Total Posts:39|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why is classical music considered top quality

Jordan56
Posts: 1,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 11:00:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So why? Why when we hear classical music the first thing we picture is people in black tux's/dresses in a large hall for 5 hours. I know it was written by the masters from back in the day but why do we continue listening to the same classical music with such high enthusiasm. Why treat classical music like its worth gold.

(Note: I don't hate classical music and do enjoy listening to it at times.)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 1:06:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 11:00:44 AM, Jordan56 wrote:
So why? Why when we hear classical music the first thing we picture is people in black tux's/dresses in a large hall for 5 hours. I know it was written by the masters from back in the day but why do we continue listening to the same classical music with such high enthusiasm. Why treat classical music like its worth gold.

(Note: I don't hate classical music and do enjoy listening to it at times.)

It's old, it's known, and if it is considered to be of "top quality" that is only because some sort of a consensus has been reached on it -presumably because it's both old, and known. Is this a circular explanation? Yes. That's how it works though.

I like classical music well enough, though I'm partial to German/Austrian or Russian composers. French or Italian composers are just generally too frilly for me.
Tsar of DDO
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 1:13:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

There is not much else to the world than is perceived thereof, then?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 1:14:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 1:13:06 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

There is not much else to the world than what is perceived thereof, then?

Fixed.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Jordan56
Posts: 1,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 1:29:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

Don't you think its a bit too much respect though. People of quality basically worship this music and shun anything else. Its essentially a fight between modern and classical music. I know of many modern songs where the theory has been written extremely well and thought through to perfection and still can't reach the same respect as a classical piece. What's a modern artist to do?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 1:41:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 1:29:23 PM, Jordan56 wrote:
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

Don't you think its a bit too much respect though. People of quality basically worship this music and shun anything else. Its essentially a fight between modern and classical music. I know of many modern songs where the theory has been written extremely well and thought through to perfection and still can't reach the same respect as a classical piece. What's a modern artist to do?

Prestige is inherently exclusive. If few people understand it and it's perceptively complex, it will be respected. I mean, imagine if science and philosophy were spoken by and understood by everyone. They wouldn't be very scholarly anymore or very specialized or very prestigious. I don't feel bad for modern artists. They're making a ton of money with that popularity, and while their music isn't considered top quality, they have top quality lives.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 1:53:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Because it's complex enough for music aficionados to appreciate, and they're typically the ones who set the precedent for what music ought to be cherished and respected. Most people don't really like classical music, but many feel obliged to view it with admiration because it has earned the place for many people as being the music they 'should like.' I'm always enthralled when I listen to classical music, but for some reason or another, I don't listen to it much. The genre has a hard time appealing to many people because it takes a great deal more effort on the listener's part to be fully appreciated than do most other types of music.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:00:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 1:53:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because it's complex enough for music aficionados to appreciate, and they're typically the ones who set the precedent for what music ought to be cherished and respected. Most people don't really like classical music, but many feel obliged to view it with admiration because it has earned the place for many people as being the music they 'should like.' I'm always enthralled when I listen to classical music, but for some reason or another, I don't listen to it much. The genre has a hard time appealing to many people because it takes a great deal more effort on the listener's part to be fully appreciated than do most other types of music.

I don't think so. There's no effort involved, it's just that the type of personality that would be compatible with classical music is in the minority.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:04:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 2:00:21 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 1:53:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Because it's complex enough for music aficionados to appreciate, and they're typically the ones who set the precedent for what music ought to be cherished and respected. Most people don't really like classical music, but many feel obliged to view it with admiration because it has earned the place for many people as being the music they 'should like.' I'm always enthralled when I listen to classical music, but for some reason or another, I don't listen to it much. The genre has a hard time appealing to many people because it takes a great deal more effort on the listener's part to be fully appreciated than do most other types of music.

I don't think so. There's no effort involved, it's just that the type of personality that would be compatible with classical music is in the minority.

That's probably more accurate.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:13:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 1:41:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 1:29:23 PM, Jordan56 wrote:
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

Don't you think its a bit too much respect though. People of quality basically worship this music and shun anything else. Its essentially a fight between modern and classical music. I know of many modern songs where the theory has been written extremely well and thought through to perfection and still can't reach the same respect as a classical piece. What's a modern artist to do?

Prestige is inherently exclusive. If few people understand it and it's perceptively complex, it will be respected. I mean, imagine if science and philosophy were spoken by and understood by everyone. They wouldn't be very scholarly anymore or very specialized or very prestigious. I don't feel bad for modern artists. They're making a ton of money with that popularity, and while their music isn't considered top quality, they have top quality lives.

