Categorisation of Music

[rauschwerk]

It’s a bit of an artificial distinction isn’t it ? How do we know that Dowland wasn’t essentially a Tudor “pop” composer? The McCartney of his day .

I don't really see how 'pop' music in the modern sense could have existed before the 19th century - by definition it needs a mass market and major commercial interests. These arrived with the mass production of cheap musical instruments (pianos especially) and widely available sheet music. Nothing like that was available in Elizabethan times.

[cloughie]

Marilyn Horne could do everything from Rossini to Rodgers and crucially “ inhabit “ the idiom . That is not sound like an opera singer singing musicals. Bryn is not bad either - did an excellent Sweeney Todd at ENO a few years back.

Indeed Bernstein chose her to finish off his infamous Carreras/Kiri West Side Story with a very good ‘Somewhere’.

[cloughie]

I don't really see how 'pop' music in the modern sense could have existed before the 19th century - by definition it needs a mass market and major commercial interests. These arrived with the mass production of cheap musical instruments (pianos especially) and widely available sheet music. Nothing like that was available in Elizabethan times.

But then the pop music of the day was folk music which never written down passed from one community to another like chinese whispers evolving as it went on the basis of interpreting what was heard.

[french frank]

It’s a bit of an artificial distinction isn’t it ? How do we know that Dowland wasn’t essentially a Tudor “pop” composer? The McCartney of his day .

And of course when we talk about 'pop', we arent talking about a centuries-old genre going back to the medieval period: we're speaking, essentially, of post WW2 'pop' in its various subsequent fragmentations. 'Pop' no longer is a type of folk music: Old Etonians are just as/more likely to have played in a rock band than an orchestra at school.

The more important 'artificial distinction' came with the BBC's 'generic broadcastiing' (c. 1967?), when the BBC expanded its networks and designated Radio 3, as a successor to the Third Programme, the station for 'classical music' and something called the 'high arts' including ballet, opera, and literature/poetry which for the most part (in quantity) predated the late Victorian period, meaning the art which survived to a much larger extent than the 'folk music' did. Dowland wasn't 'pop' music because his music would only have been known to the wealthy elite - for some of our contemporaries the kiss of death in a somewhat more egalitarian age.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I don't really see how 'pop' music in the modern sense could have existed before the 19th century - by definition it needs a mass market and major commercial interests. These arrived with the mass production of cheap musical instruments (pianos especially) and widely available sheet music. Nothing like that was available in Elizabethan times.

That’s why I posed it as a question . We have some knowledge of the audience for Shakespeare’s plays and Jacobethan drama. We know that it reached across the social spectrum from “groundlings” in the arena to the more monied in the gallery . We also know that music featured heavily in Shakespeare- like Morley’s It Was A Lover in As You Like It ( IIRC) . It is a not unreasonable assumption that the songs of Dowland had a broader more “popular “ appeal than say Schubert , Wolf , Strauss have now. That doesn’t make them “pop “ music but it does say something about the fragmented nature of our culture and it’s distinction between “serious” and “popular” .Perhaps Dowland was both but you are right - he wouldn’t have been commercially popular in the sense of wide publication , Shakespeare was both serious and popular in a way that Pinter and David Hare can never be. Not because they’re not as talented (though they aren’t ) but because we don’t have that culture.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Indeed Bernstein chose her to finish off his infamous Carreras/Kiri West Side Story with a very good ‘Somewhere’.

Yes apart from Kurt Olmann the only opera singer on that recording who could “do” Broadway . It’s a lot harder than it sounds .Tatiana Troyanos as Anita is so big voiced she sounds like Maria’s Madre….

[Ein Heldenleben]

And of course when we talk about 'pop', we arent talking about a centuries-old genre going back to the medieval period: we're speaking, essentially, of post WW2 'pop' in its various subsequent fragmentations. 'Pop' no longer is a type of folk music: Old Etonians are just as/more likely to have played in a rock band than an orchestra at school.

