc, and sees nothing artistically inferior in it. Classical music was, once upon a time, the popular music for the upper (and educated) classes. Baroque opera (which I love) was the soap series for a time without Television (provided you had enormous amounts of money).

Have around 300-500 "popular" - whatever that means - albums beside mye 3000 piece classical collection (which represents 80 -90% of my listening).

[Grazioso]

Perhaps in a few-hundred years, we can speak that way about Jazz, but in the meantime, I cannot see giving up my limited time listening to music which has only seen its heyday in the past hundred years when I could just as easily be listening to music which has had eons to mature and grow.

But that raises the question: Who cares how long something has been around, as long as it's good? I think you're overstating the case just a wee bit, too Eons to mature and grow?

[The new erato]

And what about Stravinsky, whose music has had less than 100 years to mature and grow? Certainly his music is as radically different to Leontin's organum as Miles Davis' music is, so the eons to "mature and grow" hardly applises to his music as well?

There's lots of music not worth my time, or which I'm not able to enjoy because of who I am and where I'm coming from (white European male etc), but in the end it all boils down to "there are only two kinds of music, goog music and bad music". Which I truly believe.

[George]

Love Zeppelin, Hendrix, Zappa, Beatles, the McGarrigle sisters, Talking Heads, REM,...

What do you think of their latest album? I've been a fan for years, but was very dissappointed by "Around the Sun." They just sound old. 

[The new erato]

Haven't heard it. They dropped in quality around 95, soon after their commercial breakthrough. Love their late 80-ies albums though.

[Steve]

And what about Stravinsky, whose music has had less than 100 years to mature and grow? Certainly his music is as radically different to Leontin's organum as Miles Davis' music is, so the eons to "mature and grow" hardly applises to his music as well?

There's lots of music not worth my time, or which I'm not able to enjoy because of who I am and where I'm coming from (white European male etc), but in the end it all boils down to "there are only two kinds of music, goog music and bad music". Which I truly believe.

Yes, but Stravinsky, is simply the modern recipient of a rich, aged artistic tradition. Its not a matter of his music having time to grow, but rather the time that the genre has grown.

[The new erato]

But so are Hendrix, Miles Davis also. Ie; an manifestation of a long, artistic development.

African Music is probably older than European Music, and where would American popular music be without Jewish folk music, etc etc. And what about the Brucknerian Landlers? I find this line of reasoning particularly unfruitful as an argument about any kind of musics perceived superiority. Some ogf Griegs best music is influenced by Norwegian folk ballads with their roots in the middle ages, several hundred years before notated art musc was a fact in Norwegian society.

I'm amazed that anyone here would even seriously consider the notion that Stravinsky became what he became WITHOUT the influence of Russian folk music - which in Russia probably had a far longer unbroken tradition than the tradition af western art music, and of composers influenced by Russian folk music?

Of course there are something attractive in the notion of a composer influenced by lofty ideals, long study and hard work, but is this any guarantee for superb music? It helps but I think not.

If I had to choose between Hendrixs Are you experienced and Beethovens op 131 as my ONLY desert Island disc  would choose the latter, but that is just me. If anybody choose differently I wouldn't automatically assume they choose inferior music.

If they choose a rap record I would pity them, but again; that wouldn't be because I choose the apogee of several hundred years og artisitc development

[Lethevich]

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

# On Sorrow, Anger and Reflection (1998), premiered by the CBC Vancouver Symphony
# Ashes of Memory (1998-99), premiered by the Pittsburgh Symphony Orchestra, Mariss Jansons conducting
# Recollections of Fear, Hope and Discontent (1998), premiered by the New York Chamber Symphony

Michael Hersch was probably dumped sometime in early 1998...

[George]

Haven't heard it. They dropped in quality around 95, soon after their commercial breakthrough. Love their late 80-ies albums though.

Yes, Automatic for the People was their last great one IMO. I think its MUCH better than Out of Time.

[rockerreds]

Yes, Automatic for the People was their last great one IMO. I think its MUCH better than Out of Time.

I would reverse that myself.

[George]

I would reverse that myself.

Automatic has more songs that I like, "flows" better and still sounds fresh today. Out of Time I loved at first, but I don't think it hangs together well as an album and I got a bit sick of it.   

[Haffner]

The first album I owned. Never got over it.


Dio's quasi-operatics and Blackmore's Bach-influenced backings just seemed to make Rock Music more interesting in 1975.

Just my opinion, but Classical Music makes Popular Music more interesting. I can't say much for jazz, ska, or reggae's influence on Rock, as I don't care much for those styles of music. But I would be remiss in leaving out the fact that those styles also conclusively add something to the Rock "standard", something which will keep pushing the boundaries.

I just wrote a bit on the subject of Death Metal in the non-classical music listening thread which some might find of interest.

[sonic1]

Ive been busy to keep up with the thread, but regarding the 1000 yrs of classical music vs the 100 years of jazz: isn't that what makes jazz so interesting? Jazz has progressed more in its 100 years, than did classical music in the same period. Plus, while classical music was often, and most often, the pursuit of rich, fortunate people, jazz was created by the most downtrodden, challenged people who often had no place to sleep at night, were not allowed to play in certain parts of town, etc. Whatever examples you could dig up about many classical composers, there is no comparison.

The progression of jazz from its beginning to its current state is so vast, that jazz fans are separated by great differences in taste. Even singular artists: say Coltrane or Davis, show a massive development in their art, while in comparison, many classical composers don't show as much development.