Complexity for the sake of complexity has negative connotations. If the complexity is inherent to the point being made, that's one thing, but for something to be needlessly complex is just begging to get ignored.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:29:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 2:13:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2013 1:41:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 1:29:23 PM, Jordan56 wrote:
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

Don't you think its a bit too much respect though. People of quality basically worship this music and shun anything else. Its essentially a fight between modern and classical music. I know of many modern songs where the theory has been written extremely well and thought through to perfection and still can't reach the same respect as a classical piece. What's a modern artist to do?

Prestige is inherently exclusive. If few people understand it and it's perceptively complex, it will be respected. I mean, imagine if science and philosophy were spoken by and understood by everyone. They wouldn't be very scholarly anymore or very specialized or very prestigious. I don't feel bad for modern artists. They're making a ton of money with that popularity, and while their music isn't considered top quality, they have top quality lives.

Complexity for the sake of complexity has negative connotations. If the complexity is inherent to the point being made, that's one thing, but for something to be needlessly complex is just begging to get ignored.

I don't anyone sets out to make anything complicated. When you have an orchestra, with that many different tones at your disposal, the way you pull it together to make something inventive and coherent is always going to turn out complex.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:33:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

Did you really just make the statements you just made?

Modern music is not scholarly at all, and there's nothing to analyze? You do realize that music critics analyze modern music EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. Right? Because they do. I may give you that music theory is not used AS widely with modern music, but if anything, I'd say modern music offers MORE opportunities for scholarly analysis. First, the use of lyrics gives music a literary element. Secondly, there is a whole other level of analysis in the genre, use of music, and yes, music theory. The way music is modeled often holds the opportunity for a lot of sociological/cultural analysis, as well as what the thematic implications thereof are. Care for an example? One artist, just off the top of my head, Vampire Weekend. Vampire Weekend's music has been analyzed on so many different levels and through so many lenses that it has been taken to comment on everything from colonialism to man's reckoning with the question of god's existence to criticisms of Suburbia and the modern music industry itself.

And that's just one example.

As for the lowering of skill, that's actually an AMAZING improvement over classical music. The democratization of an art form. It's really really beautiful.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:33:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 2:29:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't anyone sets out to make anything complicated. When you have an orchestra, with that many different tones at your disposal, the way you pull it together to make something inventive and coherent is always going to turn out complex.

Counterexample: "Sunrise" introduction from Also Sprach Zarathustra.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:35:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 1:29:23 PM, Jordan56 wrote:
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

Don't you think its a bit too much respect though. People of quality basically worship this music and shun anything else. Its essentially a fight between modern and classical music. I know of many modern songs where the theory has been written extremely well and thought through to perfection and still can't reach the same respect as a classical piece. What's a modern artist to do?

It's the fact that classical music stirs something within the human soul. Classical music gives me goosebumps, it makes me think and feel. It sets my mind at ease and can display a wide array of emotions and connections. If anyone else feels this way like I do (which they do) it's no surprise that classical music has stood the test of time.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:40:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 2:33:30 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:29:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't anyone sets out to make anything complicated. When you have an orchestra, with that many different tones at your disposal, the way you pull it together to make something inventive and coherent is always going to turn out complex.

Counterexample: "Sunrise" introduction from Also Sprach Zarathustra.

That's not a counter example. that's a selection from a whole composition in which only a few instruments were in play.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:46:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 2:33:27 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

Did you really just make the statements you just made?

Modern music is not scholarly at all, and there's nothing to analyze? You do realize that music critics analyze modern music EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. Right? Because they do. I may give you that music theory is not used AS widely with modern music, but if anything, I'd say modern music offers MORE opportunities for scholarly analysis. First, the use of lyrics gives music a literary element. Secondly, there is a whole other level of analysis in the genre, use of music, and yes, music theory. The way music is modeled often holds the opportunity for a lot of sociological/cultural analysis, as well as what the thematic implications thereof are. Care for an example? One artist, just off the top of my head, Vampire Weekend. Vampire Weekend's music has been analyzed on so many different levels and through so many lenses that it has been taken to comment on everything from colonialism to man's reckoning with the question of god's existence to criticisms of Suburbia and the modern music industry itself.

And that's just one example.

As for the lowering of skill, that's actually an AMAZING improvement over classical music. The democratization of an art form. It's really really beautiful.

