The Unbearable Idiocy of Pop Music Elitism
 

Forgive any spelling mistakes, for English is not my first (or barely my second) language.

I recently stumbled upon a somewhat provoking album review on Revolver by The Beatles , and, frankly, could not construct any meaningful or effective rebuttal to it. It's, quite easily, the best review on that particular website, not for what it contains but for what it represents: a unashamed and highly elitist manifesto on the crushingly superiority of Art Music over Pop Music. Of course, nothing new under the Sun, we have all heard or proved with our own ears such statement, but the following response (the comments of said review) is elucidative of something.

If we still ascribe artistic credibility to Pop Music, as I certainly do, one is not shocked at the attempt to defend it, specially it's most powerful representative (in the form of The Beatles). It is undoubtedly more immediate, easier to get into and not fully devoid of deep emotional or even intellectual value. Yet, I cannot help to cringe at stuff like this:

Lennon and McCartney are not even close to Beethoven and Mozart. Or Bach and Chopin. Or Mahler and Verdi. That does not mean they are not valuable, just that when you raise the bar they do no make the cut. A very exceptional cut in their defense.

Another comment states:
Ah, bravo.

Which brings me to my central thesis. Snob-ism, elite-ism, etc... I would bank my house and personal belongings that every single one of the comments that bash the original review for being a Classic (also and almost facetiously described on Wikipedia as serious music) snob are themselves giant Pop Music Snobs (by Pop music I understand recorded music, everything from Metal to Pere Ubu, for argument sake). How can one bash in earnest something like Lady Gaga for being plastic and "just-for-making-music-executives-richer" and praise The Beatles WHILE being appalled that someone would dare cross them in favour of some old dead white guy composer? Aesthetically, what really separates Lady Gaga from The Beatles (not arguing innovation and first something-something through a Leslie speaker) when you bring Verklärte Nacht into the equation? How can one build an hierarchy of quality form Lady Gaga, to Kayne West, to Madonna, to U2, to Arcade Fire, to Kraftwerk, to Radiohead, to Brian Eno, to Pink Floyd... all the way up to The Beatles and then say it stops here and anything else is elitism/or incomparable? One can do that sure, by why accept elitism (or as I call it standards) on a closed system and revile it in an open one? To many interrogations, but I digress.

Is Pop irredeemably separated form the standards of Art Music? But then putting Lennon in the same club to Mozart creates a paradox. One admits that the standards are different, and as such requires two different forms of elitism. Yet, they are comparable, are found in the same category. If not, might as well class Lennon with Lionel Messi, and claim they both excel in their respective fields, and inspire people and etc, etc, etc...

In short, devoting lines and lines of music criticism to rank Pop Artists, and such is clearly the goal of that Sputnik Music website, seems rather meaningless and idiotic when the deities of the genre can be easily surpassed by invoking any Romantic prodigy of the courts of Europe. One cannot look down on the Lady Gaga's of this planet and cry foul when someone does it on The Beatles. It's hypocritical at worse, cognitive-dissonant at best.

But I ramble without cessation...

PS: No special affection or disaffection to either Lady Gaga or The Beatles. Examples are merely examples.

PPS: I admit with no trouble that some Pop Music can be ranked above some Art Music even using Art Music standards. But statically such does not occur often.

The review is by a classical music fan listening to Revolver and expecting to hear something with the musical complexity of Chopin and the lyrical content of a Tolstoy novel. Pop music can't be judged by the same standards as classical music, they have different objectives. For example, I think that Tomorrow Never Knows is a work of art, but the whole song is only one chord. Its artistic value doesn't come from the complexity of the actual notes of the music. However, Tommorrow Never Knows creates a sound, ambience, and state of mind in the listener that classical music could never achieve, because of its instrumentation.

Would be interesting to see what Mozart would have done if he had tried some LSD. Frank Zappa maybe?

Also i'm not sure why he picked Revolver as the exact moment that signalled the decline of Western civilization or whatever he was on about. It's not like Elvis was writing concertos or anything. Plus pop art is art, just axe Andy Warhol

Statements like this are why I hate the Beatles instead of merely disliking them.

I don't think the beatles can do much about that.
I love them by the way. But I already loved music before I got any sort of interest in the Beatles. So the statement is bull**** anyhow.

Exactly. Witch is why the "don't expect to hear Bach" argument does not follow. Either they are excellent pop musicians, and let's leave it at that, or they are geniuses. And if the latter then they must be compared to other geniuses. And they are certainly canonized as geniuses by the critical collective.

