Extremely interesting discussion on the various merits of Rock, classical and Jazz, and that's just

That is an opinion not a fact.

Its not an opinion that is shared by all that many, if we compare the record sales of Led Zepplin over the last 20 years with any composer you may care to mention.

It is my opinion that classical music contains less emotional content (but far greater complexity) than rock generally speaking.

I say that it contains less emotional content because I cannot connect to it on an emotional level. Classical music to me is ''an instrumental'', and lacking vocal (as the majority of it does, and WHEN it does, I cant understand it, its in Latin or whatever) .. anyway, being unable to connect with it on an emotional level makes it very boring to listen to for me.

Still, theres loads of music out there I dont like, and I dont mind at all if other people like it

 

Eh? I hastiate to say "this is a load of old bollocks"...but this is a load of old bollocks.

Explain how it's a 'fact' that that classical music is superior to rock? Superior in what way?

As far as emotional content goes, theres only one person who's qualified to say whether one piece of music has a greater emotional connection with them over another and that's the listener. Trying to compare any musical genre with another in this way is missing the whole point, IMO. Is a Constable 'better' than a Picasso...does it have a greater emotional connection with the viewer. Well, of course a Constable is better; that Picasso bloke can't even draw a face properly...

 

Why hesitate? I like a man who says what he thinks - as I do!

In every way I can think of, apart from crass (if I may be so bold as to nick my friend's word) commercial success. Far more sophisticated structurally, cleverer writers, who were experts in their fields, who had learned their profession, not banging out simple noises in the garage. Also emotionally superior - I don't shrink from that. I will concede that this is not as immediate as it is for noise music, it requires a bit of learning and effort. For example, I came to classical, as do many people, via romantic (Beethoven, Tchaikovsky), simply because their sound world is the sound world and the musical language on which all modern music (with the exception of atonal modern classical) is based. Inmitially I was cold to the different sound world of the Baroque, Bach, Handel and so on, and it took me a while to "get" what they wee on about. But there comes a point when you realise that Bach was not just a boring musical mathematician who devised complex fugues for the exercise - there is emotion in them thar notes, even the solo harpsichord pieces. And when you (or I at any rate) look back from that standpoint at the "emotion" of rock, you realise that it's entirely synthetic, sheer quantity of noise posing as quality. And you (or at least I) cannot go back.

This is not to say that I don't enjoy a nice tune in a rock piece now and again. My daughters always leave the car radio on one of the local rock stations, and I sometimes find something sounding vaguely agreeable. But most of the time it's so awful that it's on to the local classical channels ASAP.

I am looking back over a musical journey of 40 years now, and that colours my perceptions. So, I will concede that I had different perceptions at one time and your point that

is completely correct. However, I have never denied that personal choice is sacroscanct. What I am saying that, as a matter of objective reality (IMHO, of course ), there ARE much better things to listen to, more emotional connections to make, better musical experiences to have, than could ever be gained by listening to dross such as LedZed. Comparisons of different music genres are unavoidable and rock always suffers.

(Here endeth my contributions for the afternoon. Someone very unreasonably wants to talk patents...)

 

Answer please?

 

My point exactly...
I personally find classical music to be inferior to jazz, especially emotionally.
Though I love much classical music, especially Bach and Shostakovich, it's the blind clinging to a score that I object to. There may be some minor variations in tempo, or perhaps, God forbid, a note or 2 that are different, but essentially it's the same!
In jazz, the whole point is to make the music your own, and based on the moment (hopefully! I refer to jazz as that wonderful beast, Improvisation). It is therefore different every time, by definition and not stuck in the moment it was first created...


But I'll bet Bach would be extremely happy to hear Jacques Loussier's meanderings!

Notice I'm not mentioning Rock at all, apart from in the context of Jazz Rock!

 

Wasn't Michael Tippett partial to a spot of Led Zep?

I vaguely remember reading somewhere of how said composer invited Led Zeppelin to perform at a classical concert of his works?

 

I think Bernstein was also partial to a spot of popular music...
And was it Horowitz who used to go to discos (mainly to check out young ladies!)

