rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/25/84)
> Now, those of you who try to ascribe greatness to pop music are trying > to call an apple orange. That's not it's job. You want to listen to > some "great" music, listen to Mahler, The Fabulous Poodles, or King > Crimson. Pop isn't trying to be great. It's striving for mediocrity. The problem is that *some* people dismiss the likes of a King Crimson (usually without having heard their music) as non-great, non-serious, "pop" music (popular music) simply because the music isn't performed by licensed notarized serious "classical" musicians approved by the National Institute of Music Purification. That they may or may not be openminded enough to appreciate the music of King Crimson or the Residents or whomever (based on how it sounds instead of on their preconceptions) is a separate problem. That they dismiss whole genres and classes of music as "trivial" and "frivolous", often based on a miniscule sampling of the genres (or NO sampling at all!) is the real problem here. (The "other" problem I mentioned could be remedied by sending such people to the same sorts of music appreciation classes they might like to send others to, only in reverse. 'And now, a Schenckerian analysis of "Lark's Tongue in Aspic, part III"...' :-) Remember, such people consider King Crimson to be "pop". And those of you who are so quick to dismiss real "pop" have obviously never listened to the dB's. (SERIOUSLY!) -- "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