1890 Shares

Symphonic vs. Rock: Inferior Music?

Symphonic vs. Rock: Inferior Music? Topic: How to write absolute value in c++
June 16, 2019 / By Jamin
Question: I once ran into an effete gentlemen and got to discussing music and he commented that rock music was inferior to symphonic. (I refuse to call it classical as it dates the genre and implies valuable pieces of symphonic music could only be written 300 years ago which I think is nonsense.) Anyway, I didn't dispute him much but I did wonder: How can you call once genre of a medium inferior to another? Both works and artists are pouring their hearts out to create wonderful music meant to be timeless? Does one genre emote better than another? I get equally exhilarated when I listen to Lennon's "Imagine" as to Beethoven's "Symph. No. 9 'Choral'". I think. I'm not a musical genius, but it does seem symphonic artists may be more "talented" and their music more "complicated"? IDK. That's why I'm asking for input? I am posting this in Classical and Rock to get fair responses. Thanks! BTW you can interject jazz, blues or whatever in this versus question too.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Symphonic vs. Rock: Inferior Music?

Frank Frank | 5 days ago
Sigh. It is nearly as futile to compare genres as if on an 'equal footing' as it is to 'judge them' using the same criteria. Pop music, even the more 'complex' or symphonic, is aimed at being immediately accessible: do not read that as 'dumbed down.' It is just a less-complicated, more simply structured music which has exactly that intent. classical music -- in which there is plenty of fluff and puff pieces, but that is beside the point -- sets out to be listened to with much more intellectual rigor or activity: it often demands much more concentrated attention to get 'the overall meaning' of what 'it says.' It is about a musical discourse, the interaction of all its parts, that really sets it apart from all other popular genres, excepting Jazz, which has much the same intention as classical as its raison d'etre. Emotion and the listener's emotional reaction, while a valued part of anyone's reaction to music, is just one part of a list of criteria which might be set up to evaluate music. It is not the only one. The lay listener, regardless of genre, will have their criteria as 'what sounds good, exciting or pleasant to them,' and perhaps, their level of emotional reaction is high on that list. One 'valuation' of music is just how long it holds over time, i.e. where it still speaks to people years later. On that plane, most pop music has a very brief shelf-life, often far less than a decade or just a few years. Now that we have recordings, it will be interesting to see how even the 'classics' of pop music fare fifty or so years from now. Much older classical still speaks to many to the present day. I do hate the old saw answer that classical is music which has 'stood the test of time' when it is used as a facile answer to such a question as yours, though. Classical music is alive and well and continues, much being written contemporary to our own times. (The older music, too, was once contemporary in its own time.) That old 'test of time' measure is worthless in evaluating any contemporary art, popular or otherwise. Not much rock music has ever spoken to me, having gotten hooked on classical very young, and having stayed with it. I would say it is 'a lesser art,' while still not denying it an 'art' status - but there are all sorts of 'art,' popular, fine, commercial, etc. Of course I have been as deeply moved by some musics in many genres, blues, Japanese 'classical' Shakuhachi music, and many other sorts. Nonetheless, I stay with or return to classical, the oldest, all that in between and right up through music of our own time: for me it delivers the most complete musical, and if you will, emotional, experience. There is your somewhat non-answer, to a question that has no ultimate or absolute answer. Best regards. P.s. I do wish that any and all who use the word "effete" would look it up. I have more than a hunch you meant something completely different when you used the word :-) P.p.s. 'classical' small c refers to the genre of 'fine art music' from about 1100 a.c.e. to the present day. So that is what it is, is classical music, vs. Popular genre.
👍 258 | 👎 5
Did you like the answer? Symphonic vs. Rock: Inferior Music? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: How to write absolute value in c++


Frank Originally Answered: Symphonic vs. Rock: Inferior Music?
Sigh. It is nearly as futile to compare genres as if on an 'equal footing' as it is to 'judge them' using the same criteria. Pop music, even the more 'complex' or symphonic, is aimed at being immediately accessible: do not read that as 'dumbed down.' It is just a less-complicated, more simply structured music which has exactly that intent. classical music -- in which there is plenty of fluff and puff pieces, but that is beside the point -- sets out to be listened to with much more intellectual rigor or activity: it often demands much more concentrated attention to get 'the overall meaning' of what 'it says.' It is about a musical discourse, the interaction of all its parts, that really sets it apart from all other popular genres, excepting Jazz, which has much the same intention as classical as its raison d'etre. Emotion and the listener's emotional reaction, while a valued part of anyone's reaction to music, is just one part of a list of criteria which might be set up to evaluate music. It is not the only one. The lay listener, regardless of genre, will have their criteria as 'what sounds good, exciting or pleasant to them,' and perhaps, their level of emotional reaction is high on that list. One 'valuation' of music is just how long it holds over time, i.e. where it still speaks to people years later. On that plane, most pop music has a very brief shelf-life, often far less than a decade or just a few years. Now that we have recordings, it will be interesting to see how even the 'classics' of pop music fare fifty or so years from now. Much older classical still speaks to many to the present day. I do hate the old saw answer that classical is music which has 'stood the test of time' when it is used as a facile answer to such a question as yours, though. Classical music is alive and well and continues, much being written contemporary to our own times. (The older music, too, was once contemporary in its own time.) That old 'test of time' measure is worthless in evaluating any contemporary art, popular or otherwise. Not much rock music has ever spoken to me, having gotten hooked on classical very young, and having stayed with it. I would say it is 'a lesser art,' while still not denying it an 'art' status - but there are all sorts of 'art,' popular, fine, commercial, etc. Of course I have been as deeply moved by some musics in many genres, blues, Japanese 'classical' Shakuhachi music, and many other sorts. Nonetheless, I stay with or return to classical, the oldest, all that in between and right up through music of our own time: for me it delivers the most complete musical, and if you will, emotional, experience. There is your somewhat non-answer, to a question that has no ultimate or absolute answer. Best regards. P.s. I do wish that any and all who use the word "effete" would look it up. I have more than a hunch you meant something completely different when you used the word :-) P.p.s. 'classical' small c refers to the genre of 'fine art music' from about 1100 a.c.e. to the present day. So that is what it is, is classical music, vs. Popular genre.

