My Views On Pop and Classical Music

What constitutes good music, in your opinion?

In preparing my thoughts for this exercise, I considered some of my favourite works, and why I enjoy them.

In my opinion, good music is something that evokes imagery, emotions and moods; in effect creating a picture in the listeners mind, and creates atmosphere and feeling. It should achieve what it sets out to do by making effective use of the wide variety of musical techniques, instruments and concepts available, and should be inventive with dynamics, tonality and texture to create interest within the work.

As a listener I want to be surprised at points within the music, this can be achieved with the use of certain musical devices such as a Tierce de Picarde (when a piece in a minor key ends on a major tonic chord), or a change of tempo, rhythm etc.

I also think that the skills of the performer are important, however some genres such as pop can take very mediocre singers and make them sound better on a recording using studio equipment. This doesn't help with live performance though.


What is your preference, and why?

Pop music, by it's very nature, is a constantly evolving phenomenon, reflecting the tastes of the mainstream public at that particular time in history. With this in mind, my views on pop music in this exercise are generally referring to "contemporary" pop of the 90's and 00's, as opposed to crossover genres like rock pop, or earlier music that would probably have been considered as pop music at the time, such as Elvis Presley, or The Beatles.

My preferences certainly lie with classical music, as I feel that this wide ranging genre covers all of the points I made above of what I think constitutes good music. I would like to say though that I acknowledge that for every point I make about pop music, someone could show me a contradictory example. My views obviously do not apply to every single pop song ever written.

With pop music, it seems the main focus is on the celebrity status of the performers, and not on the music itself. Seemingly poor and mediocre songs frequently reach the top of the charts just based on the people or groups who are dominating the "celeb" magazines. It is well known that a lot of pop singers and groups mime in "live" concerts, and use Autotune to make their voices seem better than they really are.

In terms of the music itself, I find pop on the whole to be bland, uninteresting and generally very basic. The same tired old formulas are used time and again, usually in 4/4 time with the standard verse/chorus/verse setup. There are usually no real instruments to speak of, with the music generated digitally. As previously mentioned, the vocals are usually edited a lot; this is evidenced when comparing a studio recorded track to a live performance.

Lyrically, of all the pop music I've ever come across, the vast majority seems to focus on the same subject matter: relationships. I'd imagine this is because relationships are something that pop music's target market is very much starting to gain interest in, so I can see why it is prominent; however a lot more variety would be very welcome.

In contrast, I find that classical music, in one way or another, satisfies all the points I made about what I think makes good music. Also, the talents of the performers often leave me in awe, and live performances are truly live; they are indiscernible to a studio recording, apart from the fact a live performance gives opportunity for more fire and passion.

Although highly skilled classical musicians are "celebrities" within their own spheres of influence, I don't expect you'd ever see the likes of Evgeny Kissin or Anna Netrebko in a cheap glossy magazine, or on "Big Brother". The performers put their art first, and financial considerations second. It can be quite costly to go to an opera, or an orchestral performance, but I believe that if production and living costs weren't an issue, most would still do what they do now, for nothing more than the love of their art.