Thread: Classical Music vs. Modern Music

Classical music just seems...timeless. I could put one piece on repeat and listen to it all day, but with other stuff I can barely stand to hear it more than twice a day.

Classical music NEVER sounds good. Modern music sounds good for about a month, longer if it is a good song. This is probably because I was born in the 90s though...

Actually plenty of young people listen to music of the 40s around surrounding decades. I went to a Jazz festival a couple of years ago to see McCoy Tyner and Pharoah Sanders play, both of who played with John Coltrane in the 50s. There were stacks of young folk there. I know people my own age who love Sinatra and his contemporaries.

But anyway, i think the sheer profile of classical music has something to do with it. I mean think about it, apart from folk music, every other form of music has only existed for about 100 years. Classical music has been composed for hundreds. It's the music of the west's past. It's not something that's going to be let go of.

I'm going to assume that by "classical" music you mean anything done by orchestra, band, piano, organ, chamber groups, etc. that doesn't have a "modern" feel to it, instead of the classical period of music(mid 1700s to early 1800s).

Actually, I'm a fan of both types of music(if it can be reduced to 2 types). Although, I tend to listen to more "modern" music(although some of it being very classically influenced). Sometimes I just like to put on some Debussy or Brahms and chill out though.

I think Ardent has it right. It is the music of the west's past is a great way of putting it. That being said, I love when modern and classical are mixed, such as in symphonic metal. It is awsome to me.

Originally Posted by Ardent Lost

Actually plenty of young people listen to music of the 40s around surrounding decades. I went to a Jazz festival a couple of years ago to see McCoy Tyner and Pharoah Sanders play, both of who played with John Coltrane in the 50s. There were stacks of young folk there. I know people my own age who love Sinatra and his contemporaries.

But the whole point is you don't listen to Sinatra all the time. Just because you visit Africa and like the music doesn't mean you get into it.

I think it has something to do with the work that was put into it. I don't think it would have been so prolific if the artists did not put so much time into it, even to the point of becoming riddles. Johann Sebastian Bach actually composed fugues purely as musical puzzles: He took one melody and inverted it, scaled it, layered it, put it in canons and so forth, and then had his student decipher the composition by un-inverting, scaling, layering etc. until it was just one melody being played by many instruments and voices.

Also, the sheer amount of work produced means it is virtually inexhaustible as a musical resource. Also, playing one of these compositions is more of a team effort than anything in music.

But here I pose another question: Even if the average middle-high schooler doesn’t like classical music (A general assumption) he still puts up with a lot of it in the movies. Granted this isn’t “classical” music in the true sense, but I doubt it would be all that distinguishable to him. Anyway, at the end of almost every trilogy, there is a cantata composed for the movie, or at least a choral piece, and everyone eats it up, whether they like classical or no. Thoughts on this?

Classical music has that timeless quality about it because it's complex and has depth. Back then you had to be well-educated to produce fine music. Now any bimbo with an acting or modeling career can become a "musician".

Originally Posted by MrDoom

Classical music has that timeless quality about it because it's complex and has depth. Back then you had to be well-educated to produce fine music. Now any bimbo with an acting or modeling career can become a "musician".

Originally Posted by Vance

But the whole point is you don't listen to Sinatra all the time. Just because you visit Africa and like the music doesn't mean you get into it.

I'm not sure i understand what you're saying here. People do listen to Sinatra all the time. There are young people everywhere who listen to nothing but Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald. Anyway, it's not important, i'm just sticking up for Jazz

Originally Posted by Ardent Lost

I'm not sure i understand what you're saying here. People do listen to Sinatra all the time. There are young people everywhere who listen to nothing but Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald. Anyway, it's not important, i'm just sticking up for Jazz

I know, but compared to the amount of people who listen to moden music and classical... Or at least have an appreciation for classical...

Originally Posted by Ardent Lost

I'm not sure i understand what you're saying here. People do listen to Sinatra all the time. There are young people everywhere who listen to nothing but Duke Ellington and Charlie Parker, Louis Armstrong and Ella Fitzgerald. Anyway, it's not important, i'm just sticking up for Jazz

what do you consider young, i don't think people in their 60's and 70's qualify as young anymore.

Originally Posted by Ickarus

what do you consider young, i don't think people in their 60's and 70's qualify as young anymore.

Well i'm 22 and i listen to that music. Not solely that music, but i listen to as much jazz as i do classical. And there are plenty more people my age who listen to jazz almost exclusively.

my musical tastes span like 500 years or something. Baroque-21st century

Depends what music you speak of, as to whether its "art"

Solja Boy is not art. Dream Theater is art. 50 Cent is not art. Bach is.

I will now begin a rant...having studied music for the majority of my life.

Music?

The loosest definition of music...is organised sounds. Tap your finger on your desk. Thats music.

Art?

But "art" is expressive. Hate. Love. Joy. Fear. all emotions. Artistic music will express that. A guitar solo from Jimi Hendrix for example. Crammed full of expression....its art. You can hear every note being phrased, even though he wasnt the best of technique.

Ability to convey feeling, through organising sounds = artistic music. I dont care if the music is mainstream....or commericial...if its performed with expression = artistic.


Did you ever hear anyone say..."oh man, I just got a mega shiver up my spine when eminem started talking about booty"

Popular Music Today

It seems todays charts are dominated by "RnB" these days. This is because somehow every one in the world was convinced they were much more hardcore than they actually are. What did RnB take over? Pop Groups

Ahh...the groups everyone loves to hate. Nsync would be my favourite. RnB convinced the world pop was "gay" in a weird twist of fate..RnB became Pop.

