tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714230.post111894780730837689..comments2023-04-17T04:04:15.670-04:00Comments on Form/Content: Pop Harmony vs. Classical HarmonyAdam Baratzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05222629748155798158noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714230.post-6029562281251762122009-06-01T12:56:12.692-04:002009-06-01T12:56:12.692-04:00Pop harmony is a direct descendant of classical ha...Pop harmony is a direct descendant of classical harmony, to which it added the blues form. That being said, the striking difference in length of pieces between the two genres led them to develop along fairly distinct direction.<br /><br />Classical music tells a story, within a unit of time on the order of 30 minutes. Pop music reenacts a climactic moment, usually shorter than 4 minutes. Both require rather different skills, both composition wise, and execution wise. The fact that a pop piece is played over and over, makes the usual classical crescendo-like structure impossible. Instead of heightened dynamics, characteristic of the classical world, pop music resorts to compression and limiters, to guarantee an equal volume throughout the entire performance. This is the exact opposite of dynamics. Being a piano composer, of both classical like and pop oriented music, I couldn't tell which one is easier! The fact that a pop piece might be written faster, doesn't amount to much, if, as expected, the piece doesn't sell. <br />That being said, I enjoyed your post, and I'm taking the liberty of directing you to my page on wordpress: http://t0hierry.wordpress.com/<br /><br />music theory (and practice!) blogs are few and far in between. I'd be happy to welcome your comments.<br /><br />thierryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11714230.post-1119144995942192662005-06-18T21:36:00.000-04:002005-06-18T21:36:00.000-04:00Adam,Nice post. I'd just hope to make a couple br...Adam,<BR/><BR/>Nice post. I'd just hope to make a couple brief comments.<BR/><BR/>Keeping in mind, of course, your caveat that none of what you say represents a "value judgment," it's difficult not to attach judgment to the statement that popular music is part of a more "forgiving" tradition than classical music. There seems to be a (perhaps unintentional) implication that pop music will forgive lesser talents than classical music. This might be true, but your discussion of harmonic treatment and taste doesn't really justify the implication. One might also see the same implication in your characterization of Mitchell's music as "clunky."<BR/><BR/>Secondly, I've got to take issue with the assertion that the performance is the final goal of popular music composition, and that the written score is the final goal of classical music composition. It somewhat damns both endeavors-- one, for slighting classical composers in their pursuit of a sonic art object achieved through the visually-transmitted instructions provided by sheet music, and two, for not considering that the *recording* might be the final art-object-goal in popular music. And it's certainly possible to argue that the CD is as permanent and immutable an object as a composer's written score, with audience expectations as high and unforgiving. (If pop audiences didn't put such emphasis on reproducing the CD-recorded versions of pop songs, we wouldn't have such a severe epidemic of pop stars lip-synching at their own shows.)<BR/><BR/>At any rate, it's a great analysis. Looking forward to seeing more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com