I've already made my perspective fairly well known on these forums, but I'll give you my opinions on your specific questions.
"Do we regard music higher in our hearts when it breaks convention, and if so, should we?"
For me, this depends on whether or not the convention being broken is meaningful (or effective).
Sometimes it's more impacting when music follows a convention but doesn't sound like it. (A lot of masterful composers did this, being so creative with their transitions that it can be very difficult to even say what happens in the music. Music scholars argue over this sort of thing all of the time.)
Sometimes a convention can be broken in the worst way. Deviating from the norm isn't always a good thing. For example, repeating a chorus 10 times in a row isn't typical. But unless you have a very good idea that requires you to express a musical idea in this way, the music is going to be monotonous.
And benk makes a point that I agree with. The average music listener tends to evaluate innovation based on only the stylistic trends of recent popular music (because they do not have a rich background in the history of music). In a way, popular music reset the "progress" of music. Now pop artists are able to steal ideas from great composers of the past, and no one will know. Those pop artists rise to prominence for being geniuses. That is because the average music listener cannot recognize a genius musical idea. It is beyond them. The average music listener cannot see beyond style (what can be referred to as the moment to moment sounds of a music, or the "vibe" it gives off), and does not think about form, structure, or development.
"Is relying on convention in music inherently a bad thing, or is that not true at all?"
No it is not an inherently bad thing!
Expectations are a beautiful thing. And in my opinion, a masterful composer will sometimes break conventions, and sometimes meets a listener's expectations. And he or she will set up patterns and decide whether or not to break them based on the idea that they wish to communicate.
Humans love patterns, and we love organizing things and breaking things down. But most of us don't enjoy pure information (a string of random words where no word is repeated), or pure repetition (the same word over and over). We just can't make sense of either. So it's somewhere in between that compels us, something that we can take meaning from.
Convention is also a good thing for financial reasons. It's easy to look at the sales of a song and think, "Ok, that song just sold 1 million copies, so if I make a song with some similarities people will also like it". And I believe it's okay to do that assuming you like the aspects of the song that you are borrowing, and if you are being creative outside of those areas. That isn't anything new. All of the great composers wrote music influenced by successful composers before them, and they intended on their music being listened to for aesthetic reasons. There is a group of composers who don't worry about their music being listenable. They view the pursuit of music from a scientific standpoint, believing in making musical progress, and pushing boundaries. Since they don't care about what their music sounds like, their only audience is other composers doing the same thing they are doing.
Convention is a bad thing when it becomes about pandering for money. When you are sacrificing your artistic integrity to exploit people, that's a problem. And if you have to just to earn a decent living, shame on people.
"Money is in some respects life's fire: it is a very excellent servant, but a terrible master." -P. T. Barnum
"Does pop rely more on convention than other genres?"
Popular music throughout history has relied on convention more than other genres, yes. But popular music has been around for 100s of years. Most of it hasn't survived though, because the people truly passionate about art tend to gravitate toward the men and women that represent the pinnacles of achievement for humanity. The indisputable geniuses whose art transcends time and place. In the music realm, these are composers like Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Chopin, Mendelssohn, Brahms, Debussy, etc.
"To what extent is it fair to call this distaste for pop music a race/class/culture issue?"
Once a friend/teacher of mine told me that by discounting a majority of pop music, I was also discrediting minorities in art, who have only been able to rise up to prominence in the pop realm. He told me that Jazz came about as a way for African-Americans to explore music in a way that was acceptable to the people. There was no music that represented their culture in America, so they created Jazz. And it wasn't accepted by the "classical music people" for a long time. In many music schools, it is still ignored. And he told me that women are facing the same issue too, that they can't find respect in any sort of scholarly setting because they are expected to write music like white males.
First of all, I think that is a worth consideration. However, I don't care about race/class/culture when I listen to music. Those things are extramusical. But still, I mentioned to him that my favorite musician in the world is part of a minority group (Owen Pallett), that I consider Joanna Newsom (a female composer) to be one of the better composers in the pop realm, and that Miles Davis (an African-American man) has made the only jazz I care for.
He said that naming one person here and there isn't really fixing the problem, and that it's just making the issue more prominent... That we actually have to pick and choose, rather than have a huge base of people we listen to in all sorts of minority groups. But I told him that it's a start, and that if everyone could name a few minority groups, we could share our opinions, and spread the word of great composers until we didn't even need to recognize race/gender/sexuality.
But ultimately, that is of little concern to me. If a composer writes music that resonates with me, I am happy.
"I've always seen it as something more like a language or lexicon to describe the mechanics/theory behind the sound. My theory teacher considers it a tool to weigh the value/quality of a piece."
In this way, you are less naive than your teacher. Music theory is a scientific pursuit. And as such, it is concerned chiefly with how things work. In specific, how music works. But what science in any avenue has failed to explain is WHY things work. Why does the music work? Why is an given master composer's music so effective? We can point out where it modulates, what key its in, its structure, how it deviates from the norm, etc. But in the end, we will come no closer to knowing why it works. But theory does give us a clear language through which we can discuss music. And at that point, we can start to talk about why we think something is effective. And at that point, things can get interesting. We can start saying things like, "Conventionally, having a key change here would be both expected, and effective and the B section in this piece of music.. But no key change occurred. Normally I wouldn't like this, but it's very clear that the composer was aware of his avoidance of the convention, and was attempting to create dissonance. And he carefully waited until right in the middle of the B section to switch keys (rather than the beginning). The change is smooth, and comes at just the right moment, right at the climax of the section."
And these conversations are subjective. Maybe you say that to someone, and they immediately say, "No. He could have changed keys at the beginning AND the middle of the B section, and it would have been more effective." And maybe you will think it over, and you will agree. Or maybe not. But I should hope you would have a reason for thinking what you do.
More importantly, what I'm trying to get across is that effective conversation cannot occur if neither party knows what the other is talking about. That is why theory is important, and you are right, it's just a language to talk about the music. It's isn't a list of criteria that only the objectively good music lives up to (though I can see why people get this confused, because the genius composers of the past were all aware of a multitude of musical possibilities that go largely ignored in a lot of modern/popular music).
As a final note on the subject of theory, it doesn't really help you write better music either, at least not without inspiration and taste. Knowing theory is just a part of learning craftsmanship. But I would go so far as to say that it can be crippling. I'm at a point in my artistic growth where I sometimes allow fumbling with rules slow me down and prevent me from being inspired. But it's an important part of getting to a stage where I can consider all of the possibilities without being weighed down. Imagine if you could effortlessly improvise a melody on the piano (with full accompaniment). Imagine if you could flow between different keys on the piano without even needing to think about it. Imagine how clearly you could express your musical ideas if you had that ability, and then imagine how much work it would take for you to get there. Brahms said, "Without craftsmanship, inspiration is merely a reed shaken in the wind." And I believe he is correct. And I believe that eventually all of these theoretical things become part of your (much more efficient) unconscious mind, rather than your conscious mind. But just knowing of them doesn't make them work. Like I've said, they just say how things work. It's up to a composer to attempt to come up with a situation where they work, and for the listener to agree or disagree with.
And finally..
Since you implied the question, "Can art be good or bad?" I feel I should also comment on this.
The tin foil hat thing that Owen speaks of... It seems to be very common. With almost everyone I have spoken to on the subject of art, it seems that most people wear such a hat, even people who are very aware of great, well-respected music. I however, do not don such a hat when experiencing art, and I seem to be unable to.
People who wear the tin foil hat are often viewed as very open-minded and accepting individuals. It's a wonderful thing to be able to put the good qualities over the bad things. In fact, it's downright admirable.
But people like me, who don't, and even can't, are often considered judgmental and self-righteous. There are ways of getting around this--like being open to debate, choosing your words carefully, and being more than willing to consider counter arguments. And I am this way, but most people do not take the time to figure this out. They immediately write me off as a hipster (because they seem the same way on the surface) who isn't worth their time, or are intimidated and don't speak up. But in reality, I'm not so smart. I'm just curious, and I embrace curiosity in others.
Disclaimer aside, if there is anything I don't like about a work of art, it affects my perception of the work. I can't ignore anything about how it exists unless I don't notice it. So the things that I love, naturally have few to no flaws in my eyes. I view taste as a progression (which means that I even consider myself to still have more growing to do), and I think that if people thought about it more, some others might too.
Think about card games. As a kid I loved the card game War. Many kids love that game, but not very many adults. If you aren't familiar with the game, the only thing you need to know about it is that it is literally a game of chance. After the cards are dealt, neither player can influence the outcome of the game. Though the game might last for an hour or more, the winner is decided the before the game even starts.
With each turn, you flip over a card, and sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose. As a child, not knowing whether you will win or lose before you flip over the card and then seeing the outcome is fun. Because when you win, you feel rewarded, and when you lose, you feel a small sense of loss, yet you feel hope that you can win the next time.
But as most children age a bit, they realize that games exist where they can influence the outcome of a game. It doesn't have to be about chance. It can be more engaging. So a child might move on to something more complex. Go Fish, for example. A game that is based a lot on chance, but also on another skill, memorization. And a child with good memory and pattern recognition will win more than 50% of the time against an opponent of lesser skill.
But then the child becomes an adult. Perhaps they move on to move complex games. Video games even. Lets say they get very interested in fighting games, so interested, in fact, that they become a top level player at some well known fighting game. This is a huge jump in complexity from the previous games. At this point, the adult is capable of executing difficult tasks, recognizing patterns, memorizing combos, identifying playstyle patterns, and most importantly, reading the opponent like a book. Being this skilled at a game requires a ton of work, knowledge, and love for the system. Most gamers never reach this level... And for gamers like this, you would never see them playing War or even Go Fish. We wouldn't expect them to enjoy playing such games. They have simply learned that games have so much more to offer. That games can be so much more complex, so much more stimulating, and so much more rewarding.
And so I wonder, why does the average college girl have the same taste as my 7 year old sister? Why isn't the average listener of music attempting to seek more from music? Why aren't they picking up on patterns? Why don't they know that form/structure is even a part of music? At the Country Music Television awards, the hosts of the show made a crack at Taylor Swift leaving Country music, as if she was pandering to a larger audience to gain popularity. When the audience laughed, I have to wonder if any of them realized that ALL of popular country music is getting closer and closer to top 40's pop music. And if not, I wonder why.
And I have always assumed that the answer to be a simply a lack of commitment. A majority of people do not actively listen to music. They passively listen to music. It's in the background to keep conversations from getting awkward, it's there to dance to, it's something to make homework less boring... etc.
But for me, music has always demanded my attention. If music is on, it deserves my respect. Therefore, if I don't like a song, I generally find that it would be better to not play at all... because it is sub par, it is distracting me from a better use of my time (since it still demands my attention if it is on). I can't really tune it out. In my car, the music is either on full blast, or off. (Please remember that I am speaking as a subject rather than for all of humanity. This is just the way it is for me.)
But back to the child and the game of War. What would happen if we suddenly thrust a very young child into a competitive level match of a fighting game?
Surely the child wouldn't enjoy the game. The child wouldn't be in any more control over his situation. In fact, he would be less in control. He would be less capable of comprehending how to be victorious than in a game of Go Fish (where there are significantly less things to be worried about). In this respect, although it sounds harsh, I believe it is acceptable to say that the child has failed the game. Subjectively, the child will not like the game. But that isn't because the game doesn't have merits. It might be the most well respected fighting game in the history of the world. It doesn't matter. If there is way too much for the child to handle, we should not expect him or her to enjoy the game.
And in this way, I believe that a listener can fail a piece of music. If I took an adult who listens to only the top 40's, and I showed him or her a great symphony, it would be up in the air whether he or she liked it or not (at first). Almost certainly though, he or she would get bored of it well before it was over. This is because there is way too much going on for this listener to comprehend. The listener doesn't have a plethora of stored patterns and expectations that a seasoned listener would. He or she wouldn't be surprised or satisfied by anything, it would just seem random, or worse... Pretentious.
The reason I am dissatisfied with the adult, and not the child, is that an adult actually has the brain capacity, has had the time, and has been exposed to enough music to be aware of the amazing possibilities music provides. Yes, subjectively the music doesn't reach that adult in an impacting way... But that the adult was even capable of evaluating the music properly.
I've noticed this pattern when showing many people a song called Carload of Whatever by Les Mouches. If you haven't heard of them, it's Owen Pallett with his band before he was doing solo stuff (at least, to my knowledge).
I consider Carload of Whatever to be the best song I have ever heard. But the reaction I get from most people I show it to is the reaction most people have when they see Piet Mondrian's art:
pietmondrian.co.uk/Tableau%20No%20IV%20Lozenge%20Composition%20Piet%20Mondrian.jpgwww.piet-mondrian.org/composition-number-2.jsp#prettyPhotoWhen someone sees a work of Mondrian's and they can't see the forest for the trees, it's obvious. What they almost always say is either, "I could have done that!", or worse, "It's just colored squares. A baby could do that!"
Mondrian's work is highly efficient. The complexity is minimal, but there is a lot of depth. It's about composition, as in, the entire layout of the image, where your eyes are meant to be drawn, and the aesthetics of the big picture. Do the images seem balanced to you? They do to me. And notice that instead of using just a pure white, there are multiple "whites" in the image. Does this add interest and enhance the balance? Does it draw your eye to a certain location? I would say that it does. And I love both of these works. I love Mondrian's work.
So how does this relate to Carload of Whatever? When I show this song to individuals, these are the responses I usually get: "I don't get it." or "It's just noise. Anybody can make noise." or "This is so pretentious."
No.
It's raw, and it's noisy, and its subject matter is intense. It's almost as if the music is angry and desperate, and it wants you to be angry too. But it's all calculated, I don't care if it was calculated intentionally or subconsciously, the craft is immaculate. And above all, the shape of the piece is outstanding. Though the structure isn't very far removed from a conventional song.
Typical pop song structure:
Intro-Verse-Chorus-Verse-Chorus-Bridge-Chorus
-or-
(Introduction)ABABCB
Carload of Whatever
Intro-Verse-Chorus-Verse-Chorus-Bridge-Verse(Outro)
-or-
(Introduction)ABABCA
So superficially we appear to have a perfect pop song structure aside from the last chorus being substituted with a verse.
But actually listening to the song, things seem much more weaved together than this.
First of all, the intro is over twice as long as the maximum we would ever expect an intro to be in a song... And it's very lucid.
And it's actually an introduction to the song, rather than just an extension of the verse. But notice how the intensity of the intro is brought back briefly when Owen says, "I'll photograph myself giving head". This happens the 3rd time, which is an atypical time for an event to happen in music, and it's a jarring line to hear in a song, so it's doubly punctuated.
The "Chorus" comes in with the drums and builds tension as if it's leading us somewhere, but it abruptly moves back to the verse, as if it realized it isn't prepared to take an inevitable plunge yet. The music has failed to make the journey to its goal so far, but it's clear that it will try again. It's important to note that there are no vocals this time around.
And we're back to the verse. Very typical after a chorus. This verse is much more active than any part of the music so far. It's all about effects this time around, and really, for the rest of the song. Les Mouches holds your attention by rapidly bringing in and out different sounds (to me, these are some of the most interesting effects I have heard in a song). A chord is struck and repeats rapidly, getting arguably too loud before fading out. And then a beautiful chord fades in, abruptly stopping with a scream of agony or frustration. I find the last lines of the verse to be especially powerful: "Oh boy, oh boy, you're learning to survive. Surviving's what my (the?) parents do." Benjamin Franklin once said, "Some people die at 25 and aren't buried until 75". Somehow I find Owen's way of putting this to be much more raw and real. It's more personal.
And then we abruptly move to the "Chorus" again, and we don't assume lyrics are coming, since they didn't last time. But after one time through the progression, we hear words. Ingenuine excuses for not committing suicide.
Then a sudden "bridge". desperate screams, perhaps in agony. And it's done in a way that I have never heard. The listener is thrust into a frustrating, climactic situation, as if the music is letting it all out on you and you're its sole witness.
This "bridge" isn't functioning as a bridge at all. It feels like where the song was headed the whole time, the true climax of the piece. This is the reason the whole shape works out so well.
And when it ends (with the verse progression), it seems to leave everything behind it. There are no lyrics this time. It just drifts on completely oblivious to what happened as if it is too cold to care... In the same way that time passes us by without the capability of thinking about whether it is right or wrong.
So like Mondrian's Composition, Carload of Whatever seems superficially weird and perhaps even tasteless... Like they are trying to be complex for the sake of being complex. For the sake of being different. But once you look at some of the bigger picture things, the smaller picture things make much more sense. And if you remain open to experimentation, I think that the smaller picture things start to seem like the better choices... In a song that is jarring and dealing with a dense and frustrating topic, what better way to express it than with a jarring and dissonant orchestration?
Anyways... Just some thoughts.