But my musical listening convinces me this "new pop" is devoid of ALL expression and art. Boy bands had performance skills to convey feeling with their performances WHILST being commercial. RnB is sold on image. Thats right...im a fan of boybands. Flame me. you wont win.

Classical Vs Modern

It all depends on the music style and performer. A good performer will be the different between music and art.

However, the only music EVER I would say CANNOT be artistic is popular rap/rnb.
Why?
-its message-less
-based on image and attitude.

(I do find some rap and rnb expressionate..but the type I would is not "popular")

end rant..


(WOOOOOH, I got off topic)

Some artful, complex music survives from every era, but it's not necessarily predictable by what's 'topping the charts' at any given time. From the mid-20th century it's mainly jazz that a lot of the people living at the time never heard. From our own time, it's likely to be IDM and ambient electronic artists that a lot of people living now have never heard.

I believe that the problem started when people started regarding art (and specifically music) as a business first, and culture second (if at all).

Any music written mainly as a vehicle for album sales will eventually be forgotten. Music written as an outpouring of expression from a true artist will always sound good.

The sad thing is that most people hear very little of the latter, since the airwaves are wall-to-wall bought by major lables with money in their eyes. They could give a rat's ass about whether the music is good. If it sells, that's all that matters.

I'm hoping the internet forces some more change in this regard quickly before people give up on music all together.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I'm hoping the internet forces some more change in this regard quickly before people give up on music all together.

Not going to happen. If it does, it will be because of the invention of a hyper-hedonistic orgasmic drug with no ill side-effects that lasts indefinitely, and people could care less about music. But music will always be around until then.

Originally Posted by skysaw

I'm hoping the internet forces some more change in this regard quickly before people give up on music all together.

Originally Posted by Vance

Not going to happen...

I meant giving up on new music, and no I don't expect that either. Just a little sprinkling of hyperbole to make my point.

The majority of people in our culture live almost exclusively with poor facsimiles--of music, food, household goods, houses, clothing--with no idea that 'the real thing' exists. Still, artistry and craftsmanship haven't gone away, they've just been marginalized. I do think the internet is helping artisans and artists to reach a wider audience. In art and music, I think it helps more people make a better living without having to attain super-star status.

I like both types of music. modern music is going down the drain tho. One thing for sure: No modern music will ever give me shivers as much as bach's music.

I enjoy both. Just because you listen to something more extensively than the other doesn't mean you can only like that genre. I'm seventeen, and already I can tell you that to be musically immersed, musically knowledgeable, you have to value and respect all types of music. That is why I enjoy rap as much as I enjoy metal as much as I enjoy classical as much as I enjoy acoustic. There's an artform within each type of music, no matter how shitty it is.

I will always give something a listen before judging it. I only dislike certain songs for valid reasons.

To say rap isn't art is bias. Sure, Soulja Boy writes like an illiterate wannabe thug, but that doesn't mean that other rap isn't good, albeit an artform. Freestyling, lyrical runs, making a message in the words you're spitting... all extremely difficult to pull off well. Next time you say rap isn't art think about the thought that went into the writing, the prose, the beat.

Classical is a whole new level of art. So many sounds orchestrated by one person to create an entire piece of music. It really is mindblowing to have that many people playing music perfectly simultaneously.

Personally, I think beyond the music. I like imagining the thought process that goes into each piece, whether it be Symphony No. 9, The Crazies by Circle of Tyrants, or a Pink Floyd tune. Art is music. Music is art. Accept it.

We should remember that the music reaching us from 200-400 years ago has already been 'sifted.' Much more music was composed and performed in that time than the few dozen pieces we're likely to hear today.

Our pop music is more akin to minstrels and troubadors, which, then as now, is all the average person will hear on a regular basis. If you want a modern analog of classical music, look at avante-garde electronic and global symphonic music, then discard all but the top 2% from any decade.

Minstrels that constantly strive to outdo each other globally and be lifted on the shoulders of the masses.

It used to be you went to the tavern, and if you sang well you got your coin and that was all and good, and if you preformed exceptionally well you would be in the service of a noble or king. Oh well, I guess the more cuss words you can list in a song now the better, and throw in about 40 amps of shock value too.

Originally Posted by CoLd BlooDed

To say rap isn't art is bias. Sure, Soulja Boy writes like an illiterate wannabe thug, but that doesn't mean that other rap isn't good, albeit an artform. Freestyling, lyrical runs, making a message in the words you're spitting... all extremely difficult to pull off well. Next time you say rap isn't art think about the thought that went into the writing, the prose, the beat.

I must say...you COMPLETELY missed the point of james's criticism of the music on the radio today. He didn't say rap cannot be art, he said modern popular rap is not art because it's pointless and geared toward record sales, therefore the focus of the "music" is set on the wrong thing if one wishes to try to classify it as art.
Really...how hard is it to write some rhyming lines about gangstas, hoes, bitches, street life, how you'z strugglin' and set it to a looped sequence? seriously, people make millions off of that...not art to me.
As for R&B...well...how many times do you here "ooooooooo girl."
I like Luther Vandross, but that's as far as I venture into R&B.

Originally Posted by james-25:22pm

However, the only music EVER I would say CANNOT be artistic is popular rap/rnb.
Why?
-its message-less
-based on image and attitude.

Classic rock from the 70's and late 60's is extremely popular these days. Also, I love 40's jazz. The great stuff lives forever. Led Zeppelin will be a very popular band in 1,000 years. So will The Beatles.