Introduction

When speaking about music, people sometimes use two words—genre and style—interchangeably. In a certain sense, they are interchangeable, as both are used to classify different “kinds” of music or artists, but we can break them down a bit further and more accurately. Let’s begin with a comparison to literature: fiction and non-fiction books are different genres of writing. A novel and a biology textbook are two very different genres. Stating that they are different styles does not really get at how different they are—they serve different functions. It would not be helpful–it would be a mistake, actually–to read a review about your biology textbook comparing it to the style of writing of a Stephen King horror novel.

A novel is a genre of writing, which uses fiction as a primary structural element. A romance is also a novel, but is a different sub-genre. Within a genre, one can compare the various styles of different writers’ technique and approach, for example, a Steinbeck novel versus a Hemingway novel.

In pop music, genre and style work similarly to how they are used in literature. Genre refers to the overall category of music: hiphop, rock, punk, metal, country, etc. Style refers to how a specific artist or band expresses themselves within that genre.

In short, genre is the car (motorcycle, racecar, bus), and style is how you drive it. Obviously, your mode of transportation will affect how you drive. Understanding this distinction is useful when trying to understand what musical materials are being used, how they are being used, what commonalities do certain musics have and what differences they have.

Music, like language, changes through the centuries. A Bach invention, a Mahler symphony, and a Drake song are different forms in different genres with very different styles; at first, they may sound as if they have nothing in common. But they all use the same foundational musical “language” and use many of the same materials. The point is they have more elements in common with one another than they do with, for example, an Indian Raga.

While the various genres and styles of mainstream music are fairly well-known, “classical” music gets lumped together into anything that “sounds old” or has violins in it. That’s an exaggeration but is partly true (we’ll explore these important distinctions in the Postlude). What people call classical music is really broken into many different style periods, the most famous are: Baroque (1600-1750), Classical (1750-1825), and Romantic (1825-1900). These three are called the “common practice period” of European “classical” (small c) music.

Before 1600 are the Renaissance and Medieval periods, and after 1900 are numerous sub-styles: impressionism, modernism, expressionism, post-tonalism, neo-classicism/romanticism,  aleatoric, post-modernism, minimalism, etc. (whew!). 

Making Connections

How do we connect musical elements with our personal music? Let’s begin by thinking even more broadly than style and genre: how do you define what music is? We don’t need to get too philosophical here—just think about what makes music important to you? For most of us, it’s what music does—how it makes us feel, how it functions in our lives in different contexts. We use it to dance, workout, drive, worship, celebrate, mourn, study, improve our mood, etc.

The point of any classification system is to help process and understand a lot of information–put it into a manageable form–so these three are a starting point for discussion. These are not hard-boundary categories, and the genres and styles I place under each one will have overlap with others. The goal in delineating these is to show that even though the styles below have enormous differences in sound, and range over centuries of time, the music elements—music theory—can show aesthetically powerful and practical commonalities.

I also need to point out that this approach is only practically dealing with western-based music styles. Ethnomusicology, which is the study of other cultures’ music, is beyond this course, but the theoretical elements covered here are a good introduction to concepts and terminology often used to study and describe many different styles.

Mainstream Music

Broadly speaking, mainstream music refers to music that is…

• broadly known and listened to through mass media.
• commercially successful.
• contemporary. 

I don’t mean commercial cynically—I mean it literally. There’s no judgment in that statement: composers and musicians have been making money composing and performing music for centuries—that’s a good thing! The kind of mega-wealth that is associated with pop artists in the 20th century is a phenomenon of mass media, first associated with the development of recordings and radio, then TV, and eventually the internet. While musicians of earlier centuries did not have quite this level of wealth, most sustained humble—yet steady—careers, and many of them did quite well.

By definition really, mainstream is contemporary. It’s hard to put a strict time limit, but within the past five years is a reasonable start; 10 is starting to seem fairly “dated,” and 20 years is hitting generational limits, especially for those under a certain age. Why try to limit it in terms of time? To use any term meaningfully, it needs to help us understand how the “thing” (this music) is being used and is significant to the people who use it. Sixties music, whether it is the Beatles or Led Zeppelin, was popular, but is now considered “classic rock”. Even though their music lives on, it is not popular in the sense I am defining; it has become Cultural (see next category). It no longer speaks to the broad audience it once did, which is perfectly fine!

