How can you just write down that certain types of music are inferior? Sure, the techniques, practice time and everything is much more advanced, but we can discredit the entire pop music industry just because of that. You have played a classical piece, ok good, but now try to go create a piece of pop music by yourself. All the instruments, all the notes, the singing, everything. You will then realize its not as easy as you think it is.
Of course there are good classical and pop songs, but there are also bad of both. We can't just judge based on the few good classical pieces and ignore all the rest of it, while only taking the bad pop songs into account.
I also see the 'every song is about love' argument a lot. Well if songwriters didn't write love songs, who would?
I listen to both, I find them equally enjoyable, but they are suitable for different settings. For example, when I am on the bus alone, I listen to pop, but when I'm trying to do homework, I listen to classical.
Classical music is a higher art form than pop music. Composing and performing classical music requires rigorous training to acquire an expert skill set. In comparison, pop music is easy. Almost anyone can make a pop music record. There is nothing wrong with pop music, but it cannot compare with the art of classical music.
This is a silly argument.
If you're talking subjective, we're talking about "what you like"...Which is completely baseless. Therefore, talking about winning X number of grammys, selling X number of records, or "everyone likes it" means nothing.
If we're talking objective, it's a silly argument. It's like comparing a Monet to a drawing of a stick figure by the average 5 year old. The average pro classical musician has extensively STUDIED music and musical expression, practiced his a$$ off for a LONG time, and has likely studied with several of the world's best on his/her chosen instrument. Objectively, there is no argument at all. Classical easily has the best instrumentalists and singers in the world. I don't care what you like....This is an OBJECTIVE statement. Also, I think that the silly statements about classical being boring and unemotional are stupid as well....You mean to tell me that a Shostakovich symphony about the hell that the Russians went through (during Stalin's reign) wouldn't be emotionally moving? Most people can't accept this, but it's elite music....In the same way that there's elite dancers, artists, athletes or gymnasts. There's a reason why you never see pop artists teaching voice in music schools.
Listen to pop music now. I have difficulty making out what they are saying. I understand the German version of "An die Freude ", or "Ode to Joy" better than I understand pop music now. Also, note how it might take years to be able to play classical music well. Pop music can be learned in a few months. Another thing is how in the end, pop music had to be copied off classical, along with a few strange, unusual, made up words. Finally, classical music consists of many different instruments, while modern music has really only three, not including the human voice : drums, guitars, and synthesizer keyboards.
P.S: I wrote this while listening to Ode to Joy.
If one were to fully define ALL the types of "pop" and "classical" [as pointed out both are in reality misnomers] I would have to agree that the best and even average examples of "classical" music as the current majority of culture understands the term is generally of a higher musical development, transcendence and evolution than "pop".
However, I disagree with some of the Yes answers and agree with some of the No answers. Contrary to what was said under a Yes response, themes like "God, nature, eternal love, celebration, struggle" are absolutely fully represented in popular music and have been ever since the term ever existed. [Remember that popular music is not just what too many think of as the dumbed down commercial top 40 of today] The best of popular music has been and still occasionally is infused with some of the music elements and compositional qualities that admittedly expanded upon and developed to a much higher and "superior" degree in the best of classical music.
But one cannot escape the fact that if we are comparing what the majority the masses are commercially fed in today's society under the term "pop music" to the amazing high level of "classical" music represented by immortal works of the last 450yrs that is performed, studied and recorded today, classical music is going to win out as the higher art form. If that fits the term of pop being "inferior" to classical then so be it. But this is just one semantic to infer upon using the term "inferior".
And further, there are exceptions to every general conclusion, and some of the very best finely crafted popular music would be considered better than much of modern atonal "classical" music of the past 50 years and today, even by traditional "classical" music lovers many of whom can't stand the ultra modern stuff. All in all, too many variables involved in such a simplex question that need more quantifying/qualifying terms to be properly and accurately answered. Selah!
