ellis@flairvax.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (07/17/84)
Another reason why classical music is not popular is that it is, for all practical purposes, `dead'. By which I mean there is relatively little experimentation with new ideas, few or no new schools of thought, no exciting breakthroughs, and nothing to attract the most brilliant new musical minds of our time. Look at the explosive development of classical in the first forty years of this century (or in practically any other period since ~1600, except for the equally dead `classical' period). Major new styles used to revitalize classical music with each new generation, and the new music was eagerly consumed by the listening public within 20 years after its invention. Whereas now aging ideas (like serialism, which goes back to the 30's) are still treated as overly modern, at least by the majority of the classical listening audience. No wonder so many young creative composers prefer to go into jazz, esoteric rock, &c, rather than waste their time with a listening public that will not accept any innovation whatsoever. Classical has died from an overabundance of conservatives. -michael `Attentio classical listeners -- ESAD' ellis
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (07/19/84)
*****************
Another reason why classical music is not popular is that it is, for all
practical purposes, `dead'.
By which I mean there is relatively little experimentation with new ideas,
few or no new schools of thought, no exciting breakthroughs, and nothing
to attract the most brilliant new musical minds of our time.
Look at the explosive development of classical in the first forty years of
this century (or in practically any other period since ~1600, except for the
equally dead `classical' period). Major new styles used to revitalize
classical music with each new generation, and the new music was eagerly
consumed by the listening public within 20 years after its invention.
*****************
The period since the First World War is also the first period in which
the music of past ages has been readily available for hearing on demand.
Bach walked many miles to hear Telemann; Berlioz may have heard
Beethoven's Fifth Symphony ten or twenty times in his life. Listeners
HAD to hear mainly new music, and not a lot of that, because that
was what there was to hear. Conversely, the new music had to be
what brought in the cash (or the patrons), because you sure weren't
going to make much off the record royalties from playing other
people's music.
There is lots of good music being composed now ... probably more now
than ever before. But the best of the old music can be heard on a whim.
Pick your style, play the record. Choose your performers, too.
We know pretty intuitively what everything written since music was
notated sounds like -- except what is being written now. But we don't
know the great mass of junk from the old days, just the best.
It's hard for the best contemporary music to compete and to let its style
become sufficiently familiar that it can compete on equal terms.
Only after a style becomes familiar can listeners really appreciate
what is in the composition itself.
Why is pop music pop? Perhaps because it uses only the simplest elements
of the styles of long ago. It doesn't have to compete for stylistic
appreciation, because the styles have been drummed into people's heads
by more repetition than anyone could have heard in a hundred years
before the gramophone. And the compositions themselves are very
much simpler examples than those that are loosely called "classical".
I'm sorry to put myself in Rich Rosen's class of "snobs", because I
usually appreciate what he writes; but I do think that listening
to pop music is often used as a substitute for thinking. When one
is trying to escape thought, one does not want music that provokes it.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmtdavid@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) (07/20/84)
[what, me worry?] I rarely read an article with which I have so completely disagreed than Michael Ellis' recent posting. I don't mean to be contrary, but I was hard-pressed to find any common ground. I guess some people just have little respect for the truth as I see it... :-) >Another reason why classical music is not popular is that it is, for all >practical purposes, `dead'. >By which I mean there is relatively little experimentation with new ideas, >few or no new schools of thought, no exciting breakthroughs, and nothing >to attract the most brilliant new musical minds of our time. This is simply untrue. It's just there is little unity of opinion on what is quality work in the present era, while in previous eras there was often some consensus (though not necessarily the one most moderns hold). Experimentation is the hallmark of contemporary "classical" music. >Look at the explosive development of classical in the first forty years of >this century (or in practically any other period since ~1600, except for the >equally dead `classical' period). Major new styles used to revitalize >classical music with each new generation, and the new music was eagerly >consumed by the listening public within 20 years after its invention. First, the major composers of the classical period (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Schubert) were revolutionaries. They abandoned polyphony to explore harmony; they freed music from aristocratic dependence; they introduced new instruments; they overhauled orchestral techniques; they created new forms. There is more. Also, anyone who thinks quality compostions are eagerly awaited by the next generation of the public must be totally unaware of the century-long lag after Bach's death before his works were popularized by Mendelssohn. >Whereas now aging ideas (like serialism, which goes back to the 30's) are >still treated as overly modern, at least by the majority of the classical >listening audience. No wonder so many young creative composers prefer to go >into jazz, esoteric rock, &c, rather than waste their time with a listening >public that will not accept any innovation whatsoever. >Classical has died from an overabundance of conservatives. If you want to see a field that is populated by conservatives, try popular music. Innovators among rock composers are much more scarce than among "classical" ones. David Rubin
peterh@azure.UUCP (Peter Hinsbeeck) (07/23/84)
$
Come on now, you're all being way to complex about this.
