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

[Karl Henning]

Unfortunately, ladies, gentlemen, and tenors...
love, on its own, is not enough :-/

Ah, you added on its own afterwards, I think?  Well done 

[Madiel]

I am not sure such conclusion has been made. I think the conclusion has been: Pop music is more suitable for most.

In general, people aren't into intellectual things. Even if they are, who says they turn to music for that? Poor people use their mental energy into worrying how to pay the bills. How is anyone supposed to be interested of Haydn's string quartets when the Bank is taking your house? Who listened to classical music in the past? It was aristorates and other better offs. More importantly they couldn't choose between pop music and "art music". Perhaps pop had been overwhelmingly popular had it existed in the days of Beethoven?

Interesting theory but I genuinely don't know right now what to make of it. I'm not entirely confident of your views about the relationship of our "classical" music to the "popular" music of the time when it was all contemporary, but neither can I say you're wrong.

[Jo498]

I am not sure such conclusion has been made. I think the conclusion has been: Pop music is more suitable for most.

A lot of it is tailormade for the lowest common denominator and it is everywhere in all the media, so this is hardly surprising.

A problem with comparisons is that our time or even the last 70-80 years or so since radio and grammophone became common amenities is (maybe radically) different from the millenia of music before. The earliest commercial "popular" music were probably arranged highlights from popular (but of course often only middle/upper classes would have been able to afford the opera) operas and similar things (military marches, dances etc.). And the traditional  dance and folk music people played themselves. But people encountered "serious" music in the church all the time and domestic singing and music making was a common pastime (certainly in Lutheran regions but probably elsewhere - fun, but deemed better than drinking, dancing, gambling...).
Mass media and commercialization changed this from the beginning of the 20th century.

In general, people aren't into intellectual things. Even if they are, who says they turn to music for that? Poor people use their mental energy into worrying how to pay the bills. How is anyone supposed to be interested of Haydn's string quartets when the Bank is taking your house?

I might be falling for anecdotal evidence ("La Bohème" scenarios) but I think there were/are frequent cases when music/art kept people "alive" in materially struggling circumstances. A LOT of people, including famous artists themselves were leading precarious existences often considerably worse off than today's strained lower middle classes. They were always woorying how to pay the bills or actually evading creditors... The starving artist in the leaky garret was a cliché but it was not unfounded in reality.

So while I agree that one needs a certain amount of education and leisure, I'd say many people in the Western world today have enough spare time. Why should one rather listen to Britney Spears than Haydn to distract one from pecuniary or other troubles?

[James]

So while I agree that one needs a certain amount of education and leisure, I'd say many people in the Western world today have enough spare time.

For me, leisure time for the vast majority of it equals some sort of learning/education. It's rarely a mindless affair, ever. In fact, life is continual learning & discovery. When absorbing the arts, this is always the case. The benefits are large imo. So in this sense, regarding music, I would not be satisfied, AND I would be lacking significantly if the sum total of my musical consumption/understanding was just pop stuff ... knowing what I know now, I would be missing out BIG TIME. Thank goodness there is more than pop, and I am the type of person who kept going well beyond that. A big part of it for me though, is that as a hobby, I also play, compose, improvise and record music too (just for fun, and it's very therapeutic too) .. and I was always looking to learn and absorb the most inspiring of things, the great things that have been created. To learn from the best available .. very, very, content to have took all that time to seek it out and absorb it. Epiphany galore.

[Karl Henning]

Historical comparisons are further dubious, because there was no Pop Music Commodity Distribution.  People made music themselves.

[Monsieur Croche]

Historical comparisons are further dubious, because there was no Pop Music Commodity Distribution.  People made music themselves.

Regardless of what kind of music they made or their technical performance level, the very fact so many more ordinary folk did make music themselves makes for a whole other caliber of the general public as an audience!

[Florestan]

Regardless of what kind of music they made or their technical performance level, the very fact so many more ordinary folk did make music themselves makes for a whole other caliber of the general public as an audience!

Hear, hear!

And actually back then there was no conflict between "classical music" and "people´s music". The greatest "classical" composers did not hesitate to use the latter as a source of inspiration and to incorporate its tunes, modes and rythms into their own works. Conversely, no "popular" musician ever entertained the idea that what he did was on the same level as what a "classical" composer did, let alone better. I vividly recall a scene from "Liebe Clara" in which an aged Clara Schumann and an aging Brahms are sitting in a garden while a fiddler plays "Traumerei". At Clara´s asking him how came he knew that tune, the man retorts politely but proudly: "I´m a musician, Madame!"  Se non è vero, è ben trovato.

[James]

Conversely, no "popular" musician ever entertained the idea that what he did was on the same level as what a "classical" composer did, let alone better.

