Classical - (Jazz) - Pop

[Ian]

What is music "for"?

To be valued.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

To be valued.

As in Bargain Hunt?

[french frank]

I suppose it depends on what people think "listening" is - a passive absorption of sound, or an active contribution to the Music [... ] if we accept that Music is something we help to create as we listen, then the sounds of everyday life can become Music - which can help us connect with the outside world, and derive greater (and "simpler") pleasure and satisfaction from it.

The philosophical point is that you don't state here what this music IS, merely what it can become 'if' …

Doesn't this boil down to the fact that if you/one, as it were, 'buy into' this way of thinking, this 'acceptance', your/one's experience is that you derive greater, "simpler" pleasure from - what? the music or the outside world? But is this actually a general or universal human feeling? There must be many experiences which, conditional upon 'buying into' something (perhaps even 'suspending disbelief') allow you to experience something outside the general/universal.

In the end, it may be an individual's calculation of how much it will be 'worth' to make this effort. No one, for example, will convince me that buying into the Doctor Who experience, entering into that world and believing in it will enable me to understand the layers which penetrate reality, enabling me to enjoy a "simpler" pleasure: I shall still find the experience of having to sit through the Christmas Special, rather than appear a party pooper by leaving the living room, a tedious bore. But, in the end, there is a measure of choice about opting in or out, a willingness to do so.

These things 'mean' what they mean to you, the individual. Their 'value' is their value to you. Is there anything of sufficient universality for anyone to claim some sort of 'truth' or 'greatness', some important revelation here?

[Ian]

As in Bargain Hunt?

What do you think?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

frenchie, #33.

I "don't state what this Music is", because essentially it "isn't" until the listener turns the sounds into Music - whether it's the B minor Mass, George Lloyd's fourth Symphony, or a fire alarm. Which is not to say that it's all the same quality - of course the Fire Alarm has greater artistic merit than the Lloyd - but that the listener's attitude can create Music from any sounds, which connects the individual to both the world in which they live (so that the "connection" means that it ceases to be to an "outside world", but to a part of themselves) and to the stuff that "Music" is more commonly understood to mean. It means, for those of us who buy into such an attitude, that each moment has the potential to become an experience that enhances being alive - it makes us aware of the worthwhile-ness of as many real moments of "now" as these moments are actually happening, rather than focussing on fantasies what might happen in the future, and regretting and/or yearning for the past.

And, yes, it is an individual's calculation of what it's worth to them - and, for some reason, I am reminded of Keller's statement that "boredom is a sign of stupidity": there are lots of people who thrive on clear borders, and who contribute great things to society from within those boundaries. But for me, the empowering, epiphanal, and transformative aspects of being able to find Art in everysecond, "mundane" experiences and encounters take power from the commercial/capitalist concerns, and hand it back to individuals. (And - again for me - the experience of the Grosse Fuge becomes an even greater phenomenon as a consequence.)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What do you think?

How long've you got?!

But apologies - I was being a smart-a lek; "value" is a very malleable word, that some interpret in monetary terms, which I don't believe that you meant.

[french frank]

frenchie, #33.

I "don't state what this Music is", because essentially it "isn't" until the listener turns the sounds into Music

It wasn't intended to be anything more than a restatement of what you had said, not a criticism!

- whether it's the B minor Mass, George Lloyd's fourth Symphony, or a fire alarm. Which is not to say that it's all the same quality - of course the Fire Alarm has greater artistic merit than the Lloyd - but that the listener's attitude can create Music from any sounds, which connects the individual to both the world in which they live (so that the "connection" means that it ceases to be to an "outside world", but to a part of themselves) and to the stuff that "Music" is more commonly understood to mean. It means, for those of us who buy into such an attitude, that each moment has the potential to become an experience that enhances being alive - it makes us aware of the worthwhile-ness of as many real moments of "now" as these moments are actually happening, rather than focussing on fantasies what might happen in the future, and regretting and/or yearning for the past.

Still nothing I disagree with (assuming of course that the Fire Alarm is Cage and George LLoyd is the Dream of Gerontius )

But I still take it as a statement of an individual's subjective view, based on experience and temperament. For some people visual images are conjured up by music (but not to me), for others music is like football - more important than life or death. For me, drilling down into the music that I find enGrossing (like the Grosse Fuge) has nothing to do with the outside world at all - but it might do if I somehow felt a need to make such connections.

