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

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?

They stopped making good music the day the Holy Roman Empire fell.

Frank Zappa is much more fun though. Like beauty; music is in the ears of the beholder or something like that.

why wouldn't it?

you could compare Iron Maiden to classical if you wanted to and IM could come out on top depending on the criteria of the comparison.

to consider one style of music superior to any other style is inane.

@ OP,

Music superiority is specifically limited to human perspective. So it follows that if a group of people consider a certain type of music to be superior, then to that group, it is.
This applies to every type of music.

The only way to determine what the majority of people consider "superior" is to look at statistics based on people's music opinions.
And if you want to give up the only thing that you're entitled to have that can't be fucked with (aka, your opinion/belief) and let someone else (aka the mass opinion) influence it, then go ahead.

But regarding music, the true answer resides in your own opinion. The moment you let someone else tell you what to think about something, that's when you're classified as a tool.

Who's to say? Music isn't about listening to what pretentious and pompous *******s say good music "is".

never has mb been summed up so eloquently until just now.

/agree

Amen, Thank you jesus, Mother Mary, Dominoes and biscuits!

hahahahaha

But in the professional world (fields 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.

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.

yeah, obviously i do, considering i found your painfully self-evident and pretentious post hilarious. no shit its "specifically limited to the human perspective," so is everything else. you basically said "music is subjective," in this self-righteously wordy style you so often employ. thanks for the insight though, you're a real deep dude.

Cat poop isn't.

yes it is

That's not what my cat tells me.

Your absolutely right, and earlier music might be studied in academic fields; I'm no expert. I just know that virtually all forms of music that have cropped up in the past 100 years or so that don't fall under the classical umbrella tend to be regarded as crap (except maybe more traditional folk music from around the world, aka not jazz, rap, rock, electronica, etc). Obviously I don't agree with this statement, but it's what I learned when I looked into ethnomusicology.

Classical music isn't superior to other types of music in and of itself, though the characteristics associated with it often make it more interesting listening than a lot of what's out there. Musical complexity, variety, experimentation, and motivic development are far more prominent in classical music than than in many types of modern music. It's perhaps for this reason that I keep returning to classical music more than any other genre.

Your description of classical music lovers made me smile because it perfectly matches someone I know. He *despises* jazz and other modern music as insipid, lacking the complexity and refined structure of Bach. Rock music, he complains (with a rare show of animated disgust), is just a simplistic, repetitive "BOOM BOOM BOOM"-ing, dripping with sexuality and base emotions...to which I answer, well, *yes*, but that is part of the point of rock music!

I think he values self-control and intellectual ability, which are perhaps more evident in classical music than modern forms. He would probably say all non-classical music is like cat poop. Cat poop, however, could be considered a fine manure, so the human perspective *is* important. I certainly don't feel classical music is "better" than other types of music just because classical music may be more complex. I feel other types of music, like good cat poop, ground you more in the realities of "baser" human emotions by reminding you that inside every beautiful being is some poop.

Heh heh, CAPTAIN C, I *like* what you describe as a "self-righteous wordy style," a satisfying Bach prelude of verbiage. Yeay for deep dudes! Not only music but also other forms of human expression are subjective.

Those people drive me insane... I'll never be able to stand anyone like that. Because to be honest, I don't feel that saying classical music is the most complex music is a valid argument at all. While the vast majority of rock in terms of music theory can't approach it, jazz is very similar. But where classical focuses on crafting a masterpiece, writing each note down as it comes to you, perfecting pieces of a song slowly over time, jazz is playing something how you feel it should be played, reinterpreting the piece differently each time. The only real diference I see there is that classical music is about playing the exact same notes every time while jazz is about improvisation. I can even understand where someone could argue that most other types of music in general aren't as technically complex as classical. But jazz is, and to me it just makes those people seem like huge hypocrites.

And Partisan Ranger, that is just not true. What about experimental rock? And there are always new genres of music being created, it's just that there are so many more artists making albums rather than classical music that there is bound to be more overlapping.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Why would you consider that pointless?

If I were to use words, I would care more about the meaning of the words than I would their melodic qualities.

I don't know why everyone feels the need to mention jazz or prog to justify any other type of modern music.

The main riff to 1969 by The Stooges or the bassline to Waiting For An Alibi by Thin Lizzy just to name two examples are just as much a thing of beauty as anything any classical composer has ever composed.

If you don't think it is then it's just snobbery in my opinion.

The simple things in music are often the most effective and the most beautiful.
This goes for all kinds of music. Classical included.
In fact, it's the musical gymnastics that usually fail a good tune no matter what the genre.

What about Fur Elise and Sugar Plum Fairy? Those're two classical music pieces that I like. Would they be considered as "complex" as normal classical music?

Complexity in music is pointless unless there's something more behind it, though that's just my opinion. There are of course many who revel in overzealous technicality, but perhaps they just looking for something else in music besides emotional or lyrical satisfaction, such as stress relief, something to bang one's head to, etc.

And Urban, on a side note here -- people who look down on progressive rock, jazz, etc. and write it off as overwrought weirdness are just as "snobby" as the people whom they consider snobs. Folks tend to forget the fact that when albums within those genres are done right, the results may often be quite convoluted, but are nevertheless beautiful and possess just as much meaning from a lyrical perspective as anything The Fall or whatnot have recorded.

why place an arbitrary limit on the original instrument?