Classical - (Jazz) - Pop

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

The two types are really

1: Tasty
2: Not tasty

Same with Music, really.

[MrGongGong]

Same with Music, really.

Depends on what you mean by "music"

'cause you know some-times words have two me-a-nings

[french frank]

The term 'art music' does not say specifically classical music to me. That implies that pop music is not art and I strongly disagree with that view.

That's because you are using the term 'pop music' in a particularly vague way as a synonym of 'popular'. 'Classical' may have two meanings, but the meanings are distinct: they aren't interchangeable. So, for me 'pop music' embraces all kinds of music which are commercial, mass audience industry: that isn't 'art music'. But other forms of 'popular' music may well be art music.

I don't think it's outrageous to treat 'popular music' as meaning types of music that had their origins with 'the people' as distinct from a court or ecclesiastic 'elite'. So jazz would be 'popular', but not pop. BBC radio only treats it seriously on Radio 3, whereas the outlets for other contenders for 'popular art music' have outlets such as 6 Music. That said, to my mind, the full range of 'world art music' doesn't get much of a look-in anywhere.

(I think a comment I made has been attributed to Oddball: I said "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" where 'we' essentially meant those of us, like me, who may not be jazz enthusiasts but still recognise jazz as a complicated art form which (uniquely?) has always had a rightful place on Radio 3 and is treated seriously by expert presenters speaking to a musically critical and informed audience.

I don't feel you're likely to be convinced. Deep down there appears to be a bit of axe-grinding: I wish I was clearer as to what it is

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Depends on what you mean by "music"

(Actually - now I come to think of it, every meaning of the word "Music" that I use can be divided into the "tasty" and the "Not tasty"!)

[MrGongGong]

(Actually - now I come to think of it, every meaning of the word "Music" that I use can be divided into the "tasty" and the "Not tasty"!)

Do you always choose "Tasty" ?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Bran Flakes every time, me!

[vinteuil]

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

.
... in order to illustrate the arbitrariness and cultural specificity of any attempt to categorize the world, Borges describes this example of an alternate taxonomy, supposedly taken from an ancient Chinese encyclopædia entitled Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge.

The list divides all animals into one of 14 categories:

1.) Those that belong to the emperor
2.) Embalmed ones
3.) Those that are trained
4.) Suckling pigs
5.) Mermaids (or Sirens)
6.) Fabulous ones
7.) Stray dogs
8.) Those that are included in this classification
9.) Those that tremble as if they were mad
10.) Innumerable ones
11.) Those drawn with a very fine camel hair brush
12.) Et cetera
13.) Those that have just broken the flower vase
14.0 Those that, at a distance, resemble flies

Borges claims that the list was discovered in its Chinese source by the translator Franz Kuhn

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

[Serial_Apologist]

Bran Flakes every time, me!

Music has to move me too.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Just a regular guy.

[MrGongGong]

I don't understand this but it might have some relevance?

http://ismir2007.ismir.net/proceedings/ISMIR2007_p485_reed.pdf

Someone else who is possibly doomed?

http://www.elbuzzard.com/music

"This is beyond difficult."

[french frank]

Borges claims that the list was discovered in its Chinese source by the translator Franz Kuhn

Would that be the same Borges who created Funes el memorioso, inventor of a new numbering system?

[gradus]

I had always thought that R3 was interested in Jazz because, like classical music, it is a minority taste and hence not something for R2, except perhaps with the BBC Big Band. Maybe record shops put jazz records far from the pop section as it sold so badly and couldn't be allowed to take up valuable sales space.
Surely Jazz can be akin to either Pop or Classical music depending on the nature of the Jazz performance. Plenty of Jazz players produce melodic tuneful jazz that doesn't stray too far from a popular base and the catalogue of great Jazz performances of popular songs is vast. So if Jazz needs to be classified I think I'd agree with the alignment with popular music. I can't think of any classically influenced Jazz that I care for, especially not of the Loussier kind.

[french frank]

I had always thought that R3 was interested in Jazz because, like classical music, it is a minority taste and hence not something for R2, except perhaps with the BBC Big Band. Maybe record shops put jazz records far from the pop section as it sold so badly and couldn't be allowed to take up valuable sales space.
Surely Jazz can be akin to either Pop or Classical music depending on the nature of the Jazz performance.

