Popular art is always much less thoughtful and aesthetically inferior compared to the 'high' art but it's a little bit different in music because pop-music and classical music use different means of artistic expression, whereas in, for example, literature, they stay the same. So, if you consider evrything that uses guitars or synths to be pop-music, theoretically there isn't anything preventing it from matching classical, I think.
Classical music is separated from popular music by 3 main factors
1. Notation form, this makes it more akin to literature. Writing out the notes results in more control of form, detail and progression.
2. Music theory, all notes are understood harmoincally by the composer where as most pop might at best have surface level understanding of guitar chords and modes.
3. Audience, it wasnt written for teenage girls.
Julian Turner
BASED
Ryan Green
Where to start with Haydn? I'm an ADD zoomer but I like harmonies and shiet
>click on a link here >it's an opera recording from the 20s >sound quality so atrocious that nothing can be made out Why are you guys like this? Modern recordings are so much better.
I think today popular music is probably two kinds, 1) the grassroots music, bands that aren't musically educated and make simple music, and 2) stuff like Nicki Minaj, Gucci Gang etc. which isn't written by the "artist" but by a team who probably know a great deal about music but are deliberately making the music to not just be simple but to dumb down and mind control the masses
Dylan Cruz
start from symphony no 1, then no 2 and so on... I did that, made it to no 40 or so.
arguments in favor boil down to it's a fuck ton easier (and cheaper) to schedule and pay for 1 vocal performer per part than it is to hire and coordinate the schedules of dozens of choir members for each part.
