No, I definitely don’t agree. Frankly, I’ve read more of these kinds of papers over the years than is probably healthy to do so, and my take is that it is usually coming from some guy whose only exposure to “pop” is AC/DC and Niki Minaj. It’s as bad as some guy thinking Schoenberg is what “classical” is and writing the entire era off based on that.
There are only two types of music at the end of the day: Good and bad, and although the styles vary, a common thread runs through all of them.
Complex pieces are not automatically good, and are actually more likely to be bad because the more complex a system is, the more fault lines it has.
Anyway, just from what I see in the tweet, I can rapid fire some of his points as being largely nonsense:
1. “Greater potential for expressiveness…”
Expressiveness comes down to the capabilities of the performer, arrangement/orchestration choices, and to a lesser extent: The techniques available to an instrument.
Pop uses all of the same instruments of the classical world and more. So…yeah.
2. “Due to greater harmonic resources…”
To be honest, I lol’d at this claim of his. Classical music, especially if we’re referring to the actual classical era, was well-known for being much more rigid in harmonic options than the Romantic Era onward. That was pretty much the defining musical difference.
Following his logic, he should be arguing that Jazz is superior to classical music, if “harmonic resources™” are what makes it better.
3. “more contrary motion is employed…”
♪ Electronic yet symphonic, this is our score…♫
You’ll notice in that pre-chorus from pop-metal band Amaranthe that the bassline descends whilst the vocal line ascends. They even include the lyrics “polyphonic” in this same passage. Very on-the-nose.
Every decent pop or rock songwriter understands the importance of having solid voice-leading in their work. Most commonly between the bass and upper lines in a harmony.
Any keyboard player in a pop or metal band understands this. Again, this kind of claim just makes me think the author really doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
4. “There is less rhythmic variety…”
That’s probably because most popular music is derived from dance music, which includes waltzes.
Waltzes have even less rhythmic variety than pop songs, at least where accompaniment is concerned.
However, there are plenty of vocal-driven pop works by the likes of Celtic Woman, Vanessa Williams, etc. that do not have a steady four-on-the-floor pulse and rather have a more fluid tempo and such.
Lastly, I will raise the point that most of the most well-received, famous-the-world-over classical pieces are not only often the composer’s simplest, melody+accompaniment ones, they are sometimes even simpler than modern pop songs. At least the sections that everyone knows.
A few examples:
It hardly gets simpler than this
This old banger could be very easily arranged for any pop group, complete with drum set
Then there’s our boy, Karl Jenkins and his neo-classical hit
All the rhythmic variety…
and this one isn’t exactly Dream Theater
Yet they are great and they do and will endure.
My last thoughts on the subject: There is ultimately nothing from classical music which the author idealizes that is off limits in any other genre of music and (most) other ensembles. The composer or songwriter is only limited by their own skill and imagination in creating a good piece of music.
We have a myriad of styles and instruments available to us at our fingertips today that Beethoven and Mozart could’ve only dreamed of having. Sometimes, a certain approach or style fits one occasion and not another, but just as the masters made the best use of what was available to them in their time, so too must we in ours.