What Pop music owes to Classical

[Quijote]

Re the concert programme above posted by Michael :
Like, totally awesome, yeah?
[Oh dear, he's trying to be 'hip'. Ed.]
Be quiet, Ed. Anyway, I'm signing up for the chamber music with Martinis and table next to the performers.

[Quijote]

Shaken, not stirred.

[Michael]

Richard Rodgers who was mentioned above also features in a later concert at this venue. But the Beatles/Beach Boys/Beethoven programme beats all!
I wanna go!

[Roehre]

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.

I love Cole Porter and Irving Berlin.
But the difference between Gershwin and any of the others you named is that the first could write beautiful songs, piano concertos, rhapsodies, a kind of symphonic poem (American in Paris) and even an opera, and managed to do his own orchestration too (the 2nd rhapsody the first work he did completely himself), as well as providing tin-pan-alley with musicals,
and the latter couldn't, and were depending on arrangers to get their work all well orchestrated.

The people you named are certainly 20C giants.
But they are not "classical" composers. Quite a lot of people of the Jazz scene or in rock-music on the other hand -though not classical- are IMO real composers. Only think of Zappa or Miles Davies to name but two.
They did something with their material, not just writing a melody and harmonize it (and leave the orchestral/instrumental colours e.g to arrangers)

I don't think "classical" music is unwelcoming or lifeless, it's just requiring another way of listening -

this is a discussion with similarities to the differences between excellent cooks and excellent chefs. Both rightly are appreciated, but have to be appreciated differently.

[Quijote]

[...] this is a discussion with similarities to the differences between excellent cooks and excellent chefs. Both rightly are appreciated, but have to be appreciated differently.

I like the distinction you make, Roehre. Can it be applied to 'the symphony' (which has to appeal to a larger audience, rather like a 'canteen' has to nourish a large number of employees) and 'chamber music' (appealing to a more refined taste, rather like a gourmet restaurant)?

[Sorrano]

Why do I keep getting hungry on this forum?

[Michael]

Why do I keep getting hungry on this forum?

Because music is the food of love (or so they say.)

[Roehre]

Because music is the food of love (or so they say.)

[PDG]

I love Cole Porter and Irving Berlin.
But the difference between Gershwin and any of the others you named is that the first could write beautiful songs, piano concertos, rhapsodies, a kind of symphonic poem (American in Paris) and even an opera, and managed to do his own orchestration too (the 2nd rhapsody the first work he did completely himself), as well as providing tin-pan-alley with musicals,
and the latter couldn't, and were depending on arrangers to get their work all well orchestrated.

The people you named are certainly 20C giants.
But they are not "classical" composers. Quite a lot of people of the Jazz scene or in rock-music on the other hand -though not classical- are IMO real composers. Only think of Zappa or Miles Davies to name but two.
They did something with their material, not just writing a melody and harmonize it (and leave the orchestral/instrumental colours e.g to arrangers)

I know where you're coming from on this, but Michael's point I'm sure was about the apparent lack of melodic invention in modern "classical" music, which is not to say that melody alone makes for great music, but it is surely an important consideration given that modern "classical" (or perhaps read "elitist") composers seem to be lacking in any other general, accessible direction, anyway.

I did say that Rodgers, Kern, etc were 'in-between' composers; I didn't call them symphonists or classicists or anything else. Other than that they had an ability to create wonderful melodies. I'd be interested in the name of any "classical" composer post-1970 who possesses such a talent. Please recommend and I'll seek out and listen.

Had computers been around at the time, I'm sure Beethoven, Haydn and Mozart would have used them. Who these days bothers to put quill to parchment? Rodgers, Kern, etc didn't arrange their own music because it was easier to let arrangers do it for them in the hustle and bustle of fast-paced 20th century America. But they COULD write for orchestra. They were trained to do it. Rodgers would usually conduct from a sight-read score in rehearsing the orchestra prior to a new musical debuting on Broadway. He also conducted Broadway performances such as the 1,000th of South Pacific.

Leonard Bernstein scored Candide but for West Side story, he let someone else do the chore, I believe. Interesting...