janzen@sunfun.DEC (Thomas E. Janzen CSS GNG CWO 714 850-7849 SUNFUN::JANZEN) (08/28/84)
perience, and reinforcing social values (including when a rock song caters to adolescent pretense of rebellion - rebellion is part of our culture). Concert music and fine art make appeals to the exchange of ideas and the challenge of new experiences. This accounts for persistent, even bitter, loyalty to old classical music. Non-musicians that listen exclusively to old classical music are using it in the mode of tribal reinforcement, repeating familiar experiences to reassure themselves that nothing important is changing; all the change in our dynamic world is superficial. Leonard Bernstein as much as said this in (I believe) a very old television program on Beethoven's Fifth, something like, "This is something we can depend on, where the notes are always right." Of course the notes are always right, it's the same score he's been indoctrinated into praising. New music listeners are helping prepare themselves for the coming changes in their lives, and also accustom themselves to change (they are better at living with uncertainty). New music may be a more successful agent for social integration, but habit resists it. I have said elsewhere that old classics listeners use classics to define themselves to themselves and others as members of an educated, privileged class. 3. The sole aesthetic criterion for popular music is its success at generating corporate income. The sole criterion for concert music is its success at pleasing its creator in the process of creation. It is of no interest that the work pleases it author after it is complete, or that it pleases an audience, or that it pleases a critic. 4. Popular music uses familiar materials and gradually incorporates materials established by the experimentalist concert music composers (e.g., major triads and electronic synthesis were pionered by experimentalists). Concert music discovers the means of music and teaches it to everyone else. 5. Popular music is more usually persuasive in a complete theatrical context. Concert music has often been presented as independent of theatre. It pursues a pure music, just as other highly stylized arts seek independence (Ivonne Rainer dancing without music, paintings without actors, etc.). 6. I think I had a couple other differences when I thought about this eight years ago, but can't remember them now. Tom Janzen 2300 Fairview Rd. H-201 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Digital Equipment corp. Costa Mesa Tue 28-Aug-1984 09:33 PDT
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (08/30/84)
In Mr. Janzen's otherwise excellent article, I found a few things I couldn't let go by without comment - > New music listeners are helping prepare > themselves for the coming changes in their lives, and also > accustom themselves to change (they are better > at living with uncertainty). And, of course, they *never* make a fetish of newness. > I have said elsewhere that old classics listeners use classics > to define themselves to themselves and others as members of an > educated, privileged class. Right! Taking pleasure in the sound is irrelevant. :-) Just think of the poor listener who likes both new music and old classics. He must be terribly confused! :-) the confused, Jeff Winslow
tss@astrovax.UUCP (Thomas S. Statler) (09/01/84)
To Mr. Janzen's remarks I would also add that classical music requires a great deal more mental effort from all parties involved-- composer, performer(s), and listener-- than does pop. And I don't mean merely that classical works are longer and therefore require sustained concentration, though this is a major part of it. I mean that the effort-per-unit-time is higher in classical music. I admit I don't know much about how pop songs are produced these days, but I can't help but get the impression that quite a bit less work goes into a five-minute rock tune than went into a piece of comparable length by, say, Stravinsky.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/15/84)
> To Mr. Janzen's remarks I would also add that classical music requires > a great deal more mental effort from all parties involved-- composer, > performer(s), and listener-- than does pop. And I don't mean merely that > classical works are longer and therefore require sustained concentration, > though this is a major part of it. I mean that the effort-per-unit-time > is higher in classical music. I admit I don't know much about how pop --------------------------------------- > songs are produced these days, but I can't help but get the impression ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > that quite a bit less work goes into a five-minute rock tune than went ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > into a piece of comparable length by, say, Stravinsky. ------------------------------------------------------- Perhaps that's because the "impression" so many seem to get of "pop songs" is based solely on exposure to Top 40 radio ("WZZZ, home of the sheep, where the commercials are included right in the songs so you can be told what to buy while you sleep"). The list I could offer of artists (mis)labelled as "popular music" (mainly because "popular" hardly describes their status) would floor you. Underground and college radio may be the only places one gets to hear such music (other than live). If you wish to build the fence you've just described (X.Y nunu's, where the nunu is the effort-per-unit-time unit, is the threshold that separates "classical" music from "pop"), what are our choices? Should we move all of the really good music currently called popular "above" the boundary line into the realm of serious/classical/whatever, or should we just forget about making such fences!!!!!!!!! (Amazing how no one has actually engaged in the stereotyping I described, implying that classical music was above some threshold which pop music fell below. :-) Maybe next time I'll just for other people's actions to make my points for me... ) -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/17/84)