 

Pissing on the pire

And that person is, naturally, Charles Darwin and his idea of sexual selection:
http://www.unm.edu/~psych/faculty/music.htm
Another who thinks he "can" is here:
http://dactyl.som.ohio-state.edu/Huron/Huron.html
and his work described here:
http://dactyl.som.ohio-state.edu/Huron/Articles/2001.THES.html

NP Sequentia singing Hildegard von Bingen...

 

OK, thanks for that clarification and apologies for not grasping your intent, as it were.
I still don't agree with you, but at least it's not a bizarre thing to say

 

Which attitude prompts rock composers to create their stuff and their followers to listen to it.
This contrary to the classical disciples who needed ages to recognize the 'quality' of their preference.

 

Young laddies, I think.

 

Sexual Selection.

 

Jazz is so appallingly dated, and mostly very bad. Polar Bear a recent parody.

 

Could I please begin by respectfully asking that no further myths be perpetuated?

For me, the essence of what makes classical music more interesting than pop is that emotional content can be delivered through the music itself; this, surely, is the point of listening to music, as if you can only relate to ideas expressed through words or tone of voice then you'd be far better off going to the theatre or reading a book. As I've argued many times, the primary reason why the 'language' of classical music is so complex is to make possible a very wide, powerful and subtle range of expression, rivalling verbal language for subtlety and arguably exceeding it in emotional directness.

As tones has suggested, it's very difficult to measure artistic worth in any meaningful fashion, but commercial success as a metric is surely more meaningless than most.

It's probably worth reminding everybody that Louis Marchand, who challenged Bach to an improvisation contest, supposedly left town when he heard Bach warming up

ISTM (to generalise wildly) that seminal pop music is often lauded for its zeitgeist qualities, its evocation of time and place. Art music OTOH is about the human condition. I refer the honourable gentleman to myth #3 from the link above

 

Please explain in detail why you think this to be the case.

 

Dated = old-fashioned.

Have you heard Polar Bear? "Jazz club", pretentious tripe.

 

You seem to imply some kind of "ur" music or emotional message, but there is no such thing I think. Music, despite being innately understood by all humans, is learned, Western art music as much as gamelan or pygmy polyphony or rock music.

 

Of course it is. I didn't imply anything to the contrary, you inferred it. That's precisely the reason why "period" performance practice is in a (narrow but significant) sense a total waste of time, but that's a whole other argument...

Not exactly, perhaps, but in practice there are still significant differences between folk music / functional music and "absolute" art music which - in the limiting, ideal case - has no purpose other than artistic self-expression. I'd refer you back to the post I made over on the Pink side a little while back when we were having a vaguely similar conversation.

 

Classical music was a white middle / upper class European intellectual phenomenon. Looked at from a historical context it is an insignificant blip on the radar – a strange and uncharacteristic academic branch which ran it's course to it's inevitable conclusion (serialism). Classical music is a premeditated musical form with no scope for improvisation and remarkably little for personal expression.

All other forms of music stems from the folk tradition, i.e. social commentary placed within a rhythmic / melodic context - a largely improvised music designed to express raw emotion and get a message across be it mating, political or religious rituals. I'm not for a minute implying that classical music has no worth, this is just an attempt to place it in context with what preceded it and what came afterwards and to point out it's general oddness. I greatly enjoy many classical works, though personally I find it somewhat disconnected, academic and sterile compared to a raw spontaneous improvised music such as jazz. It is IMHO not a 'higher art form' one could easily argue the reverse as it is inevitably removed from the artist, frequently by many generations.

A deliberate noise designed to produce an emotional response.

Tony.

 

What else am I to infer from:

Since this is apparently not the case with rock music (or the blues or any other music?), what exactly is the secret weapon western art music uses to deliver this emotional payload?

I disagree. You think western art music posesses some form of "absolute" artistic expression in the same way that Mbuti pygmy hunters (a favourite of mine, sorry ) think certain chants give them superhuman powers in the hunt or in war. Both sets of beliefs are, I would suggest, manifestations of highly ritualised and specific social functions.
The desire to peel western music away from other forms of music and place it on some kind of artistic/emotional/"intellectual" desert island says rather more about the "tradition" and culture that develops such ideas than it does about the music itself. IMHO