Is popular music inferior to classical music?

Question

I've heard it said many times that popular music just doesn't have the complexity of classical music. Personally, I like popular music more than classical music. Does that make me a simple minded person unable to appreciate complexity? I find that many classical compositions that I have heard are far too indulgent in complex melodies.

I'll take a simple Beatles tune over any Mozart masterpiece.

Answer 1

There is no such thing a inferiority in artistic expression, only different interpretations of the said art form. Take theatre: are the plays of Socrates superior to those of modern day playwrites? In that time, for that era, music was made on the technology afforded to them, which centered around acoustic instruments made of wood and metal. Nowadays, the music is produced and performed in a much more complex manner, but does that justfiy calling modern music superior? Furthermore, "classical" music is a single type of instrumental music, mostly popular in the hayday of Papa Haydn and later Mozart. Listening to music from that time, which by its namesake refers to the classic Greek period of mathematical precision, is a completely different experience than, say a composition from the Neo Romantic period. The defining difference between popular music and non popular music is the intended audience. Much of Jazz is written for those that appreciate that genre, while the latest country song is meant to appeal to a broad fan base. Pop music needs to give the listener a reason to hear the song. It's called the "hook" and must be implemented within 2 minutes of the usually 3-4 minute song in order to keep the average listener amused. Non popular music does not bother to comform to certain time constraints or perscribed methodology for composing that pop music must adhere to. While it takes no more than 1.5 minutes of pop to make a musical statement, non popular music may take 5, 10, 20, or even 30 minutes to resolve a theme or melody. The listener must be patient and pay attention to the subtle details in the piece in order to fully appreciate music like jazz, symphonic, or electronic music. I added electronic because it is by far the newest genre of music, which combines elements of pop with the structure of classical. Much of jazz and electronic is pop-esque, as well as symphonic. Stauss comes to mind when I think of poppy orchestral tunes. The same listener needs to barely pay attention(save for that hook) to enjoy a pop song. This does seperate the two audiences but by no means justifies any one as superior to the other.

Answer 2

First of all who cares ? Life is too short for this to really matter.
As a classical musician I am often asking this question only to come up with the answer " I like what pleases me ".
That should be enough.
Classical music actually many times is even more simple than some pop, sounds weird but it's true. as for Mozart , there is a saying, "Mozart is too complex for children and too simple for adults" .
If you want to enjoy classical music than immerse yourself in it and over time you will begin to apprciate it.
Good Luck

Answer 3

Let's put it like this.

Though a popular (in the sense of well know and liked) composer, someone like Mozart was working in the field of what is called classical culture.
At the same time, lots of now anonymous musicians were writing and performing what we'd now call popular music (for dances, for fairs, for popular gatherings).
Folk music is the descendent of those compositions, like the madrigals, the gavottes, etc.

These two traditions, classic and popular continued untill today: From the renaissance lover's song or a worker's chant to the Beatles and from Mozart to the work of contemporary composers like John Cage, Morton Feldman, Karlheinz Stockhauzen, etc.

People always needed enjoyment and dancing, and, sometimes, some people wanted something a bit more abstract and substantial. Nothing wrong with that.

But they're still separate things.
The Beatle's direct ancestor is not Mozart but some anonymous itenerant singer while Bethoven's descendent is someone like the german composer Helmut Lachenman.

As far as liking it's like anything else.
The first time I had a sip of beer I did't like it.
I kept trying and I learned to enjoy it. So is with all art.
I love coca-cola, it's easy to drink and imediately satisfying, but I'll never compare it with wine. It's just that learning to enjoy and know wine takes time and a bit of effort and that's not something most of us are willing to do.

So it's easier on us to say wine and coke or the Beatles and Mozart are the same.
It frees us from the individual responsability of saying: I'm unable to enjoy Mozart's clarinet quintet because I'm unwilling to invest the time and effort of learning to understand and appeciate it.

But that's fine too. It takes all kinds to build a world.

Answer 4

No music genre is ever inferior to another. As a common saying goes: it's all just matters of opinion. I personally like popular music more than classical but I don't think that means it's superior to classical.

Answer 5

I love popular music as well. But with classical it is complex. Much of the classical music is in another language. Languages help you be able to intonate and resonate more. It is because of the complexness that classical helps even with popular music. But both are very good. And it is a preference. There is also modern classical music such as the Beatles. It's all a matter of what one considers classic and modern.

Answer 6

Back in its day - what we call classical music now, was the popular music. Mozart was like a celebrity because of his music.

And many rock bands use a form of classical in the songs. The rock bands "Yes" and "Queen" come to mind - they have alot of classical style in their songs.

One thing I like to do when I have headphones on, is listen to the bass lines and the musical instruments that are not the main piece of the song - sometimes these parts are very complex.

Answer 7

Hehe, Does playing chess make you more complex than not? Absolutely not! It is just an opinion of what music you like best. It also has a lot to do with the time period in which you live in. Most people now like modern music over classical, but tests have shown that IQ is on the rise. Hmm, How can that be?

Answer 8

No. You are not a simple minded person ofcourse. But classical music is a world in itself, and not everyone likes to get in this world. It's really a great tradition, but there are also other traditions in the world. Indian music is also wonderful as well as arabic music among many others. Classical music is the long tradition of europe.

Answer 9

No, it's not that actually. You see, there is nothing called classical, pop, rock, jazz kinds of music at all. Music is an art. And as we all know it, Art reflects creativity of any person. The music created by the people back in those days were popular and fantastic to them. In the same manner, they used to hate musics which were older than their generation. Yes, its all because of the Generation Gap.
Everyone loves his/her own Time. That means, that after 40 to 50 years, we who are now young and energetic, will become old and then critisize the music created by our juniors i.e. the youngsters at that time. Then just like our own grandparents and teachers we will say to our own kids, "Bah, this is garbage, real music was back in those days when we used to get our hands on those guitars".

Answer 10

lol well i think its just how u see it. i find bach awfully boring and i hate his music. [im sorry i just do!] yes its complex.. in ways ppl who dont take music can imagine. theres a lot of emotion in it.. .. maybe. i think popular music deals with more lyrics and having a good beat to it. classical deals with the dynamics, the rhythmn, expression everything. and i love popular music so its aite. well u can think of it this way. classical music -- mozart, beethoven theyve been known for centuries. do u think ppl 200 years from now will still know who ne-yo or usher or gwen stefani are?