Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.08 10/3/83; site psuvax1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!mcnc!akgua!psuvax1!parker From: parker@psuvax1.UUCP (Bruce Parker) Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.classical,net.audio Subject: Re: Why classical music is not popular Message-ID: <1122@psuvax1.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 13:38:34 EDT Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1122 Posted: Tue Aug 7 13:38:34 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Aug-84 06:42:25 EDT References: <659@flairvax.UUCP> <211@fisher.UUCP>, <192@olivej.UUCP> <1074@hou4b.UUCP> Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ. Lines: 54 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.