High Art and Popular Music

[University of Michigan, 2008]

Classical music and popular music each enjoy two very different audiences.  As an advocate of both genres, I find both John Carey and Julian Johnson to be partially correct in their arguments about the differences between the two types of music and how they should be perceived in today’s society.  While popular music should not be shunned as music of the lazy and should be valued for many reasons (as Carey argues), I also agree with Johnson in that it is society that causes classical music to be reserved for the few (“elitist”), by not only reinforcing stereotypes of high art advocates, but by the lack of musical instruction in the educational system and the very nature of its demand for intellectual understanding.

            John Carey argues that there are no rational grounds in discerning classical music (“high art”) from popular music.  He asserts that those who consider classical art to be “high art” think that they lead better, richer, and happier lives, and that everyone else would, too, if they only exposed themselves to higher art forms. These advocates of high art, he goes on, are ignorant of the satisfaction that “lower” art brings. 

            I partially agree with Carey on these points.  Classical music is different from popular music, and should thus be distinguished as a different art form.  If classical music was appreciated and understood by the masses, then it would be perceived as a subgenre of popular music and could be recognized as one and the same.  But it is only the minority that listens to classical music, and its psychological complexity makes it distinctive from popular music.  However, I agree with Carey’s argument that those who advocate purely “high” art forms without experiencing non-Classical music are unjustified in their claims.  They cannot put down “lower” art forms or say that theirs is the only kind that would bring happiness without first listening to it and attempting to understand its purpose and appreciating its artistic expression.

            Popular art should not be put condemned for many reasons.  By its very name, it appeals to the masses.  It is easy to follow, has little psychological puzzles, is “effortless enjoyment,” and is often immediately pleasurable.  Some may argue that listeners or viewers of such forms of art are lazy, careless, and addicted to instant pleasure.  In order to fully appreciate the genius and complexity of the psychological journey of Beethoven’s fifth symphony, the listener may be required to pay a bit more attention to the use of themes, keys, and the use of form.  If a listener isn’t aware of standard sonata form or how to hear keys changes, they may not fully grasp the way Beethoven plays with form, surprises us with modulations, elongates the codas, and adds new instruments and themes when least expected.  To them, a symphony will forever be just a series of notes and melodies, repeated and varied at different levels of dynamics.  However, I find that given the right melody, instrumentation, and perhaps lyrics, a piece based entirely on the one and five chords can be just as enjoyable as the complicated masterpiece of Beethoven’s fifth. 

            Take, for example, the Beatles.  In 1966, they had sold over 150 million records around the world.  Their music appeals to almost all types of people, breaking boundaries of gender, sex, race, and age.  While their music was sold to the masses, it especially appealed to the newly created youth culture of the 1960s, creating a huge sense of unity and convergence among young people. As Carey says, popular music emphasizes a sense of belonging, and restores the community of hunter-gatherer that dates back to the Stone Age, when art was the most culturally significant means of expression. The Beatles are the quintessential example of mass art as a means of community and togetherness.  A common love for the Beatles brought together millions of people in the 1960s, helped to inspire new schools of thought and ideologies, and in essence created an entire new movement:  The Civil Rights Movement.  Yet when we examine the music that the Beatles created, we find that most of it is astoundingly simple, based on one, four, and five chords, often repetitive lyrics, and little melodic motion (more noticeable in the early Beatles’ songs).  But because of innovative instrumentation, specific messages in the lyrics, and technological advances in the studio, millions of people bought their music and coalesced in harmony.  And while the “instant pleasure” aspect of popular, simpler music can easily be associated with the drug craze analogous with Beatlemania, the results of the “instant pleasure” quality of popular music can be viewed as escapism.  And according to Carey, escapism is an essential aspect of human life, fundamental to our sense of our own selves. 

            Johnson, on the other hard, asserts that high art is an essential aspect of humanity.  Like Carey, he defines music as a way of escapism, saying that humans aspire to “exceed the limits of oneself and one’s immediate surroundings.”  High art achieves this because it surpasses material existence by giving the listener a spiritual energy similar to a religious experience.  Because it is manmade, unnatural, and artificial, it can be used to deny the realities of everyday life and take the listener into a world where they pretend to be something they are not.  I would argue that while high art can in fact take a listener to a different world, popular art can achieve the same thing for listeners unaccustomed to the sounds of classical music.  Someone can just as easily escape from the burdens of everyday life by listening to a Rolling Stones song as someone else can transcend reality by listening to a Haydn string quartet.

            I agree with Johnson that elitist thoughts about classical music are reinforced by society.  Because opera tickets may cost more, and because the traditional attire for classical concerts and “high art” performances often require suits and formal wear, one must be of a higher social class to experience high art performances live.  In addition, the educational system has greatly restricted the appreciation and growth of classical music by refusing to fund classical music instruction via orchestras in schools.  Consequently, only those able to afford instruments and private lessons are able to learn classic music.  It is, in fact, elitist in the sense that it is available for understanding to only a select few.  Thanks to technology, classical music is almost instantaneously available to anyone who wishes to listen to it. By simply turning on the radio, buying a CD, or even downloading a song from a file-sharing network free of charge, any person at any time with internet access can listen to classical music.  But only those who have the proper education can fully appreciate it.  Most schools, while having marching bands with trumpets, trombones, flutes, and clarinets, fail to provide their students with sting instruments such as the violin, viola, and cello.  As a result, young people are learning a limited amount of classical music and given a limited amount of education in music history and music theory, making it extremely difficult for people to truly understand and appreciate why Beethoven’s Fifth or Mozart’s sonatas are so significant.

            But classical music need not be elitist and reserved for the select few.  Because classical music does not evoke immediate pleasure, people sometimes immediately reject it.  Yet all it would take to understand higher art, as Johnson states, is “time, care and a nonappetitive approach.”   Therefore, the assertion that those who listen to popular music are lazy can be justified only if they refuse to listen to and appreciate high art music. Listening to and understanding classical music does require a bit of effort, but it is not a task too difficult for the average literate listener.