The more important 'artificial distinction' came with the BBC's 'generic broadcastiing' (c. 1967?), when the BBC expanded its networks and designated Radio 3, as a successor to the Third Programme, the station for 'classical music' and something called the 'high arts' including ballet, opera, and literature/poetry which for the most part (in quantity) predated the late Victorian period, meaning the art which survived to a much larger extent than the 'folk music' did. Dowland wasn't 'pop' music because his music would only have been known to the wealthy elite - for some of our contemporaries the kiss of death in a somewhat more egalitarian age.

Not sure you are right about the wealthy elite and Dowland ….

[oddoneout]

Not sure you are right about the wealthy elite and Dowland ….

I wondered about that as well. Wealthy households served by lower orders would surely have been a good way for the "elite" music to be disseminated more widely and become popular? Lack of sheet music and suitable instruments wouldn't have stopped the enjoyment of a good tune.

[french frank]

Not sure you are right about the wealthy elite and Dowland ….

Was he not a court musician?

[Serial_Apologist]

But then the pop music of the day was folk music which never written down passed from one community to another like chinese whispers evolving as it went on the basis of interpreting what was heard.

A very important point, since the old pre-18th century, and still uncontaminated world folk traditions, evolved organically through small changes in societies in which music was oral rather than written down, as well as being organically interwoven into everyday live, qv. harvest festival and other seasonal gatherings. Thus it was closer to how jazz has evolved - the main difference being straight ahead jazz's use of "head arrangements", and how sudden changes and volte-faces in jazz are reflective of those in socially more complicated, individualised times. One common feature separating jazz and folk traditions from classical and pop musics is the expectation in the latter that performance adhere to "the score" - whether that be faithful reproduction to the original recording at festivals in the case of pop (or pop fans will complain!) or the orchestral conductor's perceived interpretation of the composer's intention as detailed in the score, or in written records and reminiscences.

These distinctions between genres don't of themselves indicate pop music and classical music as being more closely identified with one-another than with folk and jazz traditions; one might have to go deeper into matters of musical idiom to say what it is about pop music that for all its peripheral changes (dress codes, new technological devices) its musical idiom or language remains largely tied to basic tonic/dominant expectations - notwithstanding the few exceptions that prove the generality, ie Lennon & McCartney songs of the 1966-69 period, Madness in the late 1970s/early '80s, to cite just two examples. Wherever pop has grafted innovatory elements onto its simple underlying basics, for example rap and the odd one-chorus jazz solo, these have been treated as part of its peripherals.

[NatBalance]

The original answer I gave to Natbalance (which he presumably didn't read, as he later asked the question again) was that 'classical music' was not - to any degree - 'defined' by the performers/musicians.

I think you are referring to this sentence of mine, quote "There seems to be a faction of classical music lovers who do not like anything that is popular …". I think there is some confusion in the language here. I have complained on another forum about unnecessary confusions in the language being promoted and accepted, such as the mad change in the meaning of 'billion' and 'unisex', but apparently it is a good thing to have a so-called living breathing language. Yeah right, to a certain extent, but you can go too far. I think the problem here is between the many definitions of the words 'popular', 'serious', and 'classical'. I think people are taking 'serious' to mean 'classical' and 'popular' to mean anything that is not classical. I don't see it that way.

Definitions - here's mine

Popular Music - This can apply to any type of music, you can have popular pop music and popular classical music. As I've stated before we have the confusing situation whereby we have a type of music that is called pop, and that resides in the bigger category that is also called pop, and it is just the same for classical. We have a typ of music called classical which resides in the bigger category also called classical. It's wrong of course but that's what we are stuck with at the moment because people believe the language should be allowed to live and breathe with absolutely no limits.

Pop Music - I will quote my attempt in post #9919 at defining pop music "…. pop music generally has a foot tapping rhythm and beat prominent, it's not usually written down in detail by the composers, just the chords (it may be written down in detail by others), if any meaning is being related then it is usually reliant solely on the words rather than the music, and, dare I suggest it, is usually created by people not professionally trained in music. There are always going to be exceptions of course and then we have the cross-overs such as 70s prog rock". I know it's more complicated than that but I reckon that's not a bad summary, although I haven't read Origins of the Popular Style by Pieter van der Merwe yet as recommended by Rauschwerk

Serious Music - means what is says, music that is serious. Any type of music can be serious. Heavy Metal, Death Metal and Punk is usually serious but can also be comical. Even sad love songs can be thought of as serious. Love is serious when it goes wrong, serious enough to cause suicides, and The Day Before You Came by ABBA is not exactly a bundle of laughs. How about Bob Dylan? Some serious songs there. On the classical side surely you cannot call all classical music serious? Is it not true that Saint-Saens did not want his Carnival of the Animals published untill after his death because he thought is was not serious enough and it might ruin his reputation? Therefore I don't think the word 'serious' can be taken as a substitute for 'classical'.

