What Pop music owes to Classical

[Peter]

One of them being the ability to write a good tune. Many "pop" composers (especially in the 1960's) would put a lot of modern "serious" composers to shame.

I agree Michael - there is the most terrible snobbery amongst 'serious' musicians that denigrates the 'tune', but in reality how many even great composers were great writers of melody? Schubert without doubt is one, but others such as Verdi or Puccini are vilified because of that very trait, daring to write a beautiful melody that everyone loves except the critics! In reality it is no mean feat to write a fine tune as Elgar said 'it comes rarely in a lifetime'. In our modern world, complexity and the intellect have lost touch with the simplicity and beauty of life.

[Michael]

The Germans could now and then write a good tune:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZviYmTMpBXE

[PDG]

One of them being the ability to write a good tune. Many "pop" composers (especially in the 1960's) would put a lot of modern "serious" composers to shame.

Yes, and of course there are also the 'in-between' composers (neither classical nor pop but incorporating a bit of both) whose melodies continue to astound. I think of Jerome Kern, Frederick Loewe and especially Richard Rodgers. Listen again to a verse of Rodgers' Edelweiss. That leap from the second to the third note shows - to use that expression again - genius.

[Michael]

Yes, and of course there are also the 'in-between' composers (neither classical nor pop but incorporating a bit of both) whose melodies continue to astound. I think of Jerome Kern, Frederick Loewe and especially Richard Rodgers. Listen again to a verse of Rodgers' Edelweiss. That leap from the second to the third note shows - to use that expression again - genius.

Totally. Any of these composers wuld put the Schoenbergs and the Birtwistles to shame.

[Peter]

Totally. Any of these composers wuld put the Schoenbergs and the Birtwistles to shame.

You'll be answering to the Don for that!!

[Roehre]

Totally. Any of these composers would put the Schoenbergs and the Birtwistles to shame.

This only shows you haven't a clear idea what defines the difference between being a tune-smith and a composer.

It is significant that not one single tune of Kern, Loewe or Rodgers has either symphonic potential or is used as theme for a variation set by composers like Walton, Schnittke, Arnold, Hugh Wood (as Mozart and Beethoven did with the tune-smiths of their times). Wood e.g. used Burwell/Parish's "Sweet Lorraine" for a variation-mvt in his pianoconcerto op.31 from 1991.

They are nice to hear and certainly enjoyable, but that is not what "classical" composition is about. These tunes are impossible to develop, inert entities.

Before you start pointing to e.g. Mozart for the tunes: his music as well as Beethoven's was according to many critics of their days tuneless and extravagantly difficult to comprehend.

As far as Schönberg is concerned: the scherzo of his 2nd string quartet -the one in which he leaves tonality- is a perfectly singable and real quasi-viennese tune, one of many examples to be found in his output (including the dodecaphonic works).

[Michael]

I was merely highlighting one area in which much of today's music is lacking. Obviously, melody in "serious" music is not an end in itself - but it is the soul of music - and I do believe certain composers do not possess it in a remarkable degree.

I picked the names Birtwistle and Schoenberg at random to illustrate the huge gap between accessible music and the esoteric stuff which is deliberately aimed at a small (and by implication, superior) audience.

Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are much greater composers than the two named above, but they (even the Great Mogul) never lost sight of their public.
Granted, it took a while for the public to catch up but it was never their intention to aim their compositions at a niche audience.



.

[Quijote]

You'll be answering to the Don for that!!

I'm not taking the bait !

[Roehre]

....
Bach, Mozart and Beethoven are much greater composers than the two named above, but they (even the Great Mogul) never lost sight of their public.
....

Mozart's publishers asked him to stop composing piano quartets, as the public didn't want them. Beethoven was more than once snubbed because of delivering a work which wasn't to the taste of his public, or the person who commissioned the work, the Mass in C op.86 one such an example, the Kreutzer Sonata another. And didn't he shout to Schuppanzigh that he didn't think of the "bloody strings" when composing?

[Peter]

I'm not taking the bait !

Probably wise!

