A question about musical tastes

[Plano Skywalker]

for someone looking for metal that has very discernable lyrics, I would actually recommend Linkin Park.

[Lyric Suite]

I don't think he's saying there is no difference, merely that they might have something in common.

 

The impression i got is that he thinks classical music doesn't have any deeper quality or higher complexity per-se, it's just marketed that way. That effectively means he thinks there is no deeper quality or higher complexity in the likes of Beethoven, or am i wrong?

 

If that's the case, i can't even begin to express the massive amount of ignorance revealed in such an assumption.

Edited April 19, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[alanschu]

I don't think he's saying there is no difference, merely that they might have something in common.

 

The impression i got is that he thinks classical music doesn't have any deeper quality or higher complexity per-se, it's just marketed that way. That effectively means he thinks there is no deeper quality or higher complexity in the likes of Beethoven, or am i wrong?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You are wrong.

[Lyric Suite]

You are wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, you may have implied that indirectly, but that's the impression i received.

 

If you mean to say classical music is used as a way for some people to make themselves look smart, or cultured, you are not telling me anything new, but what does that have to do with the real inherent (intellectual) quality of the music itself?

 

Do you think everybody could grasp the concept of serialism or a five voiced fugue without having the intellectual predisposition for it? Would a Nsync fan find the formal development of a symphony interesting or compelling, even if explained? Hey, good luck having them make sense of something like specralism, new complexity or other developments in contemporary classical music, some of which are completely out of whack, even for me.

 

I seriously cannot understand why there is such a stigma against the idea art is also a function of the intellect and that not everybody is up to it...

Edited April 19, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[Lyric Suite]

Effective marketing, that is, not backup dancers.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Tsk, try the Rite of Spring for some awesome backup dancers, truly, it's a riot...

Edited April 19, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[WITHTEETH]

Not to butt in, but i think it matters on how the person listens to the music, not quite the musical taste itself.

[alanschu]

You are wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then explain yourself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Read your long post. The elitism presented was so tangible it could probably actually be physically touched. (EDIT: As well as your edit also indicates)

 

But nooo, society has had nothing to do with it at all. Which would certainly explain why many preschools still have their kids listen to classical music under the hope that there is something to the Mozart Effect.

 

Also interesting, is that you claim that there is no societal influence to the interpretation of classical music, though moments earlier you point out the current "myth."

 

Thus the myth of classical music and much of the missconcieved facts surrounding the art were created, like the steroetype that classical music is for rich, sophisticated people, just as the original connoisseurs were replaced by pousers and wannabes, who could only 'see' greatness in the music they were told was great (like Beethoven), but were not able to grasp new music, thus, new composers were constantly left to survive by giving concerts or taking teaching positions as most of them never made a dime off writing music.

 

You claim that there is a much deeper quality and complexity to classical music. But discount the effects that society has indeed placed upon you (you cannot deny it...it IS there....unless you wish to completely toss out all of the large scale media exposure to things such as the Mozart Effect [among others], which ironically are studies that support your claim). Social roles and expectations play a huge part. I mean, what lead you to classical music in the first place? Was it because of high cultures verbal bashing of it, writing it off as trashy nonsense?

 

The point is accented when, in your previous articles, you have already ascribed levels of intelligence to people that do like NSync (or whatever). To the point where you infer that a fan of NSync is actually incapable of appreciating the music (nooooooo, no elitism there at all). Social categorization plays a huge role, whether or not you are willing to admit it. You label people as being incapable of appreciating classical music if they like NSync (which is also a problem, given Labeling Theory...in other words you're not doing much to make things any better). All without actually knowing the person. Heck, the fact that they are a visible fan of the music enables you to make no assumption as to their ability to appreciate classical music. Heck, social categorization is a huge part of why I am arguing with you about this, over someone else. You have already demonstrated elitist tendencies in threads that were brought up about Japanese art. In this thread, you've done nothing but reinforce that impression. Social pressures exist everywhere. And you've already conceded the prevalence (you called it a myth) about intellectuals and their love of classical music. Stephen Hawkings stated in an interview that he does indeed enjoy the likes of Wagner (one piece of his, being well liked in pop culture thanks to Apocolypse Now, is of course Ride of the Valkyries), Brahms and so on, but also that he likes pop music. Holy ****! How is THAT possible!? I wonder what you'd think if you found him listening to NSync...

 

Do you think everybody could grasp the concept of serialism or a five voiced fugue without having the intellectual predisposition for it? Would a Nsync fan be find the formal development of a symphony interesting or compelling, even if explained? Hey, good luck having them make sense of something like specralism, i'm berely able to make sense of it myself.

