At 09:17 AM 1/11/04 -0600, Randolph Peters wrote: >"Nonpop" goes a certain distance, but it ultimately fails as >nomenclature because it only says what it is not rather than what it >is. As a non-insect I believe we can do better!
But we haven't done so since "classical" began to fail as a useful term somewhere about 1945. And nonpop rolls *so* nicely off the tongue! >P.S. Is "new music" so bad? Any music recently written is new music, so it's not helpful to anyone who doesn't already know it means "new music" = "new nonpop". And for those who *do* know, the baggage "new music" carries is huge and nasty -- there's no term worse, in fact, from a marketing/audience invitation standpoint because "new music" has caused people to run for the exits for some 90 years now. (Alas, we called our radio show the "New Music Sesquihour" when it began in 1995, was supposed to run only thirteen 90-minute shows, and we hadn't yet come up with "nonpop". Now, after 436 additional shows at two hours each, it's become well known. Also, our 100-plus show IDs done for us by composers all use it.) Dennis _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
