ahearn@convex.UUCP (08/07/84)
#R:hou4b:-107400:convex:39000005:000:2109
convex!ahearn Aug 7 13:30:00 1984
I'm sorry, but I couldn't let Mark Teribile's remarks pass. In fact,
I'm embarassed by them, even though I'm a rampant classical music fan
myself.
In the first place, I think building myths about the musical erudition of
past generations is pretty silly. I grant you that the leisured classes
may have been more interested in music (and poetry and art, etc.) in
years gone by, but I doubt that the majority of people are any less musically
accomplished than they ever were. Do you really believe your average farmer
or tradesman ever even *imagined* owning a clavier in Bach's time? True,
he made music with what he had, but working people still do (as the
underground music movement testifies.)
Second, to base the claim that "hundreds of years of musical development
...(are)..lost in two generations" on the spurious claim that people are
not as musically aware as they once were is ridiculous. Today, I will
listen on my Walkman to performances of music by Palestrina and Bach and
Beethoven and Stravinsky (and Patti Smith, the English Beat, the Gang of
Four, and Prince). It would be a simple matter to bring along tapes of
Chinese or Indonesian or African music, or delta blues, or Applachian
folk music. I claim that technology has made possible a more varied and
intense exposure to music than ever before in history. (This argument reminds
me of a friend who greeted my news that I'd just used a computer to
complete a sophisticated analysis of money-supply growth with a muttered
comment that "one of these days you'll forget how to add.")
Third, the two previous paragraphs should refute the slanderous assertion
that "the non-performers are interested only in a `song sung for an idiot'."
On the basis of that statement, I can only say thank God I spent the time I
could have spent playing scales and doing finger exercises studying philos-
ophy and learning to *think*. (And thank God I spend it now *listening* to
music, all kinds, from the whole Earth.)
Joe Ahearn
{allegra, ihnp4, uiucds, ctvax}!convex!ahearn
-------------------------------------------------
ex nihilo nihil fitmat@hou4b.UUCP (08/10/84)
convex!ahearn Aug 7 13:30:00 1984 > In the first place, I think building myths about the musical > erudition of past generations is pretty silly. I grant you that > the leisured classes may have been more interested in music > (and poetry and art, etc.) in years gone by, but I doubt that > the majority of people are any less musically accomplished than > they ever were. Do you really believe your average farmer > or tradesman ever even *imagined* owning a clavier in Bach's time? I guess I misrepresented myself somewhat. Certainly in the 19 century a keyboard instrument of some sort was a status symbol when placed in the parlor. In the 18th this was less true, and in the 17th it would indeed be rare. The really widespread ownership of claviers came along with the growth of the middle class. Further, although people may not have been especially accomplished, they were INTERESTED in playing, since that was the only way to get music at home. And if you argue that the less well off had less opportunity, I will agree. > Second, to base the claim that "hundreds of years of musical > development ...(are)..lost in two generations" on the ... > ... is ridiculous. Today, I will listen on my Walkman to > performances of music by Palestrina and Bach and ... Your range of musical tastes already labels you as exceptional. Do you think that you really typify the general population? And even though you listen, do you play? Is music a spectator sport to you? The Classical and Romantic ages witnessed a tremendous growth in the music publishing industry. Composers such as Dvorak and Sousa (when younger) recieved a substantial part of their income as authorship fees on piano arrangements. > ... the slanderous assertion that "the non-performers are interested > only in a `song sung for an idiot'." On the basis of that statement, (I have already mailed this explanation to one person, but perhaps I should publish it ...) The use of the word ``idiot'' was unfortunate. I was caught up in the misquote from Macbeth. Perhaps I should say ``a song sung *for* a spectator, filled with dramatic gesture and exposition, but with no heart''. Today's popular musics (and NOT genuine ethnic musics) leave me feeling like a spectator, watching someone else feeling a range of emotions, but not experiencing them myself. The music is experienced by the performer FOR you, rather than BY you. > I can only say thank God I spent the time I could have spent playing > scales and doing finger exercises studying philosophy and learning to > *think*. (And thank God I spend it now *listening* to music, all > kinds, from the whole Earth.) I can only disagree. As one who has spent much time on the sidelines of life watching and observing and thinking, I'm convinced that you are wrong. Human experience is more than philosophy. As to scales and finger exercises, what about the rewards of actually PLAYING the music. You really do have a very different perspective on it when you are playing, and it is not burdunsome -- in fact it is much MORE fun than listening, although it can be more tiring as well. Both have their place. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) hou5d!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*. (soon hou4b!mat)