Paul Morley on classical music

[Joe Hutch]

I'm not sure how much 'teaching people how to think' went on in the olden days. From my rapidly-fading memory, we had a great deal of rote learning, supplemented by the threat of being hit with a leather strap if we didn't learn quickly enough, plus religious indoctrination on an industrial scale. We did have 'music appreciation' as part of General Studies A level, but all I remember of that is some Haydn, (which I quite enjoyed) and 'Jesus Christ Superstar' (which I certainly didn't enjoy). I think one of my daughters had 'critical thinking' on her curriculum, about ten or so years back.

 

[mr.datsun]

Hard to say. But listen to pop music now and compare it to that from year 2000 and I doubt you'll find any discernible difference.

Try again with music from '50 and '65.....or '65 and '80.....or '80 and '95.

Massive differences.

It's notable that you left out '95-2014.

Going back to the Morley article he talks about how there are still things to listen to and he hasn't totally given up on pop. But I think he's saying that now the sound changes as technology changes but we're still hearing the same songs. Songs haven't changed - they just get dressed in new production techniques and new marketing strategies...

'The alluring, addictive sound of pop does still evolve, but what is sung about remains more or less the same; the poses, controversies and costumes repetitive and derivative....'

 

[mr.datsun]

Anyway Paul Morley seemed determined not to accept his changing taste as the result of getting older and being alienated by popular culture for that reason. Spirit of the aged, sadly, not spirit of the age.

I refuse to accept this too. What does it mean? We get to an age and pop suddenly becomes boring?* Does this mean pop is aimed at only 12 or 22 year olds? That is surely talking about a kind of pop that is marketed at 12 or 22 years. That it's not designed to appeal to anyone else? Or lyrically pop is stuck writing about things that only matter to 12 or 22 year olds? I refuse to accept that the song is for kids and youngsters only. There is pop and more generally song that can appeal to people with wider interests in life than we had as teens and young adults.

*And if pop suddenly becomes boring at age X then that would also mean that all the old pop we love suddenly becomes boring. It doesn't. We still listen to it.

 

[mr.datsun]

But why did you think that?

There is a tendency, which I have long encountered, to something like inverse snobbery, for want of a better term, meaning that many people I knew would deride classical music as boring, fuddy duddy, dull, etc,etc for little reason I could fathom...


It has always intrigued me where this "classical is boring" meme comes from.

It's because has a basis in truth. We have to accept that a lot of classical music is boring fuddy duddy, dull etc. It's a fact. Same as a lot of pop, jazz, rock, soul etc etc is boring fuddy duddy, dull etc.

I only listen to 0.05 % of everything out there. The rest does not hold interest for me because it's dull or historically or creatively repetitive. And that goes for every genre of music there is.

If you thought a piece of music was dull when you were younger - you may have been right all along. I say – don't give in to pressure to like everything because you've suddenly reached an age where you should really start liking Opera.

One last thought - I always like when it when someone finds something interesting in something I previously found boring. I have plenty of time for people who can help look at things with a fresh ear or eye..

 

[Mullardman]

I refuse to accept this too. What does it mean? We get to an age and pop suddenly becomes boring?* Does this mean pop is aimed at only 12 or 22 year olds? That is surely talking about a kind of pop that is marketed at 12 or 22 years. That it's not designed to appeal to anyone else? Or lyrically pop is stuck writing about things that only matter to 12 or 22 year olds? I refuse to accept that the song is for kids and youngsters only. There is pop and more generally song that can appeal to people with wider interests in life than we had as teens and young adults.

*And if pop suddenly becomes boring at age X then that would also mean that all the old pop we love suddenly becomes boring. It doesn't. We still listen to it.

Now there I broadly agree. It is that dumb thinking about 'pop' which encouraged the BBC to wipe all manner of classic pop performances from its archives, which is why we find more 60s UK pop vids on German and US clips on Youtube.

I'm a huge fan of 50s/60s pop. In many ways it doesn't matter why. Me liking the stuff does nobody any harm.

Personally, I love pop more now than I ever did, though it is a certain type. I'm really interested in the 1950s pop which formed a backdrop to my childhood, but also in tracing the origins.

I love tracing the 'family trees of black music in the USA, and seeing how the inevitable 'covers' by white bands fared. And the way that the whole UK 'Merseybeat' and wider 'Beat Group' and later 'Brit Blues' movements were all founded on copying, but, and importantly, giving a new slant and feel to black American music.

Frankly, not much on the current pop scene grabs me. It is no longer the shared experience it was, when everyone from small kids to Granny had a view on it and we all watched TOTP. It all seems to be 'niche' stuff now.

Where does that leave us?

Fcuked if I know.

I like a lot of classical and lots of most musical genres. Those I don't like, or 'get' are very much in the minority. ( Funk, fusion, free jazz, James Last, Andre Rieu. I don't especially dislike the current crop of 'Boybands'. They are just an irrelevance, like their numerous predecessors.)

Thing is though that just as always, there is also a constant flow of music in all genres which doesn't chart and which is largely discovered via word of mouth, internet, fora such as this etc., etc.

Music is still healthy. We just need to stop relying on traditional sources for finding it.

Mull