 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
East Street Trader
|
 |
London, United Kingdom
Jun 2000 time: 05:36
|
|
I have never been able to like pop music. Which is not good because this alienated me a bit from my peers - pop music was even more powerful an interest for the young in the 60s and 70s than it is now.
I have thought a bit - in a desultary way - about why it doesn't grab me. And the main reason turns out to be its length. A typical pop song lasts around two minutes going on three. If it lasts four minutes it is very unusual. The two longest I can remember are Whiter Shade of Pale and Bohemian Rhapsody (both of which I like) and they don't get much above five minutes (I think).
What has to happen within the three minutes is for something sufficiently to grab the listener's attention so that they will recognise it next time it is heard and familiarity will then start creating a liking. A "hook" I think this is called. A loud beat is often employed but the hook, in all likelihood, will be a musical phrase probably no more than three or four notes long and maybe associated with a noise or two melding in from the lyric - often the hook itself is repetitive within the song or the instrumental.
I just can't get excited about something which seizes my attention for such an infinitessimal period of time - as compared with a jazz solo or a symphany or an opera score.
If you once get caught up in a piece of Beethoven or Tchaikovsky it will hold you for half an hour or longer and is complex enough so that you may still be making discoveries about it 30 years later.
And, like a game of cricket or the climax to love making, some thrills need to be built up to. There just isn't time for that with pop music. It is instant and up front and (to me) deeply, deeply trivial and uninteresting.
I enjoy songs and tunes. So I pretty well exempt the Beatles from all this. For sure their stuff grabs people up front and trivial but it is also chock full of excellent tunes and splendid lyrics.
And there are some albums which develop a bit like a symphony. Sergeant Pepper's, for sure, but also things like Joni Mitchel's Blue.
The songs for Saturday Night Fever make a superb suite also, with a whole bunch of development involved.
And the crooners, who preceeded pop music proper (but were part of starting the phenomenon off) had some excellent tunes and lyrics.
I rank Frank Sinatra up with Pavarotti, Pele, Olivier and Maggie Smith as the pre-emminent performing artists of my time.
But generally pop music is trivial. Intentionally so. It makes limited demands on attention and works, for the most part, by formula. It is deeply, deeply shallow.
But that is only to me. When I see countless people loving it, discussing the respective merits of one performer over another and getting an enviable buzz out of going to pop concerts and the like I know that to others all this is so much nonsense.
And there is another side to the same coin. I love ballet and opera. But I have heard numbers of people derride both. For some, operatic singing is less interesting to their ear than a forest full of parrots screetching. And their view of opera is just as valid, for them, as my view of pop music is valid, for me.
So to each his own. As to how a taste for one of these things is to be compaed to a taste for another, well I was taught that comparisons are odious. And so they are.
I would rather like to have been provided with whatever it is that is needed to appreciate pop music. I would then have fit that bit more snugly into my generation. But I would not be without the tastes I do enjoy. And I suspect that is equally true of most of us. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If it adheres to the standards, then it is 'good'. If it doesn't. It's 'bad'. |
Okay, that's what I thought.
I completely disagree with you, but that's okay, because I'd expect as much.
Art is not about adhering to standards, I can't believe you actually tried to make this argument. It single-handedly discredits anything you try to say in this thread, because it's clear you have no understanding what art really is.
Art is expression and soul put into various forms. To trivialize it into an issue of judging it against a "standard" is insulting to the people who make it, and exactly why I think critics are worthless. They don't understand what they're reviewing, they're just talentless hacks taking their opinions and trying to disguise it as being 'objective'.
quote:
quote:
mran i agree that the few select people with influence can set the standards and effect other people's view on matters subjective as art, but that deos not mean that art is still objective.