And, yes, it is an individual's calculation of what it's worth to them - and, for some reason, I am reminded of Keller's statement that "boredom is a sign of stupidity": there are lots of people who thrive on clear borders, and who contribute great things to society from within those boundaries. But for me, the empowering, epiphanal, and transformative aspects of being able to find Art in everysecond, "mundane" experiences and encounters take power from the commercial/capitalist concerns, and hand it back to individuals. (And - again for me - the experience of the Grosse Fuge becomes an even greater phenomenon as a consequence.)

Keller's quote has all the wisdom one has come to expect from Frank Zappa ... As for establishing 'borders', some language psychologists hold that 'categorising' is one of the primary cognitive functions of the brain: finding characteristics in common or which differentiate. Is there a creative/artistic and imaginative/scientific distinction?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

It wasn't intended to be anything more than a restatement of what you had said, not a criticism!

Yes - I was hoping/trying to clarify further, rather than "defend".

But I still take it as a statement of an individual's subjective view, based on experience and temperament.

Yes - I think Art reflects and guides individuals (their beliefs and personalities) and that different attitudes - frustrating as they often are - are an important Social and Evolutionary catalyst. I was responding to Natty's comment that 4:33" is "meditation" rather than Music - why so many have accepted it as a valid, valued and valuable work of Art. (Not Cage's best piece, IMO, but legitimate and mind-altering in its individual stance.)

For some people visual images are conjured up by music (but not to me), for others music is like football - more important than life or death. For me, drilling down into the music that I find enGrossing (like the Grosse Fuge) has nothing to do with the outside world at all - but it might do if I somehow felt a need to make such connections.

I agree with everything here - but different works/genres of Music work (for me - I presume for others, too) in different ways: a Beethoven Bagatelle appeals to (and rewards) different aesthetic expectations from those offered from a Bach Cantata or an Elgar Symphony or a Monteverdi Madrigal - and listening to a concert performance of a Dvorak Concerto is a different Musical experience from singing in a rehearsal of a Handel Oratorio, or reading the score of Daphnis et Chloe. Just stopping to listen to the sound of the external world (for me) is another Artistic experience, unique in that it transforms background noise into Music, and gives me/a responsive listener the sense that it isn't (always) "external" - it is a part of me when I pay attention to it. (And the noise my shears make as I trim the hedge have the potential of becoming part of somebody else's Music.)

Keller's quote has all the wisdom one has come to expect from Frank Zappa ...

Ooh! 'ark at you and your ambiguous statements! (Whenever I get bored listening to a piece, I always remember that the "stupidity" of which my boredom is a "sign" doesn't necessarily have to be my own.)

As for establishing 'borders', some language psychologists hold that 'categorising' is one of the primary cognitive functions of the brain: finding characteristics in common or which differentiate. Is there a creative/artistic and imaginative/scientific distinction?

Yes - but "categories" in Music are rather sieve-like: just when you think you've got things neatly in categories, you realize that some of your favourite works leak into each other, and all you're left with are the lumps which don't really help: here is Jazz, here is Classical - here is Gershwin and here is Ravel. Some beggar of a genius always comes along and you have to start rearranging - categories in the Arts only work if you keep your eyes in the centre and avoid looking at all the unpredictable interactions that are going on at the edges. (As for science - Light: wave or particle? Music often behaves with Quantum Leaks!)

[french frank]

(Whenever I get bored listening to a piece, I always remember that the "stupidity" of which my boredom is a "sign" doesn't necessarily have to be my own.)

Yes - but "categories" in Music are rather sieve-like: just when you think you've got things neatly in categories, you realize that some of your favourite works leak into each other, and all you're left with are the lumps which don't really help: here is Jazz, here is Classical - here is Gershwin and here is Ravel. Some beggar of a genius always comes along and you have to start rearranging - categories in the Arts only work if you keep your eyes in the centre and avoid looking at all the unpredictable interactions that are going on at the edges. (As for science - Light: wave or particle? Music often behaves with Quantum Leaks!)