One additional caveat, distinguishing mainstream from popular. This will be discussed more in the Concert Hall technique section, but many contemporary bands like to distinguish themselves from “popular” bands in their approach, sound, and aesthetic. I would argue that should still be considered mainstream, unless they distinguish themselves with a) very genre-specific approach (e.g., live versus recorded) and/or b) more specialized techniques and instrumentation that would require specific training or knowledge, as discussed in the avant-garde section below.

Cultural Music

First off, this isn’t to imply that music outside this category is not cultural; it’s to imply that we are focusing on the cultural aspects as primary. Cultural music is usually more circumscribed in function and time than mainstream music. For example, it’s what we celebrate, worship, and mourn with. It’s the music of parties, rites of passage; the church, mosque, and synagogue; weddings, funerals, holidays. It’s tradition, history, ritual, and identity.

Certainly, aspects of cultural and mainstream music overlap, such as having some commercial success, and the strong feelings of identity; however…

• the identity aspects of popular music are generational (skewing younger), whereas cultural music’s identity is inter-generational.
• the commercial extent of cultural music is more limited to viability within a more limited and specific community.
• the contemporary aspect clearly separates most cultural music from mainstream music, i.e., cultural music can be (not always) quite old.

Concert Hall Music

This last category is going to take a bit more time, because it’s explaining the largest amount of music.

Changing the word “classical” to describe this music is not likely to happen (not soon, anyway), despite efforts to try. My friend and colleague, Roger Przytulski, uses concert hall music to describe what people broadly call classical music. After trying many other words, I’ve decided that concert hall music really does the best job.

Three Components

1. Genre

The list above goes from 1787 to 2020, which explains one of the biggest challenges of this category: it’s too big. Some of that problem is solved by having a lot of sub-genre and sub-style names; however, what primarily holds this large group of music together is the importance of the genre, namely, the place, and the importance of live performance.

• Symphony orchestras, including “pops” concerts
• Opera companies
• Musical theater
• Choirs & jazz vocal ensembles (both professional, semi-professional, educational, and religious-affiliated)
• Wind ensembles & jazz big bands (professional and educational)
• Professional soloists and chamber ensembles
• Film/TV and Video Game Scores

Why is that last bullet point included in concert hall music? A) Because many of these get played as stand-alone concert pieces in concert halls; B) all of these also fit the specialized compositional techniques common to all of the other groups listed.

On point A: While a lot of music is similarly focused on live performance, concert hall music is hyperly focused on the genre. Contrast that with mainstream music being focused first on the album, which allows mass media distribution and sales, whereas concert hall music flips that and begins with the venue performance, and then–but only with professional companies and individuals–focuses on the recording sales secondarily.

On point B: Cultural music is also, often, connected with a specific venue and groups, and there can certainly be overlap, but the numerous additional specialized techniques separates much of this repertoire from being readily reproduced. There is often an interesting blend here, admittedly, as historical religious works often enter the secular concert repertoire, separated from their cultural roots.

2. Techniques and Materials

The techniques used to create these genres of music tend to be specialized: one needs to know how, for example, to write for orchestral instruments and multiple voice types. This does take specific training and knowledge to know what is possible on the various instruments and voices, and what can be done practically. Additionally, the compositional elements, particularly those that are unique, rare, and experimental, can make the music more technically complex. This is one of the key reasons that separates, for instance, jazz music from being considered mainstream, as the compositional and performance techniques used within jazz take some very specific training. Additionally, it should also help distinguish alternative mainstream music from popular music

3. Professional level

At their best performance, these works are performed by professionals. Of course, some K-12, college, and community groups perform them, or simpler arrangements of them, but their intent is to be performed by professionals. In the case of movie scores and video game music, they must be performed by professionals, as recording studio time is very expensive, so there is no–or extremely limited–time for rehearsals.

Then and Now

Some of this music was popular at some point in the past, but has now become appreciated for other reasons. One could compare it to why we value many older, “classic” items: paintings, books, statues, buildings, etc. Think about “classic rock” or how the Beatles’ music is still held in such high esteem: we deem its value as important beyond its previous popularity, and worthy of being appreciated, remembered, and studied as exemplars of some of our greatest art.

Conversely, some concert hall music is brand new, but lacks a broader appeal to be considered mainstream. The contemporary portion of concert hall music is unique, again, because of its formal language. These composers sought—and seek—to push the boundaries of how we define music. Much of this music is considered “difficult” and not easily accessible.

What About That Music?

In 1951, Robert Raushenberg painted his famous (infamous?) White Painting (3 panel).

