Originally posted by moley
You make it sound like popular songwriting is trivial compared with classical works...
I'd agree with that!!
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Originally posted by moley
You make it sound like popular songwriting is trivial compared with classical works...
Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
I'd agree with that!!![]()
Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
There is a difference!
I think it is clear that while there is no doubt that say Beethoven, Bach etc are great composers and their work has intrinsic worth; I'm not sure the same can be applied to the people you mention.
So - I would say that a lot of Sting's work is just rubbish and could easily provide critical analysis by reputable writers.
But I don't think any reputable writer would slam Bach for example - these works have stood the test of time and analysis.
Originally posted by moley
. You think that Bach & Beethoven have more instrinsic worth than Sting? Surely you think it's subjective? How could you say that it has more instrinsic worth - by what standard?
Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
Well I think any decent musicologist could point you to a large number of innovations that Bach and Beethoven made in compositional terms - counterpoint, fugues, sonata form etc
Whereas I can see nothing innovative whatsoever in Stings' solo work, from the point of view of working in the area of tonal composition.
Originally posted by moley
So you reckon music has to be innovative on that scale to be as musically valid?
Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
I was just saying that this is what makes " popular songwriting trivial compared with classical works..."
But there's nothing wrong with a bit of triviality if that's what you like!!
Well, I suppose it depends on exactly what you mean by trivial. Perhaps I should have said "musically valid" instead in the first place. What I mean is I don't think classical (or Jazz for that matter) has any musical superiority over pop music - or any other kind of music.
I watch "Eastenders" to relax!!![]()
Originally posted by moley
What I mean is I don't think classical (or Jazz for that matter) has any musical superiority over pop music - or any other kind of music.
Originally posted by Craig Garfinkel
Hey guys, if you're done with this thread can we have it back now?![]()
Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
I believe that Classical has far more musical innovation and complexity.
So - atonal systems of composition like Schonberg's 12-tone row, are nowhere to be found in pop music. Music like Messiaen's is in several keys at once simultaneously - you get nothing like that in pop music.
Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" has numerous innovations in terms of rhythm - layers of different time signatures - anything outside of a very basic 4/4 is very rare in pop music!!
Originally posted by Bruce Lindfield
Yeah, I think I've just about won that argument now!!
Originally posted by moley
Aha - so musical worth is now defined by complexity. I see.