Recently, I heard someone say this:
"You should listen to more sophisticated, fine tastes of music such as classical. People such as Lady Gaga only become popular because they are essentially cheap music and surrounded by scandals. By the time, such artists die, they are forgotten, however, when you are listening to classical music, is it practically timeless. Remember what happened to Michael Jackson? Well, once he died more attention was called to his music then if he had not died-in 20-30 years he will not be remembered."
That, truly, is simply an opinion, and so I know that many of you may disagree with this statement while many of you may wholeheartedly agree with it. For example, I have heard people say countless times "I just can't listen to classical music unless I'm doing my homework or sleeping...pop, hip hop, and rock music is so much better [state various names of bands, artists here] and it's just more upbeat and cooler." Again, an opinion.
Personally, I am in between. I absolutely adore classical music when you need something to calm or sooth yourself at any given time, and being a violin player, classical music can never go wrong...But honestly? I have nothing against listening to pop, hip hop, or rock (ok maybe I have a lot against rock :D)...but still. On the topic of the fact that pop culture music is "cheap" moneywise, I strongly disagree...In fact, is it really something to argue on? If you go to the store right now, I am positive that a Lady Gaga (or Justin Bieber or Paramore or Linkin Park or 3oh!3 or such...) CD would cost more than simply finding a classical music recording. Even look at concert ticket rates: Compare the hundreds of fans who paid $500-$1000 to see Miley Cyrus in concert versus the mere $100-$250 dollars at most that people spend to see a chamber orchestra or classical performer. Furthermore, I disagree that the music in it itself is "first-rate". Maybe the lyrics are. Maybe the outfits are. Maybe the performances are. But the music? no. Although surprisingly you may never actually have thought this, all those artists do have good, sometimes even amazing voices and vocal ranges. They can do things classical opera singers can't. And they have great music interpretation and rhythym. They're music isn't easy. If you listen to them on the radio, it actually sounds good. Aside from the lyrics, sometimes. Oh, and they love what they do. You don't always see that in classical music. In fact, all you classical music lovers...I'd just advise you to give it a try. Once.
Then, however, once we get to publicity wise and their actually performances, that's when I change sides. I don't particularly blame all these artists however, because it seems as if to keep in the 21st century and be popular, you have to pull off these outrageous things, but still, what do some people do for fame? You don't need to come onto stage in this horrific outfit with strange special effects and odd backup singers. You just don't. It is completely possible to get a standing and completely embarass herself. That's when you can call music "cheap" in the sense that artists try to make themselves stand out and cross the line just to bring attention to them and their music. Have you ever realized that whenever something big happens to someone, people start listening to their music? Yeah.
So, my final point, is that all you strict classical music-listeners who abhor pop, hip hop, or rock music, give it a chance, there actually is a lot of things that you wouldn't expect. But then again, maybe some of them are over-the-top...I'm with you on that ;) The popularity of such music has dramatically increased and so I don't think that it's fitting to just categorize classical music as "elite" and the rest as "cheap." It's just not. Also, since this is a really interesting debatable topic, I'd like to heard all of your opinions...Which side are YOU on?