While it's true that many substantially creative artists within popular musics (incl. jazz) stood in awe of many classical composers and the many great things found within that tradition they still were forging traditions & languages of their own out of necessity - they by and large succeeded. Result? Great music that's something other than what you would typically hear and associate with classical music. I prefer to explore, absorb, seek out the best of all varieties, because in all honesty, you can get more outta music than just exploring (largely) western European classical music. So it can go both ways.

And people have always made music for themselves, regardless of fame, the business end of it, or advances in distribution .. that's a constant throughout time. Our world today though? Music has A LOT more competing against it!

[Karl Henning]

Regardless of what kind of music they made or their technical performance level, the very fact so many more ordinary folk did make music themselves makes for a whole other caliber of the general public as an audience!

Hear, hear!

Bien sûr.

[Florestan]

While it's true that many substantially creative artists within popular musics (incl. jazz) stood in awe of many classical composers and the many great things found within that tradition they still were forging traditions & languages of their own out of necessity - they by and large succeeded. Result? Great music that's something other than what you would typically hear and associate with classical music. I prefer to explore, absorb, seek out the best of all varieties, because in all honesty, you can get more outta music than just exploring (largely) western European classical music. So it can go both ways.

No argument from me here. I do like both Jazz and non-Western European traditional music (I am Romanian, our musical folklore is a treasure trove which positively impressed and influenced such luminaries as Liszt, Bartok and Enescu).

And people have always made music for themselves, regardless of fame, the business end of it, or advances in distribution .. that's a constant throughout time. Our world today though? Music has A LOT more competing against it![/size][/font]

True as well, but it might have something to do with the lamentable state of musical education in the Western world, Romania included.

[James]

True as well, but it might have something to do with the lamentable state of musical education in the Western world, Romania included.

What I ment was all the stuff brought forth in the industrial world/societies. That complexity. So much more vying for people's attention. Think about it.

[Florestan]

What I ment was all the stuff brought forth in the industrial world/societies. That complexity. So much more vying for people's attention. Think about it.

I´ve thought about lt long enough. Ninety-nine per cent of the stuff vying for people´s attention is specifically designed to prevent them from learning, enjoying and thinking about the really important stuff. Dumbing down is not an accident, it is the expected result.

[James]

No argument from me here. I do like both Jazz and non-Western European traditional music (I am Romanian, our musical folklore is a treasure trove which positively impressed and influenced such luminaries as Liszt, Bartok and Enescu).

For me, about 1% of all classical music is the best of it, the rest may be worthwhile or whatever, but it's pretty dull business. About the same percentage is true for popular idioms, folk/oral traditions, or even "world" musics.

[James]

I´ve thought about lt long enough. Ninety-nine per cent of the stuff vying for people´s attention is specifically designed to prevent them from learning, enjoying and thinking about the really important stuff.

I disagree, that other stuff vying for their attention is stuff they can also explore (and do), at great lengths/depths. There are whole fields and industries built because of that. You're not thinking big enough.

[Florestan]

For me, about 1% of all classical music is the best of it, the rest may be worthwhile or whatever, but it's pretty dull business. About the same percentage is true for popular idioms, folk/oral traditions, or even "world" musics.

There is dullness and dullness. I´d rather be "bored" by Krommer, Hummel or Rheinberger than "entertained" by Brittney Spears, Eminem or Justin Bieber.

[Florestan]

I disagree, that other stuff vying for their attention is stuff they can also explore (and do), at great lengths/depths. There are whole fields and industries built because of that.

Precisely. Ignorance sells way better than knowledge and education.

[James]

There is dullness and dullness. I´d rather be "bored" by Krommer, Hummel or Rheinberger than "entertained" by Brittney Spears, Eminem or Justin Bieber.

You're looking at things all wrong. I'd ignore all of those choices. I rather dig on good interpretations of Bach, Stravinsky or Ligeti .. and be "entertained" by say .. The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Frank Zappa or Funkadelic/Parliament.

[Karl Henning]

There is dullness and dullness. I´d rather be "bored" by Krommer, Hummel or Rheinberger than "entertained" by Brittney Spears, Eminem or Justin Bieber.

Heck, I'll take Stockhausen over Justin Bieber! 

[James]

Precisely. Ignorance sells way better than knowledge and education.

You're not understanding. What I ment is that those worthy endeavors led to these things being created, and still attract and take people in. Worthy, creative, useful industries and fields. Think of all the things people can do and pursue today as a result of living in the industrial world.

[Florestan]

Heck, I'll take Stockhausen over Justin Bieber! 

Give me Scriabin´s late sonatas over both of them any day and night!