The Tyranny of Pop Music

[ahinton]

Good. But whisky?

By the way, is anyone going to answer Nat’s question?

I did answer it! (as best I could, anyway)...

[Lat-Literal]

Good. But whisky?

By the way, is anyone going to answer Nat’s question?

Yes.

I do remember "Letter From America".

Cooke is one of my radio heroes and I have a lot of his books on my shelves.

[MrGongGong]

Good. But whisky?

By the way, is anyone going to answer Nat’s question?

I think he means
"Not tasty"

[Lat-Literal]

All the way through this thread, I have been thinking:

(a) most "chart" music has been pretty gross in my opinion for nearly 20 years

and

(b) there's an inference of fundamentalism the poor people of Mali now fight daily.

Guess it's broadly recognised that it would all go under the "music is bad" banner?

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Is adapting to ubiquitous music a facet of human evolution?

If it is, I'm a trilobite

[Lat-Literal]

Your 'as though' is interesting: for many people, silence is intolerable.

I suppose we're all different in this respect, but I find music far more distracting when I'm working than, for instance, loud traffic noise or a pneumatic drill outside. Is adapting to ubiquitous music a facet of human evolution?

Realise the comment is partially in light spirit but with respect in academic terms any form of music or musak isn't ubiquitous, is it? 21st Century economics and social policy are ubiquitous. In order to get from A to B traffic is more or less ubiquitous. No individual can escape from them. It would be extremely easy to live every day without music/musak.

[ahinton]

Realise the comment is partially in light spirit but with respect in academic terms any form of music or musak isn't ubiquitous, is it? 21st Century economics and social policy are ubiquitous. In order to get from A to B traffic is more or less ubiquitous. No individual can escape from them. It would be extremely easy to live every day without music/musak.

That surely depends upon the extent or otherwise to which each individual might be allowed to do so; being able to live without something in the sense that one can manage without it is one thing but not being allowed to live without something because it's so often forced on one is quite another.

[NatBalance]

Gosh, some interesting discussion going on here. Let me have my two penny worth.

Interesting that he says about the teenager listening to some classical music "They will be bewildered at first, after all, how can this old geeza sit still for 50 minutes listening to something that hasn't got a beat or a tune". Then he later says of pop music:-

"Have they noticed for example that Lady Gaga in Poker Face stays for most of the tune on one note? Is that real melody?". I agree with MrGG, I cannot see that this has any relevance at all as to whether the piece is good or bad, thought provoking or banal. What about Liszt's Liebestraum No. 3?

Some years ago I think it was Peter Maxwell Davies who made a complaint about too much muzak in public places and it was discussed on Radio 3 and I began to wonder what exactly is muzak?

A definition I have found is "Recorded music that is played quietly and continuously in public places, such as airports, hotels, and shops, to make people feel relaxed". Muzak has to be music that does not create strong emotion, either neutral or relaxing. I do not think such music is bad music, it is just a different type of music, in fact I think it is absolutely brilliant music, but what constitutes such music? Does it have to actually be composed as such, or can any music be used as muzak?

Think about the amplification of pop music. Why is pop music always amplified loud and recorded to that it is loud? I know what many will say; it has to be in order the get anything out of it. I totally dissagree with that view. I think it is true to say that the emotional effect of any music is enhanced by increased volume. Of course there are limits, but if you take the extreme and play a piece so quietly that only the loud parts are just barely heard and the quiet parts are inaudible and then gradually increase the volume, I think it cannot be denied that the louder the volume gets the more emotional effect the music will have on the listener, until at some point it will get too loud and start driving them bonkers.

This reasoning is stating that the quieter music is played the less and less emotional effect it will have on the listener, therefore I suggest that any music could become muzak if it is played sufficiently quietly enough.

[alycidon]

BBC ONE TV has a weekday quiz called "Pointless"

The object is to find a true answer which nobody among a hundred volunteers has thought of.

Four couples compete in a series of knockout rounds. At the end of each round, the couple with the highest number of points is eliminated.

Geography, Famous People, Science, Literature, Historical events, Sports, The Natural World - are among subjects included.

But the competition works against the more knowledgable contestants (usually middle aged or above) by its obsession with Pop music and "The Charts".

So much for the viewer to learn from those correct/incorrect answers; but who cares "...who was the drummer in the ???? Boy Band which topped the Charts in 2004?"

I have yet to see Classical Music included as a subject on this programme, but if "University Challenge" is anything to go by;-

Question Master "For ten points, Who wrote Beethoven's Fifth Symphony? " (Buzzer Sounds) "Merton?"

Answer (from Merton student) "Mozart?"

Don't send your son or daughter to Uni Mrs Worthington - (Unless they know how to spell and pronounce the word "University")

HS

I am indebted to you for your explanation of Pointless, HS. I always catch five or ten minutes of it while waiting for the news, but I've never understood the object of the game. Thank you.

[visualnickmos]

In response to NatBalance:

I agree pretty much 100% with you. I have an in-built distaste for any form of enforced listening, including (or which is, in essence) muzak of any sort whatsoever. For me music has to be a conscious decision to be availed of. Clumsy usage here.... sorry.

OK - I have to actually decide that I want to listen to as opposed to merely hear Beethoven etc.....

[Lat-Literal]

That surely depends upon the extent or otherwise to which each individual might be allowed to do so; being able to live without something in the sense that one can manage without it is one thing but not being allowed to live without something because it's so often forced on one is quite another.

Alistair, dear fellow:

Thanks.