Classical Music - Now then, as with defining pop music I know it is quite a mammoth task and I bet I will be shot down by many but I reckon it does one good to have a go and risk the flack. I reckon the defining traits are that although it often has rhythm, the beat is not normally so marked as in pop music. Pieces like Ravel's Bolero acquired critical acclaim due it's pop-like trait of having such a steady marked beat. On the other hand I cannot account for a piece like Mars by Holst where the beat is most definitely marked and steady but yet is undoubtedly classical in nature. Another thing that I reckon defines classical music is that it can paint a picture and give meaning with the music itself whereas pop relies on the words for such. Classical music is usually written down in detail (rather than just the chords as in pop).

[french frank]

I think you are referring to this sentence of mine, quote "There seems to be a faction of classical music lovers who do not like anything that is popular …".

No, I wasn't. I was referring to your question as to why 'people' (not sure who - people who shared their thoughts on R3? I was unaware that it had been mentioned here) objected to Mario Lanza. The benchmark would be what he was singing rather than ML himself. My reply referred to the Harpo Marx piece, but I see that was the second of two airings, the first (of Adolphe Adam, broadly a 'popular classic') being the previous day. Mario Lanza singing Harpo Marx is not 'classical music' and Mario Lanza - like your other favourite, if I recall correctly, Katherine Jenkins - was better known for his more popular repertoire than for his classical performances.

There is a grey area, but it seems over the years to shift. There is plenty of 'unpopular' (= less well-known) classical music that many listeners would like to hear more of, but they tend to get served up more of the popular, both classical and non-classical.

[Ein Heldenleben]

Was he not a court musician?

There must be some one on the forum who has written a thesis on Dowland And His Audience?

Failing that there is this from wiki - outlining how Dowland drew on “popular “ sources and become “popular “:in his own right.

“Two major influences on Dowland's music were the popular consort songs, and the dance music of the day.[14] Most of Dowland's music is for his own instrument, the lute.[15] It includes several books of solo lute works, lute songs (for one voice and lute), part-songs with lute accompaniment, and several pieces for viol consort with lute.[16] The poet Richard Barnfield wrote that Dowland's "heavenly touch upon the lute doth ravish human sense."

One of his better known works is the lute song "Flow my tears", the first verse of which runs:

Flow my tears, fall from your springs,
Exil'd for ever let me mourn;
Where night's black bird her sad infamy sings,
There let me live forlorn.

— John Dowland[17]
He later wrote what is probably his best known instrumental work, Lachrimae, or Seaven Teares, Figured in Seaven Passionate Pavans, a set of seven pavanes for five viols and lute, each based on the theme derived from the lute song "Flow my tears".[18] It became one of the best known collections of consort music in his time. His pavane, "Lachrymae antiquae", was also popular in the seventeenth century, and was arranged and used as a theme for variations by many composers. He wrote a lute version of the popular ballad "My Lord Willoughby's Welcome Home".”

[french frank]

Here are my equally uninformed responses:

Definitions - here's mine

Popular Music - This can apply to any type of music, you can have popular pop music and popular classical music. As I've stated before we have the confusing situation whereby we have a type of music that is called pop, and that resides in the bigger category that is also called pop, and it is just the same for classical. We have a typ of music called classical which resides in the bigger category also called classical. It's wrong of course but that's what we are stuck with at the moment because people believe the language should be allowed to live and breathe with absolutely no limits.

It surely depends who the music is popular with, rather than some simple label 'popular' having a precise meaning. What a Radio 3 listener terms 'popular' might be Beethoven's Für Elise, on Breakfast this morning; Geirr Tveitt's Hardanger Ale which was on the same programme wouldn't be. A week previously, Laufey performed Love to keep me warm which may in one sense (generic) be termed popular without being a No 1 pop hit (a guess about that - I've no idea as I am not the audience that would ever discover it. Is it the same as this one?).

