Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

OP wrote:

Someone can say they sat around reading a book all day and people would think they're a cultured fellow.
Someone could visit an art gallery and look at paintings all day and people would think they're a cultured fellow.

But if someone said they spent an entire day sitting around listening to music, people would think they're a total loser.
Really a question is whether any passive hobby (activity is the wrong word) is of any value in assessing whether someone is cultured or not.
As far as music goes doesn't really matter if its classical or pop - classical simply being the pop of a few centuries ago.
Fuck Israel
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688
please justify your statement that 'classical' was the 'pop' of a few centuries ago.

i think the statement is categorically untrue and false. taste is sociologically defined and attached to 'class' and classical music was not an artform enjoyed or participated in by people of all classes- especially in medieval->renaissance england, and just as much so through the gothic/romantic and later ages. classical music has NEVER been the 'pop' music of any age.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX
Its more about a period in time and the style of music relating to that period than about 'class'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_period_(music)
In the middle of the 18th century , Europe began to move towards a new style in architecture, literature, and the arts, generally known as Classicism, which sought to emulate the ideals of Classical antiquity and especially those of Classical Greece.[1] While still tightly linked to the court culture and absolutism, with its formality and emphasis on order and hierarchy, the new style was also a cleaner style —one that favored clearer divisions between parts, brighter contrasts and colors, and simplicity rather than complexity. The remarkable development of ideas in "natural philosophy" had established itself in the public consciousness with Newton's physics taken as a paradigm: structures should be well-founded in axioms and be both well-articulated and orderly. This taste for structural clarity worked its way into the world of music, moving away from the layered polyphony of the Baroque period, towards a style where a melody over a subordinate harmony —a combination called homophony— was preferred. [2] This meant that the playing of chords, even if they interrupted the melodic smoothness of a single part, became a much more prevalent feature of music. This, in turn, made the tonal structure of works more audible.
As for pop
The new style was also pushed forward by changes in the economic order and in social structure. As the 18th century progressed, the nobility became the primary patrons of instrumental music, and there was a rise in the public taste for comic opera. This led to changes in the way music was performed, the most crucial of which was the move to standard instrumental groups and the reduction in the importance of the continuo — the harmonic fill beneath the music, often played by several instruments. One way to trace this decline of the continuo and its figured chords is to examine the decline of the term obbligato, meaning a mandatory instrumental part in a work of chamber music.
The nobility paid for classical music, and they paid for what they liked. It was pop as far as they were concerned.

In terms of style of music I've always preferred 'Baroque' over 'Classical', not that I claim any detailed knowledge of either.
Fuck Israel
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688
the 'classical' period is a specific term for a specific period in music... the broad term 'classical' music refers very often to something else, i.e. it is a misnomer. people may talk about 'classical' music and instead be referring to gothic, baroque or romanticist styles of opera and performance. classical is often used loosely as an umbrella-term meaning anything with orchestral or performative elements, nowadays at least.

classical music was court music, yes. pop music does not have that cultural or social significance - that exclusivity. that is why i massively disagree with your statement that 'classical = pop'. the aesthetic and social structures beneath both types of music are fundamentally diametrically opposed. point blank. pop is accessible, listenable and appreciable to anybody. classical music developed very much under the patronage of the super-rich, the court-setting, the nobility of europe and the exclusive elite. pop could not be any more different in creative outlook to 'classical' (to refer to it in a correctly historical setting and analysis).

'pop' back then was more like folk-song; music as the oral tradition. songs performed by travelling performers - troubadors and continental figures like that. from the feudal-medieval age and right through the elizabethan and augustan court-era there were many small travelling bands of performers, musicians and bards that would perform for a more... 'common' and ordinary crowd. classical orchestras, operas and large-scale performances were very much kept to the court. at the turn of the renaissance and the enlightenment era, when those previous social structures/hierarchies fell apart- classical orchestras and the like were still the preserve of the rich elite. think wagner and continental german movements. it wasn't embraced and listened to by everyone, much like pop is.

essentially my point is that if 'X Factor' existed during the 1350-1900 period, it wouldn't have had Haydn, Mozart or Beethoven on the stage. it's a different area of performance tailored for a completely different social-set and for completely different creative/artistic purposes and appreciations. pop is categorically NOT the modern classical. the modern classical is... the modern, contemporary classical.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX
'Classical' was simply pop for the rich, travelling troubadours pop for the poor.
Now music is much more accessible classical is simply one of many styles available to rich and poor alike, still dependent on its popularity for its survival.

With composers and their patrons competing for accolades amongst their fellow toffs I think the classical world was more like 'X Factor' than you appreciate.
Fuck Israel
mtb0minime
minimember
+2,418|6872

But there are so many reports and researches done that shoe classical music is good for your brain and metal and rap is bad for your brane.

