|
Grex > Classicalmusic > #54: Music retail again: SKR Uptown (Classical) & Downtown to close |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 194 responses total. |
brighn
|
|
response 89 of 194:
| 
Jan 25 04:23 UTC 2001 |
No, that's because everyone who used to listen to classical music in their
car fell asleep at the wheel. ;}
|
gull
|
|
response 90 of 194:
|
Jan 25 04:36 UTC 2001 |
Most NPR stations seem to play classical music for most of the day, here...
|
scg
|
|
response 91 of 194:
|
Jan 25 06:05 UTC 2001 |
The Ann Arbor NPR station switched from classical music to talk a few years
ago. Last I checked (which has admittedly been at least seven months), there
were still three classical stations that could be gotten in Ann Arbor: WGTE
in Toledo, WKAR in East Lansing, and CBET in Windsor. Detroit had only one:
CBET.
|
davel
|
|
response 92 of 194:
|
Jan 25 14:38 UTC 2001 |
That's still correct, AFAIK. We (in Milan, near A2) listen to all 3 of those.
|
md
|
|
response 93 of 194:
|
Jan 25 16:40 UTC 2001 |
The elitist thing is a problem. One side contends that pop music
appeals to listeners with crappy taste. People who wear expensive
understated clothes and live in tastefully decorated houses will listen
to the musical equivalent of a polyester leisure suit in a trailer
park. People who pride themselves on dining on gourmet food will do so
while listening to the musical equivalent of a Big Mac. If there's
good and bad this, why not good and bad that? As soon as you admit
that one kind of *anything* is better than another, you've enabled me
to say the classical music is better than pop music. If you disagree,
it's because you literally don't know any better.
The other side contends that it's all just a matter of taste, and that
one kind of music can't possibly be intrinsically better than another.
How can it? It's all just notes on a page. Are you seriously saying
that the notes on a page of classical music are somehow more moral or
more politically correct than the notes on a page of pop music? That
sitting through a Bach cantata makes me a better person that listening
to a Beatles song?
The flaw in the first ("absolutist") position is that if you can say
classical is better than pop, then I can say that pop is better than
classical. I assure you, my reasons for believing so are every bit as
valid as yours. Try me and see. The flaw in the relativist position
is that no one is really a relativist when it comes to their own likes
and dislikes. The same people who say that classical music is no
better than pop music because no one kind of music can be intrinsically
superior to another will also say, often in the next breath, that (for
example) Britney Spears' music is inferior to Tori Amos' music.
Sometimes they'll even react like, "Oh please. This is a completely
different matter." In other words, the relativists tend to be flaming
hypocrites.
|
krj
|
|
response 94 of 194:
|
Jan 25 17:02 UTC 2001 |
I feel like I've just been deconstructed.
|
brighn
|
|
response 95 of 194:
|
Jan 25 17:07 UTC 2001 |
There are non-aesthetic grounds for classifying neurological stimuli,
actually, so there's an objective scale for qualifying music, but (a) that's
very rarely what anyone means when they say "this music is good"; (b)
neurological stimuli effects are most likely fairly minor when compared to
environmentally-learned effects; and (c) I'm not aware of many studies on the
innate human neurological effects of music. Oh yeah, and (d), such effects
would mostly likely apply more to performance (tempo, type of instruments,
agressiveness of play) than to composition. [most>most] I do recall reading
of one study where various genres of music were played to groups to see what
the effects would be, and C&W yieled more aggressive behavior than any other
genre, but I rather suspect that's environemtally learned behavior.
Beyond that, aesthetics ARE socially determined. What's interesting about
aesthetic sensibilities, though, is that they rarely match what the masses
enjoy. Is it the case that the masses eat Big Macs instead of filet mignon
because they can't afford the latter, or because they honestly prefer the
former (on a hedonist, is not aesthetic, level)? Surely much of it is expense,
butI daresay many McDonald's haunters would stick with their Big Macs, even
if given a choice. If this is so -- and if Britney Spears sells more albums
than [insert folk/classical musician here] -- then why do the BRITNEY SPEARS
fans, by and large, think of classical music as being "higher" in intrinisic
quality than what they listen to (and many of them do)? That's what I see as
an interesting social effect, and one that's been around for a long while
(centuries, if not longer) -- it's not surprising that DSO fans would see
Spears as being poor quality, but it's surprising (to me) that many Spears
fans would rank Spears as low quality, aesthetically...