A serious discussion on the validity of the Beatles position on the "musical hierarchy" would be most interesting.

Digressing some more...

Here is the difference between Beatles and Gaga in a nutshell:

A) Beatles were accepting a new, and popular form of music. Psychedelic might have been the trend but at the time when it was popular, and Beatles did their own version it was the new thing. Sure, they were just cashing in, but they were cashing in a NEW trend that didn't exist two decades before.

Not only that the Beatles INVENTED new studio technique. Backmasking, usage of feedback(well, this is a tad questionable), and subtle things like that. Beatles were an entirely new studio landscape, one of which was nothing like anything before. Structurally, they are far inferior to classical composers. I mean, I as a massive fan of Bela Bartok say that none of The Beatles even remotely touch him as songwriters. However, they were extremely inventive in the studio. I mean, I've heard things like some of the earliest, if not earliest, self recording digital pianos were custom built for John Lennon.

The Beatles were at least exploring cutting edge technique, and trying in their own way to expand it.

B) Lady Gaga is a professionally trained musician who has worked many years in the studio. From what I hear, she was already a seasoned veteran musician around the time when she, and her producer, 'invented' the Gaga character. With her education, etc. she has a massive access to popular formula.

With that she can write songs off of what she knows is popular. It is very VERY obvious that Lady Gaga has some sort of twisted obsession with the 80s (which makes absolutely no sense to me since she is the same age as me, and I don't ****ing remember the 80s). In fact, if you look closely at anything and EVERYTHING she does it seems almost like a homage, a collection of 80s relics in which the modern teenie bopper audience just doesn't know the existence of.

Unlike the Beatles, Lady Gaga is not taking big risks in order to move 'pop' music forward. She is simply taking these long forgotten formulas, and mashing them together. She is basically taking low intellect Madonna music, and then slapping an aesthetic sheen of 80s art rock randomly onto it.

If that's not deluding the concept enough(Art rock standards? Seriously... Art Rock having standards kind of ruins the point). Gaga isn't creating new art she's simply bastardizing, and oversimplying extremely outdated art. What makes it worst is the further bastardization with the little GWAR publicity stunts she does.

With that said, they're both massively overrated. Unlike the Beatles, however, Gaga is doing nothing but moving us into the past. Beatles at least were trying - in their own way - to actually change things for the future. Gaga is just basically a disgruntled studio musician who gets her giddy thrills off of the fact she's the slightly more intelligent alternative to Katy Perry, and Justin Biebar(and wow... what an accomplishment).

----

Now, as for the argument of pop and classical being a different thing. Of course it is - HOWEVER - that's another reason why I've heavily criticized both acts. There are forms of music which are integrating the best elements of both what the Beatles helped pioneer, and what made more structurally sound classical musicians were helping build. They just go relatively unknown because of their lacking exposure.

Another reason to dislike Gaga who capitalizes of silly shock value, and the aggressive soulless exploitation of gays in place of more creative, ambitious, and interesting music.

^Anyone who gets that worked up over lady gaga clearly is listening to music for the wrong reasons

Gaga has an amazing power of influence. It's foolish not to scrutinize her. Besides, it's in response of trying to explain why acts like The Beatles are often protected more than modern pop acts.

Lady Gaga has been putting out albums for about two years. When the Beatles were at that point in their career they were still releasing regular old insipid pop music that even their biggest defenders are unlikely to describe as pushing any kind of envelope. I really don't see a distinction between them and Lady Gaga.

Plenty of modern classical/avant-garde/early psych rock artists/bands from the 50s and 60s (and even earlier for the modern classical artists) did all of these things before them, in a much more interesting, shocking and paradigm-shifting way. Yes, The Beatles did some good work with it, but they did not invent this style of studio work. Just because nobody was paying attention to innovation when it happened, does not mean that The Beatles started it, nor does it mean they deserve credit for bringing it to the masses.

Ah, that is true. Yet, until Gaga is to do anything more interesting than the bland pile of rehash she's doing, she's not really worthy of the same level of protection. Especially with the ridiculous insane amount of exposure she's getting.

Look, I'm not saying the Beatles are Partch, AMM, Cage, or Varese here. I am saying that they dug deep to the absolute bottom of obscurity to present what they were doing. Whether it was original or not, they were drastically different than the mainstream pop acts 20-30 years from when they started in their post-Revolver. Where as Gaga at the moment is stunningly similar to mainstream pop acts 20-30 years before now. Therefore, in comparison, deserve some consideration.

