Question for people who listen to classical as well as other types of music?

Elements. The world of music, like pretty much everything else, is made up of elements. There is no kind of music in which I have found nothing to appreciate. Sure, classical and classical-style music are typically more complex than folk, rock, rap, reggae, New Age, pop, heavy metal, and so on and on and on....but complexity does not necessarily make music "better" or "worse."

I am thankful that I can ride trains of emotion with almost any musical experience; nor would I think less of anyone for having narrow tastes in music, no matter what the type of music. I do believe, though, that those who limit themselves to narrow musical experiences (some folks even refuse to try anything outside their comfort zone, which can be a single genre) deprive themselves of enrichment.

Another answerer said "i listen to nearly anything, assuming its not talentless garbage (modern country, rap, etc). the key for me is artistic value. history, culture, and complexity are a few features i look for." I wonder how one can seek artistic value, history, and culture and not find it virtually oozing from virtually all types of music, including the two-plus types that answerer parenthetically listed (modern country, rap, etc.).

It certainly does not make me any smarter or better to be able to find enjoyment in Queen, A Perfect Circle, Albinoni, Glenn Yarbrough, Enya, the mbira, the Ramayana Monkey Chant, street blues of Chicago (God, I miss the Maxwell Street market), Roger Miller, Reba McEntire, Libera, the Land of Lakes Choirboys, Metallica (they do a cool version of Whiskey in the Jar), bouzouki music, Finbar Furey, Larry Long, Country Joe McDonald, Nazareth, Joan Baez, Roberta Peters, Rob Thomas (with and without Matchbox Twenty), countless "garage bands" who may never really go anywhere but who offer gifts to those who will accept, The New Christy Minstrels, Vivaldi, Puccini, Grieg, Rimsky-Korsakov, Scott McKenzie, Bob Dylan, Eddy Arnold, Jane Olivor, Liona Boyd, Simply Red, Pachelbel, Leonard Bernstein, Aaron Copland, Joseph McManners, Patti Page, Outkast, The Roots, Bob Marley, Shaggy, John Denver, John McCutcheon, John Gorka, The Scorpions, Poison, Motley Crue, Smetana, Dvorak, and as many others as possible.

No, it does not make me smarter or better, but I think it makes me rich.

I guess I can't look at every type of music in exactly the same way, but I can look at them with an eye and ear for appreciation. And with gratitude. Sometimes it is the lyrics and message that makes a piece really stand out, and sometimes it is the melody, and sometimes it is the history (of the performer, the composer, the genre, and more), and sometimes it is the simplicity, and sometimes it is the complexity, and sometimes it is the poetry (tonal, mathematical, or verbal), and sometimes, well, you get the idea...there are many reasons to enjoy or at least appreciate different types of music. I sometimes let the moment determine the mood and thus the music, or sometimes I let the mood determine the moment and music, or sometimes I let the music determine the mood and the moment.

Hey, great question, and you are getting some really interesting answers. Thanks for asking.

Lots of well thought opinions here, but of what you mentioned only Pink Floyd isn't bloody awful unless you are drunk. For Floyd you need a different state of mind.

One issue is that modern music is largely song and dance music. If you don't prefer Schubert's songs to his symphonies or Beethoven's dances to his big works that would be a symptom of a form preference.

You may find this bridged by the more instrumental bands; Yes, ELP, or the Grateful Dead. They worked the longer forms. The live versions are preferable as they were not influenced by the record labels. In live music, true instrumental rock of the late 60s and 70s becomes tolerable. In "All Things Must Pass" George Harrison included a vinyl disc (for free, and now in the CD version) that was his band and Eric Clapton "jamming". Music, especially now-days is a commercial product only partially made by musicians, with the record companies having a large invisible hand. So, you can find music that will speak to you if you dig and ask questions like you did.

Much "rock" comes from old blues and boogie, and uses a different scale system than classical. This can be learned and is an acquired taste. No music style has a monopoly on depth or expession. I am still primarily a listener of serious classical (Bruckner/Sibelius) but I have endeavored to be open to all music. I have found much trash and a few gems, but that is normal, classical only seems great since the trash has been weeded out by time.

I will recommend Grateful Dead's "Eyes of the World", "Dark Star" and "The Other One" (best scherzo since Mahler's 5th), in the live versions. The bassist was a classical composer who hung with Elliot Carter, the rythym guitar studied quartets for ideas, and the drummers, well, they did much of the soundtrack of "Apocalypse Now".

Music is music, keep your ears open it is better to sift through the pebbles in your pan for a few lumps of gold than toss out the whole pan.

