Classical - (Jazz) - Pop

[Lat-Literal]

I used to be on the insurance of one of the cars owned by a well known London orchestra.
So in the glovebox were a pile of CDs
including .... several of that orchestra's recordings of mainstream "classical" repertoire as well as Kind of Blue etc
but in the CD player was Abbas greatest hits

Make of that what you will

It isn't entirely irrational.

You can have a try at placing them with Bach or the Beatles or indeed something trite and not dissimilar on the surface from that era. None of it quite works because they aren't classical, they don't have any claim to rock credentials which in their early days even the Bee Gees could muster, and they are unashamedly pop to the extent that they can't have the sort of "easy listening" credibility of a Bacharach which can be linked back to Kern etc if one so chooses. Almost everyone in the "pure pop" category is musically inferior, yet a lot of their fans wouldn't see it quite in those terms. They would just be regarded as the best or one of the best among many in a large pool with no reference to the word "quality".

I couldn't ever have them - or ELO - being played on BBC R3. But there is no doubt that if you put something with one thing it isn't the same as if you put it with another thing. Combinations interest me in terms of whether they work or they don't work and if they are working how they are working. It is in some ways like matching clothes or mixing paint. It has to come from the heart and I am not sure that a radio station can do it, given it needs to appeal to large numbers. New approaches to the Proms are not questionable on the basis of diversification but more that there can be a lack of subtlety to what is decided. What one ends up hearing is all the audience researchers and the ticking of another box.

FoR3 have objections to narrowness and breadth. That is the narrowness in any CFM style playlists and any reach across to pop jazz/pop world. I share those objections, not least as pop music in that context may not represent any breadth at all. Then there is that point about the time devoted to jazz and world music on R3 but we have considered it often.

[MrGongGong]

It isn't entirely irrational.

I never suggested it was.

Almost everyone in the "pure pop" category is musically inferior and yet a lot of their fans would probably not see it quite in those terms.

That's because the phase "musically inferior" is a bit useless in this context.
If you want to dance yourself into a frenzy then Beethoven is "musically inferior" to The Chemical Brothers.

[teamsaint]

i suppose that " The day before you came" is pure pop.

And still three of the most perfect minutes of music of any sort that I know.

i can't think of any good reason to " level" it against any other music.

Puts me in mind a bit of that conversation between Scheoenberg and Gershwin .

[Lat-Literal]

I never suggested it was.



That's because the phase "musically inferior" is a bit useless in this context.
If you want to dance yourself into a frenzy then Beethoven is "musically inferior" to The Chemical Brothers.

On point 1, yes absolutely. I think you were asking what it was and I was trying to say what it wasn't!

I am not keen on concepts of superiority and inferiority and prefer to use the word "standards" but I think I would hold to my use of the word "inferior" here. A couple of blokes attempting to be like the Chemical Brothers are likely to be inferior to the Chemical Brothers although I accept that they might not be. The Chemical Brothers work to a standard.

[doversoul1]

Sorry Dover but you've completely lost me with this one. 140 posts? Where does that come from? Doesn't it state I've posted 29 posts?

You / the thread you started have generated…. This is great, as clearly you hit on a subject the members are interested and willing to discuss.

What do you mean by 'taken in' Do mean agree with?

Well, you asked, so here goes.

You have taken no notice of what has been in all these posts to answer, explain, or comments on the points you asked or made. Yes, you read them but you have not understood any of it, or if you have, ignored it completely so far. How do I know? By reading your posts; they are all the same, just put in endless variations; for example,

 - my main criterion for making my judgements about ABBA and ELO is the sound and whether I like it or not.
 - Music is sound
 - to understand why we like music and that is what music theory is about

I bet master G has gone horse having explained to you that saying these sort of things won’t do if you want have more than a casual chat This is from one paragraph in your 28th? post out of what 29?

[MrGongGong]

I am not keen on concepts of superiority and inferiority and prefer to use the word "standards" but I think I would hold to my use of the word "inferior" here. A couple of blokes attempting to be like the Chemical Brothers are likely to be inferior to the Chemical Brothers although I accept that they might not be. The Chemical Brothers work to a standard.

Yes indeed. But that's more a case of "authenticity"
many people (not everyone, obviously) who make "pop" music display this trait.

[NatBalance]

Well, you asked, so here goes.

