Did Classical music get it right as opposed to rock/pop?

[amigo30]

I just spent a couple of hours doing some serious music listening* with some great Bach recordings. A wonderful experience.

Besides being reminded of what a genius Bach was, I had another interesting thought.

Classical music was really all about the songwriter (composer). The writer was what mattered..somebody who was a genius..an expert..slaving away to create a perfect musical experience. The composer was truly an artist, creating a work of epic proportions, or something that really spoke to the soul. Once the work was done, various conductors would find the best musicians around to breathe life and soul into the music.

Let's compare that creative process to rock and pop of today. Today it is the musicians who write the songs for the most part. There are many great musicians who simply aren't great songwriters. I'm sure you can think of a zillion examples.

How did the role of the composer diminish so much over the years? Has music suffered as a result of this?

Let's take someone like Steve Vai for example. I couldn't hum one of his tunes to save my life. There is no question that he's a world-class musician however.

What if there were a "composer" for rock music, Let's say somebody like Keith Emerson, and then musicians like Vai "interpreted" that work. Would we have better music today?


*serious listening: Defined as undisturbed time sitting between a pair of speakers in a great audio system well set-up, doing nothing but soaking in the music and a bit of wine.

[DC1]

Originally Posted by amigo30

What if there were a "composer" for rock music, Let's say somebody like Keith Emerson, and then musicians like Vai "interpreted" that work. Would we have better music today?

No, because pop music does not function as high art, but as folk art. In the context of folk art, people want to believe that you are telling a story you have some connection to.

I don't know if you know this, but Emerson does not sight read! I don't know how he did all those Ginestera piano pieces, and stuff like "Pictures at an Exhibition" without sight reading, but it supports the idea that a more visceral attachment to the music is part of rock.

dc

[swimrunner]

Originally Posted by amigo30

Let's take someone like Steve Vai for example. I couldn't hum one of his tunes to save my life. There is no question that he's a world-class musician however.

I just attempted to hum "For the Love of God." Now, I wasn't in tune, because my pitch really, really sucks, but that's a recognizable/memorable melody all right (for me, anyways).

[Bryan T]

Are you calling for a world full of talented cover bands?

Or maybe you want to go back to the Motown way of writing music?

[amigo30]

Originally Posted by Bryan T

Are you calling for a world full of talented cover bands?

Are you calling people like the London Symphony a "cover band'?

Originally Posted by DC1

No, because pop music does not function as high art, but as folk art.

That's an interesting theory. While the mastery of songwriting might be somewhat limited compared to the real "geniuses" so to speak, it has more "street cred" and thus more validity. Thanks for an insightful response.


I guess what I'm trying to say is that many bands have great musicians, but they don't have proficient songwriters. As a result, there's a lot of drivel coming from talented individuals.

Another side of it is that many musicians are more prone to to serve the techniques that they are proficient at, rather than using the techniques to serve the musics emotive response by an audience.

Perhaps more attention to creating a work the audience will respond to as opposed to creating a work that the artist uses to showcase his talents would result in more interesting bodies of work.

By the way, this is just a fun hypothetical conversation. I don't mean to rag on Vai... he's just an easy target to illustrate what I mean by great musicianship serving (largely) mediocre compositions.

Originally Posted by Bryan T

Or maybe you want to go back to the Motown way of writing music?

Maybe. The Motown era sure did produce some amazing music.

[Polynitro]

sounds like qualitative utilitarianism to me, let me break out my hedonistic calculator and see which is better Bach or Rock? Hmm the numbers say...it's a tie!

[Frater B]

Zappa

__

[amigo30]

Originally Posted by Frater B

Zappa

__

Master of both worlds.

[sinner]

Many classical composers still had constraints to deal with, the Church, a commission, or even the public taste. In a way, it's like rock and pop of today dealing with the business of music.

Artists, whether living in the past or today, find ways to put the art, or at least a little of themselves into their work.

I like the expression "for the bottom drawer" as a phrase to describe work composed not for the general public (or a commission from royalty). This was often work literally hidden away in a bottom drawer and represented the truest expression of art from the composer (i. e. Shostokovic hiding his work from the repressive State).

Composers find a way to "sneak" some novel ideas past the square ears.

[Polynitro]

Originally Posted by theRocco

Many classical composers still had constraints to deal with, the Church, a commission, or even the public taste. In a way, it's like rock and pop of today dealing with the business of music.

Artists, whether living in the past or today, find ways to put the art, or at least a little of themselves into their work.

I like the expression "for the bottom drawer" as a phrase to describe work composed not for the general public (or a commission from royalty). This was often work literally hidden away in a bottom drawer and represented the truest expression of art from the composer (i. e. Shostokovic hiding his work from the repressive State).

Composers find a way to "sneak" some novel ideas past the square ears.

A lot of what Bach did was write filler music in between sermons in Church, kind of the music played whilst they pass the money around...Just happened to be kick ass JS Bach...Also, the Brandenburgs were never played until after the count or whomever (Prince?) that had Bach write them for him kept them in a safe where they stayed until after he died.

[Bryan T]

Originally Posted by amigo30

Are you calling people like the London Symphony a "cover band'?

They sort of are, aren't they? I guess they occasionally commission new works, but I suspect that the vast majority of what they perform is popular orchestral music.

[daddyo]

I often wonder about this. On one hand we have guys like Bach and Mozart. Geniuses no doubt. But the conventions of classical music dectate that the musicians who play it must stick to the music with only slight interprative variations as dictated by the conductor - human jukeboxes. That's got to be a drag for some musicians. Didn't Miles call it "that robot shit"?

On the other hand we have jazz which requires all the technical skill of the classical musician plus being able to think, improvise, and play simultaneously. That's great for some but the less skilled/creative may like the fact that Mozart figured it out for them first. In between falls all the other music (Indian/Eastern music excepted as I don't have a thorough knowledge of this music).

It's also interesting that as classical music became more sophisticated/complex harmoically and melodically, it became simpler rhythmically.

[Gigbag]

Another factor in rock and pop music, like the folk connection pointed out above, is that much of modern rock and pop seems to emphasize sounds and rhythm -- and looks. Those get the cas faster than perfectly crafted unique songs. I am not going to start bashing on rap, but llok at the popularity of rap. Limited melodies, rhythm, some sound effects, and street cred lyrics.

Beside drawing on the cliches and common sounds, rock can be pushed to be different, while much of classical was pushed to perfect songs withing strict rules.

It should also be noted that there was a lot of less-than-perfect music written during Bach's time, by less than genius writers.

[DC1]

Originally Posted by amigo30

Master of both worlds.

Sorry folks. The classical people never ever believed this. He did take a good shot at it though.

dc

[KRosser]

Originally Posted by DC1

Sorry folks. The classical people never ever believed this. He did take a good shot at it though.

dc

You'd have an easier time programming Zappa today than you would have when he was alive, and his music does get played, though mostly not his orchestral music. It's usually chamber groups doing adaptions of his 'band' pieces - Echidna's Arf, Sofa, The Black Page #2, RDNZL, etc. being some you hear every so often.

As avant-garde 20th century chamber music, Zappa's music has been increasing in popularity and is considered very 'legit' in those circles.