 

All I can say is....why not? I first fell in love with classical music when I first heard the opening to Toccata and Fugue in D Minor as the start music in a video game Dark Castle (the sequel, Beyond Dark Castle, also featured a different part of it for the start screen music). I'm certainly not bold enough to claim that my intellectual capabilities were even anywhere close to that of a typical NSync fan, as I would have been five at the time (as compared to a teenager). Unless you're alleging that it's even more inherent than intellectual capabilities (which is not static, as it grows with a person's experience). Are people born with an inherent like or dislike of classical music?

 

Or, god forbid, it couldn't possibly be because many classical music fans are elitist, and have helped perpetuate the gap between classical music and pop music. Keeping them separate allows them to remain distinct from the pop music fans, while at the same time creating a rift between each group by perpetuating the "myth." Ergo, the groups continue to be distinct, and the "intellectual" elite continue to have a way to rationalize their supposed superiority.

 

On a final note:

 

Hey, good luck having them make sense of something like specralism, i'm berely able to make sense of it myself.

 

I think this says quite a bit.

 

 

Not to butt in, but i think it matters on how the person listens to the music, not quite the musical taste itself.

 

I agree with this.

[Visas Marr is hot]

though i hate metal music i'd say dat you'd need more intelligence to listen to metal than pop because pop is so pointless that only a retard would understand any talent in the songs

[Darth Drabek]

That's why I love the Internet. You get people who research their points to the level of published thesis papers, and you get people who make broad, generalizations about "retards," with no solid arguments behind their points.

 

God Bless Al Gore.

[alanschu]

Hehehe.

[Lyric Suite]

Read your long post.  The elitism presented was so tangible it could probably actually be physically touched.  (EDIT:  As well as your edit also indicates)

 

But nooo, society has had nothing to do with it at all.  Which would certainly explain why many preschools still have their kids listen to classical music under the hope that there is something to the Mozart Effect.

 

Also interesting, is that you claim that there is no societal influence to the interpretation of classical music, though moments earlier you point out the current "myth."

 

Please, feel free to 'prove' to me that the deeper and inherently complex qualities i and many others find in classical music are the product of a 'social conditioning'.

 

So far you have said nothing to back up your claims. Of course, couldn't it possibly be true that there are in fact such qualities to be found in art music? Noooo, of course not... <---- your argument so far. "

 

You claim that there is a much deeper quality and complexity to classical music.  But discount the effects that society has indeed placed upon you (you cannot deny it...it IS there....unless you wish to completely toss out all of the large scale media exposure to things such as the Mozart Effect [among others], which ironically are studies that support your claim).  Social roles and expectations play a huge part.  I mean, what lead you to classical music in the first place?  Was it because of high cultures verbal bashing of it, writing it off as trashy nonsense? 

 

I claim i find a deeper quality and complexity to classical music because it's the truth. You can argue the expressive quality of music is up to the individual, and i'm perfectly willing to agree with that to a point. Complexity, alas, that is a purely objective measure and i'm afraid classical music has an hard edge on that angle over anything but jazz.

 

Regardless, i find the notion of social conditioning dictating the very nature of one of the greatest exponents of western culture to be utterly without claim. It's beyond absurd. I can't believe you are really suggesting people have been duped in believing this for more then a thousand of years. By your argument, anything we believe it's the result of social conditioning.

 

BTW, since you pretty much admitted you think the inherent complexity of classical music is down to social conditioning, why did you deny this the first time i called you on it?

 

And just so you know, yes, the whole idea behind the Mozart Effect is completely bogus. There is no such thing. In order to understand Mozart you need grasp his music on a cognitive level. Exposing pre-borns to Mozart is as effective as bringing your pregnant wife to a biology class and hope your son is going to become a scientific genius. It's all the more amusing if you consider those Mozart for babies cds do not contain those works Mozart is considered a genius for, they are just a selection of pieces Mozart wrote when he was a toddler and among the simplest music ever written. Define irony.

 

The point is accented when, in your previous articles, you have already ascribed levels of intelligence to people that do like NSync (or whatever).  To the point where you infer that a fan of NSync is actually incapable of appreciating the music (nooooooo, no elitism there at all). Social categorization plays a huge role, whether or not you are willing to admit it.  You label people as being incapable of appreciating classical music if they like NSync (which is also a problem, given Labeling Theory...in other words you're not doing much to make things any better).  All without actually knowing the person.  Heck, the fact that they are a visible fan of the music enables you to make no assumption as to their ability to appreciate classical music.  Heck, social categorization is a huge part of why I am arguing with you about this, over someone else.  You have already demonstrated elitist tendencies in threads that were brought up about Japanese art.  In this thread, you've done nothing but reinforce that impression.  Social pressures exist everywhere.  And you've already conceded the prevalence (you called it a myth) about intellectuals and their love of classical music.  Stephen Hawkings stated in an interview that he does indeed enjoy the likes of Wagner (one piece of his, being well liked in pop culture thanks to Apocolypse Now, is of course Ride of the Valkyries), Brahms and so on, but also that he likes pop music.  Holy ****!  How is THAT possible!?  I wonder what you'd think if you found him listening to NSync...

