rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/19/84)
> Why is pop music pop? Perhaps because it uses only the simplest elements > of the styles of long ago. And the compositions themselves are very > much simpler examples than those that are loosely called "classical". > I'm sorry to put myself in Rich Rosen's class of "snobs", because I > usually appreciate what he writes; but I do think that listening > to pop music is often used as a substitute for thinking. When one > is trying to escape thought, one does not want music that provokes it. Trying hard not to sound nasty, all I can say is that this is nonsense. Pure unadulterated nonsense. Why? Because Martin has set up a similar dichotomy to the one I described earlier. To the right is serious, classical music. To the left is frivolous, popular music. In the middle is pure silence. (John Cage? :-) And that is absolute nonsense. You may make your claim stand up when comparing "serious" musics in general to "top 40" music (which is not the same as "pop" or popular music!!!), but I don't think even that would hold up under serious scrutiny. "Pop" and "classical" are just labels used by people to mean what they want them to mean. Some use the terms to help them file albums in different sections (say, in a record store). Others simply use them to pigeonhole people and tastes ("That's classical, that's good. This is pop/whatever, so it doesn't merit serious consideration, so get that off of my stereo NOW!"). (Now you may understand why I fought the notion of a separate subgroup based on taste.) You may graciously start granting exceptions ("Well, OK, some *jazz* may actually be 'serious', but certainly not rock..."), but, ("Well, some rock, like this Beatles album or this progressive rock album which uses an orchestra, but certainly not punk...") slowly but surely, ("Well, maybe Magazine and Talking Heads and the Residents (??) and ...") you come to realize that you can't just pin labels on musics based on your personal liking/disliking criteria and then divide it all into "serious" and "not serious" accordingly. [I hope Martin realizes that my intention is to point out that his view of what pop music is is simply rather limited.] Of course, the converse is true also. Just as not all popular music is "frivolous", not all classical music is treated seriously by its "patrons". These are the people I mentioned who 1) listen to only "popular"/well-worn/ "top 40" classical music (though they somehow think they are more cultured for doing so), and 2) as a result of their attitudes, put off many potential listeners to the whole genre ("They're just a bunch of stodgy old fogeys who listen to the same boring junk over and over again!"). A funny example involving all of this intersnobbery surrounds Mr. Keith Emerson of the rock (shudder!) group Emerson, Lake & Palmer. He wrote some rather interesting compositions (Abaddon's Bolero, Karn Evil 9 - 2nd Impression, Trilogy), some of which *were* more derivative than others. But at the apex of his career, when he wanted to be taken seriously, he decided that the way to do it was to write a formal "classical" piece, a piano concerto. The result was far below the par of his best work, very derivative and stereotypical in its form and style, but, at last, the "serious music world" accepted him as a "real" composer. Frankly, I'd rather he had written another real meaty piece instead of something to placate some thickheaded buffoons. The thing meant to be taken seriously about that piece was its name, rather than its content. -- "Submitted for your approval..." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr