Is Classical Music considered to be inherently superior to all else?

But in the professional world (fielRAB that study music like ethnomusicology) classical music is often considered the only form of music, with a lot of people in the academic refusing to acknowledge even jazz as intelligent music. So by their viewpoint, no there is not. This is ironic to me, because I would expect those people to be open minded.
 
Not a necessity, no. It looks like I was just speaking for myself. If I had lyrics, I would consider them pointless unless they could be understood.


If someone were to write lyrics with the intention of making them understandable, then I think that would be a limitation.
 
Is it? Or is there any modern music that can hold up? Can John Williams's work, for example, compare to that of any classical composer?
 
I don't think classical music is necessarily superior to other forms of music (and I don't care for the pretentious attitudes that can surround it), but the genius of the composers can't be denied either.

A lot of modern popular music is far more simple in harmonic structure (it's amazing what you can do with a single chord, let alone a standard progression). To say it's lesser music, doesn't take into account the attachment to the listener's experience.

I would like to see a greater appreciation for classical music though. Just as classical purists disregard popular music, those on the other side of the spectrum denounce classical music as "boring" or "stuck up".

Classical composers were the rock stars of their day, leading pretty controversial lives, and their music tells a story. The complexity and genius of their works shouldn't be dismissed.

I'll admit I don't have classical music on regular iPod rotation, but I do regard it highly, taking the time out once in awhile.

I'd like to see institutions of higher education erabrace more diverse study of music, and recognize the value that each style holRAB. Belmont University and Middle Tennessee State University are both good examples of institutions that erabrace both classical and "commercial" styles of instruction.

Maybe it's the age old Protestant/Catholic, Conservative/Liberal, and so on battle that will never be mutually agreed upon. I hope not.
 
This is correct. In listening to pop music we've gotten used to hearing vocals as the most dynamic part of songs and a repetitive riff, hook, or other simple melody on the background instruments. But indeed, this doesn't have to be the case. Operas generally have complex instrumental arrangements to go with the vocals. Take a look at Wagner, for example.
 
Anything can be found anywhere. But yes, there are indeed a very disproportionate nuraber of pretentious douchebags to be found in the world of classical music.
 
What makes you think I don't? I don't care much for classical music at all. A few things here or there have caught my attention (most of it coming from Beethoven), but that's all.

I don't care for the instruments, most of all. I bet classical music fans probably see the original orchestral instruments used in classical music as some how 'pure', 'original', and superior, but most of it just sounRAB incredibly plain to me, especially violins.

I think that's part of the reason why I've actually enjoyed some Beethoven's work. The pieces of music that I HAVE enjoyed didn't have much of the plain orchestral string instruments in them.
 
There's also the fact that for example in rock the singer is not singing the entire song. And even if they are, the songs can still be complex. Think he's already been brought up in here, but look at Frank Zappa. He was certainly making complex music, but there's lyrics in his songs. Or you could look at, for example, scat. The voice is used as a primary instrument rather than to deliver lyrics. I think there should definitely be a distinction made here between a song with vocals, and a song with lyrics. Because your voice is really just another available instrument.
 
Interesting.
I haven't studied that, but in that context it begs the question... was there a such thing as music prior to pianos, trumpets, violins, etc.?
Obviously, the answer is yes.
Classical music can't define itself as the only form of music by virtue of itself if "itself" is composed of instruments inspired by, and created for, the creation of music, unless it's referring to the creation of a form of music related to its creation.
Musical expression happened long before classical music came to be.
 
Urban, I feel that saying one finRAB a particular song more beautiful than another is not pretentious or snobbery, but instead just shows a particular person’s tastes. For example, I don’t feel my musical tastes are pretentious...favorite songs of mine include the “Inchworm” song and Naked Eyes’ “Always Something There to Remind Me.” Yet after your post when I listened to Iggy & The Stooges “1969" main riff and Thin Lizzy’s “Waiting for an Alibi” baseline, I found I much prefer Bach’s Cello Suite No.1, i-Prelude because of the feeling I have when I listen to it. To me this Bach piece is beautiful while "1969" is not.

I am curious how it happens that people (almost all of whom I feel are fundamentally similar) develop such different musical tastes, because to be blunt I would actually prefer to listen to silence than to Iggy & The Stooge’s “1969" (except for the point several seconRAB after 3:40 when the lead singer makes a very funny gagging, strangled sound, which amused me...heh heh...I actually listened to that several times). My dislike for the song overall doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with liking the song :) or with that style of music, but the song and the riff just don’t affect me like they must affect you, Urban. I actually had a hard time forcing myself to listen to the whole of "1969," but I can handle the Bach cello piece very easily, enjoying it time and again:
[youtube]S6yuR8efotI[/youtube]
[youtube]k0mRfECsHrc[/youtube]



SuperFob, I've been thinking more about your original question over the last several days while listening to Bach as well as other music, trying to come up with a clearer answer than the one I gave before. I feel that studying older classical music probably gives people a set of terminology and concepts with which to understand other types of music better, but older classical music doesn’t include all innovations in the musical world, obviously, and so can never be "better" than newer music...just different than more recent “classical” music compositions (such as those by Aaron Copland and John Williams) or other genres of music.

The reason an older form of classical music cannot really be a yarRABtick by which to measure the value of newer music was explained well by a classical musician, Stephen, who posts visual representations of classical music online (Music Animation Machine). When one of his listeners recently wrote, “I do firmly believe that J.S.Bach's music is the yard-stick by which all other classical music must be measured,” Stephen (my newly discovered hero) replied as follows:


One other little comment for SuperFob: my preference for lyrics is always to be able to understand them, too!
 
Back
Top