I mean, todays music is basic lyrics with chords (if any), aiming primarily to sell (or be successful in any sense)... Classical music focus in the real deal: rhythm, melody and harmony. That is music. Lyrics are poetry, not music. Off course we can combine the two, but it will be a bundle of music and poetry... Besides that i believe people from that era were more profound than from this era. We live in a fast paced society which very often lacks interest in the essence of things. A superficial society. When one goes to a pop artist concert, they most of the time want the artist, the party, not the art... One goes to a rave party to dance, to get inebriated, to get laid, not to appreciate the rave songs. It's important too but, not essential... Classical music is pure, essential, in its own. Thats why you sit down, and just listen to it. It's far more important than the musicians... Think about it, nobody look to the sky anymore, neither to themselves... People just look their cell phones, counting likes, envying each other for material goods and social status...
Art IS subjective, to a point. Which is better, McDonald's or a French fine cuisine restaurant? Obviously the fine cuisine. But isn't the food subjective too? So what makes it better?
The variety in classical music is far greater than in pop music (which is just the same basic four chord progression over and over with an extra chord in the bridge) and its emotions are more poignant.
Of course, these are generalizations, and there are always exceptions. But in general, classical music is a higher art form. It makes you think, and that's what art should do.
Pop is garbage. What are some ''good'' pop ''artists''? Justin Bieber? Madonna?? Rihanna???? Is that considered good?? Just no. Classical composers were geniuses: Beethoven, Mozart, Vivaldi and Bach, to name a few. These four had more intelligence, dignity and talent than any of these pop ''musicians''. Their melodies are amazing and beautiful, there's nothing better than that. All these pop ''artists'' sing about is about sex, superficial love and partying. That's it. It's embarassing.
Because it actually can soothe your brain and maybe even sharpen it. Classic music also give your mind an array of pictured situation. For example, Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata actually have a sad, happy, calm, and slightly haunting feel to it. Following the statement, one can picture the situation of going to an old, abandoned, and nostalgic mansion or staring up to the night sky and the moon. Compare to pop, which can only focus on one or two emotions and have lesser or even no pictured situations. In one word, classic IS truly superior.
I do not think one can measure music by the outcome it achieves, how emotional, how beautiful etc... How would one compare MJ with Debussy?
One we can do though is compare the input. My personal opinion is that I do not think that 50 years streamlined, mass produced, radio/tv/internet broadcasted music can rivals 1,000 years of carefully crafted music of many different genres, varying levels of complexity, written either for Gods or Kings or sometimes for "the one that got away"
I honestly find the whole premise of this type of argument wholly fallacious: music is subjective! This argument is honestly just a specific type of music elitism grounded argument that is no different than the ridiculous Rockism problem pop music criticism is currently suffering from.
Inferior is a subjective term. You have to establish a desired set of features/outcomes to determine between a given set of objects which are superior or inferior. E.G. A toaster (#A) that can produce 2 pieces of toast simultaneously will be superior to a toaster (#B) that can only produce 1 piece of toast at a time. The aforementioned statement is true because a toaster's primary function is to produce toast, therefore the more toast produced in the same amount of time, the more superior the toaster. It does not matter if #B was crafted by the finest metallurgist/wood artisan, or that you believe it has more "personality"; That metal, factory manufactured toaster with the two bread slots will continuously out sell the "fancy, intricate" model that is #B. For those of you who did not pull any parallels from that example to the question on hand, allow me to explain more plainly.
1) The music buying public did not come to the consensus that "complexity" or "expert skill" should be the barometers for music quality. Even more to the point, classically trained musicians are simply experts at classical music not music in general. One of the most ludicrous and illogical statements I have ever heard is that "anyone can do pop music"...It always sounds like the not-funny-at-all punchline to a bad joke. 1000s of new pop acts fail everyday to even sell a 1000 copies of their album, BUT ALLEGEDLY ANYONE CAN BE A POP STAR. I dare any Classical musician to attempt to outstage the likes of Beyonce, Michael Jackson, or Tina Turner! The fact that people you think are untalented are allowed to make CDs is no winning argument either; right now there are 1000s of classically trained musicians that my personal music coach and 100s of others can not believe were allowed to obtain a degree in music. More to the direct point, NONE of this is relevant because the general public is not under your assumption that "complex music made by expert musicians" is the end goal or even important for music. The GP believes a song should move you, and they have chosen the various phases of pop music the last 100 years by continuously buying it!