[Peter]

This only shows you haven't a clear idea what defines the difference between being a tune-smith and a composer.

It is significant that not one single tune of Kern, Loewe or Rodgers has either symphonic potential or is used as theme for a variation set by composers like Walton, Schnittke, Arnold, Hugh Wood (as Mozart and Beethoven did with the tune-smiths of their times). Wood e.g. used Burwell/Parish's "Sweet Lorraine" for a variation-mvt in his pianoconcerto op.31 from 1991.

They are nice to hear and certainly enjoyable, but that is not what "classical" composition is about. These tunes are impossible to develop, inert entities.

Before you start pointing to e.g. Mozart for the tunes: his music as well as Beethoven's was according to many critics of their days tuneless and extravagantly difficult to comprehend.

As far as Schönberg is concerned: the scherzo of his 2nd string quartet -the one in which he leaves tonality- is a perfectly singable and real quasi-viennese tune, one of many examples to be found in his output (including the dodecaphonic works).

I'm not convinced that to be a composer one has always to produce music of symphonic potential - Schubert was known in his time primarily as a composer of Lieder and melody was intrinsic to his musical nature, regardless of what he was 'composing'. Moreover, this was a problem that most Romantic composers faced - the Romantics generally weren't the masters of form that the Classical composers had been precisely because melody was of more importance and didn't fit naturally into the structures they inherited - it is simply a different approach to composition. Beethoven I'm sure would have had no difficulty in producing 60 variations on 'Der Flohwalzer' if he could have been bothered!

[PDG]

This only shows you haven't a clear idea what defines the difference between being a tune-smith and a composer.

It is significant that not one single tune of Kern, Loewe or Rodgers has either symphonic potential or is used as theme for a variation set by composers like Walton, Schnittke, Arnold, Hugh Wood (as Mozart and Beethoven did with the tune-smiths of their times). Wood e.g. used Burwell/Parish's "Sweet Lorraine" for a variation-mvt in his pianoconcerto op.31 from 1991.

They are nice to hear and certainly enjoyable, but that is not what "classical" composition is about. These tunes are impossible to develop, inert entities.

Sorry, Roehre, but you're off-target here.

The three composers I mentioned are certainly that and not mere "tunesmiths" - a rather derogatory term. You might apply it to Irving Berlin, for example, who had no classical training or adeptitude at the piano, but not at the men I named. There are others I could have roll-called such as Sigmund Romberg or Cole Porter, and of course Gershwin.

These are all C20th musical giants whose music is accessed and accessible by infinitely more people than the recent, lifeless, unwelcoming state of "classical" music. In fact, I question whether the term should even be applied any more.

I can give many examples of these named composers writing and conducting if not symphonically, then certainly orchestrally.

[Preston]

Roehre, I believe you are correct. The classical way was not catchy or singular melodies. It was a different style then. I would imagine many classical musicians could write a simple tune. But, I do believe that the classical style was not about that and that the composers did not think like that about music.

Does anyone feel I am write about this?

[Peter]

Roehre, I believe you are correct. The classical way was not catchy or singular melodies. It was a different style then. I would imagine many classical musicians could write a simple tune. But, I do believe that the classical style was not about that and that the composers did not think like that about music.

Does anyone feel I am write about this?

I think we're at cross purposes here - Roehre is using the term 'Classical' to refer to all 'serious' music as opposed to popular music, I think you are referring specifically to the classical style (c.1750-1830) and in that context I think we're all in agreement that melody was not as important as structure - indeed that was the point I was making, however melody did become very important to composers in the 19th century. Russian composers in particular had a problem because their folk-tunes were very self contained and since they were attempting to break away from the Germanic influence - for Tchaikovsky especially, this presented real problems because he was still conforming to the western forms of Symphony, sonata. Even if you take a German composer, Schumann for example, the problems that the rise of melody presented are evident in that his best music is generally to be found in his Lieder and piano works rather than big symphonic structures no matter how fine they are.

[Michael]

Re the above discussion, dig the first item on this concert programme for 2013, man! Fab! Gear, man!

http://www.calphil.org/concerts/walt...-concert-hall/






.