on "pop" culture

[acroyear]

I wrote the following as a bit of a rant to a guy basically trying to put an end to the standard boilerplate argument that "classical is just better than pop", in that he attacks the arguers by presenting the exceptions of excellence in pop culture rather than acknowledging that they are often the exceptions. In a sense, he sets up his opposition to fail by not recognizing that the very word itself, "popular", is loaded with negative feelings and connotations in those of us who generally have left it.

Walmart teacher? (Pop/Classical, first footnote) - Sandow:

I think the real issue is that very use of the word "popular". It may have a denotation that includes all forms of culture that happen to be popular in the sense that classical is not, but it has a connotation that is what is emotionally charged - that of the mass market culture, spoon-fed to the masses, manufactured to be liked and sold as commodity, interchangeable from the next. 1 hour on "pop" radio demonstrates that easily, regardless of any aesthetic argument over quality.

When you say "popular", of course we're going to think of Britney Spears and Lady Gaga, and all that is "wrong" with the image they present, the culture of greed and self-centeredness they represent. They represent to us WHY we no longer have easy access to the craft we love.

When put to the challenge of it, you immediately respond by mentioning the exceptions to that mass-market culture, as if we didn't already know them. Trust me I know plenty in the "pop" culture that I love (really well played blues and jazz, progressive rock from King Crimson through Yes to the contemporary Dream Theater, Ayreon, Flower Kings, and Marillion), and an addiction to the 80s pop of my youth that will never go away. Of course we can find good quality and craftsmanship in "pop" network tv and film (Scrubs, at least through season 7, is an excellent example).

Your last paragraph in my reply in a sense gave up the whole argument: if you can rate a classical work, performance, or recording to be of higher quality than another, in the same sense that you can rate a "pop" work to be of a higher quality, then why can't you thus treat both to be of the same culture, that is "music", and rate them?

Yes it is wrong to say that all classical music must by its very nature be better than the best of the pop world (say, The Beatles), but when using the word "popular" without some refining context, you evoke in your readership the images not of The Beatles or the many other fine examples of craftsmanship in Rock, Dance, Jazz and Blues, Country, and even Rap that are out there (ok, I'm thinking about Weird Al's White and Nerdy, but there you go). Rather, you bring up the image of the marketed "pop diva", selling sex and celebrity rather than music and art, where every aspect of their life hits the airwaves as unavoidably as the commercials for a reality tv show, and evoking strong distaste to the point of nausea.

As the saying goes, "choose your words carefully". By presenting only the dichotomy of "Classical" vs "Popular" to the classical audience, you automatically bring up images of the best of one to compete with the worst of the other, and neither your audience, the cultural world, nor your argument are really well served.

And in fact it would go the other way around - to the music lover who happens to enjoy well crafted popular music but knows little of classical, you will likely bring up the image of The Beatles with all of their sonorities and production quality to compete with the "pops" station that plays Eine Kliene Nachtmusic and Pachebel's Canon 37 times in a row.

Another chap does mention how the Classical world has already filtered out its junk over the last 300 years, though I think he's missing a bit because part of the classical-v-pop argument does have to do with the role of contemporary classical (if such a thing exists) in the marketplace.

Comments

[thelongshot.livejournal.com]

Funny you post this after I read a thread on a message board about the relative merits of Lady Gaga.

I guess one aspect not quite covered by your post is that some "classical" music was the "pop" songs of their times.

I also don't think that writing multiple pop songs which are successful isn't as easy as some make it out to be. There are definitely those out there who have the knack for it.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

one must stress the word "relative", I guess? :)

yes, "some" classical was also the pop of its day, but not all, mostly due to the class system and the patronage aspects of composer life, at least in the 18th century prior to the many revolutions of that time.

in particular, opera was certainly the "star wars" of its day, even before the Wagnerian epic took it up a half-dozen more notches. Berlioz's movement into tone poems (musical works with a literary connection) moved that music from the aristocracy that paid for it in Mozart's time down to the middle classes that could relate to the work because they were educated enough to have read the relevant works, and this connection continued all the way to Debussy.

still others were a bit mixed. chamber groups played both "classical" and dance music. the dance music was a most of the pop of the time (tavern ballads, sea shanties, and rural folk ballads of the May Day variety being the other, at least until the industrial revolution created a new city folk song), so chamber groups played for dances as often as they played concerts and would sometimes play a "classical" piece as an intermission between dance tunes.

like contemporary groups (Bare Necessities), it wasn't the case that the classically trained musicians looked down on those pop pieces, but rather saw them as musics they could play with and improvise around without restraint. so in that, there is a level of co-respect that existed then which doesn't exist as much today.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

oh and i'll agree that writing pop songs that are successful is hard, but writing the pop song that is successful AND has legs enough to still be worth a listen 20 years later is harder still. some don't even realize they've done it. most don't even try.

the other thing that makes rock/pop (and contemporary country) different from most other musics is the fact that the original recording and production is as much a part of its success as the songwriting itself, and in recent times has really taken over as the focus. songs are bought for the production qualities, for the "sound", regardless of the quality of the music within. the music is only part of the art. now when the sound and the music is the package, i generally don't have a problem. when the sound, the music, and a creative visual element (say, Pink Floyd's covers and light show), I generally don't have a problem.

when what is being sold is the sound, the music, and the celebrity image of the performer, THEN I have a problem.

I do admit my pop-80s love is more nostalgia than really looking at the music. the things I might chastise Lady Gaga for are really many of the same things that got, say, Cindy Lauper all that attention 27 years ago, the same things Madonna bumped to an even higher level and managed to continue to move forward on over the 25 years (so far) of her career. but then again with Madonna it was almost never about the music.