Log in

View Full Version : Has the word 'Music' changed its meaning?



Red Clydesider
4th September 2013, 19:04
Has the word 'Music' changed its meaning?

In the UK we have a game show called Pointless. It's a quiz show in which contestants choose categories such as Politics, Literature, Music, then answer questions on their chosen category. Politics has included questions about US presidents and the British political system - and once there were questions about Communist leaders including Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh. Literature has included Shakespeare and Thomas Hardy.

But when it comes to music, the questions are always about pop music. Led Zeppelin Top 40 Singles. Not Beethoven, or Charlie Parker, or Woody Guthrie. The show host asks contestants, 'Is there any period in musical history that you know a lot about?' They say, 'The Sixties' or 'The Nineties'.

I don't think it's only a quirky feature of Pointless. It's as if 'Music' has generally come to mean 'Commercial music'. As if the history of music begins in the 1950s and there was nothing before that.

Has commercial music, music mass-produced and sold as a commodity, become so pervasive that classical, folk, blues, jazz etc are almost excluded from the definition of music? Some pop music has merit - but the pervasiveness of bad and indifferent as well as good pop seems to me a triumph of consumerism over art.

James.

roy
4th September 2013, 19:50
All the types of music you mentioned are still very popular. Necessarily pop music is gonna feature on a general knowledge show because that's the music that people are generally familiar with. It's all still music and there's way more music in the world today than there ever has been and it's way more accessible too. Not everyone is interested in obscure music of the past or present and there's nothing wrong with that, doesnt mean pop music is the only type of music left or something.

#FF0000
7th September 2013, 08:11
Has commercial music, music mass-produced and sold as a commodity, become so pervasive that classical, folk, blues, jazz etc are almost excluded from the definition of music?

No. I mean, this is nothing new, honestly. Things were never any different. If you look at the charts going back decades, it's the same way -- loaded with bands that never really went anywhere and weren't all that special or good or interesting while bands that are now thought of as good and important were often not on the charts at all.


Some pop music has merit - but the pervasiveness of bad and indifferent as well as good pop seems to me a triumph of consumerism over art.

Lets not be dramatic, now.

Ceallach_the_Witch
11th September 2013, 15:52
they do it to annoy music nerds

Sam_b
11th September 2013, 16:33
It's as if 'Music' has generally come to mean 'Commercial music'.

You're not suggesting that commercial music is going to be used in the music rounds of popular television quiz shows are you? The horror!

Seriously, I think this thread belies bigger problems than OP intends. There is often a chauvenism of which the left is not immune which looks down on working class people for their cultural trends. Not everyone listens to politically-oriented folk music, men with guitars and classical music. I don't pretend to watch or particularly enjoy X-Factor, Nicki Minaj and so forth, but the way that some people rile and ridicule those who do, who enjoy that entertainment, is at times appalling. Not everyone is into high art or high 'culture'.

I don't know about you, but when I come home from work i don't put on Debussy while making my dinner or doing the ironing, and I don't know that many people who do either. You may find that lamentable, and that's fine, but Pointless and shows like that fill that sort of accessible entertainment. Not all music has to fulfill some sort of intelligence quota.

Let's face the facts: people work on poverty wages with lessening rights by the day. People come home from work exhausted, have to feed their families, look after the kids and the home...life under capitalism is a fucking grind and we all know it. So who are we to judge if people try to get away from it all and snatch a few minutes to themselves by watching the X-Factor or getting the new Avicii single?

Flying Purple People Eater
11th September 2013, 16:59
How is it 'chauvinist' to recognise Nicki Minaj as complete and utter rubbish? I know a good few people who are 'working-class' (I would hope this label would apply to everyone using this forum) and on very little income that wouldn't approach that monstrosity with a ten foot pole.

No chauvinism going on there. Just generalising the poor working class hordes as only ever being interested in certain strands of bland four note mass-production songs.

Sam_b
11th September 2013, 17:01
How is it 'chauvinist' to recognise Nicki Minaj as complete and utter rubbish?

Can you read? I didn't say that.

Jimmie Higgins
11th September 2013, 18:01
Music is a commodity so I don't think the choices are commercialism or art (and well, I'm partial to pop music... 60s garage and chess and Motown and punk and hip hop). But irregardless, it's just the music people are most familiar with in part because it's recorded and most of the folk and pre-electric delta blues music which was "craft" rather than commercial we know of only because people in the 20s and 30s went around to rural areas and recorded the music. Woodie Guthrie took religious folk music and changed the lyrics for commercial radio, so no music is free of the market in our society... Not at least since radio.

roy
11th September 2013, 18:07
How is it 'chauvinist' to recognise Nicki Minaj as complete and utter rubbish? I know a good few people who are 'working-class' (I would hope this label would apply to everyone using this forum) and on very little income that wouldn't approach that monstrosity with a ten foot pole.

No chauvinism going on there. Just generalising the poor working class hordes as only ever being interested in certain strands of bland four note mass-production songs.

way to miss the point, and nicki minaj can spit fire ok

Yuppie Grinder
18th September 2013, 03:16
Has the word 'Music' changed its meaning?

In the UK we have a game show called Pointless. It's a quiz show in which contestants choose categories such as Politics, Literature, Music, then answer questions on their chosen category. Politics has included questions about US presidents and the British political system - and once there were questions about Communist leaders including Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh. Literature has included Shakespeare and Thomas Hardy.

But when it comes to music, the questions are always about pop music. Led Zeppelin Top 40 Singles. Not Beethoven, or Charlie Parker, or Woody Guthrie. The show host asks contestants, 'Is there any period in musical history that you know a lot about?' They say, 'The Sixties' or 'The Nineties'.

I don't think it's only a quirky feature of Pointless. It's as if 'Music' has generally come to mean 'Commercial music'. As if the history of music begins in the 1950s and there was nothing before that.

Has commercial music, music mass-produced and sold as a commodity, become so pervasive that classical, folk, blues, jazz etc are almost excluded from the definition of music? Some pop music has merit - but the pervasiveness of bad and indifferent as well as good pop seems to me a triumph of consumerism over art.

James.

Charlie Parker is pop music. Pop begins when furniture companies realized that fun jazz records would sell more than the boring opera records they had been printing.

Invader Zim
20th September 2013, 11:18
I love pop music. its fucking great. However, in the immortal words of Nick Hornby's character Rob in High Fidelity:

“What came first, the music or the misery? People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"

Luisrah
23rd September 2013, 20:14
Music that is more easily understood and appreciated will sell more. I think it is pretty straightforward.

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

So many hits with just 4 chords...

Even in classical music, composers most know are obviously Mozart, Beethoven, Vivaldi and Bach. Verdi and Chopin maybe and few others.
Very few people ever heard of Schönberg, John Cage, Stravinsky, Palestrina etc.

Popular Front of Judea
23rd September 2013, 20:45
I love pop music. its fucking great. However, in the immortal words of Nick Hornby's character Rob in High Fidelity:

“What came first, the music or the misery? People worry about kids playing with guns, or watching violent videos, that some sort of culture of violence will take them over. Nobody worries about kids listening to thousands, literally thousands of songs about heartbreak, rejection, pain, misery and loss. Did I listen to pop music because I was miserable? Or was I miserable because I listened to pop music?"

I blame it all on Hohnny Cash ...

rWHniL8MyMM