It doesn't matter what genre you listen to, spending and investing your time and money into listening to music and learning to appreciate it is a hobby. And I don't mean appreciate in just the "herp derp i liek this, is so cool!" way.
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688

Dilbert_X wrote:

'Classical' was simply pop for the rich, travelling troubadours pop for the poor.
Now music is much more accessible classical is simply one of many styles available to rich and poor alike, still dependent on its popularity for its survival.

With composers and their patrons competing for accolades amongst their fellow toffs I think the classical world was more like 'X Factor' than you appreciate.
my point is that pop is a very modern product - music availability, price and eclecticism has led to a wide 'pop' umbrella-genre for everyone.

classical (court music, the original definition) was exclusive, expensive and extremely orthodox - a genre for the privileged few.

troubadors, oral tradition, folk-song and small bands/bards are not 'classical' music. just because they use old string and woodwind instruments, does not make them 'classical'. it lacks the scale, the characteristics and the aesthetic.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6989|PNW

'Classical' music was also seen as a bit heady and sometimes suggestive in its heyday.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX
Maybe pop is not the right word, use popular.

Classical was the popular music amongst the nobility during its period, now 'classical' is just another genre of popular music - since everyone has equal access to it. Its no more valid than Pink Floyd for example.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-07-19 17:59:15)

Fuck Israel
Bevo
Nah
+718|6738|Austin, Texas

Dilbert_X wrote:

Maybe pop is not the right word, use popular.

Classical was the popular music amongst the nobility during its period, now 'classical' is just another genre of popular music - since everyone has equal access to it. Its no more valid than Pink Floyd for example.
Operas/Operettas were far more prominent than what you would consider "classical genre" during the classical period.

Please don't pretend to know things because you can read wikipedia.

kthx
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688

Dilbert_X wrote:

Maybe pop is not the right word, use popular.

Classical was the popular music amongst the nobility during its period, now 'classical' is just another genre of popular music - since everyone has equal access to it. Its no more valid than Pink Floyd for example.
'popular' is an adjective. 'pop' is a classified genre. you can't interchange the two - it creates two completely different statements.

and classical as a genre still isn't 'popular'... anyone can access it, yes. that's called 'musical eclecticism', in sociological terms.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX
Explain how classical doesn't fit within 'popular' music. Its just another CD on a rack, or another download on a list now.
Fuck Israel
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688
of course it fits within... but you were using the term 'pop' originally to designate the genre.

when you said 'classical was the pop of several hundred years ago'.

and 'popular' music as a common-term normally refers to mainstream stuff; top40, pepsi-charts, top of the pops, radio 1.

classical.fm is decidedly NOT 'popular'. as i said before widespread availability and distribution of music is eclecticism, sure, but not 'popular'.
...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Bevo
Nah
+718|6738|Austin, Texas

Dilbert_X wrote:

Explain how classical doesn't fit within 'popular' music. Its just another CD on a rack, or another download on a list now.
homies ridin down the block bumpin chopin
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique wrote:

classical.fm is decidedly NOT 'popular'. as i said before widespread availability and distribution of music is eclecticism, sure, but not 'popular'.
...
How so? Its a commercial station isn't it? It may not be 'pop' in that narrow definition, but it is simply popular music.
Fuck Israel
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688
it 'simply' is not. having a radio station =/= being 'popular music'.

by that definition no music is 'unpopular', because every form of music has an avenue of distribution/communication in public-radio.

:boggle:
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,813|6323|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique wrote:

it 'simply' is not. having a radio station =/= being 'popular music'.
There wouldn't be a station if it weren't.

by that definition no music is 'unpopular', because every form of music has an avenue of distribution/communication in public-radio.
Not really, plenty of sub-genres have disappeared, classical hasn't because its still popular - but its now just a sub-genre itself and nothing special.
Fuck Israel
Uzique
dasein.
+2,865|6688
classical being a sub-genre of what, exactly? i'd say it's a pretty wide umbrella-term... if anything.

and i still disagree that it's 'popular'. would you say the stuff on the lesser-known BBC Radio stations is 'popular'?

popular music is music in POP-CULTURE.

see: bevo's comment.

homies ridin down the block bumpin chopin
doesn't happen because it's not 'popular music'. sure many people listen to classical, but again you're twisting the two distinct uses of the word 'pop' and 'popular'. i really cant be bothered to have a petty-semantics argument with you because you take the liberty to use the word either which-way you fancy to suit your argument. will go around in circles all day on that point if that's how you'll reason it.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6989|PNW

Bevo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Explain how classical doesn't fit within 'popular' music. Its just another CD on a rack, or another download on a list now.
homies ridin down the block bumpin chopin

2:20
Bevo
Nah
+718|6738|Austin, Texas

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Bevo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Explain how classical doesn't fit within 'popular' music. Its just another CD on a rack, or another download on a list now.
homies ridin down the block bumpin chopin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2a3nbTrO_c
2:20
not sure how thats related

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6989|PNW

Beethoven rocking out on a synth.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard