Is Classical Music considered to be inherently superior to all else?

[coykiesaol]

Is it? Or is there any modern music that can hold up? Can John Williams's work, for example, compare to that of any classical composer?
[URL="http://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/45483-classical-music-considered-inherently-superior-all-else.html#ixzz1Oa2Ahse8"]
[/URL]

[gryphon]

I think I would need an explanation of the basis of this assumption...........I can't really see that it has any real foundation:nod:

[Music Head]

by classical music purists, sure

[Tiggi]

If you mean "Is the composition of Classical music superior to the popular music of today ?", then undoubtedly. The sheer complexity of Classical scores leaves most modern music standing. That, of itself, means little in terms of whether you enjoy it or not, but in absolute terms Classical composers were streets ahead of what we're used to today.

You mention John Williams. Although he's undoubtedly very talented, he's in a similar position to the above. Nothing he's done should be considered as approaching the standard of much of the Classical canon.

All IMVHO...

[SteveO]

The modern composers are out there but whether or not they're comparable to the masters, I doubt it.

I listen to Arvo Part mainly because he's with ECM records and they usually release quality music(good production and sound overall for the money). Also Hans Zimmer wrote a massive score for The Gladiator. Whether or not this neo-classical music can hold your attention or inspire you like Beethoven's 9th is another topic.

[JTRiff]

No. Not close.
Music mattered. Only the greatest were allowed near instruments at all.

Now, cheap junk for the masses, and you can buy your way in.

[gryphon]

"Music mattered. Only the greatest were allowed near instruments at all." JTRiff

If that is true why is the world littered with Folk music? Negro spirituals, simple plain song was prevalent in Church music and requires no instruments................................