That would seem to me to be part of what categories are: 'pigeonholes' are an entirely different image: X is either in one or in another, and there's no way of connecting the two. Categories can be fluid and shifting, overlapping with one or several others. It's only if it overlaps, in its entirety, with other categories that its usefulness is severely limited!

But I remember us (not you and me, but me and somebody around here) doing the 'Which is the odd one out?' test, in which every entity was the odd one out depending on what characteristics you chose to select (Plum, cricket ball, carrot). Classical, jazz, pop.

[Lat-Literal]

I don't know where to start with this thread and stopped for a long time before deciding to wade in. Broadly I am in line with Ferney. Specialism has a plus and a minus. The plus is upholding a perceived standard, normally spot on. It is essential as a counterpoint to everything else that goes on. The minus is that it can be seen as a silo for some people but only negatively from those who have issues with specialisms and I don't. To spread across also has a plus and a minus. The minus is dilution and a lowering of perceived standards. The plus is breadth or openness to challenge to self or others. Much of this is attitudinal. The onus is undoubtedly on the naturally broader ranging - no better or worse in principle - to establish a validity in knowing that selections are often from a pool which in commercial terms can major on crass. To say it isn't all like this is a key motivator. I'm not saying that is right or wrong, convincing or unconvincing, but it is my angle. I can't say that it is overly conscious. We are all who we are. That is me. I like to be a learner and a teacher.

nb It would upset me if I felt I was guilty of promoting a dumbing down. Ultimately, I can only be my own judge on that point. I will push to the boundaries but I hope what I do isn't perceived as brainless. The brainless approach is surely in gearing approaches to maximising appeal in commercial terms, however much boardroom minds are put into it.

[Quarky]

I agree with everything here - but different works/genres of Music work (for me - I presume for others, too) in different ways: a Beethoven Bagatelle appeals to (and rewards) different aesthetic expectations from those offered from a Bach Cantata or an Elgar Symphony or a Monteverdi Madrigal - and listening to a concert performance of a Dvorak Concerto is a different Musical experience from singing in a rehearsal of a Handel Oratorio, or reading the score of Daphnis et Chloe. Just stopping to listen to the sound of the external world (for me) is another Artistic experience, unique in that it transforms background noise into Music, and gives me/a responsive listener the sense that it isn't (always) "external" - it is a part of me when I pay attention to it. (And the noise my shears make as I trim the hedge have the potential of becoming part of somebody else's Music.)



Yes - but "categories" in Music are rather sieve-like: just when you think you've got things neatly in categories, you realize that some of your favourite works leak into each other, and all you're left with are the lumps which don't really help: here is Jazz, here is Classical - here is Gershwin and here is Ravel. Some beggar of a genius always comes along and you have to start rearranging - categories in the Arts only work if you keep your eyes in the centre and avoid looking at all the unpredictable interactions that are going on at the edges. (As for science - Light: wave or particle? Music often behaves with Quantum Leaks!)

Everything fhg states is correct imv, but for me a counsel of perfection, so, when I am not hitting my listening heights, I have to stop listening to music which requires a great deal of concentration. E.G Cut & Splice Saturday evening - pre-recorded time announcements together with piano transcription!

Then I might listen to My Baby just cares for Me /Simone, What a Wonderful World/ Armstrong. These certainly have elements of Jazz, Nat Balance, and it would be a brave person to state that anything performed by Simone or Armstrong is not Jazz.

[NatBalance]

Alarm bells

Make sure we can hear those bells now. No dumbing down :)

Thanks for the links Oddball. Actually I'm not sure I can see a great difference in the Third Programme schedule to today's. I think the main difference would have been in how they presented them. I reckon they were much more serious in those days, and their voices much posher.

We find that jazz enthusiasts have much in common with classical music lovers and we support the presence of serious jazz programmes on Radio 3

Mmmm, still don't know why.

My understanding is that in the 50s, with the development of mass media (radio, records, even juke box maybe) a new kind of popular music was created with the aim to sell to a new group of consumers: teenagers with enough pocket money to spend. Pop music was largely manufactured by record companies for a mass market. Jazz, on the other hand, remained in the hands of musicians* and the music was their creations. Of course, record companies had much to do with the development of Jazz but their role was different from that of pop music.