"Absolute bottom of obscurity"... How exactly is what they did the 'absolute bottom' when you've just stated four artists who have gone beyond what they did experimentally? And those are just general experimentalists... Plenty of other rock bands of the era still went far beyond The Beatles' level of experimentation. The absolute bottom they are not.

Also, plenty of psychedelic sixties bands had a similar sound to The Beatles. Many of them were also very popular. A few years later even, many bands started the whole psychedelic-rock flare up again in a commercial setting, mimicking many of The Beatles' trademarks and getting plenty of recognition for it. Perhaps not at the Beatles level of success, but they were being heard, and it's also not fair to bring popularity too deeply into this as Beatlemania did most of the work for them. Thus, they really weren't drastically different from many other pop acts at all. In the late 60s, many artists got famous off of The Beatles' rush and nobody really even cared about the mild differences in between the two artists.

To claim that The Beatles deserve a place in history for doing half of what other musicians of the time did, except while in a spotlight, is really demeaning to those who actually went the extra mile. I was reading a section of a history book the other day actually, that talked about the rock music of the 50s and 60s in order to show how it affected the people of the time, and all it could really discuss was their popularity. The utter RIOTS they created among fans. Mind you this same book had an entire section devoted to how Stravinsky's Rite of Spring made people go bonkers based off of its visceral, shocking performance. Whether or not The Beatles deserve it is up to you to decide, but they're easily going down in history as a successful band, and not one that inherently pushed any envelope.

I did not mean absolute bottom as in terms of quality, I mean as in terms of how deeply a lot of things were buried(and they're buried deeper now).

Besides, my original reply did say they were knocking off a popular sound. My thing was, they were at least knocking off the popular sound of their time, and - trying - to expand on it. Not just rehashing what was big in the 40s assuming everyone forgot it, or didn't have access to learn about it.

To which I retort with the exact same shpeel - plenty of others were able to mimic exactly what The Beatles did and get rich off of it (thus their music does not merit being worshiped if anybody can mirror their accomplishments), and The Beatles were not the first to do basically anything in the studio, but had the popularity to convince everyone that it was so. The Beatles were not the first to reinvent, and they weren't even the most intriguing at it, so what gives, really? I understand applauding those who gave it a try and did well at it, but claiming they deserved that excess press, the literal obsession that people had with them while other artists pushing harder envelopes (while still maintaining a moderately poppy merit, mind you) were starved of attention? Pass the love around if you ask me, and allow for more than just one flower to flourish.

Also, you seem to be forgetting The Beatles' first few albums, and the fact that their early kitschy sentiment still carries through their entire career, albeit it dies slightly as time wears on. They never did truly 100% escape the whole "We are painfully white and play rock and roll music." frame of mind.

I've just been reminded of how much I dislike talking about this band's acclaim. For every time I mention their purposefully-misspelled name, it gets another Google hit, the hype monster grows stronger regardless of the musical merit, and I die a little inside. And it's especially hurtful when I really don't even hate their music, but wish that that was what they were judged upon and not their sales figures - but I digress.

Eh, Stones are worse, in my eyes. They took less risks when they got more famous.

You're the worst.

What has taking risks got to do with being a good band?

Since when do you need musical eclecticism to be able to write good songs.

That's not to say the Stones didn't have any considering if you actually listen to their stuff rather than just a few overplayed hits you could hear anything from Rock n Roll, R&B, Garage Rock, Pop, Country, Soul, Funk, Blues, Disco, Gospel, Psychadelia and even Reggae.

Good songs, not amazing songs like they're given credit for. I'd never consider the Stones a bad band, I just don't know why exactly they're put on a pedestal above the thousands of other blues rock bands doing the exact same thing. I've never seen them doing it all that much better.

Well i've listened to loads of Blues Rock albums & quite honestly none of them touch Exile On Main Street.

All of this boils down to one thing: music is personal. Everyone keeps trying to come to some consensus on how we should view certain music, but really it would just be like beating your head against a wall. For every person who thinks the Beatles were god's gift to humanity there will be 2 more trying to prove that person wrong. This same argument then gets cycled over and over.

