Discussion; Classical Versus Rock
Submitted by neptune on Wed, 10/01/2008 - 08:36
Tags:
I was just wondering what people's thoughts on Listology were as to whether Rock compares to Classical (or vice versa), and why. I think there needs to be more discussions on here, other than just 'Scaruffi vs Beatles'...
I think classical is superior basically because:
a) most significant innovations started there. It has been the vanguard of musical progression since time immemorial.
b) it contains way more masterpieces and is more comprehensive than rock.
Though, it is also true (to me) that the masterpieces of rock are for the most part equal to those of classical--classical just has hundreds more.
I don't necessarily disagree with your points but I'm just playing devil's advocate.
a) most significant innovations started there. It has been the vanguard of musical progression since time immemorial.
That's simply because it was around beforehand. In the time rock has been around, it has done as much (if not more) in bringing innovation to music.
b) it contains way more masterpieces and is more comprehensive than rock.
It has been around much much longer, well known 'masterpieces' from classical have been acknowledged since the 1600s and even earlier. That's 400 years as opposed to Rock and Roll's more meager 50.
Don't you think that given a few more hundred years rock could produce as many if not more?
Don't you think that given a few more hundred years rock could produce as many if not more?
I doubt it. It hasn't produced one in 11 years and has been on swift decline, especially now that, in general, it is focused more on singles and downloads and less and less on the album format and serious listening experiences. Classical has always been primarily about the complete listening experience and so is usually produced by more serious, educated and professional musical minds and talents. Still, these things can change and perhaps rock will be reinivigorated by some genius on the order of the Velvet Underground or Frank Zappa or Captain Beefheart.
I disagree with you and Scaruffi that rock music 'is on the decline', I just think he has some kind of inexplicable bias against the 00s generation of music. He rates four or five new albums a month, and then decides music is on a sharp decline even though he hasn't even heard most of it. There was a lot less music around being released in the 60s, so it's easier to get through all of it, but nowadays there is so much from so many different styles that finding 'masterpieces' must be much harder to find as there is indeed a lot more crap. Perhaps the ratio of crap to good has increased, but that doesn't mean the actual number of good has gone down.
I think he doesn't know as much as he used to now about music, as there are so many different genres being made nowadays that it is impossible to keep up with them all.
I disagree with you and Scaruffi that rock music 'is on the decline', I just think he has some kind of inexplicable bias against the 00s generation of music.
I find this to be very unlikely. Every album I've listen to from this decade I've almost wholly agreed on his ratings for (though admittedly I'm still a bit thin on the 00's). I just think he is very precise with his ratings and no matter how pessimistic it seems, he is unwilling to bow down and just give an album a 9 simply because there haven't been any in over a decade.
He rates four or five new albums a month, and then decides music is on a sharp decline even though he hasn't even heard most of it. There was a lot less music around being released in the 60s, so it's easier to get through all of it, but nowadays there is so much from so many different styles that finding 'masterpieces' must be much harder to find as there is indeed a lot more crap. Perhaps the ratio of crap to good has increased, but that doesn't mean the actual number of good has gone down.
Perhaps he hasn't listened to every album but if you look at his site it is very clear that he's heard hundreds of albums from each year up through 2005 or so. The only critic who has possibly heard more is probably Christgau.
Even this year he's heard plenty to give him enough of an idea to make a good judgement. From June 2008:
"Readers encouraged me to read the reviews published by other websites, and particularly their ratings. Needless to say, i am shocked. I went alphabetically through the main releases of 2008, and, for example, Allmusic has given at least four stars to all but two of them. Basically, we live in an amazing era, in which just about every album that is released is a masterpiece. I could not find a website whose ratings were mostly negative. Well, i disagree: so far i only have found one album in 2008 (out of the almost 100 that i have reviewed) that is worth buying."
That is a low percentage. And no 9's in 11 years, which is mainly what I am referring to. If you can find me a masterpiece (meaning an album on the order of Astral Weeks, Desertshore, Third, Irrlicht, or even something close) from the last 11 years I'd be elated to hear it.
I think he doesn't know as much as he used to now about music, as there are so many different genres being made nowadays that it is impossible to keep up with them all.
I'm not sure how you've come to this conclusion. His ratings and reviews and insight are no less accurate than they've always been, in my opinion.
Do you honestly believe that the amount of masterpieces has stopped without reason over this last decade? I personally believe that France The Mute & Ys are as good as Desertshore (not the others because they're all 9s), and many other great albums from the past.