We could say that jazz is quite a respectable art. And while a few composers could improvise; they would be played into the grave by even some of the most mediocre recorded jazz improvisers. The speed and innovation of the jazz improviser, if you know anything about jazz, or anything about music, is quite impressive, especially the best of them.

[Haffner]

Ive been busy to keep up with the thread, but regarding the 1000 yrs of classical music vs the 100 years of jazz: isn't that what makes jazz so interesting? Jazz has progressed more in its 100 years, than did classical music in the same period. Plus, while classical music was often, and most often, the pursuit of rich, fortunate people, jazz was created by the most downtrodden, challenged people who often had no place to sleep at night, were not allowed to play in certain parts of town, etc. Whatever examples you could dig up about many classical composers, there is no comparison.

The progression of jazz from its beginning to its current state is so vast, that jazz fans are separated by great differences in taste. Even singular artists: say Coltrane or Davis, show a massive development in their art, while in comparison, many classical composers don't show as much development.

We could say that jazz is quite a respectable art. And while a few composers could improvise; they would be played into the grave by even some of the most mediocre recorded jazz improvisers. The speed and innovation of the jazz improviser, if you know anything about jazz, or anything about music, is quite impressive, especially the best of them.

Although I don't happen to like Jazz, I respect it very much. Not just for the obvious skill of the players, but for being in a way directly related to the Wagner-to-Mahler-to-Schoenberg-to-Shostakovich pioneering. Jazz really seemed to have pushed the boundaries of what was considered "tonality" during its (Jazz') nascent era.

Although I much prefer the "heavier" (some would say "radically condensed"/"rudimentary") stylings of Death Metal, I'd be pretty dumb not to admit that of the two "tonality-slaughtering" genres, Jazz is on a level of harmonic complexity and range that tends to garner more admiration from musicians on a worldwide level.

Again, as a musician, I really respect the amount of ear training and general jam-manship it takes to be able to improvise over the at times confounding sets of chord changes in jazz. My preferred forms of "popular" music (death and extreme metal) are perhaps centered more on the "effect" of the sustaining drum beat in general.

[sonic1]

It is in the nature of improvised music (i.e. jazz) that it will not "travel" as well - I suppose this is for many reasons. Obviously it is not well considered in the same way as art/classical music and it's aspirations are more localised. Because of it's 'design-brief' it is not built to last. So it does not have the right fuel for time travel, whereas best quality, thought-through, high-consciousness music (i.e. classical) does.

I beg to differ on this point. I bet there are many jazz albums that travel just fine. In fact, many very good jazz albums from the 40s-60s, when jazz was at its most interesting, sell very well, even better than most classical music. Jazz fans are typically people who are music freaks, and who also like classical music. This is assuming I know what you mean by "travel", assuming that the music still touches the audience, and that its meaning is lasting. In the world of more complicated art musics (which I include jazz in, not omit) jazz sells pretty well, especially the albums that are groundbreaking. And labels are constantly digging up historical recordings due to the intense interest.

[Kullervo]

I voted none.
A year or two ago I would have voted differently, but popular music is something I feel I've substantially absorbed. As I've gotten older my tastes have progressed into more complex and subtle areas. I think that applies to more than music, really.

[karlhenning]

I beg to differ on this point. I bet there are many jazz albums that travel just fine.

This is very interesting, Jared, and I hope you won't mind my stopping by.

I think you are both right, you that jazz albums travel well, and James that improvisation doesn't travel.

There's something like a moebius strip that happens when you have a recording of improvisation . . . what was at its inception and in some measure pure spontaneity, becomes itself a document, and completely unspontaneous.  And when it travels as a document, it doesn't travel as improvisation . . . .

[sonic1]

James, your language is very self righteous and disrespectful. It says a lot about you maybe.

Some jazz albums are over half a century old, and the audience is still interested. I hardly call that ephemeral. Maybe it is not 1000 years yet, but then again, neither is Stravinsky. Can you just accept that some people think of it as artistically valid and not necessarily below the importance of classical music, even if you don't? I mean, if jazz was interesting enough for Bernstein, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, etc. surely their opinions are worth considering. Or is YOUR opinion the only one that matters on this issue.

[karlhenning]

BTW, when I agree about improvisation not traveling, I mean Messiaen or JS Bach as well . . . .

[sonic1]

This is very interesting, Jared, and I hope you won't mind my stopping by.

I think you are both right, you that jazz albums travel well, and James that improvisation doesn't travel.

There's something like a moebius strip that happens when you have a recording of improvisation . . . what was at its inception and in some measure pure spontaneity, becomes itself a document, and completely unspontaneous.  And when it travels as a document, it doesn't travel as improvisation . . . .

Jazz is interesting not just because of the improvisation (and as an aside, I agree that some improvisation, maybe even much of it, is not something that travels well). The writing/song structure/tonality/rhythms are all innovative at different points in jazz history, even more so than a lot of classical music of the same period. And the historical background for jazz, the hurdles crossed by jazz artists give the art even more of an amazing tone. These people often had no place to sleep at night, or were beat up in the very venues they tried to play in, and suffered class/race problems that most people on this board could not even begin to understand on a personal level. Yet they still with their minimal formal training changed the entire field of music forever. Jazz is indeed important and significant to the whole field of music. I don't see how anyone can deny the effect jazz has had on the music tradition unless they were not very well informed.