The reason is really simple:
THEY DON'T MIKE THE KICK DRUM!!!!!!
That's why. When they do, it sells...
Thumpus, uninterruptus!
That's what they want...
Bach had the right idea with fortspinnung (or however you spell it!).
greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley) (07/24/84)
I found Mike Ellis' comments interesting as always. I don't really disagree with what he had to say, but want to mention something that I think gets overlooked in discussing the phenomenon of 20th Century composers and the lack of regard and appreciation they seem to get from the "classical" audience. To me, there is no lack of intellectual stimulation to be found in a large number of new works. That was true in the case of the great 18th and 19th century composers also. What they did have that seems lacking today was the ability to communicate to the heart as well as the mind. I'm not interested in sentiment or "kitsch", but I find much of the music of Beethoven, Schubert, Wagner, Berlioz, Mahler and Debussy, among others, able to stir me in ways that are immediate and intuitive and communicate on a level which does not require playing extensive intellectual glass bead games in order to get the message. To me, someone who can appreciate music only with his intellectual facilities or a composer whose work can only appeal to these facilities is missing something, to say the least. With the exception of some works of Britten, earlier works of Copland, and numerous wonderful things by Virgil Thomson and Charles Griffes, I find a lot of contemporary music lacking in this regard. Maybe the other is there and I'm just not getting it. I always feel that what you are able to appreciate in a work of art or performance says as much about your capacities as a human being as it does about the artist or performer and I'm probably expressing a limitation in myself by saying that I find the majority of contemporary works I've heard arid and sterile emotionally. - Greg Paley
rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (07/27/84)
[] As I have not read every item in this infinite seeming series, perhaps I missed it when someone else brought up this point. However, (not to worry) I would assert that classical music <is> popular. The real question in each case being: "popular with whom?" Clearly, classical music is popular with denizens of this newsgroup. If it is not popular with the rest of the world (or even if it is), do we care? Should we? Why? Those to whom "classical is popular" seem able to support it adequately [please excuse my phraseology, after all this <is> 1984]. ....words, words, words ... Dick Grantges hound!rfg
mat@hou4b.UUCP (08/06/84)
I'm bouncing this followup to net.audio as well because I think it will
be of interest there. If you followp to this, please delete the net.audio.
(Aside to Bill Mitchell -- if you see this, please send a confirming reply ...)
In years past, if you wanted music, you had to play it. Music was
written to be sold (sheet music) as well as to be performed. The coming of the
phonograph changed all this.
But what did the ``participatory'' nature of music mean?
Most music would be within the range of a skilled amateur --
or at least could be arranged so that it was.
People took interest in the technical challenges and the rewards. If
a piece was difficult to play, the difficulties had to lead to a pleasing
result. If it did things like modulate keys, invert, or reverse motion,
the player saw this. The interesting things about the performance and the
structure were important, because the performer was a large part of the
audience.
Since most people could play, even as listeners they could hear
the composer doing things that were interesting to the performer.
Today's pop music is written to be heard. It is not meant to pose
interesting puzzles of technique (with appropriate rewards) nor to give
fun to the performer. It is not meant to be interesting from the technical
point of view -- the player's, but only from the listener's point of view.
