Why do Jazz and Classical Music get a respectability than Rock doesn’t yet get?

March 4, 2007 7 Comments
rock music
Law Man asked:

Content for WordPress
Tags: , , Rock and Pop
7 Comments to “Why do Jazz and Classical Music get a respectability than Rock doesn’t yet get?”
  1. sugaree says:

    it’s my opinion that many classic rock fans, pop music haters, and people that limit themselves by “genres” have become the opinionaters and music snobs.

  2. Rock arose out of popular music, and so it is seen as a part of popular culture, rather than “high culture”. I firmly disagree with this belief, and instead believe that all art has an equal claim to the title of “art”, rather than some high/low dichotomy. I get mad whenever music classes (other than historical music classes) require classical or jazz concert experience, above any other sort of music.

  3. Joshua C says:

    I think Rock is highly regarded within some parts of the music world. The truth is though, it’s all based on preference. Also, Rock is performed by crazy men who generally party. Although these men are artistic geniuses, their behaviour is shrowded by their inappropriate antics. And additionally, you said it yourself, “Rock sucks in other styles”. This furtherly shrowds Rock’s artistic geniuses because it makes them seem like copy-cats who are unoriginal and just try to improve genres that where already great to begin with, thus destroying them.

    I hoped this helped. sorry for the rant. lol.

  4. JB1980 says:

    Jazz and Classical are older and more established, I don’t know if that has anything to do with it. Jazz though, was taboo at first because of the racial boundaries society had.

    Some parts of rock are appreciated – Neal Peart’s drumming for example. I can’t talk to a drummer of any kind without hearing his name come up lol. Brian Wilson is also credited with being a great musician regardless of genre.

  5. Hm…interesting question.

    I’m no music student, but what immediately came to mind is that classical compositions and jazz standards generally aren’t in 4/4, but when rock music attempts anything out of 4/4, it’s labeled as being ‘pretentious’. Maybe there’s just a sense of restriction and a lack of maneuverability in rock music that those other genres don’t have.
    Again, it all comes down to personal predilection in the end, so its probably best to ignore the critics and the snobs.

    Hey…now that I think about, rock music has achieved, like, a cult status, hasn’t it?

    Genius -
    Genius -
    Pretentious -

    That’s fair, right?

  6. I agree. Both are underrated & under appreciated.

  7. Norm Jones says:

    Hello there,

    I am not in complete agreement with the premise upon which you base your question. That is that jazz and classical music get a respectability that rock does not get. Many musicians, especially jazz musicians, and some music critics have given a great deal of praise to some rock. I should under score the word some.

    My assertion is that not all rock is taken seriously for its musical content, because too many rock musicians do not make good quality music. They make popular music. Music that will sell. For some reason, rock music does not have to be good musically to be popular enough to sell. If fluff (in a musical sense) sells, then we make fluff. Why should other musicians consider it anything other that fluff? In a sense that disregard for much of rock has some valid basis.

    Not all rock and not all rock music is taken lightly. This is especially true in the world of jazz. I recall in the late 60s and early 70s, some very well respected jazz musicians doing adapted versions of rock songs. Wes Montgomery comes to mind immediately. Similarly some orchestra conductors have adapted some rock songs to orchestra presentations. Arthur Fiedler and the Boston pops comes to mind in this regard. They recorded several songs by the Beatles. No, not all rock is taken lightly.

    Additionally, I do not agree with the allegation that most of the development of music was done by rock during the last 50 years. I find that assertion narrow minded and perhaps showing a lack of experience with other venues of music. For one, jazz is quite innovative. That is the very nature of jazz music.

    The notion that there is something unique with rock music that does not exist elsewhere is not a well founded argument. If you break rock music down it is a stylized blues with jazz improvisations included. Many well regarded rock musicians were basically blues musicians. Blues, jazz and rock are all quite intertwined. So if jazz and blues are well respected in the musical community, then there is no barrier to rock. The answer must lie elsewhere.

    Nor do I consider the allegation that rock music is popular music as a valid explanation why rock is not taken more seriously as music. That ignores important facts. First, what we refer to as classical music was in fact the pop music of its day. If any music that is the pop music of its time cannot be taken as serious music, then not only would rock be excluded, so would classical music. No, that allegation does not persuade me at all. Second, not all rock music is taken lightly. If some rock is well respected in the musical community, then the answer as to why all rock is not regarded in the same light lies with rock music itself. Again, the answer must lie elsewhere

    Rock musicians are not the only musicians to be influenced by other forms of art and not the only music to incorporate those outside influences. Jazz and blues does the same thing. Classical music does also, but perhaps to a lesser extent because it is a more rigid structure.

    One other notion I discard is the argument that rock musicians are not necessarily well schooled in music theory. I find no basis for disregard of rock in general even if that argument were true. I have serious doubts that it is too. Granted some very influential rock musicians were not able to write musical scores. George Harrison comes to mind. He was talented enough musically to produce works that are well respected throughout the musical community. At least one famous classical composer was deaf. That did not stop him from created highly regarded music. Formal schooling in music theory is not an answer to this question. That same occurrence happens in all venues of music. The answer must lie elsewhere.

    By all those answers that have been eliminated brings me back to why some rock is well regarded and some is not by the musical community. The answer lies in the musical quality of the work itself. Musicians absorb and use (a polite way to say we steal) from any other music that we like or that we think is good musically. We work it into our own style, consciously or subconsciously. Rock musicians are not alone in that regard. All that takes me back to the notion that not all rock is created equal in a musical sense. Not all jazz and not all blues are created equally, I should add. A musician does not absorb ideas from inferior jazz or inferior blues in much the same way he or she would not take from inferior rock There is some much rock music when you combine all the genres that the talent is watered down. There is not enough talent for all rock music to be superior musically. The answer as to why all rock is not taken seriously by the musical community lies in the fact that not all rock is good musically.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Latest Auctions

Hey, check out these auctions: Cool, arent they?

Crowded House – Instinct (Saturday Live, June ’96)

Crowded House playing Instinct on Saturday Live (ITV, UK, June ’96)

Don’t dream it’s over (Cover)

Cover of Crowded House Guitar: Half Vocals: Ivan