 Avant Garde is a term used to refer to art which is new, cutting-edge, ground-breaking, and this work was considered that. Many people, though, wonder what its value is–was he not a good painter? He was. Maybe on the opposite end of the spectrum, consider Jackson Pollock’s Number 1A, from 1948, which uses his drip, splash, fling technique:

Why should we care about this music? Who’s it for? Should we be “expected” to “like” this music? Taste is very individual, and we’ll tackle that last. But is keeping the work of Rauschenberg, Pollock, Cage, and Penderecki alive, performed, appreciated, sold, and studied the equivalent of keeping the Beatles’ music alive? Pollock’s and Rauschenberg’s paintings have regularly sold in the millions, so, clearly, the answer is “yes” for the avant garde visual arts. But what about avant garde music? It may seem less clear, but when you consider the millions of dollars spent on professional symphony orchestras, opera houses, and university music programs, the answer is also “yes.” (Again, more on the value of the arts later.)

In trying to understand what motivates artists to create works like these, I find it helpful to make two comparisons: the fashion industry and military technology. When we think of a fashion show in Paris or Milan, we think of radically different outfits that it is hard to imagine any of us wearing on an average weekday. This is true, but it is not the point: fashion designers are interested in pushing the boundaries. Eventually, though, what is boundary-pushing becomes accepted, and ends up, in some version, on a Target clothing rack. Here’s a great example of this from The Devil Wears Prada.

Similarly, much of the technology we use daily—computers, smartwatches, smartphones, GPS, etc.—all began as military technology (or it was developed by researchers funded by the government for potential military applications). They were pushing the edge of what was technologically possible and now we reap the benefits.

So much of the music written during the 20th century (and still today) was not concerned with whether it would be popular or commercially successful; they were only interested in exploring what new expressive possibilities music could offer. These experiments made us question, “What is art?”, “What is beautiful?”, “What is artistic value?” These ideas were not unique to music; every area of art was exploring these same questions. Almost any artistic concept around today had its precursors in an earlier artistic experiment, such as sampling having its roots in Musique Concrete.

Connections, Meaning, Craft, and Value

Let’s end where we began: How do you define what music is? Hopefully, this discussion of how we categorize our music helps us also answer that question. Music is defined by how it helps us connect with one another, connect with what’s happening around us, and part of how we create meaning in our lives.

When we hear music that is not within our cultural sphere—socially or historically—we lack immediateness with that music. Someone needs to explain it to us and give it context. There’s nothing wrong with this: it’s how we can grow and expand our awareness and appreciation for new experiences. However, finding or maintaining the motivation to learn about music outside our sphere can definitely be challenging—different is not usually easy.

Music that is pushing boundaries is not meant to be broadly appreciated or enjoyed, and too many academics worry about trying to justify it as if it should be. In my opinion, that’s a waste of energy. Theoretical physicists don’t try to give popular lectures on physics by quoting their published research papers, calculus and all; instead, they give highly visual and engaging explanations and analogies of very complex mathematical ideas. Star Trek and Star Wars have their roots in actual physics, but they are only popular and successful because they advance the storytelling with human meaning.

Composers should do the same.
Avant garde techniques should be explored, shared, sampled, but not expected to meet the mainstream audiences uninterpreted, without meaning.

Art is worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it. That could be considered a cynical way of stating it, as it’s assumes looking at only the extrinsic value, and we should also consider the intrinsic value. But how do we measure that? If taste is so individual, and there’s no use arguing over it (at least not physically!), then how do we measure value? I’ll suggest two ways:

The 91 largest symphonies in the US have a combined annul budgets of $1.5 billion dollars. Granted, this is a very small percentage of the total US music industry, but this sector represents a significant number of local jobs in 91 cities. The “classical” repertoire also represents one of the best areas of growth in streaming services. This is somewhat ironic, granting how much time we just spent discussing the live, space-related nature of this music, but, if it is to maintain relevance, it needs to reach out and be consumed in as many ways as possible. This will not likely foundationally alter the nature of its premiere performances.

As noted, not all musicians, producers, etc. achieve their success through formal education, but many do. In fact, when it comes to certain professional jobs, such as studio musicians for film, tv, and video games, having degrees in performance is mostly inevitable. The role of K-12 and higher education music programs is vital to feeding this music-technical sector of the industry, not only in musicians, composers, arrangers, but also commercial avenues: producers, recording arts, and live sound.

Conclusion