Pop Music - I will quote my attempt in post #9919 at defining pop music "…. pop music generally has a foot tapping rhythm and beat prominent, it's not usually written down in detail by the composers, just the chords (it may be written down in detail by others), if any meaning is being related then it is usually reliant solely on the words rather than the music, and, dare I suggest it, is usually created by people not professionally trained in music. There are always going to be exceptions of course and then we have the cross-overs such as 70s prog rock". I know it's more complicated than that but I reckon that's not a bad summary, although I haven't read Origins of the Popular Style by Pieter van der Merwe yet as recommended by Rauschwerk

No comment as it's an unknown entity with me. I would just say, without dissecting it, that it's music written to appeal to a mass/commercial audience and may come in many varieties.

Serious Music - means what is says, music that is serious. Any type of music can be serious. Heavy Metal, Death Metal and Punk is usually serious but can also be comical. Even sad love songs can be thought of as serious. Love is serious when it goes wrong, serious enough to cause suicides, and The Day Before You Came by ABBA is not exactly a bundle of laughs. How about Bob Dylan? Some serious songs there. On the classical side surely you cannot call all classical music serious? Is it not true that Saint-Saens did not want his Carnival of the Animals published untill after his death because he thought is was not serious enough and it might ruin his reputation? Therefore I don't think the word 'serious' can be taken as a substitute for 'classical'.

I wouldn't recognise 'serious' and - what's the opposite? - as having any relevance. A symphony might have an Adagio movement and a Scherzo. Is the symphony serious or not? Pop music might be serious or not: I don't think that's relevant to classical music in the sense you use it.

Classical Music - Now then, as with defining pop music I know it is quite a mammoth task and I bet I will be shot down by many but I reckon it does one good to have a go and risk the flack. I reckon the defining traits are that although it often has rhythm, the beat is not normally so marked as in pop music. Pieces like Ravel's Bolero acquired critical acclaim due it's pop-like trait of having such a steady marked beat. On the other hand I cannot account for a piece like Mars by Holst where the beat is most definitely marked and steady but yet is undoubtedly classical in nature. Another thing that I reckon defines classical music is that it can paint a picture and give meaning with the music itself whereas pop relies on the words for such. Classical music is usually written down in detail (rather than just the chords as in pop).

Again, I wouldn't recognise any of those points as 'defining' classical music (as in making it different from any other kind of music).

I'm as likely to get shot down as you are but quickly, off the cuff, I'd consider: when was it written, who by, and what musical form does it take (symphony, concerto, tone poem &c &c) just for starters …

[NatBalance]

I don't really see how 'pop' music in the modern sense could have existed before the 19th century - by definition it needs a mass market and major commercial interests. These arrived with the mass production of cheap musical instruments (pianos especially) and widely available sheet music. Nothing like that was available in Elizabethan times.

Before reading the book you recommend I would say that pop music originated from folk music. Such music was not written down, it was all created by ear and transfered from person to person in the same way which is why the likes of Vaughan Williams set about recording it using early recording equipment. The same is basically true today I believe. As far as I know pop music is not usually written down (by the composers), not in detail anyway.

As I've stated above I believe the problem lies with the language. What we need are other words to replace the ones we have for the two main genres of music we have which are pop and classical.

Instead of:-
…. folk, blues, country, hip hop, jazz, rock, soul, pop etc all coming under the heading pop, it needs another name.
Instead of:-
…. medieval, renaissance, baroque, romantic, classical etc all coming under the heading classical, it needs another name.

I notice that sometimes classical is called art music. I cannot accept that because that implies pop music is not art. If they had different names then we would not have such confusion such as "Mozart was the pop music of its day". It might have been the most popular music of its day I don't know and actually doubt it, but you could not call it the pop music of its day. The pop music of its day (folk music) I think was normally heard in pubs and country fairs and I reckon was usual free to hear. I imagine they also made their instruments. I think you would normally have to pay to hear classical music. I know Chopin played in salons but I think they had to pay, is that right? So if you counted up the number of people paying to go to a classical concert in those days and the numbers listening free to folk music, which would be the greater?