Dr.Tchock

Forgive any spelling mistakes, for English is not my first (or barely my second) language.

I recently stumbled upon a somewhat provoking album review on Revolver by The Beatles , and, frankly, could not construct any meaningful or effective rebuttal to it. It's, quite easily, the best review on that particular website, not for what it contains but for what it represents: a unashamed and highly elitist manifesto on the crushingly superiority of Art Music over Pop Music. Of course, nothing new under the Sun, we have all heard or proved with our own ears such statement, but the following response (the comments of said review) is elucidative of something.

If we still ascribe artistic credibility to Pop Music, as I certainly do, one is not shocked at the attempt to defend it, specially it's most powerful representative (in the form of The Beatles). It is undoubtedly more immediate, easier to get into and not fully devoid of deep emotional or even intellectual value. Yet, I cannot help to cringe at stuff like this:

Lennon and McCartney are not even close to Beethoven and Mozart. Or Bach and Chopin. Or Mahler and Verdi. That does not mean they are not valuable, just that when you raise the bar they do no make the cut. A very exceptional cut in their defense.

Another comment states:
Ah, bravo.

Which brings me to my central thesis. Snob-ism, elite-ism, etc... I would bank my house and personal belongings that every single one of the comments that bash the original review for being a Classic (also and almost facetiously described on Wikipedia as serious music) snob are themselves giant Pop Music Snobs (by Pop music I understand recorded music, everything from Metal to Pere Ubu, for argument sake). How can one bash in earnest something like Lady Gaga for being plastic and "just-for-making-music-executives-richer" and praise The Beatles WHILE being appalled that someone would dare cross them in favour of some old dead white guy composer? Aesthetically, what really separates Lady Gaga from The Beatles (not arguing innovation and first something-something through a Leslie speaker) when you bring Verklärte Nacht into the equation? How can one build an hierarchy of quality form Lady Gaga, to Kayne West, to Madonna, to U2, to Arcade Fire, to Kraftwerk, to Radiohead, to Brian Eno, to Pink Floyd... all the way up to The Beatles and then say it stops here and anything else is elitism/or incomparable? One can do that sure, by why accept elitism (or as I call it standards) on a closed system and revile it in an open one? To many interrogations, but I digress.

Is Pop irredeemably separated form the standards of Art Music? But then putting Lennon in the same club to Mozart creates a paradox. One admits that the standards are different, and as such requires two different forms of elitism. Yet, they are comparable, are found in the same category. If not, might as well class Lennon with Lionel Messi, and claim they both excel in their respective fields, and inspire people and etc, etc, etc...

In short, devoting lines and lines of music criticism to rank Pop Artists, and such is clearly the goal of that Sputnik Music website, seems rather meaningless and idiotic when the deities of the genre can be easily surpassed by invoking any Romantic prodigy of the courts of Europe. One cannot look down on the Lady Gaga's of this planet and cry foul when someone does it on The Beatles. It's hypocritical at worse, cognitive-dissonant at best.

But I ramble without cessation...

PS: No special affection or disaffection to either Lady Gaga or The Beatles. Examples are merely examples.

PPS: I admit with no trouble that some Pop Music can be ranked above some Art Music even using Art Music standards. But statically such does not occur often.