Baroque pop

[Demilich]

Yeah because we all know how every single genre tag out there was so well-thought-out that it actually bears any of the significance of the terms from which it is composed. Hell, look at "heavy metal." When this term was first used, people like jasonpiano25 would have been whining that these words were not related to the music at all, and had pre-existing meanings totally irrelevant to the distorted, blues-influenced form of rock music to which it was applied.

Alas, uptight nerds will be just that, and there is very little to be done about it.

 

[i aint play this]

^That's more or less what i think
I don't see how a simple term should be seen as a ''disgrace''. If anything it is a tribute to the baroque movement, or just a point of reference.
Funny how fast exaggeration turns into nonsense.

 

[jasonpiano25]

"Heavy metal" had no previous connotations in the world of music. Baroque most certainly does. Just like "Romantic," which certainly had previous uses and meanings, none of which regarded music, was later applied to the music of the 19th century. It's fine and dandy to label a genre of music with a pre-associated word, but there must not be any previous musical association. And still my point stands that these bands show no Baroque characterstics. Why do they merit such a label? They don't.

And this is anything but a tribute to the baroque movement. Comparing some of these clowns to the genius of Bach, Handel, Monteverdi, Scarlatti, Corelli, etc. is laughable. I don't blame the bands as they had no part in becoming associated with this "genre," I simply blame the idiots who proliferate such a mis-nomenclature.

 

[Demilich]

Any and every definition of the term "baroque" that I've come into contact with in my years of music appreciation has been broad enough that it could be applied to types of music other than those for which the term was initially intended.

"Mis-nomenclature" as you so daftly put it, is one of the most fundamental pillars of the free evolution of language as we know it. Terms take on meanings that have nothing to do with those for which they were coined; verbiage evolves so that antiquated terminology is reassigned. Whatever. Those who refuse to accept progression in this respect will simply be left behind, flailing their limbs in futile attempts to secure the oh-so-sacred definitions of the words they hold dear, while foreward-thinking individuals simply point and laugh

Disclaimer: If you take me 100% seriously here, you deserve more mockery and derision than I care to type out

 

[jasonpiano25]

Well, with my 7+ years of musical education I will disagree with your assumption.

And sure a language will evolve, but does that mean that no word is safe or sacred? Should we just abondon the meanings of all words at the leisure of whomever wants to change them? I say nay!

I am a defender of high art, especially in music. When people casually throw around words that are so dear to me and the music I love it offends. Baroque and pop should never be likened. That is all.

I did not take you 100% seriously here. Roughly 75-80%, though.

 

[MegaMoose]

Well with my approximately ten years of music education, I still maintain that you're a moron and you're throwing a childish hissy fit over something that's not that big of a deal. I love classical, baroque, romantic, and other such styles too, and I don't see why it's so horrible that the term "baroque pop" exists.

 

[Demilich]

you probably masturbate to such garbage as Theodor Adorno's paper on the difference between "serious" and popular music, eh?

surely my disdain for your type of "high art" snobbery is at least equal to your scorn for something as petty as misappropriation of words which are dear to you


I think what it comes down to is this: The use of the term "baroque pop" in no way infringes on the use of "baroque" to describe anything you wish. Non-"high art"-snobs using "your" word in whatever way they choose is but a cursory infringement on an ideal, doing no tangible or credible harm to anything whatsoever.

 

[jasonpiano25]

High art is secondary to pop art in today's society. I find that unfortunate. It wasn't always this way. It's disheartening to know that so much potential is wasted on throw-away music that reveals all of its secrets (if any at all) upon one or two listens. I like my music to be challenging and require a deeper penetration (go ahead and laugh you adolescents) and understanding. If this condemns me, then so be it. I'd prefer it that way.

Ten years of music education, eh? So, you must be in the doctorate stage by now, right? And under what category do your studies fall?

 

[i aint play this]

what do you mean by ''throw-away'' music? what kind of bands are you criticizing?

 

[MegaMoose]

Ten years of music education, eh? So, you must be in the doctorate stage by now, right? And under what category do your studies fall?

To be honest, I was joking about that part. The point being that it's completely irrelevant to this discussion, as are the majority of your comments and that entire last post you made.

In any case, if you like truly challenging music, this forum is definitely the wrong place to be, and you have no business listening to Opeth (who may be challenging in comparison to this week's radio fodder, but in the grand scheme of things are certainly not).

 

[jasonpiano25]

what do you mean by ''throw-away'' music? what kind of bands are you criticizing?

Throw-away music is any music that reveals itself immediately or almost. Basically everything you hear on the popular radio stations.

To be honest, I was joking about that part. The point being that it's completely irrelevant to this discussion, as are the majority of your comments and that entire last post you made.

I wasn't joking. It certainly is relevant as I was defending the use of the word Baroque. How can one do so if they don't have such a background in music? It is completely necessary.

In any case, if you like truly challenging music, this forum is definitely the wrong place to be, and you have no business listening to Opeth (who may be challenging in comparison to this week's radio fodder, but in the grand scheme of things are certainly not).

I know many people that would disagree with you about Opeth. I said I like challenging music, which I believe Opeth are. I didn't say I listen to only the most obscure 20th century composers. If I say I like a challenging exercise routine does that imply that I only enjoy climbing 20,000+ ft. tall mountains? No. The same applies here.

 

[outerone]

Baroque Pop, I like that term I recently discovered Joanna Newsom, that girl is an amazing singer!!!!!

 

[MegaMoose]

I fail to see what could possibly be challenging about Opeth, death growls aside, for someone who has studied music for seven years. Or even especially musically interesting. Sure, they throw in an odd time signature here and there, and they have fairly complicated (but often incoherent) song structures, but hardly anything else in their music could be considered "challenging." Their riffs and melodies go down far more easily than most extreme metal bands, and while riffs on Still Life and Blackwater Park can get pretty complex, they rarely stray from being accessibly melodic. I love Opeth as much as the next person on this forum, but only next to Shania Twain and Korn do the provide all that much of a challenging listen.

 

[Demilich]

I must say that I agree somewhat with MegaMoose here, which isn't to imply that I find any problem with that. I listen to plenty of very simple, straightforward music, and love a lot of it just as much as some of the more challenging, obscure, ornate and elaborate stuff. Opeth, to me, was the band that bridged the gap between the two, opening my eyes to possibilities which were further developed by checking out hundreds of bands through various internet and real-life exploits. I'm still constantly searching for new (and old), challenging material with which to whet my appetite for interesting sounds and recordings.