By that I meant that Scaruffi is an album kinda guy, with probably the occasional EP. Electronic dance music (techno, minimal, some glitch) certainly is mainly a single based genre, and so I don't think he gets enough exposure to things like that.
It wasn't a dig at him as such, it's just much harder for anyone to keep up with all the new music being produced nowadays than it used to be, as albums and music in general is much easier to produce and put out there. Even Lukeprog at his peak of acquiring albums would have struggled to find and get most of it.
Also, perhaps the 2010s may see a revolution in rock (or another genre), and another golden age, I see no reason why not. So even if the society and musical culture of the now may be stagnating to an extent, why shouldn't it go back to being good?
Do you honestly believe that the amount of masterpieces has stopped without reason over this last decade?
How is less a focus on albums and more a focus on singles "without reason"? The album is gradually becoming irrelevant. Itunes and downloads dominate the industry. Albums sales are dropping dramtically.
I personally believe that France The Mute & Ys are as good as Desertshore (not the others because they're all 9s), and many other great albums from the past.
I would agree with you that both of those (FTM and Ys) are superb, incredible albums, but I guess it's just a matter of opinion on where they stand in the grand scheme of things. They're both far below Desertshore to me. The difference between an 8 or 8.5 and a 9 or 9.1+ is quite vast on my scale.
It wasn't a dig at him as such, it's just much harder for anyone to keep up with all the new music being produced nowadays than it used to be, as albums and music in general is much easier to produce and put out there. Even Lukeprog at his peak of acquiring albums would have struggled to find and get most of it.
Of course I do hope some masterpieces are found, but it seems less and less likely given how easily they were found from the 90's. Perhaps artists are turning to less significant sources of inspiration like Arcade Fire, Neutral Milk Hotel, Radiohead, The Smiths, White Stripes, etc, than they did in the 90's when the most major source (by far) was The Velvet Underground (as it was in the latter half of the 70's and much of the 80's).
Also, perhaps the 2010s may see a revolution in rock (or another genre), and another golden age, I see no reason why not. So even if the society and musical culture of the now may be stagnating to an extent, why shouldn't it go back to being good?
I don't see why it couldn't, but until it does, it hasn't. Now that's wisdom.
"How is less a focus on albums and more a focus on singles "without reason"? The album is gradually becoming irrelevant. Itunes and downloads dominate the industry. Albums sales are dropping dramtically."
This may be true for popular music, where the albums as of late (especially in the 90's and beyond) have consisted of one or two singles and filler. I don't think the 'album' (in terms of, a 35-70 minute block of music split up into tracks) will ever die. If anything it gives musicians more freedom to do things on THEIR terms.
I really disagree with Scaruffi that the reason why music sucks today is because it's so easy to record music nowadays that people don't even rehearse, or whatever it was he said. He's just assuming that the ease and cheapness of recording these days means that all musicians will take the easy way out and not even try, which is ludacris.
Now I will agree that no major innovations musically have happened in a while, which I agree is sort of a problem, but the internet age is just starting. I guess it depends whether or not you can find enjoyment in an album that's well-written but not very original.
To contrast I'd say that there have been more innovations in a much shorter period of time in rock music as opposed to classical.
Frances The Mute is an interesting one. I notice you have Cassandra Gemini on your songs list at a 9. It could be argued this is a mini album in itself. It's certainly a similar length to other albums you consider masterpieces such as Faust. Therefore, had The Mars Volta released Cassandra Gemini as an album, would you not consider it a masterpiece?
You're right I probably would. Damn. Now I wish they had released it as a short lp!
Scaruffi's comments on other web sites are pretty silly if you ask me. All Music Guide dishes out four-star reviews to good, solid albums, but that doesn't mean they're masterpieces. They save the five-star reviews for the masterpieces, and five-star ratings are few and far between. I suspect a lot of music sites are the same way, and ya know what, even if this decade has few album masterpieces, there is a lot of good music out there. I think unlike film reviewers, when musicians release crappy albums, music reviewers just decide these albums aren't really worth writing about, and that's why there aren't too many negative reviews. Scaruffi obviously can't do this because if he just ignored all albums he didn't think were good enough to write about, he'd be left with about 73 albums on his site.