Contrariwise, ``classical composers'' after Stravinsky (with a few
exceptions) have gotten so wrapped up in the ``meaning of the medium of the
art'' -- ie. the technik -- that they no longer care to speak to the public.
Their language is the technik, not the effect upon the uneducated listener.
Their real audience is other composers and a few musically literate critics.
What we have is epidemic musical illiteracy. The non-performers, by
and large, are interested only in a ``song sung for an idiot, full of sound
and fury, and signifying -- nothing.'' Without a public to communicate to, the
meaningful composers have turned inward, playing little games like Cage's
random ``aleatory music'' -- a mastubatory excercise at best.
I've become really aware of this because I am learning keyboard
(slowly). Most classical lovers, and many others, will have heard the famous
Bouree' by J.S.Bach. What most of us probably don't know is that this little
gem is a teaching piece. I can make my way though the first part of it (my
touch is non-existant) and I have discovered something.
Musical types: I apologize if this is old hat. Non-musical types:
please try to make your way through this.
Bach keeps the left hand in one place for the first seven measures
(assuming the score is written in 4/4, which seems to be more convention
than reality for Bach). The hand rests on (54321) E, F#, G, A, B. Entering
the second-to-last measure, Bach writes G, (for 3 -- middle finger) then
2 (index finger) up to C and thumb to D. Then he calls for 5 (little finger)
to go to D an octave down.
The section is written in a nominal G major, and Bach will end it
there with a G major chord for the left hand. Three notes, when the student
has been playing only one on each hand. But look where that second to last
meaure has left us:
The thumb is on D (dominant of the chord) and the middle finger is now
hovering back around G (the keynote or lowest note of the chord). Meanwhile,
the index finger has pulled down over B -- the middle note of the chord.
Bach has put our left hand in just the right place! All we have to do is
let it down on the keys.
From what I can see, little or none of today's music teaching aids
present this kind of discovery or reward. Why should they? After all, not
everyone will learn to play. Only those who are very dedicated or very
lucky will ever work this stuff through.
What a tragedy! Hundreds of years of musical development lost in
just two generations! We worry about the effect of the computer on the
basic skills of our children. Why, oh why couldn't we have recognized this
happening when the phonograph was invented? Why did it take asbestos and
Thalidomide and Agent Orange and PCBs to make us suspicious of ``progress''?
[ ... as the words fade, they are replaced by the opening ]
[ measures of The Art of the Fugue ... ]
--
from Mole End Mark Terribile
(scrape .. dig ) hou5d!mat
,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*. (soon hou4b!mat)parker@psuvax1.UUCP (Bruce Parker) (08/07/84)
Mssr. Terribile argues that modern classical music is unpopular because it is both unplayable and unlistenable. It would nice if he knew what he was talking about instead of playing one of Bach's Bourees and deciding that he now knows everything about music. (This is not unlike an unfortunate amount of the nonsense which drifts over the net and passes for expertise). Instead I would claim the following: There are still plenty of simple, pleasing pedagogic works available and being written. There are two volumes of children's works by Bartok and other works by Webern, Hindemith, and Kodaly, to name but a few. Though not pedagogic, there are works of Cage and Riley which are certainly easy to play, e.g. Cage's String Quartet and Riley's In C. Contemporary music has become more complicated and more difficult because the ideas expressed are more complex. If your ideas are complex, why limit yourself to incompetent performers? It's been a long time since music was written with the rank amateur in mind. Ever tried to sing Wagner? How about playing the Opus 59 #3 string quartet of Beethoven or the Sinfonia Concertante for Violin and Viola of Mozart? These are not easy works and I would not entrust their performance to anyone without substantial training. Modern music is still quite listenable, it just requires a more educated listener. Mssr. Terribile measures the effect of music in terms of his comprehension. Just because he doesn't understand doesn't mean that the music has no value and no audience. I am reminded of a story of a Japanese who heard one of the first performances of Madam Butterfly and couldn't get over how confused and difficult the music was (I find this amusing since I don't like Puccini anyway though for different reasons). Should one conclude that the whole of western music is junk just because some one person doesn't understand it? (This is meant to be a rhetorical question but somehow I expect this to explode into another topic for long fruitless discussion.) Our culture gives us our perspective on what constitutes "real music". Mssr. Terribile assumes a priori that music should be immediately understood. By whom? Someone from our culture in our time? Imagine what a 13th century monk would have thought of Bach's music or Monteverdi of Wagner's. They would see the similarities but in both cases would decide that the music was too complicated and "didn't play by the rules" of their time. They would conclude that these too were "masturbatory exercises". Should we? In years to come people like Charles Wuorinen, George Crumb, Toru Takemitsu, and Jacob Druckman will be vindicated as the truly great composers that they are, not by musical illiterates but by those who have taken the time to appreciate the thought and musicality with which they've endowed their works. Don't throw out your stereo, Mark. You're going to get tired hearing that Bouree all the time.
