Is Popular Music Really Classical Music?

"Classical Music" as a Proper Noun

John Sarkis
If I started a discussion on what really is classical music, I might be viewed as an Existentialist, perhaps even a Nihilist, but would I be correct or incorrect in the matter?

If I said that 200,000 years ago people were singing songs to each other from trees, while mumbling words to each other at the same time; most people would probably not disagree with me. If I then went on to say that in order for something to be "Classical" (enduring), it would have had to been on our earth for a very long time, most wouldn't disagree with me either. Well, then true poetry and classical music are really what most people would refer to today as "Popular Music." "Popular Music," has very little form and structure, so does the poetry associated with "Popular Music"; the songs people sung on trees 200,000 years ago is very much akin to what we today refer to as "Popular Music." So "Popular Music" today should really be called: "Classical Music."

Even 2000 years ago, philosophers and thinkers debated what true art was. I'm going to attempt to leave literature out of the equation and try to only focus on music. I'll say this though: today, what most people refer to as: "Classical Music"; is really most akin to what most people refer to today as "Great Literature." Aestheticians from the Greek and Roman periods studied the topic of true art vs. natural beauty to a great extend. Oscar Wilde was obsessed with the concept of art vs. true natural beauty as well, making him one the great authorities on the subject of aesthetics. Wilde felt that both art and music were just too unnaturally complicated; and complicated is what bests describes serious music; which is the music of the great masters.

Concertos, symphonies, and sonatas all possess something known as "Sonata Allegro Form." The "Sonata Allegro Form" is only 500 years old. It's very structured and complicated; very new in contrast to songs which were sung by our ancestors 200,000 years ago. The reason the "Sonata Allegro Form" is only 500 years old, is because music was very underdeveloped before then. Key-modulations were difficult for many musical instruments. Of course, if you take into account some symphonies by composers such as Mahler or Shostakovich, their works are the complicated equivalent to something like Tolstoy's "War and Peace," or Proust's "A La Recherché" in literature...all structured, unnatural, and extremely complicated.

So if anything, most people will think twice from now on when they hear the term: "Classical Music" being thrown around.

Although in semantics: "Classical Music" is the music from the mid 18th to the late 18th century only.

Published by John Sarkis

I've written articles, a few short stories, and I'm currently working on a novella. I've also written 2 symphonies, and a handful of piano compositions.  View profile

4 Comments

Post a Comment
  • John Sarkis5/11/2010

    The 'word' popular music was never used before the 20th Century (mid 20th Century)...the French Revolution happened at the end of the 18th Century...I don't
    see the similarities....

    This is a Nietzschean Nihilist style article, and to quote Nietzsche himself (or rather misquote him): if you agree with me on anything I have to say, you got the point just as much as if you disagreed......

    PS. I'd like to see where it's written that the French Revolution had anything to do with differentiating between 'popular' and 'classical' music......

  • David Guion5/11/2010

    The idea of "popular" and "classical" music developed just after the French Revolution. I suppose it's bad form to post links in comments like this, but I have written about the subject on my music blog and on HubPages (using the name allpurposeguru). Basically, popular music is commercial, intended for entertainment, and has immediate appeal. Classical music is less commercial (not to say non-commercial), intended to provide an artistic experience, and makes its best impression after repeated hearing. Classical music of 200 years ago pleases its audience the same way it always has. The audience for 200-year-old popular music is long dead. It provides some pleasure to classical music audiences of today and none at all to popular music audiences. Popular music appeals to a wider audience at any given time, but classical music has a longer shelf life. In each case, formal structures come and go. A Stephen Foster song has one kind of basic form, a blues song another, a Tin Pan Alley song

  • John Sarkis2/27/2009

    My point was that popular music has little if any form in contrast to so called classical music. What people like or don't like is irrelevant to this discussion. If people hated classical music but loved popular music; popular music would still not have a set defined form, and would still be akin to music that existed thousands of years ago.

  • Smorg2/27/2009

    Hmmm... but people aren't still singing the songs the tree-bound ancestors did now so, even though that type of 'music' is older than most, I wouldn't call it 'enduring'. So... pop music is more a designation of current fad music, while classical music (if you define it by its endurance) is music that refuses to die. Not the same thing, I think.

Displaying Comments

To comment, please sign in to your Yahoo! account, or sign up for a new account.