Yeah I think it's important to note that most people don't consider 8/10s masterpieces, just really good albums, unlike Scaruffi. I personally subscribe to his method (as it means real 8/10s are better) as it puts more value on the higher ranks, but an AllMusic 4 Star review can still be really good.
I think negative criticism is in some ways better (especially to albums you don't like) as it opens your mind to other views and bits you hadn't noticed before. Also, it helps to remind you about subjectivity within music criticism, which I believe is very important.
"Perhaps he hasn't listened to every album but if you look at his site it is very clear that he's heard hundreds of albums from each year up through 2005 or so. The only critic who has possibly heard more is probably Christgau."
Hundreds of albums from each year implies he's digesting an album every day or two. Do you think he may be missing something?
Also, you have to realize that almost none of his 9 albums were ever popular at all and thus probably 'slipped through the cracks' back then and have only been discovered now. Masterpieces written now could surface 10 years later...
"Readers encouraged me to read the reviews published by other websites, and particularly their ratings. Needless to say, i am shocked. I went alphabetically through the main releases of 2008, and, for example, Allmusic has given at least four stars to all but two of them. Basically, we live in an amazing era, in which just about every album that is released is a masterpiece. I could not find a website whose ratings were mostly negative. Well, i disagree: so far i only have found one album in 2008 (out of the almost 100 that i have reviewed) that is worth buying."
Scaruffi ought to know that AMG's rating system is really inconsistant and the ratings usually don't match with the reviews. Many websites I go to for music reviews have plenty of negative reviews for this year's albums. The key is not to look at commercial sites but personal ones, such as his own. And four stars is NOT a masterpiece - I can't believe Scaruffi would assume the All Music Guide is using the same rating system as him.
Any good recs for other critics/websites to check out? I'm relatively useless with finding them tbh, the only ones I use are Scaruffi, RYM, Fast n Bulbous (and I know of the bad ones - Pitchfork & Rolling Stone) etc
I always liked the personal ones, like George Starostin or Mark Prindle. Prindle in particular has tons of links to other personal ones. It's nice to see all these reviews written by just one person, as it makes it easier to see what genres you agree with the person on and vice versa.
i agree with Afterhours about the singles/itunes(internet download) argument, but i agree much more with neptune on the fact that there are so many underground artists, not unlike the VU and Beefheart of the 60s, but even more underground. there is a venue here in Cincinnati, OH where i live that features only the loudest art-f***ked music that they can find. the two times i went it was basically white noise, and not much else, which was horrible because i could not tell the difference between most of the bands because at a certain register white noise is only one sound, but needless to say i doubt anyone on here has ever heard those bands. were there any bands that could have yielded a masterpiece of recorded sound in the form that they showed me? well, no, but that is not to say that they did not have a bad performance and had an album of masterpieces for sale but i did not buy them because i thought their art was really really lame (it was basically a bunch of electronic washes that were so intrusive that i could not think nor hear what they were actually trying to do).
just because you do not know of a masterpiece does not mean it does not exist (the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence). technically we did not know of Pärson Sound until 2001, but they recorded that material in 1967-8 and i think it is masterpiece quality material. classical music's masterpieces have had 100's of years to show themselves (and they have) so that is why there are so many (i am new to it, i literally started in september). but i think it is just the personalities that are missing, the single artists creating vast amounts of masterpieces like Zappa, Pere Ubu/David Thomas, Foetus, Beefheart, Buckley, (for those who love the Beatles)… i think it also has to do with what one considers a masterpiece. it is not like finding treasure from a sunken ship. intelligent, knowledgeable people disagree on simple things like the greatness of someone beloved like Dmitri Shostakovich. i have not done a vast, credible search, but the Wik has a section devoted to Pierre Boulez, Igor Stravinsky among others shitting on his work as being borrowed, low, and basically calling him a hack, though generally he is one of the most beloved composers of the 20th century.
in actuality, i think it is unfair to even compare both genre’s entire catalogs against each other because [1] it will take centuries for rock to catch up to the sheer amount of time classical music has had to develop, and [2] rock in some ways is simply a continuation of classical music (simply because its inception was after/during it): they are both just augmentations of sound. give it time, you will find masterpieces in the “rock” realm, you just have to look for them, and have an open mind. i know that this will be arduous, wasteful and very annoying, but it is what you have to do if you want to find them.