Wikipedia describes Jamie Cullum's 'genres' as : Crossover jazz, vocal jazz, blue-eyed soul, jazz-pop, swing, pop.

But my understanding is that Jamie Cullum is considered "Radio 2 jazz" which isn't necessarily what the Radio 3 'Jazz on 3' audience would be most interested in. ?? It's 'pop' because it's commercial, not because it's jazz. (Radio 2 gets far bigger audiences for its jazz programmes than Radio 3 does).

Wikipedia also says Cullum won: BBC Radio 2 "Artist of the Year" honours at the BBC Jazz Awards (as voted for by listeners of Radio 2).

[NatBalance]

Good question (but 4:33" is still music)

What is music "for"?
Is it's purpose (if it has one) universal?

Now there's a deep question. To put it simply, for me music is for pleasure and also for expressing something that cannot be put into words …. or enhancing words. Cage's 4'33" could cause pleasure I suppose, but not in a way that would be complimentary. It causes geat puzzlement mainly. I watched the video you linked and tried to see where one 'movement' ended and another began. I thought 'Is he going to block his ears? Dust himself down?' But nothing. Don't suppose you could give us a clue?

Can't think what you mean by 'Is it's purpose … universal?'.

You misunderstand the whole "sound based" / "note based" thing

Yes, you're right I totally missunderstood that one. I see what you mean now, but I also see why I missunderstood, because those descriptions seem very ambiguous to me.

Note based music - is not every piece of music note based?
Sound based music - is not every piece of music sound based?

What is a note? Is it not actually a representation of a sound in graphic form? Could not that fascinating sound based music you linked be notated? If there is no way of notating it at present I see no reason why a way could not be devised, just as has been done to notate other music, which I bet seemed impossible to do initially just as it may at present seem impossible to notate Klang.

On reading your link it seems that sound based music just refers to electronic sound effect (as I call it) music. Is that right? I mean, is the shakahachu flute and the well tuned piano music you link earlier classed as sound based music? That music could be written down the conventional way, and therefore could it not be called note based then?

Rich

[MrGongGong]

Now there's a deep question. To put it simply, for me music is for pleasure and also for expressing something that cannot be put into words …. or enhancing words. Cage's 4'33" could cause pleasure I suppose, but not in a way that would be complimentary. It causes geat puzzlement mainly. I watched the video you linked and tried to see where one 'movement' ended and another began. I thought 'Is he going to block his ears? Dust himself down?' But nothing. Don't suppose you could give us a clue?

Can't think what you mean by 'Is it's purpose … universal?'.



Yes, you're right I totally missunderstood that one. I see what you mean now, but I also see why I missunderstood, because those descriptions seem very ambiguous to me.

Note based music - is not every piece of music note based?
Sound based music - is not every piece of music sound based?

What is a note? Is it not actually a representation of a sound in graphic form? Could not that fascinating sound based music you linked be notated? If there is no way of notating it at present I see no reason why a way could not be devised, just as has been done to notate other music, which I bet seemed impossible to do initially just as it may at present seem impossible to notate Klang.

On reading your link it seems that sound based music just refers to electronic sound effect (as I call it) music. Is that right? I mean, is the shakahachu flute and the well tuned piano music you link earlier classed as sound based music? That music could be written down the conventional way, and therefore could it not be called note based then?

Rich

HOW long have you got?


a few answers then

Note based music - is not every piece of music note based?

NO

Sound based music - is not every piece of music sound based?

NO

You are confusing "note" with "notation"

Could not that fascinating sound based music you linked be notated? If there is no way of notating it at present I see no reason why a way could not be devised, just as has been done to notate other music, which I bet seemed impossible to do initially just as it may at present seem impossible to notate Klang.

http://logiciels.pierrecouprie.fr/?page_id=402

Not all scores are "instructions for actions"

Can't think what you mean by 'Is it's purpose … universal?'.

Is the purpose of music the same everywhere in the world, (in your view)?

That'll do

BUT why do you want to classify things in this way? (I know why Leigh did)