The OP wanted to know why modern music is less prestigious than classical and I explained why. I haven't passed any judgement on whether on not the perception is justified. If you believe that some modern songs have special meaning, then I'm not in a position to dispute that, but certainly that is not the norm and it isn't what makes the song popular. Modern music as a whole is far far far less analytic and employs far far far less music theory and less variety than classical music.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:56:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 2:29:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:13:06 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/1/2013 1:41:28 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 1:29:23 PM, Jordan56 wrote:
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

Don't you think its a bit too much respect though. People of quality basically worship this music and shun anything else. Its essentially a fight between modern and classical music. I know of many modern songs where the theory has been written extremely well and thought through to perfection and still can't reach the same respect as a classical piece. What's a modern artist to do?

Prestige is inherently exclusive. If few people understand it and it's perceptively complex, it will be respected. I mean, imagine if science and philosophy were spoken by and understood by everyone. They wouldn't be very scholarly anymore or very specialized or very prestigious. I don't feel bad for modern artists. They're making a ton of money with that popularity, and while their music isn't considered top quality, they have top quality lives.

Complexity for the sake of complexity has negative connotations. If the complexity is inherent to the point being made, that's one thing, but for something to be needlessly complex is just begging to get ignored.

I don't anyone sets out to make anything complicated. When you have an orchestra, with that many different tones at your disposal, the way you pull it together to make something inventive and coherent is always going to turn out complex.

I'm not saying that classical music is not complex - merely that complexity alone is not a valid criteria to appreciate classical music. It's mainly a retort against the bolded. Classical music is prestigious NOT ONLY because of its complexity, but also for the various other reasons cited by you and others.

I would also add that Occam's razor applies here. If something can make the same point without added complexity, that point will typically be perceived as more valuable.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 2:58:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 2:40:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:33:30 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:29:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't anyone sets out to make anything complicated. When you have an orchestra, with that many different tones at your disposal, the way you pull it together to make something inventive and coherent is always going to turn out complex.

Counterexample: "Sunrise" introduction from Also Sprach Zarathustra.

That's not a counter example. that's a selection from a whole composition in which only a few instruments were in play.

Nearly the entire orchestra plays in that section.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 3:04:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 2:58:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:40:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:33:30 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:29:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't anyone sets out to make anything complicated. When you have an orchestra, with that many different tones at your disposal, the way you pull it together to make something inventive and coherent is always going to turn out complex.

Counterexample: "Sunrise" introduction from Also Sprach Zarathustra.

That's not a counter example. that's a selection from a whole composition in which only a few instruments were in play.

Nearly the entire orchestra plays in that section.

do you have the score? I'm only hearing brass section and timpani....

regardless, you didn't really address my point. there's a WHOLE composition there; you can't pick out one 1 minute section in which, what is it, a solo trumpet plays for the majority of the time, and say "Aha! proof that orchestral music isn't necessarily complex." That's called cherry picking
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/1/2013 3:45:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 3:04:34 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:58:39 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:40:20 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:33:30 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/1/2013 2:29:15 PM, 000ike wrote:
I don't anyone sets out to make anything complicated. When you have an orchestra, with that many different tones at your disposal, the way you pull it together to make something inventive and coherent is always going to turn out complex.

Counterexample: "Sunrise" introduction from Also Sprach Zarathustra.

That's not a counter example. that's a selection from a whole composition in which only a few instruments were in play.

Nearly the entire orchestra plays in that section.

do you have the score? I'm only hearing brass section and timpani....

regardless, you didn't really address my point. there's a WHOLE composition there; you can't pick out one 1 minute section in which, what is it, a solo trumpet plays for the majority of the time, and say "Aha! proof that orchestral music isn't necessarily complex." That's called cherry picking

Sure:
http://classic-online.ru...

In fact, here is an excerpt from an analysis of this section:
"It is built on a simple three-note figure stated by the trumpets over an ominous pedal-point (the motif representing the "World-Riddle") and rising to a climax of shattering intensity, in which the full orchestra is augmented by the organ in a long-held C major chord. " [1]

Of course, it isn't lengthy as a section; I feel that, despite its brevity, the fleeting can be more lasting than the sustained.

Also, my point wasn't to reject your remark in its totality, but to suggest that it is less than a rule; full-bodied orchestral compositions are not necessarily or categorically complex as a function of their very medium.

[1] http://www.kennedy-center.org...
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 9:37:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered.

1. Do you know jazz theory? It's exceedingly more complex than classical music, which conformed to relatively stringent rules. Jazz mixes a head (written section) with an improvisational section, only increasing the complexity and uniqueness of each performance. There's not only jazz, but rhythmically complex bossa nova and neoclassical metal with flawless, refined guitar arpeggios and solos.

