response 73 of 97:

Feb 18 21:56 UTC 2000

Well, it's a complicated matter.

On the one hand, when (for instance) the Beatles were new and wildly 
popular, they were dismissed by many people in terms frighteningly 
similar to those used not just about today's popular music, but about 
old pop trash that really has disappeared.  Yet musicologists have 
slowly come to acknowledge (Derek Cooke and Wilfred Mellers were the 
first) that Lennon & McCartney wrote songs of real musical complexity 
and sophistication, even if they didn't know notation or the 
terminology.

So to that extent I applaud the idea of, _when trying to bring music 
appreciation to the masses_, starting off by explaining pop song AABA 
form and going on from there.

But on the other hand, I really bristle at the term "elitist virus".  
For all that some rock is good, the masterpieces of classical music got 
to be called masterpieces for a reason.  (Give rock a couple centuries, 
it'll get there too.)  I am frequently called an elitist in my literary 
as well as my musical tastes, to which I reply "Yes!  I dare to believe 
that some works are actually better than others!"

If _my_ introductory music appreciation classes had been filled with 
rock, I would have walked out and never returned.  That is not what I 
went there to learn about.  There should be classes for all kinds.

Also, there is a belief, and I think it can be justified, that kids 
don't need classes to learn to appreciate rock: they listen to it 
without any classroom help.  Instruction should be for what they are 
less likely to learn by themselves.  (This is not a popular view these 
days.  It's the reason that for decades the Oxford University English 
curriculum ended at 1830, deeply annoying lazy students who wanted to 
major in reading modern novels.)

Much classical music has got what most people like in popular music: 
good tunes and a strong beat.  But it's so much more than that (even in 
the same pieces), and almost all pop isn't more than that.  I know many 
people who like the classical they've heard, but aren't tempted to 
explore further because they're intimidated by the technical and 
academic air surrounding it (much easier to penetrate nowadays with all 
the good amateurs' listening guides published in recent years) and 
because nobody's taught them to listen for the other aspects of the 
music.

The single best guide to the other aspects I've ever seen is a CD-ROM 
of Beethoven's Ninth, published by Voyager with the guide material 
written by Robert Winter, about ten years ago.  It's probably no longer 
available: if not, what a shame.  (Several other CD-ROMs in the same 
series were also pretty good.)

response 75 of 97:

Feb 21 18:45 UTC 2000

Have you ever read "The Real Frank Zappa Book" by Frank Zappa?  There's some
really interesting insights about western music and how orchestras operate.

response 77 of 97:

Feb 22 03:30 UTC 2000

Mind summarizing some of the insights for us, Scott?

response 79 of 97:

Feb 22 15:16 UTC 2000

I don't remember that much about the specific insights, just that they were
good.

Zappa can be considered a serious composer.  He had funny lyrics, but it was
definitely not "joke" music.

response 81 of 97:

Mar 9 21:58 UTC 2000

I can lend my copy of the Real Frank Zappa book.  I think he'd not be too
insulted by the satirist label.

response 83 of 97:

Mar 13 23:51 UTC 2000

I don't mind classical music, but the bulk of it suggest the context of 
the audience it was written for: the aristocracy.  I am not an 
aristocrat, so I'm not always in the mood for classical music.

I have a theory that people's musical tastes change and evolve as they 
grow older and mature.  Part of this I could account for in sensitivity 
to loudness increasing with age, partial hearing loss, especially in 
the upper frequency range, and a greater desire to listen to music to 
relax rather than get riled up.

Of course, I'm overgeneralizing.  But I do think quite a majority of 
classical pieces are not necessarily suited to the very young in 
listening or playing, and more often than not, the majority of 
classical music listeners tend to be older than younger.

However, Ellen Taafe Swilich did recently compose "Peanuts Symphony," a 
work with movements devoted to various characters.  Charles Schulz gave 
his full approval and support before he died, and preschoolers 
responded very favorably to it.

response 85 of 97:

Mar 14 21:24 UTC 2000

I am referring to the context in which much of it was written in and to 
the audience it was written for.  Granted, theme Classical era music 
were a departure from those of the Baroque in more portrayals of the 
common man, but much of this music *was* written for the aristocracy.

The breakdown of previous musical structure and increasing dissonance 
that continued after the late Romantic period and through the 20th 
century reflected a growing middle class that favored more tension in 
musical expression.  These middle class folks didn't favor the light, 
pleasing melodies that the nobility often did.  At the same time, 
musical compositions were beginning to be played much more often than 
once.  I believe it was discussed in another item, but I also think 
that improvisation began to dissapate from Eurocentric music.

response 87 of 97:

Mar 15 08:46 UTC 2000

Try this:  there's nothing inherently aristocratic about a bunch of notes on
a page, but if as a culture we've decided to consider Mozart aristocratic,
that impression isn't going to change overnight because a few people disagree.
The impression of loftiness isn't _part_ of the music, but it clings to it
pretty strongly.

response 89 of 97:

Mar 15 18:43 UTC 2000

There's a fact of the matter as far as the accuracy of Ptolemaic astronomy
goes, which eventually won out over "weird fixed ideas."  When it comes to
the proper interpretation of Mozart, there's nothing _but_ weird fixed ideas.

response 91 of 97:

Apr 1 00:56 UTC 2000

I think I know what lumen is trying to say about Mozart and aristocrats, 
and it ties in with another remark from the same keyboard, about the age 
of listeners.  A reasonbly full appreciation of most classical music 
requires that it be approached in a certain way, with patience and an 
ear for larger-scale structure.  (I've seen the word "epic" applied to 
five-minute pop songs.  What then is left to call Wagner's 15-hour Ring 
Cycle?)

And this ear tends to be lacking among children.  It was certainly 
lacking in me at my first exposure to classical music at the age of 8 or 
9, but 3-4 years later I took to it immediately.

This ear could also be more present among 18th-century aristocrats than 
18th-century peasants, for reasons ranging from childhood training, to 
cultural assumptions, to what might as well be called eugenics.

response 93 of 97:

Apr 1 16:39 UTC 2000

If 15 minute songs are the mark of "aristocratic" music, why aren't the
Grateful Dead considered elitist high culture?

response 95 of 97:

Apr 3 14:44 UTC 2000

I don't know about elitist, Dan, but the Dead absolutely -were- considered
'high' culture.  ;->

response 97 of 97:

Apr 5 17:38 UTC 2000

Recurl writes, "Bopping to a beat seems to be genetic."  It probably 
is, because I have never learned how to do it: I must lack that gene.  
(I like my music highly rhythmic, understand: I just don't _move_ to 
it.)

I think the willingness to learn that is being written about is close 
to what I call patience.  The other component of the patience, of 
course, is the ability to sit still for music that's longer than 5, or 
even 15, minutes.  There's definitely an age-related aspect to that, as 
smaller children find it more difficult to sit still for anything.  
Some classical listeners, though, never develop a patience for longer 
works, and prefer 15-minute light classics all their lives.  That's OK 
too.