granvold@tymix.UUCP (Tom Granvold) (08/13/84)
-
You have an interesting point hee, but I am not sure that I completly
agree with you. On the one hand there is definatly a large differance between
listening to a piece if music and playing it. I played oboe during high school
and for a while in college. I relate to the music that I played more than
that I have just listened to. If I had never played classical music, I
may not have known enough to appreciate listening to it.
On the other hand, there are a great many people today that do play
instruments. I would not be surprised to find that there are more players
today percentage wise than at any other time in history. There are a lot!
of guitar players out there.
Tom Granvold
decvax!ucbvax!oliveb!tymix!granvoldcrandell@ut-sally.UUCP (Jim Crandell) (08/17/84)
> What a tragedy! Hundreds of years of musical development lost in > just two generations! We worry about the effect of the computer on the > basic skills of our children. Why, oh why couldn't we have recognized this > happening when the phonograph was invented? It slipped past most of us, I guess. But somewhere I read that John Phillip Sousa, on discovering the phonograph, prophesied the death of music. Sorry I can't quote the exact remark. -- Jim Crandell, C. S. Dept., The University of Texas at Austin {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!crandell
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/30/84)
> The real decadence lies in most forms of popular music that one hears over the > radio. Just listen to the songs in the Top 40 category. Or disco. Or any of > the in betweens. You can find so many similarities among all the songs, not > just in the lyrics, but also the tune, and musical arrangement as well. And > the audience likes it. [CHONG ONG] It's a good thing nobody actually does this sort of generalizing, pigeonholing and labelling X musics as junk and only Y musics as good. I'm glad to see that I was completely wrong about classical music lovers doing this form of stereotyping. (Is a smiley really necessary:-?) -- "So, it was all a dream!" --Mr. Pither "No, dear, this is the dream; you're still in the cell." --his mother Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
frank@dciem.UUCP (Frank Evans) (08/30/84)
does anyone have a srpare power transformer for the classic Dynaco St-70 power
amp.If you do and wish to sell one then please contact me.
Mr. Frank Evans
27 Barclay St.,Hamilton.
Ontario, Canada
Postal Code L8S-1P1ong@eneevax.UUCP (Chong Ong) (09/01/84)
I do agree that modern 'classical' music requires a more educated listener to appreciate it. In addition, that listener must also be interested in progress in musical development. Some of my friends feel that the atonal quality of Schoenberg and seemingly meaningless music of some 20th century composers is a sign of decadence. I disagree. I consider it the courage and willpower to explore the unconventional and develop new techniques -- and that is progress. The real decadence lies in most forms of popular music that one hears over the radio. Just listen to the songs in the Top 40 category. Or disco. Or any of the in betweens. You can find so many similarities among all the songs, not just in the lyrics, but also the tune, and musical arrangement as well. And the audience likes it. So the songwriters continue to try to satisfy the audience (after all, they have to earn their daily bread) and a vicious circle is formed. Many have tried to break out of this circle, but few have succeeded. And of those who have, they are rarely given publicity by the industry and the prs. Hence, few people get to know their music. Browse through the music stores. How many of them selle works of Kitaro, John Cage, Phillip Glass and other contemporary composers, some of which I may not even have heard of because of poor media coverage? Yet, when I get a chance to listen to any of these new works, they are usually beautiful in a very refreshing way.