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.