My tagboard is dead!

So, please tag!

One thing I realised about myself is that I am 1) super ambitious 2) I don't like losing and 3) don't give up easily. I'm actually challenging two chopin etudes at once, together with two related movements on a sonata plus another movement of another sonata, plus my three exam pieces. I'm still no where in any of them though =/

Random, but recently it seems like I heard from my parents that I have been listening to classical music since I was in my mother's womb. The reknowned Mozart's effect of "classical music influence", seems (according to research) to increase intelligence. Did some research over the net, this mozart's effect is highly related to his K448 Sonata in Dmajor (for two pianos), it seems to be used in increasing spatial reasoning (according to tests), as well as music "healing", namely to prevent epileptic attacks. It seems it has something to do with the tempo, structure, melodic and harmonic consonance etc..properties of the Sonata.

Okay so now that Sonata is in my playlist. I'll listen to that everyday and I'll see if I can get all As for midyears.
I'm not kidding. pttf.

Anyway, I finally got itunes on my com and uploaded all my newly downloaded songs into my ipod (and now being invaded by my brother). Realised all songs on my com is classical. But I still do listen to pop.

In a singaporean environment and culture marked by shallowness, pop music is definitely extremely popular (as it's name suggest). Ive read several articles over the net, most evidently proving that classical music is definitely superior of pop music, several writers have their butts impaled with fences (sit too long!), and a minority claiming otherwise (pop > classical).I would define classical as any pieces all the way to the romantic period. The classical period (mozart, beethoven, haydn's time) is like a subset within the whole European "concert music". Popular music, is like, you get what I mean. Everyone is guilty of listening to pop.

The first thing you notice about classical music is usually it has a richer texture compared to pop. In orchestras you hear several different instruments played at once. Even in a solo work, there are still many layers, textures and tones in one piece. Thus, it's structure is alot more complex. Evidently, there is no voice n most classical music as contrasted with pop. Classical is pure music. It is also inarguable that classical music is definitely more taxing on the mind to listen. (you have to concentrate to enjoy). It is more stimulating.

Pop on the other hand, uses many other factors to sell itself. I would refer it as impure music. Lyrics as the major impurity. It proves that pop cannot express itself by it's musical structure on it's own. It's like an artist painting a picture, but failing to potray what he wants the viewers to feel, he writes words on his painting. That defeats the purpose of an art. An art work strives to appeal to it's audiences using the most pure, emprical resources. Futhurmore, lyrics are nowadays provoking, and emotionally invoking, this defeats the purpose of the music isn't it. It's like trying to write controversial provoking literature but using music as solely a medium.

Secondly, one major selling point of pop music it's the singer himself or herself. If one finds them attractive, this creates an involuntary bias perception for the "artist". Alot marketting is done in pop, so much that it adds so much impurities that it becomes disgusting. Futhurmore, pop is alot more about the hype. Have you seen any pop concert that the audience is totally silent. More often than not, it's like "feeling thing", the go-with-the-flow syndrome. It aims to make one feel high in a very wrong way. More often than not, with no benefit with the intellectual aspect of the mind. It makes one more inclined to emotions, losing selfcontrol. And the controversial lyrics in pop just aggravates it.

Just as an extension of my argument. Brain research have shown that avid classical fans who have suddenly turn their backs on the classical genre for a lesser choice (pop or rock), have shown evident brain deterioration. Thus, intellectual level is relevant with musical taste.

In one pop>classical arguement that I have read, it says that pop is more versatile than classical because the majority likes it and it appeals to a larger audience, generating more income and providing jobs. (The first rule is that when art is ever concerned, economic factors should never intervene). Have we all learnt that the majority is not always right? This just doesn't prove that one genre is superior than the other. It just proves that the majority we have in this case are shallow.

"Shallow" might not be too nice a classifaction. but remember, it's factual, not opinionated. Just listen to both, and the differences is extremely evident.

However, one major problem about classical listeners in general is the air of superiority and the imposing aura on everyone else that is not like them. Have you noticed, most avid classical fans usually do not recognize pop as music at all. "just mere noise". Pop listeners which are the vast majority would usually not take that stance towards classical as to them it's just something "they cannot understand or appreciate", but classical listeners are always guilty at taking a higher plane and looking down at other genres. The elite behaviour of classical fans, is definitely controversial. But in my opinion, justified.

One trrend I observed in most arguments Ive read which are classical > pop. In the opening pargraph the writer usually declares " I love classical, but I do listen to pop too! ". It's like saying " Im filthy rich, but I eat at hawker centres too". This is definitely not to to appear hostile and superior towards avid pop fans. Just as the same case as me, where I enjoy both classical and pop.

However, to me, pop is no brainer music. You just listen, it's like melodic literature. I do not hastily class pop as "not worthy of the ear", or "not music". I agree that it is music, but impure music.I don't see how modern song writers or even artists (who don't write their own songs most of the time), are greatly and intensively respected/idolized so much and in contrast,the lack of respect, or even knowledge of great composers like Beethoven, Chopin, Mozart etc.

In a peanut shell, it doesn't mean the minority is always wrong because classical music is obsure and unpopular. It just proves that the majority is superficial and lacking in depth.

Written in my own perspective, if you think pop is better than classical, then go live in your own menial world.

Thus, in final conclusion
Classical is lofty, pop is just mediocre, and rock is just rock bottom (no pun intended)

(and perhaps I have just posted the greatest flame-bait in my life, I just shot like everyone I know with the exception of some) Thinking: I should have kept all this to myself.