2. To make such a black-and-white statement denotes a lack of intellectual honesty or musical aptitude on your part. Claiming there's nothing to "analyze" in the totality of modern music is absolutely silly; there are thousands of pieces which can be analyzed in the strict 'music theory' way, the nuances deciphered, and the intent of the composer/writer demonstrated. Further, the point of music is to be subjectively beautiful, not objectively superior; who are you to say that a 19th century composer who could compose a piece without playing a note, just following the rules of music theory is superior to a highly-improvisational gospel organist who plays with such passion and creativity that he evokes waves of positive emotions from those who hear him?

3. Orchestral music is still composed today, in the modern era. And although contemporary classical music is not the most complex music, it still defeats your point about modern music not being complex or capable of analysis, because the music you claim to be complex is still composed today. [http://www.guardian.co.uk...].
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Jordan56
Posts: 1,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 10:20:15 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Has anyone heard of John Cage piece 4'33". It's basically 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence and its to hear the ambience of a silent room. I understand what the composer is trying to convey but why should classical pieces like this get fame. There is no hard thinking behind it. Someone just claimed 4 minutes and 33 seconds and named it classical and because of its genre, people love it. What if a modern artist was to do something like this first. It would be classified stupid and not worth it.
cybertron1998
Posts: 5,818
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 10:53:11 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered. How many people do you know that can sing? Likely a lot. Can you make up a tune right now if you wanted to? probably.

You are wrong about that if you think that there us nothing to analyze, then you cannot analyze the music. There more to it than meets the eye. Its more than just singing and making a tune. Artist make stories with the music and the lyrics. So the next time you listen to some music, whatever it is i hope you really listen
Epsilon: There are so many stories where some brave hero decides to give their life to save the day, and because of their sacrifice, the good guys win, the survivors all cheer, and everybody lives happily ever after. But the hero... never gets to see that ending. They'll never know if their sacrifice actually made a difference. They'll never know if the day was really saved. In the end, they just have to have faith.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 11:41:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 9:37:41 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/1/2013 12:28:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
Anything that's scholarly receives public respect. Classical music is scholarly not just because it's old but because there's actual music theory and analysis behind it, it's complex, and aesthetically speaking, it's elegant. Modern music is not scholarly at all, there's nothing to analyze, and the skill set required to make it has been so watered down that it's too commonplace to be revered.

1. Do you know jazz theory? It's exceedingly more complex than classical music, which conformed to relatively stringent rules. Jazz mixes a head (written section) with an improvisational section, only increasing the complexity and uniqueness of each performance. There's not only jazz, but rhythmically complex bossa nova and neoclassical metal with flawless, refined guitar arpeggios and solos.

2. To make such a black-and-white statement denotes a lack of intellectual honesty or musical aptitude on your part. Claiming there's nothing to "analyze" in the totality of modern music is absolutely silly; there are thousands of pieces which can be analyzed in the strict 'music theory' way, the nuances deciphered, and the intent of the composer/writer demonstrated. Further, the point of music is to be subjectively beautiful, not objectively superior; who are you to say that a 19th century composer who could compose a piece without playing a note, just following the rules of music theory is superior to a highly-improvisational gospel organist who plays with such passion and creativity that he evokes waves of positive emotions from those who hear him?

3. Orchestral music is still composed today, in the modern era. And although contemporary classical music is not the most complex music, it still defeats your point about modern music not being complex or capable of analysis, because the music you claim to be complex is still composed today. [http://www.guardian.co.uk...].

You've misunderstood.

that isn't exactly what I had in mind when I said "modern music"... You're naming genres that exist contemporaneously but don't dominate the airways. I'll blame that on myself for using sloppy nomenclature. Would it help if I said "popular music" instead? I'm sure you'll still find it objectionable that I don't find much there to analyze in popular music, but at least we can deal with that instead of neoclassical and jazz which aren't really relevant to my point.

Also, I didn't say that classical music is superior.... I don't think that. I constantly battle with people trying to create value hierarchies within and outside of classical music, so I wouldn't do so myself. I said it was more scholarly, meaning there's more of an active study behind it and it requires more specialization and knowledge to produce.

So I stand by what I said, and hopefully it's clearer now what exactly I meant.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 11:13:14 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 11:41:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
I'm sure you'll still find it objectionable that I don't find much there to analyze in popular music, but at least we can deal with that instead of neoclassical and jazz which aren't really relevant to my point.

Yes, most modern pop music that is produced for mass consumption has to be a typical chord progression like I-IV-V or I-vi-IV-V or ii-V7-I because those are progressions (and their variations) are the most soothing and natural to the ear. There are still thousands of unique, well-written, well-played modern pop, rock, and soul songs though (I'm guessing you mean 1950's to present).

