Quote:
Originally Posted by cathcacr
Larger-scale form, narrative and development is of interest to me, regardless of genre. In rock, a 10-minute piece of music will, other things being equal, be of more interest to me than a 4-minute one. Also, my greatest interest since getting into classical about 3 years ago has been the larger-scale structure of exposition, i.e., symphonic form, as distinct from chamber or solo music. I love symphonies. It may not just be the orchestral "timbre," but just the number and variety of instruments brought to the harmonics. Also, I happen to find many more examples of pieces that invite considerably greater aesthetic engagement in classical than I do in rock/pop. This is not to say that there aren't exceptional cases in the rock/pop world that are of personal importance.
I'm also not big on the vocal aspects of music, and find it just a bit odd that so much rock/pop feels some urgent need to put words into songs rather than let the music speak for itself.
And yes, I am usually classified as far on the end of the introversion/extroversion scale, highly analytical and critically-minded.
|
Wow, someone like me
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carolus
Just to add my $0,02 worth to this very interesting thread... I totally agree that people listening to classical music are also deeper thinkers and more sensitive overall. However, a few years ago when I still cared to listen to "mainstream" crap, I discovered that certain catchy passages of either techno or hip hop (yes, that "awful" thing) can easily be tranformed into catchy "classical" passages if played on "classical" instruments like violins. At least it is easy when you try to imagine that in your head. Nonetheless, I soon came to realize that the classical provides more depth and complexity than "shallow" genres, especially pop, and the "catchy" phrase which constitutes a whole tune in a pop song would only be one of many elements in the vast richness of a classical piece. Also, I tend to think of classical, jazz and ethnic as "healthier" in that they use sounds that an actual physical object could make, instead of any artificial noise whose effects on the body and mind might be rather erratic. And just to add a bit of perspective - "our" classical is not the ONLY classical there is - there are also things like non-western classical (like Indian or oriental), not hundreds but thousands of years old, and they also seem to be comparably complex and to refer to the deeper parts of the mind and the heart. For instance, I love the complex sound of sitar, definitely more complex and "advanced" than a classical guitar, as well as the sound of tabla and shehnai.
|
excently said. I would like to add a couple points though. WE LIVE IN AMERICA (or western Europe, seeing as I'm new, I've noticed a few posters arn't from the USA), the bastion of CAPITALISM. Pop music is tendy because it is catchy and sells. What's on TV comercials? at the movies? who's on countless magazine at the supermarket?everywhere there is a product to be hawked? yep, you guessed it modern "pop" and it's "stars"
Look at American Idol, people tune-in in droves to listen to crappy 2nd rate performances of "hit" rock songs. Why, because the songs are catchy and they know them almost by heart WITHOUT investing countless hours trying to digest them!
How many classical tunes do you find yourself huming after listening to them for the very first time? I've FINALLY learned to like (and really appreciate) Mahler's first (my first real dive into a romantic symphony), after what I'd say was 10 or more complete listen throughs (50 some minutes a pop too). Let me tell you, that's a lot of time, altough well spent time I'd say.
How long does it take to pick up an average Brittney Spears song? Probably most are humming or singing along in the second refrain!!!! Also with pop music, what are they selling, the MUSIC or the performances/performer/personality? In must pop music, the MUSIC takes a back seat to the artist, why because the artist is who/what they can sell and make a quick buck off of.
This is something that my brother just recently pointed out to me and is actually quite unsettling. How many "great" works of art came from the later vulgar Roman empire? How does that compare to the current state of affairs in 20th/21st century America? The French Enlightment time period (continuing till WWIish) is LOADED with what we now (and people past) have considered significant pieces of art. Ancient Greece also has more than it's fair share of "classics". Early Rome also contributed it's fair share of what are considered masterpieces, be it in art, music, writing, or whatever. You can probably guess my view on the current state of the arts. It's all catchy pointless meaningless garbage that's sole purpose is to sell itself and other products!!!
Let me sorta go off topic, but I see a parallel. I'm a diehard hockey fan (duh, New York Islanders). Hockey, and the NHL in particular isn't recieved too well in the mainsteam USA. The TV rating are less than spectacular. The NHL sees this as a serious problem, and is working feveriuosly to market the game to joe average sports fans instead of die-hard hockey fans. What's happening, well, lets just say alot of die-hard feel alientated. The parallel that I see with classical music is more of a divergence. The NHL is trying desperatly to sell out to "make-it" big, while I see the genre of classical music going an entirely differnt way, the way of letting itself evolve over it's own course and be damned what critics and marketers think. Where that takes classical music no-one really knows, but it atleast, to me, seems to be following the same course that it followed from Baroque to Classical to Romantic to modern classical, something different and unique!!! Pop music it isn't and pop music it doesn't strive to be!!!