 

To me, the idea of elitism implies the belief of personal superiority, but when i analyze my feelings i don't see myself as an elitist as much as a realist. In the end, while i do like to entertain the idea i'm actually smarter then some stupid kid fed on MTV, i'm not as smart as that, really, and i have enough personal flaws to really question any claim of superiority on anybody.

 

Still, i do like to generalize on things, and in the case of NSync fans it's usually a safe bet, but i generally do it just to be contrary (like in the case of my lash against Japanese culture). It also pisses off politically corrected drones, which i find amusing.

 

Of course, whether i'm an elitist or not has nothing to do with the fact classical music is inherently more complex then pop. You are shifting the argument to an ad hominem position but fail to address the object of discussion. You are also making a lot of assumptions yourself. For instance, i do like a lot of popular music as well. In the end, when have i ever said one can only enjoy music that is deep and complex? My taste in music is as eclectic as they come, and i'm sure that's the case with Stephen Hawkings. Still doesn't mean everybody can enjoy classical music. The fact some classical pieces are very popular among pop culture means nothing and truly reveals your ignorance on the subject. People don't listen to the Ride of the Valkyries vecause it's harmonically daring, like Wagner music usually is, but because it's a catchy, simple piece of music anybody can appreciate. Just like the 'moonlight' sonata, which was not rated very highly by Beethoven, who actually resented the popularity of this piece (and only of the first movement to boot) over his other, more interesting sonatas. And what about Mozart most famous sonata? The k545 sonata in C, a piece meant for beginners of the piano?

 

Of course, there's nothing wrong with those pieces per-se, really. Classical music is a vast body of music that encompasses everything, from the simplest, most catchy tune to masterpieces of colossal proportions.

 

BTW, i actually do not like Wagner, did you know that? All that social conditioning and yet i'm able to retain my own personal taste, how is that possible?

 

All I can say is....why not?  I first fell in love with classical music when I first heard the opening to Toccata and Fugue in D Minor as the start music in a video game Dark Castle (the sequel, Beyond Dark Castle, also featured a different part of it for the start screen music).  I'm certainly not bold enough to claim that my intellectual capabilities were even anywhere close to that of a typical NSync fan, as I would have been five at the time (as compared to a teenager).  Unless you're alleging that it's even more inherent than intellectual capabilities (which is not static, as it grows with a person's experience).  Are people born with an inherent like or dislike of classical music?

 

And still, you demonstrate how little you know on the subject.

 

Everybody can enjoy music from a purely sensual point of view, even complex music. Of course, did you really understand the contrapuntal polyphony behind the fugue, or did you just found the sounds pretty? Do you now? As well, did you know the Toccata and Fugue in d is not really that complex of a piece and is of doubtful authorship (that is, probably NOT by Bach)?

 

Or, god forbid, it couldn't possibly be because many classical music fans are elitist, and have helped perpetuate the gap between classical music and pop music.  Keeping them separate allows them to remain distinct from the pop music fans, while at the same time creating a rift between each group by perpetuating the "myth."  Ergo, the groups continue to be distinct, and the "intellectual" elite continue to have a way to rationalize their supposed superiority.

 

Please...

Edited April 20, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[Lyric Suite]

BTW, here's my view of classical music against popular music, adapted from something i wrote a while ago on another forum.

 

As i said, according to Aaron Copland (from 'what to listen for in music'), there are different planes in which music exists : the sensual plane, the expressive plane, and the musical plane.

 

The first two need no explanation and is pretty much how everybody listens to music. Those two planes are generally subjective and not up for discussing.

 

The third plane is what i'm going to talk about. This plane is where music exists purely based on the notes themselves and their manipulation. Most people are berely conscious of this plane, but in order to fully appreciate music one need to learn how to listen to it in an intelligent way, as Copland puts it, and this is the main concern of this plane.

 

There are different ways to brake down music on this level, and one is by separating the four basic elements : Rhythm, Melody, Harmony and Tone Color.

 

Then we have Texture, which comes in three different basic kinds : Monophonic, Homophonic and Polyphonic, plus Heterophony, Monody and Micropolyphony.

