Pieces Not Fit for Purpose

[Serial_Apologist]

What BO was saying, though, was not that his supposed lack of technical knowledge stood in the way of appreciation but that it prevented him from experiencing what musical adepts might regard as lacking in the music in question. Personally I don't think "lack of knowledge" really works in this way either. I find that my own increasing "technical knowledge", such as it is, widens the range of my musical appreciation rather than narrowing it.

Regarding pop music, it only seems to be simple if one defines "the music" (or for that matter "surface emotion") as denoting the same thing as it does in other musics, that is, if one judges it by inappropriate standards. And thousands of academics and commentators are discussing pop music in sophisticated terms all the time - if you "seldom seem to hear" this it's again probably because you're looking in the wrong places. Many would say that the presence of pop music in higher music education, for example, threatens to push other musics out of consideration, partly because it always has the argument of "popularity" (supposedly equal to "relevance") on its side. Personally I don't see that any music inherently involves "more to understand" than any other. Understanding music in the deepest sense always involves understanding that "the music" is an ill-defined concept which isn't covered by just the written score (if any), or the sounds of any single performance or recording of it, and different musics inhere to different degrees in restrictive definitions like this. Anyway, in what sense is a Schubert song more complex than a Beatles song?

Something tangentially related occurred to me as a result of BO's comment: very many people, myself included, listen to and appreciate many different musics, from "classical" music however one defines it, to pop music, jazz, free improvisation, electronic dance music, whatever. Yet very many creative musicians make their work as if they only appreciated one area out of this diversity, while many others work as if the alternative to this were a box-ticking kind of eclecticism (which certainly seems to go down well with promoters and labels these days - look at any month of Deutsche Grammophon's new releases these days!). Much "contemporary music" is therefore to my mind "not fit for purpose" in that it either ignores the openness to everything which I think is certainly a feature of contemporary listening, or it regurgitates its influences in undigested form, which mediocre music has always done.

That message, and in particular, for me personally, the part I've taken the liberty of highlighting, is one of the most enlightening statements I have read on music. Many many thanks, Richard.

[ahinton]

That message, and in particular, for me personally, the part I've taken the liberty of highlighting, is one of the most enlightening statements I have read on music. Many many thanks, Richard.

Very much agreed - except that I would add (for what it may or may not be worth) to his question " in what sense is a Schubert song more complex than a Beatles song?" the answer that, in a fair number of cases (though not all), there is somewhat greater harmonic complexity.

[jean]

What often seems to me most telling is when a piece of 'classical' music is adapted for a more 'popular' use -as for example when Pachelbel's Canon is done without the canon.

(Maybe that wasn't a good example because some people think Pachelcel's Canon is pretty banal in the first place.)

[Richard Barrett]

when Pachelbel's Canon is done without the canon

It's very often done without the following Gigue, but I don't really understand what you mean here - only the bassline?

Two things most people don't know about Pachelbel's Canon: (a) it is for solo violins, not string orchestra, (b) it has no tempo indication so there is no justification for playing it as slowly as in most pseudo-romantic realisations of it. Almost every time you hear it, therefore, it's been adapted for more "popular" use.

Except here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z__dWl0MWbQ

[jean]

No, I meant something more like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOA-2hl1Vbc

[ahinton]

No, I meant something more like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOA-2hl1Vbc

6'11" as distinct from the 4'40" of the one to which Richard linked!

[jean]

But it's not just about speed! I'm talking about a simplified, repetitive bass line.

I know repetition is the point, but in the versions I'm thinking of, the repeated bass sections are much shorter than they should be, and do not interact in an interesting way with the top line.

.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Very much agreed - except that I would add (for what it may or may not be worth) to his question " in what sense is a Schubert song more complex than a Beatles song?" the answer that, in a fair number of cases (though not all), there is somewhat greater harmonic complexity.

But that works both ways - Nacht und Traume (the other one) is certainly more complex harmonically than Love Me Do; but Strawberry Fields and Die Musensohn, contrariwise.

[Richard Barrett]

No, I meant something more like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOA-2hl1Vbc

I know you did, that was my point. I was puzzled by your mention of "without the canon." The canon is there in "your" version. What did you mean?

[NatBalance]

Very much agreed - except that I would add (for what it may or may not be worth) to his question " in what sense is a Schubert song more complex than a Beatles song?" the answer that, in a fair number of cases (though not all), there is somewhat greater harmonic complexity.

All that is of concern with music is whether it sounds good or not. Complexity does not have a bearing on that.

[Serial_Apologist]

All that is of concern with music is whether it sounds good or not. Complexity does not have a bearing on that.

If you don't need any criteria for deciding that, then how do you know?

[Richard Barrett]

All that is of concern with music is whether it sounds good or not.

Amazing that people find so much to say about it then, no?

[Pulcinella]

That message, and in particular, for me personally, the part I've taken the liberty of highlighting, is one of the most enlightening statements I have read on music. Many many thanks, Richard.

I'm confused.
Are we saying that a six-part Bach fugue is not inherently more complex than a simple folk song, say?

[teamsaint]

Something tangentially related occurred to me as a result of BO's comment: very many people, myself included, listen to and appreciate many different musics, from "classical" music however one defines it, to pop music, jazz, free improvisation, electronic dance music, whatever. Yet very many creative musicians make their work as if they only appreciated one area out of this diversity, while many others work as if the alternative to this were a box-ticking kind of eclecticism (which certainly seems to go down well with promoters and labels these days - look at any month of Deutsche Grammophon's new releases these days!). Much "contemporary music" is therefore to my mind "not fit for purpose" in that it either ignores the openness to everything which I think is certainly a feature of contemporary listening, or it regurgitates its influences in undigested form, which mediocre music has always done.

so not only does the creative musician have to avoid the twin traps that you describe, they also need to create with the possible breadth of listening experience of their audience in mind, as well as keeping the promoters on board, and those who give commissions happy?

Blimey .

[Richard Barrett]

so not only does the creative musician have to avoid the twin traps that you describe, they also need to create with the possible breadth of listening experience of their audience in mind, as well as keeping the promoters on board, and those who give commissions happy?

Well no, I don't think those last three factors are worth bearing in mind during the creative process since they'll tend to lead to compromise and safe solutions. Also I don't feel that creating music should involve "avoiding" anything. I was talking about being completely open and curious at the same time as being completely focused and disciplined. And being involved with the kinds of commissioners who are "kept happy" by this approach.