I think someone kind of went into this earlier, but music is also about context. If the Beatles were around in the time of Mozart or any "classical" composers, their music would have been completely ignored. Why? Because music was high class back then. You didn't get to listen to the good stuff unless you were royalty or stinking rich. With the advent of recording technology, being able to play music in your home no longer meant you were special. It shifted to the common man's form of entertainment. The Beatles were perfect in THAT scenario. There are also still plenty of composers around making classical music, but most people don't know who the hell they are.

If we really want to start judging music in any consistent way, then we should focus strictly on how it makes us feel. Classical music can evoke the same emotions for me that a really great pop song can. Pop songs can sometimes have the complexity that would require the skill of a professional composer. You just have to take what that artist did and think "Can just anyone make something like this?".

Composers surely have more theoretical knowledge than a pop musician, but I don't think that has any bearing on who is the better musician. In fact, I think people can get bogged down with the specifics when they go a lot into theory. Music becomes more rigid. Anyway...I'll stop rambling. Everyone's opinion is going to be different.

^ Agree.

It will always be down to individual opinions.

:clap: what a great post <3

Ok, first of all:

One does not exclude the other. They were geniuses within the pop music paradigm, and thus not comparable to classical musicians. You wouldn't compare Galileo with Erik Wallenberg (the inventor of Tetra-pak), would you?

And further on, with all the obvious Beatles-hatred on this forum in mind; It all seems to have its roots not in the music itself or even the four dudes in the band, but in its critical acclaim, and that's just downright nutty. Even in this thread there are already several of you that openly state how you hate/dislike/whatever them because they are overrated, not to mention the multitude of other threads displaying the same logic (or lack thereof). What's up with that? I can certainly understand why one don't wanna listen to "Strawberry fields" for the gazillionth time, I even understand why one doesn't like the music in the first place, but what I do not understand is why someone would dismiss their musical and cultural importance as well as the musical and artistic value in their output. I myself hardly ever listen to them anymore although they are and will always be my favourite band of all time, not least because they were the ones who got me into music altogether, but that's just because I don't really 'need' to anymore.

For one thing, they were groundbreaking, like it or not, but not necessarily in the field of originality altogether but in the field of originality within the pop music paradigm. If you listen chronologically to their discography you will encounter something truly rare for a pop band, namely development. Even the earliest records show progress, maybe bar "Beatles for sale", in relation to the predecessor, be it songwriting, lyrical content or instrumentation. It does not matter who was first with the sitar or the diminished chord; what matters is who could put it to good use within a given format, and few acts have done that so successfully as the Beatles. Contemporary bands like Kinks, Who, Zombies and Stones sure had their own groundbreaking gimmicks on their own which the Beatles never had the chance of pulling off, and rightly so. Zombies, for example, were arguably surpassing Beatles in 1964 with their surprisingly complicated pseudo-baroque songwriting and arrangements, and Stones originated the blues rock which the Beatles most likely wouldn't have pulled off convincingly (and whose importance I acknowledge but don't care much for since I don't like blues).

But none of these bands had the sheer scope and versatility the Beatles had. They did almost everything and they did it good, all for the sake of artistic creativity. Remember how they sacrified touring for exactly that reason in 1966; How many bands would do that as determined as they did? Such stunts speak volumes about them as a visionary band. Or the ultimate breakup in 1970 when they still were at the peak of musicality and artistry? Or the decision to release a plain white album, twice the length of an ordinary album and still come out with winners in 1968? And we haven't even nudged the subject of the influence of "Sgt. Pepper" on the whole prog and artrock movement to come. And anyone dismissing them on the premise of 'datedness' or anything, must remember that all of their inventions, or popularization of inventions, were unheard of at the time.

Of course, one must remain cool-headed and take their obvious flaws in account as well. A metalhead or an avantgarde fogey probably have little appreciation for their music, they were never instrumental virtuosos and they probably have a quite a lot of songs which could be regarded as silly but that's where the personal preferences set in and they are simply not valid in discussions like this.

That was long, but what I'm trying to get across is that eliticism is stupid whenever it targets musical phenomena within contexts they were never part of in the first place. So, if we must compare Beatles with Bach and Stravinsky, then we must do the same with Stones. And their orchestral maneuvers were even way below the Beatles, weren't they?

[2]

Thanks! I do what I can.

Re: Beatles for Sale...The opening killer song hat-trick is worth getting the album alone for opening up to Folk Rock styles. "I'm a Loser" is the winner with John opening up before "Help," showing off a good Dylan influence when having such a style was new. Maybe the rest of the album is half-killer half-filler plus one useless track in "Mr. Moonlight," but "No Reply," "I'm a Loser," and "Baby's in Black" certainly added a little to the Beatles' world.