2) Classical Music is a misnomer at best! Are you referring to Baroque? Romantic? "Modern"? The ancient music of Africa, Asia, Australia, and South America came out at the same time, so why isn't it called Classical (you know why)? Anyone every pondered why this "inferior" music seems to resonate so well with people across all socio-economical stripes, while "classical" music seems to only appeal to the Upper Class/Elitist mentalities? Because "people are stupid"? Answering yes leaves my point made.
You can not say that any is inferior to the other. Classical music was simply the pop music of its time. Some may say that classical music had feeling and emotion to it but of you listen closely to most of the lyrics so does pop music. Therefore I say No.
I'm a classical pianist myself and enjoy playing, in particular, Rachmaninov, Liszt and Jopin (so where does he sit then?). I take great pleasure in listening to all types of music from classical to rock, pop to folk, electro to techno. Now, take Liszt. A prolific composer indeed with more than a 1000 pieces (some of them transcriptions from others). But many of the more seldom-heard pieces in his repertoire are not particularly inspiring in my book. You see, we can list our favourite classical composers in a couple of sheets of paper. How many thousands of obscure and unsuccessful classical composers have there been? It's likely that we will always keep Led Zeppelin as a classic rock group. What about the myriad of smalltime hits we hear now which are forgotten next year? There are many who say that classical music is more complex. Well, there are glaring exceptions here, and it's what makes these exceptions stand out. Listening to Richard D James (aka Aphex Twin, Polygon Window etc) is highly complex stuff although definitely not everyone's cup of tea. This is even termed as the much maligned Intelligent Ambient music. What about some of those progressive rock bands (e.G. Yes, Emerson Lake & Palmer). Pretty complex stuff. On the other hand, there are thousands of very simple classical melodies from (which, by the way, are frequently used by modern music as a base). Modern classical music, with all its polyphony, atonalism, discorfance and serialism, can be very challenging to listen but can be very satisfying. Listening to the 4-hour piano marathon,Opus Clavicembelasticum by Sorabji whilst reading its score is devastatingly mindblowing. But, at the end of day, I would far prefer to listen to some complex electronica than listening to the way-overperformed 4 Seasons by Vivaldi!
Each one has its good and bad things, it's just that they are different. Everyone should be able to choose whether they like one or the other, or both of them. In my opinion, pop music helps you to understand your feelings. Teenagers can identify better with it. On the other hand, classical music is more complex. The structure is less boring and repetitive, and there are more types of music: coral, chamber, orchestral, etc.
If you dig as deep as you possibly can into five of your favorite songs, you will find that they are just as complex as classical. If you just look at what meets the eye in pop, you will think it is easy. Pop is just as hard to make as classical.
Both pop and classical music are types of music! They are both equal. You may think one is slightly better than the other, but that is an opinion. Both of them have good and bad things about them. For example, Gangnam Style may be a catchy tune, however it isn't inspiring and meaningful.
I don't know how we can argue that pop is better or worse than classical music, because pop music encompasses such a huge amount of music. Classical music was the pop music of its day. It was written for the nobility to entertain them, much like music entertains us today. So it's not really better or worse.
Pop is, at its most base, just music, the same as classical. It is neither inferior nor better, simply different. Liking and disliking certain kinds of music is all subjective and depends on the person, so no one can really say with certainty that one kind is definitely inferior than another.
Yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo yo y y y y yy y y y y y y y yy y y y y y y y yy y y y y y y y y y yy y y y y y y y y
POP IS GOOD bECAUSE IT IS AND CLASSICAL SOUNDS LIKE A SCREAMING MONKEY AND IT IS GOOD . It is also VERY VERY GOOD. Have i also mentioned that it is very good, we need to forget classical and start listening to pop. That was the olden days, its now the NOW DAYS!