 

Finally, we have Structure, which is mainly how the music unfolds over time. In classical music, structure can be shaped after specific forms, but most of all structure is often based on the principle of repetition. Repetition comes in different categories and their subsequent forms, which are as follow :

 

1) Exact repetition

2) Sectional or simmetrical repetition (binary form, ternary form, rondo, free sectional arrangement)

3) Repetition by variation (basso ostinato, passagaglia, chanone, theme and variations)

4) Repetition by fugal treatment (fugue, concerto grosso, chorale prelude, motets and madrigals)

5) Repetition by development (sonata)

 

Structure also manifests itself in the principle of non-repetition, which is the hardest form of musical structure and is not as common as the rest.

 

Now, if you take each single of those elements, and you make a comparison between popular music and classical music, you'll find that the latter is far ahead in terms of how the notes are manipulated on top of the sheer expressive quality of the music.

 

For instance, take counterpoint. Counterpoint is one of the most intellectually stimulating elements in music. Bach is considered one of the pinnacles of western genius because of his mastery of counterpoint.

 

Counterpoint stems from polyphony, in which you have 2 or 3 different melodic voices interacting with each other (the brain cannot process more then 3), thus the harmony is then created vertically rather then chordally.

 

You can find solid counterpoint in popular music, like for instance in Frank Zappa (who's actually considered a real composer by some), or King Crimson, but compared to the classical masters, how many groups stand their ground? Mozart music for instance literally drips with little games of counterpoint so that each musical ideas stems from contrapuntal interaction out of other musical ideas. His music becomes like a fractal, which always reveals something new if looked from different angles. Very few composers can do that, and this is why Mozart is one of the all time geniuses. In comparison, most Popular music is generally painfully homophonic i fear.

 

What about harmony? 19th century composers brought harmony and chromaticism to their braking point, what can you find in popular music other then the usually rehashed chord progressions based on basic harmony? Again, King Crimson has interesting harmonic manipulations, and so do several other bands, but they are few and cannot really compare to what composers did after Schoenberg and the members of the second viennese school.

 

Rhytmn? I admit, early western classical music wasn't very strong in reguards of rhythm, but classical music from other parts of the world pushed rhythm to high levels and even western music caught up eventually. In popular music, the only time you'll find rhythmical manipulations is in things like progressive rock, or rap. Most of the times popular music is based on the same 4/4 simmetrical rhythms.

 

Of course, there are different levels in which popular music stands well, like tone coloring (some bands have interesting colors), or idiomatic (music written specifically for a particular instrument with the intention of bringing out said instrument capabilities. Paganini was a classical idiomatic composer) virtuoso playing, but other then that popular music is generally lacking in any of the elements that make music interesting.

 

Most of all however, popular music is severly lacking in structure. 90% of structure in popular music is based on exact repetition. You start with a short, non developing theme or melody, and you repeat it. Then you introduce another theme or melody, and repeat that until you re-introduce previous themes or rhythms, and repeat those again. Wash, rinse and repeat ad nauseam.

 

Certain bands like Pink Floyd or Opeth come with sectional repetition, and sometimes you get bands with repetition by variation (often jazz inspired). As far as i know nobody has ever even tried to attempt non-repetitious structures.

 

All in all i can say that you can find many interesting ways in which the musical plane is dealt with in popular music, i just see a lot more going on in classical.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[WITHTEETH]

I could say some electronic music is up to par with the complexities of classical. Have you heard of autechre? but really we are talking about art, and without the individual sense of art its just about sounds smashed together. art is subjective thus music (even classical) is then also.

Edited April 20, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[alanschu]

Please, feel free to 'prove' to me that the deeper and inherently complex qualities i and many others find in classical music are the product of a 'social conditioning'.

 

So far you have said nothing to back up your claims. Of course, couldn't it possibly be true that there are in fact such qualities to be found in art music? Noooo, of course not... <---- your argument so far.

 

Real quick response....there's limited proof for an against. I challenge you to find proof that people of "inferior" intellect are incapable (as you claim) of appreciating classical music. Or that people that like classical music are somehow more intelligent.

 

 

Regardless, i find the notion of social conditioning dictating the very nature of one of the greatest exponents of western culture to be utterly without claim. It's beyond absurd. I can't believe you are really suggesting people have been duped in believing this for more then a thousand of years. By your argument, anything we believe it's the result of social conditioning

 

That's because you're in denial, because it challenges your perceived superiority. It's not uncommon for fascists to be against extensive research that goes against their inherent misconceptions that they utilize to hold themselves to higher accord. And no, I don't believe that everything is. Which is why I suggested that it's a possibility. Especially given the numerous parallels it holds to other elitist beliefs.

