Correct, although the romantic movement in art, like most movements, including modernism and postmodernism, coincided across most forms, including painting and sculpture, after the movement became a commonly held idealogy across philosophy.

Ok GuitarBizarre we get the idea that you think you are right in everything. Romantic love is part of romanticism, Tristan and Isolde for example, the inspiration of love etc. Don't talk to me like I'm a fool and you are some kind of expert. Nature was another inspiration for the Romantics. And it was clearly more about secular emotions otherwise why wasn't there a huge outpouring of religious music like in the Renaissance (or Middle Ages) or Baroque? You see I know music.

Tristan und Isolde was dependent primarily on Wagner's concept of Gezamptkunstwerke (Total artwork, Wagner demanded absolute control over all elements of his operas, from music through to dancing to backdrops and even costume design), made extensive use of Idee fixe (the use of a particular amount of musical content, recontextualised repeatedly, to represent a given character or element in a work considered to be representative of events or story) and also, Wagner's use of nontonal harmony, including the self-explanatorily titled tristan chord, which is a half diminished 7th in second inversion, was noted for being an early, and surprisingly successful attempt, at shrugging off the percieved chains and limitations of the Germanic Harmonic tradition exemplified by Bach and Mozart. (Although there are still sections that fall back on established chord patterns typified by germanic harmony such as a perfect cadence of I IV V in the prelude, which is set up nontonally but resolves in the traditional manner, passing notes and chorale-esque movement included)

All of this was not necessarily by virtue of an adherence to any traditional structure. Indeed, any given "piece" of Wagner, such as Ride Of The Valkyries, is in fact a section of a larger work, often referred to as "Bleeding chunks of Wagner" as they were never intended to be removed from context. Any structure evident in a small piece of Wagner's work is illusory, likely not foreshawdowed in the larger portion of the work from which it comes, unless apportioned to idee fixe, or indeed, Strum und drang.

As for the outpouring of religious music, a religious inspiration doesn't necessarily imply that the work is made in order to worship god. And it doesn't follow that an ideology based on allowing god to work through you, using you as a vessel, would result in god praising or demanding worship for HIM/HER/ITSELF. The logic that implies religious works would have been the result of such a thought doesn't hold water.

since when did a thread about pop become classical?

There has to be some structure to operas, it's based on a libretto which tends to have a dramatic structure. And opera was quite important in the romantic period of course, Wagner, Verdi etc.

A religious inspiration to the extent suggested would certainly imply a lack of secular subjects. Romanticism was about the glorification of the feelings of the individual raised up to an ideal and worshiped level almost. At the same time, paradoxically, it was influenced by political nationalism because of the political circumstances of the time. I don't really know how anyone can ignore these secular aspects and just focus on religion in this time. Some composers may have been religious obviously, but that wasn't as defining as it was in Bach's cantatas.

What are you even arguing about? Everything has a structure if you analyse the crap out of it, but your previous argument was that structure is a means to an end, your current argument is that everything has a structure even if it was composed with no specific one in mind. You're at cross purposes with yourself.

Not to mention the secular or religious content of works from a given period is irrelevant when we're discussing the mindset that created those. We aren't discussing the rationale behind the presence or absence of religious feeling in a periods music as a whole, we're discussing the mindsets of periods of artistic endeavour and their relevance to the reduction in importance of explicit structure moving on from germanic traditions into the more broad base of western harmony in art music, including the rise of atonality, serialism, through-composition, the introduction of jazz (And a subsequent expansion of musical ideas to encompass microtonal harmony, already briefly explored by classical composers during the romantic vogue for east european and world music as applied to classical harmony) as a part of the western classical canon, forming a bridge between popular music and classical theory (Which in itself exposed a great number of problems with critical theory at the time, for example the inapplicability of schenkerian analysis to blues or black cultural music, it subsequently being replaced with the newer theory of "signifyin'" [Apostrophe included, really!] which became a crux for much of modern musical theory regarding the intermingling of black and white musical styles and traditions)

I never said something was composed for nobody, everything has an audience and I'm sure I've said that already. And for someone who makes a huge thing of a small grammatical mistake you just wrote a sentence which is far too long to even communicate its message very well. And my argument hasn't changed anyway whereas you seem to be bringing in all kinds of other issues to take it away from the original subjects.

I never said anything that I believe can even be misread as meaning this, what in blue blazes are you even talking about?

I'm sorry, but that is so incorrect. 3/4 is completely different from 6/8 in so many ways. Time division is not the only difference. Would you like to write me a piece in 2/4 using triplets? Because that's essentially nothing like 3/4, but is actually what 6/8 sounds like.
This statement you made was so incredibly wrong I just made an account to post this, that's how inclined I feel to educate you.
What the hell do you mean by "time division"? That doesn't make any sense. That would imply 4/4is the same as 8/8, which again, it is not at all the same.

Who are you addressing? Please quote posts you're responding to.

Seems like he's responding to Howard's post from 2011.

Howard's no longer around and so won't reply to your post, ChaseIzKing.

To make a hit you need marketing.

Some of the best songs I've heard are pretty simple arrangements.

I think sometimes, it's simple and sometimes it could be hard.