If classical music appeals to and works one's left brain, I'd be a math and science genius by now. Which I'm not. In fact, math and science are my worst subjects. I'm not in any sense a math or science nerd. And I'm classically trained. I don't think it has anything to do with which part of your brain each type of music stimulates. Pop music doesn't stimulate my right brain at all. I don't feel anything when I hear them. If anything, I find it annoying how come the 'singers' can't sing something emotional without sounding like they're trying to grind their vocal cords out by half screaming or shouting. It makes my own throat uncomfortable and tight, even though I don't consciously make it that way.

I'm surrounded by pop/rock music once I finish school (I'm studying in a conservatory). I don't have any prejudice against them, but I just find that they can't keep my attention. I pretty much end up letting it run on autopilot in the background and go and do other things at the same time. Usually I don't even remember what I just heard. Whereas, when I hear classical music, it catches my attention. I actually listen to it. I guess I must be missing something too.

I think the major draw of pop and rock music (and other stuff like that) is that yes, it has catchy tunes, lyrics and a regular beat pounded into your ears the whole time. You're right to say you can tap your foot to it. Plus it's easier to understand since there are actually words. A lot of people are so used to hearing lyrics that, once the words are taken away, they have no idea what a piece is about. Likewise, many pop/rock songs lose their meaning completely once the lyrics are taken out. Whereas for classical music, even if the words or an aria are taken out, one can still more or less understand the piece because of how the composers used harmony and texture to convey the mood of that particular piece.

It seems superficial, but for me personally, pop and rock ARE superficial as compared to classical music. I'm not purposely being an elitist - I really feel that way. Because if anything is 'deep', it would catch my attention and focus much easier.

That being said, I would consider composers like Bernstein, Kern, Porter and the likes to be amongst the more 'classic' forms of contemporary music. I actually like them. I also like jazz, and even some country or blues. I just can't manage to feel anything with pop or rock, or rap.

yes, classical is great to listen to because it has so many levels, and it is oustandingly beautiful but pop, rock, r and b have something that classical doesnt; really simple concept with a great beat that you can listen to without thinking. Pop yes, like you said comes exclusively from the catchyness of the tune or how it makes you move. It's not superficial, it's just something thats simple to understand. you can't listen to pop music like you listen to classical, they are not the same, the standards are completley different and the instruments well, are nothing alike. So, just let go of classic, branch a little bit more, enjoy the dance beats and the lyics.

I can go from Bach to Britney Spears in a day.

"Are you saying the enjoyment of popular music comes exclusively from the "catchyness" of a tune"?

Yes! Pop music tends to have good, catchy melodies that really make you want to sing a long! If that's superficial, thats fine by me..classical music on the other hand,makes me emotional and makes me think.

I started out with a lot of classical music in my teens and branched out more in my twenties.

Yes there is a lot of lack of depth in pop. That's why I stay away from Britney, T-Pain, etc. I'm more into the off-beat stuff with interesting lyrics. I like Gnarls Barkley, Beck's "Modern Guilt", etc. I do listen to some Muse and they're good too. I usually listen to good DJs and the albums they produce (like Danger Mouse). I work in a store with pop Muzak and I find 70% to be too boring. You just have refined taste and there's nothing wrong with that. I think many people's tastes are too low brow and could do with an extra culture injection. :)

I do not view them the same way. To me the appeal of popular music is the lyrics. The melodies and harmonic structure are very VERY basic and have no allure to me. But the lyrics (especially when they are a little cryptic) and often the unbridled and unfiltered emotion of the singers are really the appeal.

I also LOVE popular music to get me "pumped" when working out. The strong beat to me is much more driving than classical music.

I definitely trip people out sometimes, but I like all kinds. Not a big fan of Radiohead, per se, but as for some specific artists other than the pure clasiccal music I like: Linkin Park Creed 2Pac Eminem Michael Buble Andrea Bocelli Just a few... but my favourite thing to do is just to flip through my cd changer in my car (1. Andrea Bocelli, 2. 2Pac... 3. Hard rock mix) lol

That is the purpose of pop music because it is purely entertainment rather than art. It can be very enjoyable but it is more superficial of course. It depends on what you are listening to music for but there's no way the same tune over and over again is as deep as Renaissance polyphony for instance which was a symbol of people's religious devotion.

I put the music I listen to into two realms:

Classical Music/Jazz

Popular Music/anything else

Classical & Jazz are the best, and popular music is (usually) just for fun. To me, when listening to Rock, Rap, Pop etc, it is way easier to comprehend, so I don't listen to it as an ordeal in itself. I listen to Popular Music on my mp3 player while I'm on the bus, going for a run, in the gym, in the car, at school, etc. But with Classical and Jazz it is something that is better experienced while concentrating on it, so I take time out of my day to sit down in my room and listen.

A good analogy is books and television. Television is something you just pop on at times for fun. But a book, you typically sit down and read the book. I like both, but I find reading books to be far more rewarding.