 

 

 

Finally...

 

Still, i do like to generalize on things, and in the case of NSync fans it's usually a safe bet, but i generally do it just to be contrary (like in the case of my lash against Japanese culture). It also pisses off politically corrected drones, which i find amusing.

 

Look at what you read here, and think very hard about it. Very hard.

 

 

Everybody can enjoy music from a purely sensual point of view, even complex music. Of course, did you really understand the contrapuntal polyphony behind the fugue, or did you just found the sounds pretty? Do you now?

 

Yes. So much so that I recognize that using the statement "contrapuntal polyphony" is excessive (and mimics the wordiness that high school English students use on their essays in order to sound more intelligent). Contrapuntal refers to the same thing as polyphony. Furthermore, the fact that it's a fugue is a pretty big indicator that counterpoint is present, given that the fugue IS a contrapuntal method.

 

 

As well, did you know the Toccata and Fugue in d is not really that complex of a piece and is of doubtful authorship (that is, probably NOT by Bach)?

 

As a matter of fact I did. Which is why I didn't state an author. Thanks for coming though. And I know it's not that complex of a piece. My brother could play it.

 

Furthermore, you put your supposed appreciation into question when you refer to it casually as Toccata and Fugue in D. You would have been better off to drop the key, or perhaps refer to the violin key (which escapes me at the moment), rather than list the D-Major scale.

[Lyric Suite]

I could say some electronic music is up to par with the complexities of classical. Have you heard of autechre? but really we are talking about art, and without the individual sense of art its just about sounds smashed together. art is subjective thus music (even classical) is then also.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually i have not. I'm philosophically contrary to the disassociation of music from performance, which makes me very shy of electronic music, even when composed by classical composers.

 

I have a few recordings of eletronic music by Varese (who's considered the father of eletronic music), Boulez, Ligeti and even Frank Zappa, but i never checked anything from popular culture, aside from the usual exposure to techno, trance and stuff like that...

Edited April 20, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[LoneWolf16]

This is too entertaining for words.

 

It's like two snipers taking pot shots at one another.

[WITHTEETH]

The funny part is that were in a star wars forum! alas, we're all pretty nutty in our own special way.

[LoneWolf16]

Nah, we're in a game company's forum. But still, funny. :D

[WITHTEETH]

My grampa had this same debate with video games and chess

[Lyric Suite]

Yes.  So much so that I recognize that using the statement "contrapuntal polyphony" is excessive (and mimics the wordiness that high school English students use on their essays in order to sound more intelligent).  Contrapuntal refers to the same thing as polyphony.  Furthermore, the fact that it's a fugue is a pretty big indicator that counterpoint is present, given that the fugue IS a contrapuntal method.

 

Actually, contrapuntal polyphony is perfectly valid in that counterpoint does NOT refer to the same thing as polyphony. Almost, but not quite. Polyphony from the middle ages for instance is not usually referred to as contrapuntal.

 

And yes, meaning what, that you know about fugues now, or when you were 5 year old?

 

Furthermore, you put your supposed appreciation into question when you refer to it casually as Toccata and Fugue in D.  You would have been better off to drop the key, or perhaps refer to the violin key (which escapes me at the moment), rather than list the D-Major scale.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You can use lower case letters to rapresent minor scales...

Edited April 20, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[WITHTEETH]

That is below the belt picking on capitalization. Heres where you made a mistake -

dissasociation

Its disassociation

Edited April 20, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[LoneWolf16]

[Lyric Suite]

That is below the belt picking on capitalization. Heres where you made a mistake -

dissasociation

Its disassociation

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, i lose...

 

Ho well, fixed!

Edited April 20, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[Lyric Suite]

Real quick response....there's limited proof for an against.  I challenge you to find proof that people of "inferior" intellect are incapable (as you claim) of appreciating classical music.  Or that people that like classical music are somehow more intelligent.

 

Well, of course i can't prove any of that. Maybe somebody could ask what type of music people from mensa listen to...

 

That's because you're in denial, because it challenges your perceived superiority.  It's not uncommon for fascists to be against extensive research that goes against their inherent misconceptions that they utilize to hold themselves to higher accord.  And no, I don't believe that everything is.  Which is why I suggested that it's a possibility.  Especially given the numerous parallels it holds to other elitist beliefs.

 

So, wait, let me get this straight. Not only you are accusing every single human soul that has loved and supported classical music for, say, the last 400 years to be in denial, but we are also all facists now.

Edited April 20, 2006 by Lyric Suite

[Lyric Suite]

BTW, i present thee, the enemies of classical music... (w00t)