Dayton Dayton
You have a very good answer from Petr B. However I will interject my two penny worth. You seem to know little about classical music, only a relatively small proportion is "symphonic." There is also symphonic music that is NOT classical. Most music from the genre dates from 1600 to the present day. In fact no symphonic music was written before the Classical period. The basis of your question revolves around the definition of "inferior." It really depends on what you mean by this. I have to take issue with the notion that all musicians are creating or attempting to create timeless music. Most rock music is new (less that fifty years old) and very little of it will be "timeless." Most is forgotten in months rather than years. How can you make a comparison of a three minute ballad like Imagine and a work like Beethoven's ninth which lasts about an hour? I don't think you would have had much of an argument to present to your gentleman friend.
👍 110 | 👎 2

Barret Barret
I prefer the adjectives Great and non-Great, to that of inferior/superior. To me the ultimate definition of Great, is ENDURES/an art form which is loved/referenced by generation after generation. Symphonic is an adjunct of what many nowadays call, refer to as Western Art Music: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_m... Some of the compositions contained therein are around 200/300 years old, or older. And I dare say that very few if any compositions of the Rock/Pop/whatever genre currently is popular or has been within the past 50/60 yrs., will be listened to as referred to above, distant, into the future. And I for one would have no regrets, nor shed one tear, Alberich
👍 106 | 👎 -1

Yolanda Yolanda
Classical music is highly refined art music. Jimi Hendrix, is one of the few rock musicians that could turn rock music into truly refined art. And my second sentence is an opinion - I do not claim that to be fact. Yet even the king of guitar when improvising had a more limited palate of music to work with than the strict forms of Mozart and Haydn. This part is fact. I think classical music is respected more than most other types of music because it is one of the most intellectually honest ways for humans to approach music It is academically honest as well. It considers nearly every possible usage, variation, or structuring of music. Every single application of music perceived by humans can be found in classical music. It is by far the most diverse genre. Symphonies, concertos, trios, sonatas, opera, ballet, ballades, fugues, tone poems etc. the list goes on to all the different forms of music that classical music has to offer. Your misconception is that classical music was 300 years ago. Classical music is still being written today. The Classical ERA involves music 200+ years ago written by Beethoven, Mozart, etc. Today is the Contemporary era whilst the era before it is named the Modern era. Classical music - "Serious or conventional music following long-established principles rather than a folk, jazz, or popular tradition." Compare Beethoven to Bach, Bach to Schubert, Schubert to Shostakovich, Shostakovich to Brahms, Brahms to John Adams, John Adams to Sorabji (seriously go type in those composers and listen to their styles and ideas - totally contrasting) and then you will truly understand the beauty and all-encompassing ideas that classical music has forged. Rock music does have it's sub-genres and extremely unique styles, but it does for the most part still sound relatively the same because it uses limited and accepted principles that are static and are not changeable - because to change certain rhythms, harmonies, counterpoint, or instruments would be to totally change the genre. Don't get me wrong i LOVE rock, reggae, and many other types of music. But I do think that classical music is the best that the world has left us with. And that is strictly a personal opinion. But it is fact that classical music is highly refined "art music" and is the probably most academically honest of all types of music due to the amount of academic scrutiny it has been put under.
👍 102 | 👎 -4

Yolanda Originally Answered: Honestly everyone who defends The Rock what are your thoughts on The Rock saying he was never leaving again?
He never ''came back''. WWE just called him on the last minute to sell out WrestleMania 28, with an immense amount of money. The Rock has had a successful acting career throughout the movie business, from The Game Plan, to G.I. Joe. He would let that go to the trash and start participating in a weekly, or timely business. The Rock was just comforting the fans by saying that he ''will never leave again'', to signify that he will just make occasional appearances. As for him saying that once he returns, he will plan to win the WWE Championship? Really? He didn't even do anything for the company to earn that spot. We've had wrestlers like Ziggler. Rhodes, Barrett, Sheamus, Kofi Kingston, etc who have worked their butts off to become who they are today, and Rock wants to pull a David Arquette? Ridiculous.

If you have your own answer to the question how to write absolute value in c++, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.