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 embrace more diverse study of music, and recognize the value that each style holds. Belmont University and Middle Tennessee State University are both good examples of institutions that embrace 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.

What are we comparing here? Theoretical complexity? There are jazz pieces that are just as, if not more, theoretically complex as some classical composition. When any style of music is seen as superior, it's usually an indication that whoever makes that claim is someone who really can't escape their own rigid and narrow perspective.

There is no element in the classical style that cannot be found elsewhere. There is classical music that is base and simple as well as theoretically complex. The difference is that most classical music tends to strictly adhere to the matrix of conventional music theory. There are obviously exceptions to this, but, to continue with what Jackhammer stated, throw on a Frank Zappa album and see if that doesn't defy all stereotypes of rock music being simplistic and repetitive.

I agree with you on both points, Bret. I like the image of classical composers being the rock stars of their day, defying convention and shocking audiences.

Yes, I'll have to try out some Frank Zappa on my "classic-ophile" and see how he takes that. I'm trying to tempt him out of the classical genre. You are certainly right, SATCHMO, that there are pieces within any genre that defy stereotypes.

Zappa's good, but not necessarily the best example to use considering what your friend likes. In my opinion, you'd be better off showing him something like Yes's Close to the Edge or Jethro Tull's Thick As A Brick, but there are countless other examples that might work too.

I never said that rock couldn't be experimental. Progressive rock indeed incorporates many of the characteristics I listed that are usually applied to classical and the movement has yielded many fantastic results. Neither is classical homogenous, there are arrangements in classical music that are simpler than anything you'll find on the pop charts (Philip Glass' music, for example). But based on my look into classical, I've found that the genre has those characteristics I mentioned in my last post more often than other genres in modern music.

Oh. Nevermind, I took that the wrong way. Comparing rock as a whole to classical that's true. Lo siento.

Here's my question. People talk about theoretical complexity in classical music. Modern music, as we all obviously know, adds lyrics to the music. Does the presence of those lyrics limit how theoretically complex the actual music behind the lyrics can potentially be?

Why would it?

Because when you compare the melodies of music with lyrics these days to the melodies of music without lyrics (soundtrack music from movies and videogames, for example), the melodies of the latter ALWAYS seem to be in a completely different league of complexity for some reason.

It's almost like the songwriters de-emphasize the actual melodies so that the lyrics can actually be heard, and (from my perception) that de-emphasis takes away a layer of complexity in the actual melodies.

Not to mention that the people listening to the song have to actually be able to understand the lyrics. If the composers attempted to reach the same level of complexity seen in classical music, the lyrics would be hard to understand, wouldn't they?

Most of the time in music with vocals the voice carries the lead melody, so naturally this leads to less emphasis on the melodies from the other instruments. I don't know that this necessarily means that the music is overall less complex though.

Also, I question your assumption that lyrics being easy to understand is some kind of necessity. There are many forms of music with lyrics that are not always easy to understand from choral music to death metal but I don't think it has any particular relationship to the quality or complexity of the composition.