Sorry for double quoting...but here maybe I can help.

Being a Beatles listener for years, I can see where some can get sick of all of the worship. Add to it that the music certainly ended about 40 years ago, not counting the Anthology add-ons, the time and generation gaps certainly can effect. To some, it's great, to others it's pretty much Dad Rock. Back in the day, a goal of The Beatles seemed to try to knock the old order out of the way (Despite some digressions, of course...yes, I'm referring to a couple of Mr. McCartney's songs like "Honey Pie"), which did result in the Producer Pop moving aside for a while along with other great things as well as some that were not so great (but that's a whole other thread). Keeping to human nature tradition, anyone in connection to now (or at least starting more with the Alternative Late 70's/80's), has a good chance to call The Beatles as over-rated, especially when there has been more edgier music from that period that is just as important but usually overlooked in the Media.

Certinaly Beatles Rock Band and all of the other exploitation which uses their music is not helping matters at all (Across the Universe, the film, anyone?).

Going to the review linked...
Some of the hatred in others gets linked in reviews to the fact that The Beatles helped Rock stay around and grow in it's influence when one's choice of music certainly can get overlooked, expecially if one's taste is more of a Classical or at least a non-Rock base. This makes it all the more tempting for one to develop a attitude against them, especially when the stage is the internet.

Then, there are those who just don't "Dig It."

Again, an opinion is to each their own.

I hated the Beatles for many years, purely on the basis of their fans and acclaim, and then I grew up and gave Abbey Road an opportunity, and admitted that it's a great pop record, regardless of anybody's stigma. You can still respect their work without enjoying it, and can still admit their influence without calling them the "greatest band on earth". Seems silly to let popular opinion ruin music instead of music ruining music.

Eh... I see a lot of these types of discussions all over the web. I just don't see a point in talking about this anymore. People like music for different reasons. Do I think the Beatles are overrated? Yes. Do I think they're a bad band? Hell no. I actually find "Tomorrow Never Knows" to be one of the best psychedelic songs ever recorded. But... it all dwindles down to opinion. Elitism does get a bit old though, and it becomes a bit aggravating. I think all types of art can hold the capability of appreciation, and I think it defeats the purpose of appreciating it when people are bickering about whether someone deserves the acclaim that they receive.

Very insightful, JackPat. That's how I would have put it, too.

I, on the other hand, have given the Beatles numerous opportunities and they just don't do it for me. So constantly being told that have to respect them just makes me like them less.

this was a great question, Dr.Tchock. But on what grounds is the Beatles or Lady Gaga incomparable or not possibly as good as Beethoven or Mozart? they all sound good to my ears.

I'm not demanding anything, simply observing that severe bias (in favour or otherwise) seems to keep most people from what I would consider a reasonable opinion in regards to this particular artist.

There are some true highlights on "For sale" as well, "I'm a loser" being a personal favourite, but taken as a whole it's definitely the most stagnant record of their career. That's not to put it down or anything though.

Every band grows old over time of course, and The Beatles' share of the whole musical catalogue will shrink as well, that's just natural. Thus, there will be more and more options to choose from for every new generation but the fact that Beatles still attract new fans despite their numerous competitors that only grow in numbers, speaks volumes about their standards (not to mention whether all these subsequent bands would have been in the first place without Beatles before them). And as the new generation gets acquainted with them, maybe through the Rock Band exploitation (and yes, exploitation is a good thing), it has a good chance of getting to know more obscure acts further on.

For sure, noone is obliged to like the Beatles, or even "get" them, but that review in question, with its preposterous comparisation to classical music, is just, well, preposterous. I mean, talk about unbearable idiocy of elitism.

i have been called an elitist because I think Interstellar Overdrive is the best piece of music ever written

but hey I'm jiggy with it - i dig Lady Gaga

the 70's called and asked for its shtick back.

Saying that the Beatles are the second coming of Gandhi is not a personal statement. Its being carted out as inherent truth.

Do people say that? Isn't that just a more or less subconscious projection of a strawman from anti-Beatles elitists upon alleged Beatles fanboys?

i'd rather be a Beastie fanboy

Do people overstate the case for the Beatles? Hell yes.

I've heard hundred of different "reasons" for why they are the greatest band of all time. Some of their stuff is alright, but to me it just seems like cookie cutter feel good pop music. When they got more into the hippie movement, they just became even more unbearable.