This is a good post. It is important to note that so much more is possible now with modern technology. Could we now use white noise to create a masterpiece?
thanks, and so much more is possible as time goes on and ideas get developed due to technology. i think someone can create a masterpiece with white noise, or they already have, it just takes time and effort (my friend took a class where he had to create a piece of music starting completely with white noise - he dropped the class).
Wouldn't a white noise masterpiece be a gimmick? A 'masterpiece' in the same twisted way that some of Stockhausen's music is?
YES!/i mean NO!/err...roger trunk'da'day-vI-sss.... there are people who honestly think that Stockhausen created a masterpiece(s) especially with Gesang der Jünglinge (and fuck what scaruffi thinks on this one, there are many who think he is not only a genius theorist - creating serialism - but a genius composer as well) but i am not one of them. there are people who think that TMR, An Evening With "Wild Man" Fischer, and Parable of Arable Land (and many, many others - Merzbow) are gimmickry, others think they are strokes of genius to varying degrees. i think that they are all masterpieces of eccentricity, but not listenable to the same degree. but, would a white noise work be a purely a gimmick if it is good? i see it as a road less traveled, not through the woods, but too rocky for a regular car or truck (possibly a road like a mound of boulders that are climbed on ESPN programs i have seen). a special off-road vehicle needs to be created and operated delicately. ultimately if it is a tangible reality then it can be accomplished regardless of any perceived gimmickry/novelty - i think that one of Jackson Pollock's works (i thought it was called Brown & Silver or something but i cannot find it now - i saw it in a documentary about the artist some time ago) is a masterpiece but MANY others would dismiss his entire catalogue as novelty and theory.
so, it also depends on what you are looking for in your art. i do think that it can be done! and it may be seen as a gimmick, but that is dissonance that people will have to resolve. there have to be people who think that Merzbow have created masterpieces, and other bands like them that play at that venue i referenced before, so technically there are white noise masterpieces in existence to some ears.
Even though I have listened to jazz mostly for the last five years the only two rock musicians I like are Jimi Hendrix and the Beatles for different reasons
I think in a strange way, the Beatles were a bit like Duke Ellington in their relationships to the main streams of their music. What each did was very personal and innovative but wasn't the starting point for every new thing. As far as Modern Hard Rock is concerned, the development was done by London bands like the Stones, Yardbirds, Manfred Mann, Cream and Led Zeppelin, who had come out of London blues bands like Alexis Korner's Blues Incorporated, John Mayall's Bluesbreakers and the Mann-Hugg Blues Menn. Very little of that music seemed to me to owe anything at all to the Beatles, though everyone recognised the value of what the Beatles were doing.
The Beatles on the other hand were more influential on other genres like the merging of folk with rock and progressive and experimental music in pop and rock.
The Beatles infusing Avant with Classical Indian Music is just as or more important than Sun Ra playing avant garde jazz. The Beatles George Harrison had a unique harmonic sense which derived partly from his erudition in the field of Indian music. Let’s be in no doubt that George was a proficient practitioner in the theory of Indian music, and this was reflected in the way he used certain chord voicings (I’m thinking in particular of diminished chords here), and melodies that to western ears skirt towards dissonance. In fact they are reflecting of the “microtones” of Indian music scales – a good example of this is “Blue Jay Way”, which was directly based on an Indian raga, and is a very advanced example of cross-cultural musical synthesis.
So the Beatles (and Duke) stood outside the main flow, always able to join in when it suited them, but more often than not, not bothering with that flow. Anyone who listens to "Tomorrow Never Knows" or "Within You Without You" to what mainstream rock music was in 1966-1967 knows what I mean.
Stockhausen on John Lennon was the most important mediator between
popular and serious music of this century." Michael Kurtz; "Stockhausen: A Biography", 1994
Scaruffi is a hack anyway.
You've posted this several times and still haven't told us why you like Hendrix.
I'm still testing the waters of Classical music with my toes and have by no means dove in yet. I can name about 5 classical works that I've connected with strongly, but I'm trying to expose myself to it more and more (sometimes forcibly and without clothing...). Personally, I'm finding it very challenging to get into it. If I want to get anything from the experience, I practically have to stop everything that I am doing and listen to it alert and intently, otherwise I get lost very quickly. Beethoven may be an exception to this, I find him to be rather accessible and very powerful. Perhaps it's the complexity of the compositions (which I'm relatively unaccustomed to) or the types of instruments that are played (that I'm not used to hearing). I'm making some progress though. Anyone else experience this?
it's Hardly fair to compare the two