Classical music is more scholarly, meaning there's more of an active study behind it and it requires more specialization and knowledge to produce.

Classical music is far simpler than contemporary jazz, melodically and rhythmically. If your point is that classical music is more difficult to compose than a rock-pop song, then I'd be in near-universal agreement. But if you're saying classical is the most complex, sophisticated musical form, I'd vehemently disagree. I'm a musician who plays dozens of genres and scored a 5 on AP Music Theory. In my study, practice, and conversations with other musicians I can clearly state that Jazz is a more sophisticated and complex art form than classical. I apologize in advance, but you give me the impression of someone that does not play a musical instrument. Correct me if I am wrong. Classical is my 3rd favorite genre of music next to jazz and soul.

What are your other favorite genres?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2013 11:20:26 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 11:13:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 7/2/2013 11:41:25 AM, 000ike wrote:
I'm sure you'll still find it objectionable that I don't find much there to analyze in popular music, but at least we can deal with that instead of neoclassical and jazz which aren't really relevant to my point.

Yes, most modern pop music that is produced for mass consumption has to be a typical chord progression like I-IV-V or I-vi-IV-V or ii-V7-I because those are progressions (and their variations) are the most soothing and natural to the ear. There are still thousands of unique, well-written, well-played modern pop, rock, and soul songs though (I'm guessing you mean 1950's to present).

Classical music is more scholarly, meaning there's more of an active study behind it and it requires more specialization and knowledge to produce.

Classical music is far simpler than contemporary jazz, melodically and rhythmically. If your point is that classical music is more difficult to compose than a rock-pop song, then I'd be in near-universal agreement. But if you're saying classical is the most complex, sophisticated musical form, I'd vehemently disagree. I'm a musician who plays dozens of genres and scored a 5 on AP Music Theory. In my study, practice, and conversations with other musicians I can clearly state that Jazz is a more sophisticated and complex art form than classical. I apologize in advance, but you give me the impression of someone that does not play a musical instrument. Correct me if I am wrong. Classical is my 3rd favorite genre of music next to jazz and soul.

What are your other favorite genres?

We agree then, for the most part. I know jazz is definitely extremely complex. I was arguing that classical is more complex than popular music ... popular music like Beyonce and Justin Timberlake, not Jazz.

My all time favorite genre has to be classical (all eras) music, then I'll go with country, then contemporary orchestral music. Everything else for me has only a few things I like.

What I hate are metal rock, screamo, impressionism, blues, and atonality
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Agent_Orange
Posts: 2,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 7:54:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
You can't claim that classic music is superior to modern music. There's no basis for it. Music speaks to the....soul. If you believe in that sort of thing. Your music taste, in my opinion is reflective of who you are on the inside. For the most part. You might have some songs in your collection that are just nice to listen to. But there's no such thing as "bad music". Its impossible unless its engineered that way.

For example I'm a huge fan of Black Keys. That's my sh*t. It appeals to me because of who I am and what I've been through. If you ever loved a woman or had your heart broken by a woman listen to some Black Keys man.
#BlackLivesMatter
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 12:27:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/4/2013 11:20:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 11:13:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

We agree then, for the most part. I know jazz is definitely extremely complex. I was arguing that classical is more complex than popular music ... popular music like Beyonce and Justin Timberlake, not Jazz.

My all time favorite genre has to be classical (all eras) music, then I'll go with country, then contemporary orchestral music. Everything else for me has only a few things I like.

What I hate are metal rock, screamo, impressionism, blues, and atonality

Again, just because classical music is more complex does not make it of higher quality or more desirable than contemporary music.

Case in point is your preference for country music over, well, anything, when there are genres that are easily far more complex than country music, as WSA mentioned jazz being one of them.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2013 12:42:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/5/2013 12:27:27 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 7/4/2013 11:20:26 AM, 000ike wrote:
At 7/4/2013 11:13:14 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:

We agree then, for the most part. I know jazz is definitely extremely complex. I was arguing that classical is more complex than popular music ... popular music like Beyonce and Justin Timberlake, not Jazz.

My all time favorite genre has to be classical (all eras) music, then I'll go with country, then contemporary orchestral music. Everything else for me has only a few things I like.

What I hate are metal rock, screamo, impressionism, blues, and atonality

Again, just because classical music is more complex does not make it of higher quality or more desirable than contemporary music.

Case in point is your preference for country music over, well, anything, when there are genres that are easily far more complex than country music, as WSA mentioned jazz being one of them.

He didn't say it does...he said that's is why it's CONSIDERED to be of greater quality. He didn't say the quality of music is objective, anyway.