The equivalent could theoretically be moving to a quiet village and staying in it. It's your choice given traffic has multiplied massively since the 1960s. Don't like it. Avoid it. I'm sorry but there are things you can avoid with just some thought beforehand and things that are factually impossible to avoid. Small grocery and newsagents' shops? Generally they do not have music. You want a modern supermarket? Take the bumper-to-bumper and fight your way into it with an imposing Beyonce, probably adored by 40% alongside you.

That as the telecommunications companies would say is the "package". It is the economically liberal society is it not? Not necessarily favoured by me! If it was such a turn off then all of them would go bankrupt. Mostly they do not. I still believe that there is less music around - no one has addressed "the disappeared" Blue Oyster Cult on jukebox point - and there is no doubt whatsoever there are half a dozen if not a dozen situations in which there is absolutely no room for manouvre. This, as is the modern way, is a very soft target.

Do I regret how much popular culture in my opinion has deteriorated? You have no idea how much I do. It affects my life. Do I think BBC Radio 3 should not dumb down and compete with Classic FM? You bet I do. I believe that the national broadcaster should subscribe to a standard because no one else will ever do so. But the very idea that I should expect private enterprise to do what I prefer when it isn't answerable to me is laughable. I'm not into world domination. I just want adequacy from what I am required to subsidise.

[MrGongGong]

I think it is true to say that the emotional effect of any music is enhanced by increased volume.

No It's not

I think it cannot be denied that the louder the volume gets the more emotional effect the music will have on the listener,

I think you are mistaken

therefore I suggest that any music could become muzak if it is played sufficiently quietly enough.

No it can't

The point of "Muzak" (https://www.press.umich.edu/8718/elevator_music) isn't the volume but the context and the intended effects
"Muzak" was a company that was bought by these folks http://us.moodmedia.com

And what is this "emotional effect" of which you speak anyway?

Terrible thing this modern fad for background music

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

[NatBalance]

MrGongGong - in reply to my statement "I think it is true to say that the emotional effect of any music is enhanced by increased volume", of which there is of course a limit, you replied:-

"No It's not"

Well there's one way to test that. If the sound engineer at a pop concert gives the acoustic instruments only the same amplification classical accoustic instruments would get at that venue (which usually means none, or subtle adjustments), and the drums and electric instruments have to adjust their volumes appropriately, and there is no complaints …… well …. what could I say?

And what is this "emotional effect" of which you speak anyway?

Uuuuh?

[ahinton]

The equivalent could theoretically be moving to a quiet village and staying in it. It's your choice given traffic has multiplied massively since the 1960s. Don't like it. Avoid it. I'm sorry but there are things you can avoid with just some thought beforehand and things that are factually impossible to avoid. Small grocery and newsagents' shops? Generally they do not have music. You want a modern supermarket? Take the bumper-to-bumper and fight your way into it with an imposing Beyonce, probably adored by 40% alongside you.

That as the telecommunications companies would say is the "package". It is the economically liberal society is it not? Not necessarily favoured by me! If it was such a turn off then all of them would go bankrupt. Mostly they do not. I still believe that there is less music around - no one has addressed "the disappeared" Blue Oyster Cult on jukebox point - and there is no doubt whatsoever there are half a dozen if not a dozen situations in which there is absolutely no room for manouvre. This, as is the modern way, is a very soft target.

This, however, relates to the exercising of personal choice and, yes, of course anyone who is particularly offended by musical sounds being relayed in public places (let's perhaps drop the term "muzak", to the extent that what's relayed might cover quite a wide variety of music, including Mozart being played to discourage "yobs" on train stations, as has been done) can change their lifestyle so as to avoid encountering it, although that's quite a big ask - but what is the intended purpose of relaying such music in public places, particularly when people seem to have managed without it in the past? You mention supermarkets; I have to admit that I've never heard any of that stuff in these places but I've heard plenty elsewhere. If that kind of thing were indeed representative of an "economically liberal society", as you suggest, one might question its purposes and aims and, once understood, it might well be argued that forcing people to hear this material in certain public places is something rather different to what some might regard as "liberal"!

Do I regret how much popular culture in my opinion has deteriorated? You have no idea how much I do. It affects my life. Do I think BBC Radio 3 should not dumb down and compete with Classic FM? You bet I do. I believe that the national broadcaster should subscribe to a standard because no one else will ever do so. But the very idea that I should expect private enterprise to do what I prefer when it isn't answerable to me is laughable. I'm not into world domination.

You might not be - but what about the purveyors of this stuff?! The question keeps arising; what is the intended purpose of it? How does it affect - and how is it supposed to affect - people in hotel lobbies, shopping malls, elevators and the rest when they encounter it?

[ahinton]

I think it is true to say that the emotional effect of any music is enhanced by increased volume. Of course there are limits, but if you take the extreme and play a piece so quietly that only the loud parts are just barely heard and the quiet parts are inaudible and then gradually increase the volume, I think it cannot be denied that the louder the volume gets the more emotional effect the music will have on the listener, until at some point it will get too loud and start driving them bonkers.

MrGG disagrees - and so do I. Of course if the music - or parts of it - are inaudible, there is nothing to create an emotional response in the listener - that's a statement of the b******g obvious - but how would such responses be enhanced in listeners when, say, the finale of Mahler's Ninth Symphony is played on a recording at one level and then played again at a higher level? I think that you are quite mistaken in your argument here.

This reasoning is stating that the quieter music is played the less and less emotional effect it will have on the listener, therefore I suggest that any music could become muzak if it is played sufficiently quietly enough.

Again, this is a misconception; if any music is played sufficiently quietly to be inaudible (and don't forget that the mid of music under discussion here is not relayed in otherwise silent environments as one might expect in a concert venue), it will have no effect at all, but that's not what this discussion is about; "muzak" or whatever else one might like to call it relayed at an inaudible volume would have no possible effect so the very point of relaying it would be lost.