[quote]Art is not objective from the outside looking in. However from the inside there are objective standards which must be met for something to be decided good. |
Just because a bunch of snobs agree something is good and this becomes a "standard", doesn't mean that something is 'good'. People interpret art different ways, people have different tastes. There is no good/bad in art that can be extended in scope to anything but a person's tastes.
quote: After all, if art was totally subjective, then there would be no need for the critic. |
YES, precisely! The only critic that matters is yourself. Who the f*ck cares what others think. Think for yourself.
quote: Musical tastes don't change? And obviously if people who enjoyed that music fade away, then so does the music. |
If people are no longer interested in hearing it, and do not like hearing it, what importance is it that it stays around?
quote: However, Swing music faded to the background in the 60s. |
Actually, in the 90s it made a brief comeback. There goes your point. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001 time: 00:36
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Asher
Art is not about adhering to standards |
In general, this is correct. Art is fundamentally expression.
However, within various artistic styles, there are standards of expression, and each style has "objective" means of determining what is good and bad. That's why an Impressionist painting by Claude Monet is going to be seen as better than an Impressionist painting by Jacques LeFrog, or whomever. Still, to a discussion of overall good and bad art, this is inapplicable, as a bad Impressionist painting my be a really good painting to some other group.
And within societal concepts, it is valid to say that some forms of artistic expression are given a higher tier than others. One just has to keep in mind that such societal concepts are inherently subjective.
And, in general, there has to be a modicum of technical proficiency in the chosen art form for the expression to be considered "good" by anyone. What constitutes technical proficiency is also subjective, however.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002 time: 05:36
|
|
Those who accuse people of being uncultured because the don't like something are stupid. If you don't like it than that probably means that you were exposed to it, thuse getting cultre. Most of the hoity-toity types who say such things are the same ones who snub NASCAR even though they have never been to a race, or will say they dislike Punk music but have never hear of Crass or the Ramones, and mock good 'ol fashion BBQs to pay $100 for BBQ ribs at some posh restaurant.
Not liking something is not being uncultured, it's being cultured enough to being able to formulate an opinion, and to know why you don't like something. Uncultured is disliking something out of ignorance, or not giving something enough of a chance to see why it is that certain ppl like what they do... Most snobs don't like certain things because they feel that the ppl who attend such 'uncultured' events are below them, i.e. Bush and Daytona.
Personally, I have learned to give everything a shot since I met my wife. She introduced me to Country Western, even though I grew up in Clovis, CA (the hickiest hick town in all of CA). While I still am a little uncomfortable with the music, you can't beat the women in tight jeans and that whole farm girl look
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:36
|
|
classical music is a real vague term as it includes everything from baroque to Gershwin...
i do got to say though that that sort of music got dramatically more listenable in the early 20th century with composers like Carl Orff and Gerswhin who took a traditionally melodic musical form into the 20th century, an era of rhythm and beat. jazzified classical music is very modern and listenable.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
King of Rasslin
|
|
Being sophisticated involves understanding classic Western literature, art, and culture. What is coming out today is just entertainment for stupid people. Classical European culture is not entertainment. It is designed to educate people and make them think. Every time I see a Shakespeare play or read a Dickens novel, I feel more intelligent and enlightened.
Culture is a rare thing these days. People listen to nasty rap or rock music instead of classical. Stupid liberals say it's racist/snobbish/ignorant to enjoy the superior arts! They want to spread the lie that "every culture is equal" so the proles can be more easily pacified under their left-wing conspiracy.
These hippies want us to like modern art, which is garbage that doesn't make any sense, and "music" that has no respect to harmonies or melody. "Literature" like Harry Potter is polluting the minds of our children and stuff like anime poisons the culture of our people. We should get rid of this garbage before it's too late.
Real culture is dying. The sad thing is, crap like the Beatles, rap music, death metal, and electronic music might actually be considered classical someday. I think there should be more museums to keep alive European culture and heritage. Because someday, those museums might be the only place to find it. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:36
|
|
ummm.... yeah.... anyway...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999 time: 00:36
|
|
the nazi seconds that
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36. Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|