Let's say you have a great composer and their task is to make a hit pop song. In other words, the task is to make a song which should be popular with a lot of people, most of which know little about music or are not really serious music consumers. Obviously, the song should be in traditional time, or else these people will get confused. It needs a few hooks - some simple melody that gets stuck in your head. It needs to be familiar so as to not throw people off - probably the standard verse, bridge, chorus setup. But, a really good pop song also has a slight edge - something new, like a new sound, something that will pique people's interest and make it stand out (but again not enough to confuse them).

All of these things could come together relatively easy because the composer just happens to get a great idea. Or it could not. But even though it could be hard to make these things come together, it's pretty clear that there are some constraints you need to keep in mind when making pop music. It has to be catchy, it currently has to be in traditional time and you basically can't stretch the formula too much. So, pop music is not necessarily simple to make, but the musical toolbox that you can use to make it is certainly smaller.

I feel like pop music on the whole has become more sophisticated than it was when I was a teenager in the 90s. Pop is a big umbrella so all comparisons under it are not fair, but a lot of the sort of music you might hear at a "We Love the 90s" festival is thankfully a thing of the past. Other than that, there was such an incredible amount of boring R&B back then.

Get the chord chart and arrangement to Abba's famous song "Fernando" and tell me thats simple.

Of course that was the 70s. Today you guys get this instead, and I almost feel sorry for you...

Discussions about genre definitions are usually pointless, but "pop" is worse than most in this regard. If you are going to reject the definition that says "pop" is simply short for "popular", then you need to provide an alternative definition - and most definitions I have seen of "pop" basically say what it is not, rather than what it is. Examples of the genre are supplied in plenty; Madonna is pop, Michael Jackson is pop, etc, but they do nothing to describe the music. What about someone who sounds like Madonna, but whose records do not sell? Is that "pop"? If so, there is something ridiculous going on here.

I have this thing about labels. I do think labels can serve a useful purpose, but only if the label is actually telling you something, not if it's so nebulous that it merely serves to confuse. I'd rather the label "pop" was put back in its box, or allowed to reclaim its original meaning of "popular", which is pretty unambiguous.

Depends on the artist and the sub-genre imo.

Pop music is not necesarily mindless. It's an idiotic generalization. It's like saying all rock music is mindless noise.

Lol you don't get to take some high ground about pop music being better in the 70s with disco. Please sit down.

riri > abba

I agree, pop music is so constrained that once you go out of those parameters it becomes something else almost entirely. These parameters despite being very derivative, are what people have come to expect from this style of music.

This makes pop music very fascinating to me, when it comes to innovating. The area to work is so constricted that I sort of admire anyone that is able to innovate and be effective (and marketable) with those restrictions.

In a way, it's a similar conceptual idea (on the surface) to Webern or jingles (yes).


This all said, I'm not a fan of "pop music" (in the genre/style sense), I talk from a background in contemporary/modernist classical and the avant garde (metal, rock and jazz)

there is definitely a pop music template that i see as less of a constraint and more of a guideline. there is a time and a place.

Obvs.

Kpop fuses different genres... a lot of times one song feels like several different songs all in one which is what i like about it. I look at these songs having different 'twists'as examples. They are changing the game really.

another surprise around the 1:00 mark , they were able to pull it off musically... american pop needs to do it like kpop...




op
another thing i would like pop artists to do is make songs from different genres or concepts...this group here can do bubbly pop catchy songs while also doing R&B/pop too...the beauty is not knowing what to expect.





just totally different song from the one above.

making the rock vibe in kpop still amazes me...

oh the twist....surprise surprise

Pop music isn't really a genre on its own, it's kind of an adjective genre where it changes the kind of sound of another genre into something more accessible, digestible and catchy. You can turn edm into pop, hip hop into pop, r&b into pop, rock into pop, punk into pop , post-punk into pop (new wave), jazz into pop, ska into pop, etc. And then you can also take a middle route and mix the two. Plus ofc sounds change over decades.

I believe there is some music we just deem 'pop" but I deem that as something that is poppy but lacks an existing genre tag so we call it pop.

Dude, "pop" is just Madonna and her descendants.

Madonna is not a genre Batlord

As far as dance pop goes, which is modern pop, she was definitely an innovator.

Is Dance-Pop a genre? Because if it is, Pop kinda needs to be a genre. But I do kind of agree that Pop is a bit of a weird one compared to other genre descriptors because it's so widespread. Hip Hop is pretty defined, even with how broad it is. The same common themes don't really exist within Pop.

The issue is that pop as "popular music" doesn't work because there's sounds that undoubtedly sound pop to us by lesser known bands, but if we try to define a pop sound it is so widespread we can't come up with any defenition not too narrow or too wide. What is certain however is that we can pop-ify pretty much any genre. I mean for example, a lot of pop music these days is some kind of electronic music with catchy melodies sung over it.

several genres in one song.

The best answer I can offer to this question is THE MANUAL: How To Have a Number One The Easy Way. The KLF followed their text to the letter, had a number one hit, and were forgotten in months just as the book promised.

99.9% of pop is simply the application of a formula. Nothing more.

http://i.imgur.com/myR1maWl.jpg

And it's a hell of a formula.

one of the best songs this year... thought it was just going to be mostly rapping when i first heard it, but pleasantly surprised. I wish more pop in general would mix it up like kpop.