"... oh yeah, it's ham, but she means every word in a ten minute ballad of
despair ... " (Soft Cell, L'Esqualita)
If you THINK it's crap, why consume it? Either you don't think you yourself
deserve any better (which explains the popularity of the Dummies and Complete
Idiots books), or you don't really think it's crap but you don't have the
verbal concepts to debate with someone who does, and you're learned not to
even bother. After all, the aesthetes have a lengthy dialogue about what makes
art good or bad; how can you, the lowly pubescent who still interjects "like"
five times in every sentence, hope to compete with that?
|
brighn
|
|
response 96 of 194:
|
Jan 25 17:09 UTC 2001 |
(as if Ken wasn't feeling deconstructed enough... he slipped in).
|
katie
|
|
response 97 of 194:
|
Jan 25 23:43 UTC 2001 |
I like both kinds of music...country *and* western!
|
keesan
|
|
response 98 of 194:
|
Jan 25 23:47 UTC 2001 |
Some of the Dummies books are well written and are aimed not at stupid people
but at ignorant people. Maybe classical music requires more training to
appreciate it. I have heard lots of bad classical music and some good pop
music.
|
janc
|
|
response 99 of 194:
|
Jan 26 06:13 UTC 2001 |
People are capable of recognizing more than one kind of "better". Lots of
people who personally enjoy listening to Britney Spears (and generally bathing
in her aura and associating with other fans) may still recognize that in terms
of impressing people in society in general presenting yourself as a Britney
Spears fan is not going to win you as much prestige as presenting yourself
as a classical fan, or afficiado of Neo-Sino-Jamacian Elbow Jazz Septets. And
awful lot of "better" is "more prestigious" and I think that that is much more
strongly culturally determined than "it makes me happy when I hear it" and
much more widely agreed upon. Music assoicated with disadvantaged social
groups (teenagers and hicks, for two) is broadly disdained. (On the other
hand, its fashionable for the elite to like black music, so jazz has been
co-opted and blacks had to invent a whole new kind of music (rap) to make sure
they wouldn't be mistaken for rich white socialites.)
|
dbratman
|
|
response 100 of 194:
|
Jan 26 07:36 UTC 2001 |
Paul Kershaw #87 wrote: "It's not splitting hairs to point out
that "appalling" carries a value judgment. It does."
And "disappointing" also carries a value judgment. The hair-splitting
criticism of John was for saying "appalling" rather
than "disappointing" (actual example offered in the critique).
Bruce #84 wrote: "once you have The New World Symphony in your
collection, you are not going to have to replace it very often."
That depends on what kind of classical collector you are. I know
people who really do insist on getting all the recordings, though
they're considered a little odd. A large part of the late 80s-90s
classical boom consisted of people replacing their LPs with CDs. Both
of which examples rather prove the point.
McNally #80 wrote: "It's clearly apparent to anyone who cares about
music that the diversity of music being recorded is declining
substantially in conjunction with modern music marketing and retail
trends."
That depends entirely on where you shop. (And on what you define as
the golden age of diverse music, I suppose.)
Michael Delizia #93 wrote: "The other side contends that it's all just
a matter of taste, and that one kind of music can't possibly be
intrinsically better than another. How can it? It's all just notes on
a page. Are you seriously saying that the notes on a page of classical
music are somehow more moral or more politically correct than the notes
on a page of pop music? That sitting through a Bach cantata makes me a
better person that listening to a Beatles song?"
The flaw in that argument is not that nobody is a perfect relativist,
it's that those are really anemic and comically utilitarian ways of
judging the relative value of art. More aesthetically valid methods
should not be hard to think of.
|
md
|
|
response 101 of 194:
|
Jan 26 12:16 UTC 2001 |
You wouldn't think so.
|
orinoco
|
|
response 102 of 194:
|
Jan 26 17:13 UTC 2001 |
There's a third alternative to the two that Michael Deliza mentions in
#93. It's possible to be an absolutist when discussing two examples of
the same genre, but a relativist when discussing two different genres.
This lets you say things like "The Beatles are a great pop band" and
"Johnny Cash is a great country singer." and even "Garth Brooks is a
decent pop singer, but a terrible country musician" without needing to
have an opinion about whether pop is _better_ than country.
The idea here would be something like this: a genre of music is
essentially a _set of criteria_ for what makes good music. So rather than
saying "classical music is music with lots of violins" and "punk is loud
fast music with drums and guitars" [both too simple], you say "good
classical music should have an interesting structure and be performed with
clean tone" and "good punk should be simple and catchy, with a solid beat
and lots of energy" [still both too simple].
The catch is, these criteria are almost all unconscious, especially in
non-classical music. So-called "simple" music, like punk or blues, often
has very subtle criteria that aren't easy to explain.