This is why Jazz is (I think) seen as serious music, which is probably the reason why it is often ‘lumped together’ with classical music.

Yes, that's a reasonable theory, but then I think the pop music to which you refer to there might mainly, repeat mainly be the type of pop music that is actually classified as pop, such as this:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popular_music_genres#Pop

The other types in the 'pop' list such as folk, blues, electronic, even rock and country (perhaps not in the USA) I feel are in a similar position to jazz i.e. less often in the charts, less often subjected to mass market pressure to conform and be ruled by the recording companies, hence why rock was able to branch out in the 70s and form progressive rock. Now I am not that knowledgable on this subject and I may be off the mark but I feel as though I am not that far of it.

Incidentally, I made a fool of myself earlier with this statement:-

I've heard it said a lot that you need a greater degree of musical literacy or tallent to play jazz than any other form of pop music and that's what makes it more like classical but I'm not sure about that ……. As for technical difficulty I can play some piano, not to performance standard, I can do some classical and I got to Grade V but I find that of all the pop type music I have tried playing it is something like boogee woogy that I find the most difficult. Combining that left hand along with the right is bonkers difficult:-

Then I linked to a piece of boogie woogie, saying that it is more difficult to play than Chopin. I didn't realise that boogie woogie is jazz. So that's that part of my argument down the plug hole :)

Insofar as 'pop' is a broad category, rather than the current distinction which refers to rather insipid boy-band material, that is what 'pop' means to me, in essence: mass market, commercial, industry-led music. Jazz was never that even though some performers might run it close (same with classical).

Like the word 'classical' has two meanings, so it is with pop music, there is a type of pop music actually called pop (boy band stuff), and as I link here ….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popular_music_genres

…. there are a lot more other types of pop and I reckon they could quite well be in a similar position to jazz with regards to popularity. For instance, when did folk music hit top ten in the charts?

[doversoul1]

NatBalance

Originally Posted by Oddball
We find that jazz enthusiasts have much in common with classical music lovers and we support the presence of serious jazz programmes on Radio 3

Mmmm, still don't know why.

Most likely that is because you don’t know what Jazz is. Have you read the Jazz Board of this forum?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...r_music_genres

The link’s title clearly says List of popular music genres, which includes Pop. If there is a list of classical music genres, it will include Symphony (and its variations). If you insisted on calling all classical music Symphony, you wouldn't be taken seriously.

…. there are a lot more other types of pop and I reckon they could quite well be in a similar position to jazz with regards to popularity. For instance, when did folk music hit top ten in the charts?

Radio 3 includes World music. Other types of non-classical music are played on other stations. Most members on this forum have interest in music other than classical music and they take it very seriously. So what is the point of your argument?

It’s very good to see an enthusiastic new member but being enthusiastic is not the same thing as simply insisting on one’s own opinions when other members are trying to explain or answer the questions.

[Quarky]

Radio 3 includes World music. Other types of non-classical music are played on other stations. Most members on this forum have interest in music other than classical music and they take it very seriously. So what is the point of your argument?
.

Yes Doversoul is correct. If the underlying point of the argument is that R3 gives 5 hours of its broadcast time to serious Jazz, so why not 5 hours to each of other genres, such as world music, prog-rock, trance music, electronica, etc, etc (sorry not familiar with progressive genres), then I guess there might be a reaction.

The reaction might be that R3 is one of the very few stations that broadcasts classical music, whereas 99% of radio stations broadcast some form of popular music, or other genres of music. So if the broadcasting of Jazz on R3 requires broadcasting equivalent amounts of other genres, then - Good Bye Jazz! From now on Radio 3 will just broadcast Classical Music. That might suit some folks!

[MrGongGong]

Like the word 'classical' has two meanings,

As Robert Plant said?

Why are you so seemingly obsessed with the categorisation of things into such a narrow range?
Do you apply this to other things in your life?

Animals: can be divided into two groups (as I see it). I can forget all the nonsense that Linnaeus and other boffins invented.

The two types are really

1: Tasty
2: Not tasty