You have taken no notice of what has been in all these posts to answer, explain, or comments on the points you asked or made. Yes, you read them but you have not understood any of it, or if you have, ignored it completely so far. How do I know? By reading your posts; they are all the same, just put in endless variations; for example,

 - my main criterion for making my judgements about ABBA and ELO is the sound and whether I like it or not.
 - Music is sound
 - to understand why we like music and that is what music theory is about

So by 'taken in' in it does appear you mean 'agree with'.

[Lat-Literal]

Yes indeed. But that's more a case of "authenticity"
many people (not everyone, obviously) who make "pop" music display this trait.

It's also about imagination. The Chemical Brothers had the imagination to be the Chemical Brothers. The other guys didn't have enough imagination to be themselves. Of course, if they subsequently go off on their own tangent or even show some ability at developing "Dig Your Own Hole" things change. What all staunch supporters of competition claim is that a strong yardstick raises the bar. Occasionally it can do I guess. God knows, I didn't expect to be writing about Bucks Fizz here. But at a time when NME was so new wavy it was a fundamentalist publication, this single received the following comments from it: "it is a complex, almost excessive record that transcends the sphere of commercial mush into which it is born". Comparing it to Heatwave, ABBA and Dollar, NME said "its almost too good to succeed". Well, what can one say? It is hardly top drawer, is it, but it was a promotion into the old Division Two from "Making Your Mind Up" and it wouldn't have happened without having something to copy. For all of it's comparative sophistication what it hasn't done is transcend time because hardly anyone remembers it. If it was really imaginative and had elements of classicism, it would have had much longer-lasting appeal.

Bucks Fizz - My Camera Never Lies - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYDy4oSegNQ

[doversoul1]

So by 'taken in' in it does appear you mean 'agree with'.

No. To understand.

You cannot agree or disagree without first understanding what has been said. And just in case, you do not need to agree or disagree with what you have understood. These are two different mental / intellectual activities.

[NatBalance]

You have taken no notice of what has been in all these posts to answer, explain, or comments on the points you asked or made. Yes, you read them but you have not understood any of it, or if you have, ignored it completely so far.

It seems to me a very strange and unfair charge you are laying on me Dover, and one which I could quite easily lay on you, MrGG and others (but I won't). Where does missunderstanding end and dissagreement begin? The subjects we have been discussing are not exactly the most easy to understand and explain, there is bound to be much misunderstanding and disagreement and repeating on BOTH sides.

[doversoul1]

Where does missunderstanding end and dissagreement begin?

I answered this before you asked.

you do not need to agree or disagree with what you have understood. These are different mental / intellectual activities.

Or do you mean ‘what’s the difference between misunderstanding and disagreement?’ Or are you thinking that a misunderstanding can lead to a disagreement? If it’s the latter, it’s a case of ‘cause and effect’, and not a gradual change from one thing to another.

As I said earlier on the thread, it’s great to see an enthusiastic new member but it would be good if you showed some interest in what others say and make an effort to understand what you have not thought or known, instead of using it as yet another chance to talk about what you think you know with different examples. Still this thread is being enjoyed by many members, so that’s a very good thing and whether or not you have found the answer to your original question may be irrelevant.

[NatBalance]

As I said earlier on the thread, it’s great to see an enthusiastic new member but it would be good if you showed some interest in what others say and make an effort to understand what you have not thought or known, instead of using it as yet another chance to talk about what you think you know with different examples.

I still think that is very unfair

[MrGongGong]

Getting back to the subject

Have you got an example yet?

A piece of music you think is great (or brilliant) but don't like?

[NatBalance]

Getting back to the subject

Have you got an example yet?

A piece of music you think is great (or brilliant) but don't like?

Now you are REALLY confusing me there Gongers. For starters, finding a piece of music I do not like is extremely difficult, secondly, if I did not like it why would I think it a brilliant piece? That's a contradiction, and such an obvious contradiction that I feel like I'm heading towards a gigantic hole that I am going to fall straight into (without me ladder).

It's like being on QI when Stephen Fry asks a question like "How many moons does the Earth have?". I am now waiting for that siren to go!

Incidentally, I have been spending a hell of a lot of time reading these posts and trying to answer them and other things in my life have been taking a back seat, there just isn't enough hours in the day to answer them all so I am sorry if I have not been getting involved with all the conversation. It would take me weeks to answer them all.

[MrGongGong]

Now you are REALLY confusing me there Gongers. For starters, finding a piece of music I do not like is extremely difficult, secondly, if I did not like it why would I think it a brilliant piece? That's a contradiction, and such an obvious contradiction that I feel like I'm heading towards a gigantic hole that I am going to fall straight into (without me ladder).
.

It's not a contradiction at all if you move on from thinking that taste and value are the same.