After all, if blues really was as simple as people who don't like it
claim, you'd expect anybody with a year of guitar lessons behind them to
be able to play good blues. Instead, it takes years and years of careful
listening and practice to get beyond "godawful" and into "mediocre," and
even the so-called simple blues fans will know right away when a musician
doesn't have it. (Same thing with punk, actually -- most of the punk fans
I know think most of the punk bands out there are terrible, and only
really respect the top few).
|
tpryan
|
|
response 103 of 194:
|
Jan 26 17:33 UTC 2001 |
In the age of vinyl, I can see where a classical music fan would
replace the same work in their collection with a newer album. Some from
the skill of musicianship improved. Most from the improved fidelity and
recording techniques. That, and the fact that a vinyl LP played for
5 years does wear out, where a CD can stay in near new condition when
the collector puts very little effort into it.
|
gull
|
|
response 104 of 194:
|
Jan 26 18:55 UTC 2001 |
Read some of the audio newsgroups on USENET and you'll get the
impression that many classical fans don't believe in CDs...
|
danr
|
|
response 105 of 194:
|
Jan 27 00:30 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, and some people still think equipment with tubes sound better.
Right, Scott? :)
|
scott
|
|
response 106 of 194:
|
Jan 27 01:10 UTC 2001 |
Well, yes, to the extent that some folks prefer truly antique triode designs
using directly-heated cathodes. I'm finding I care less and less these days
about tubes, although my little guitar amp still uses them.
|
gull
|
|
response 107 of 194:
|
Jan 27 05:45 UTC 2001 |
I think it makes a difference in guitar amps, where you're routinely
(and intentionally) driving the devices into distortion. In a hi-fi
amp, the circuits should be designed so you never get anywhere near
those regions of the tube or transistor curves, so there's not much
difference in sound -- other than lower hum levels in transistor gear.
|
dbratman
|
|
response 108 of 194:
|
Jan 27 17:08 UTC 2001 |
David Brodbeck is right: many classical fans actually do despise CDs.
And there are markets to cater to them: I have seen new high-end
classical LPs for sale as recently as last year. The used classical
recording collectors' market is still over 90% LPs, and half of the
reset is reel-to-reel tapes.
Many other classical fans, however, flocked to CDs in droves, much to
the disgust of the LP purist minority. That certainly was a major
component of the classical CD boom, which was the original point.
Orinoco is also right: it's always easier to compare apples to apples.
But then, of course, there are those who insist a Red Delicious can't
be compared to a Pippin, and so on and so on. I find this in
discussing fantasy literature a lot: people say a book must be judged
on its own terms, but then in practice they'll define "its own terms"
as "whatever it takes to define this book as good."
Granted that "classical music should have an interesting structure" is
too simple a definition, there is still classical music that
deliberately dispenses with interesting structure, and claims that it's
good on different terms.
If Michael Delizia's cryptic #101 means he thinks I should do his job
for him and post a list of aesthetically valid ways to judge music, he
is mistaken.
|
brighn
|
|
response 109 of 194:
|
Jan 27 18:44 UTC 2001 |
(#100> You'll note I didn't claim that "disappointing" doesn't carry a value
judgment. The implication -- if I didn't say it -- is that "appalling" carries
a stronger and more patronizing judgment than "disppointing." Cf: "I'm
appalled at your behavior." vs. "I'm disappointed at your behavior." Sure,
both imply that you shouldn't be behaving in such a manner, but [to my ear,
at least] the latter implies a personal expectation and that latter, a social
expectation rooted in personal opinion. But that *is* splitting hairs, which
is why I took "disappointing" off the later list... it was an implicit
concession on that term.)
|
mary
|
|
response 110 of 194:
|
Jan 28 14:18 UTC 2001 |
I have no problem at all with brighn being appauled at John
having used the word appauled. It simply adds to the enjoyment
of this fine item.
|
brighn
|
|
response 111 of 194:
|
Jan 28 23:15 UTC 2001 |
Yeah, but I imagine that's because you know I'm just goofin'.
=}
|
dbratman
|
|
response 112 of 194:
|
Jan 30 21:52 UTC 2001 |
Paul: The difference between the value judgment carried by "appalling"
and the value judgment carried by "disappointing" is a good example of
what I was calling hair-splitting. That one is stronger than the other
is undeniable. But to condemn John for using the first, while actually
recommending the second as a replacement, is ... putting a giant moral
difference on a relatively tiny distinction. In other words, hair-
splitting. IMGDAO.
|
brighn
|
|
response 113 of 194:
|
Jan 31 01:39 UTC 2001 |
Eh, so I retract "disappointig" as a suggestion. *shrug*
|