> Perhaps you would be good enough to sort out the meaningful comments from > the snide parenthetical remarks in your last article so that I can tell > whether you're agreeing with me or not. [STATLER - astrovax!tss] My parenthetical remarks weren't snide in the least. But, if being tarred with the epithet "agreeing-with-Rich-Rosen" frightens you (:-), I'll elaborate. > I thought we were talking about > the differences between "classical" music (defined in whatever way you want) > and music that is currently "popular". If top-40 tunes aren't popular, > please tell me what is. The discussion revolved around music CLASSIFIED and LABELLED as "classical" and "popular". My point has ALWAYS been to show that the labels are vacuous in content and reliability. Why isn't (e.g.) East Asian music that's hundreds of years old or more included as "classical" music, especially since the argument as to why certain music doesn't "qualify" for the label is simply that it's not old enough? Why are artists who create incredible original sounds lumped into the "popular" bins because they don't fit the above qualifications? The point being that so much stuff that gets thrown into the popular bins at record stores for convenience doesn't belong there if the dictionary definition of the word "popular" is supposed to be the reason they're there. On the other hand, the only reason they're not in the classical bins is due to the stringent arbitrary cliquish (some would say snobbish) criteria set for calling something "classical" music. If you think that the divisions of classical and popular are based on either popularity or quality, you're sadly mistaken. The distinctions are bogus and empty, and often unreliable. You'll notice that Philip Glass, now celebrated as a great "new classical composer", was shoved into "ROCK" sections in record stores (and out of "CLASSICAL" bins and radio stations) during his early years. What's changed? Not his music. (Not THAT much.) Now that he's accepted, the classical community welcomes him as one of their own. How long will it take for Laurie Anderson? I'll include some of my remarks here for reference. Mr. Statler's original remarks described his impression, based on his admittedly limited exposure to the essence of music that gets categorized as "popular". # Perhaps that's because the "impression" so many seem to get of "pop songs" # is based solely on exposure to Top 40 radio ("WZZZ, home of the sheep, where # the commercials are included right in the songs so you can be told what to # buy while you sleep"). The point here, Mr. Statler, is that you admit your exposure to popular music is limited to top 40, which is less music than it is marketing. (Not that there aren't some rather good songs that do reach top 40 status.) Top 40 radio fails to play some of the unpopular "popular" music, for obvious reasons---it won't make them any money. (Just as classical stations play only certain selections at prime market times???????) Thus, you (and so many others) don't even know about any of it. # If you wish to build the fence you've # just described (X.Y nunu's, where the nunu is the effort-per-unit-time unit, # is the threshold that separates "classical" music from "pop"), what are our # choices? Should we move all of the really good music currently called # popular "above" the boundary line into the realm of # serious/classical/whatever, or should we just forget about making such # fences!!!!!!!!! And the point her not being snide either. How does one classify music? Does one have a fixed standard that says above this effort-per-time-unit level is "serious"/"classical", and below is trash, I mean, popular??? What do you do with awful classical music? And what do you do with "popular" music (and again, I use the quotes because it's as much a misnomer as "serious" or "classical") that exceeds the level? Do you bother to classify, or do you just forget it because it's futile and counterproductive? > I stand by my assertion that most popular music requires > less mental effort than most classical music, and furthermore that most > pop-music listeners don't really think about what they're listening to > (which explains why it's popular). If you honestly believe that there is > a "popular" (defined in whatever way you want) composer who puts as much > effort into his work as Stravinsky did, tell me his name and I will dash > to the record store immediately. [STATLER again] Any 20th century artists as good as da Vinci? Michelangelo? I guess 20th century art is garbage. A loaded question: show me anyone in your "school" of music who compares to the very best (arguably) in my school, otherwise your music is lowlife. I venture that most classical music doesn't even remotely approach the intensity of Stravinsky (and I think someone else has already said the same thing in this newsgroup, no?). But between Brian Eno, the Residents, Bill Nelson, XTC, John Cale, Frank Zappa (though I'm not a fan of him myself), Captain Beefheart, Polyrock, Magazine, Fred Frith, Chris Stamey, Yes (circa Close to the Edge), and more, I think I could describe a fairly good sample of "popular" music that has more than its share of quality and listener-effort-required-per-unit-time. (And I've ignored jazz completely, and it IS a form of "popular music": Coltrane, Parker, Coleman, ...) Have you ever even heard of ANY of the aforementioned people? Certainly not if your only exposure to "popular music" is top 40 radio. And that's my point: so much of the stuff that's "not classical" (for whatever reason), that gets lumped in with "popular music", simply ISN'T POPULAR. And, in fact, a lot of it is better than just "quite good". And, yes, they put their fair share of effort into it, and you the listener must apply equal effort. I guess you're safe. You didn't agree with me. Thus you can resume a normal lifestyle without fear. :-) -- "Come with me now to that secret place where the eyes of man have never set foot." Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr