Linda, Thanks for this response. I think it gets to the heart of what such general/vague musical words help us express.
At 01:28 PM 1/11/04 -0500, Linda Worsley wrote: >But "non-pop" strikes me as horrible... >Non pop equals = >* Not popular (in the sense that people don't generally like it, not >in the commercial sense) This is generally true, but not especially important, I think. "Pop" doesn't actually mean popular anymore (consider all those failed pop bands). It's just a meta-genre describing a range of styles, compositional concepts, and a certain level of art(y) musical creation that's hardly more definable than some of the sub-genres. But its broad-brushiness doesn't make it un-useful. >* If not pop, then what? It's a negative rather than a positive. >* Cf. above. It's a negative. That's not important. Once it gets past a certain stage of use, the 'non' is merely subsumed into the word as a whole. Besides, consider some of the "positive negatives" out there -- nonproliferation, inimitable, nonfat, incorruptible, unabased, nondiscrimination, indefatigable, unbiased are all good. Some have had their positives entirely disappear, such as nonchalant and inept. Some have just become "word words," like nonfiction and nonstop (hey, those are just like nonpop! Voila! QED! Etc.!). And nonpareils, yum! >* For a "serious" or "art" or whatever genre, it's a pretty "poppy," hip term. "Serious" or "art" are all part of the marketing world. Unless you've never accepted a commission, received royalties, or negotiated for a performance, recording, engraving, etc., then you are indeed part of marketing. Hipness is usually good in marketing, almost necessary, whether it's semiquavers or snake oil. (And, in the future, when "nonpop" falls into the same category as "new music" or "avant-garde", then off the gangplank with it!) Yes, for some types of marketing, an old-fashioned term is useful ... be even retro is hip (gawd, just *listen* to all those awful commercials plundering music of the 1980s right now). >* It's doesn't fall "trippingly on the tongue" in my opinion. It's >abrupt and awkward. There's discomfort in using any neologism. Use it for a while. You'll be surprised. Try it in conversation unapologetically, as if the word always existed. Don't blink. :) >There just ISN'T a good tag for this music, and maybe shouldn't be. >Even "Pop" doesn't adequately describe jazz, rock, country, raom >etc,,, which are in turn divided into sub-categories. I already agreed with that, pointing out how some subgenres cross the pop/nonpop boundary easily. I'm not arguing genres, I'm suggesting a functional word for the missing metagenre-that-used-to-be-called-classical. >But Tower >Records asks you if you want blues, country, dance, folk, jazz, rap, >hip-hop, Latin, Rock, Pop, etc.... OR... yup... >"classical". Period. And I don't think anyone is confused. Who said confused? It's really a matter of association and utility and (yes) marketing. I don't *want* my music associated with the New Music, Avant-Garde, Contemporary Music audience-rejecting disasters, and most especially with tinkly, quaint, effete, dwem Classical Music. Yes, my music can be confrontational, confusing, avant-garde or any of what *did* make audiences run, and I even write some purty orchestral tunes, but here's no point in prejudicing the listener with totally inappropriate genres. At least nonpop is (for now) reasonably neutral, and the generation that learned to dislike nonpop music is dying off rapidly enough to keep it untainted. So why does Tower (I thought they went bankrupt?) use "Classical"? Because they haven't had much of an option, and since it's such a small market niche anyway, why bother to change? Some stores do have nonpop subgenres (minimalist comes to mind), but I rarely go to record stores. Online catalogs are much richer in their genre divisions. I asked MP3.com to add more subgenres, and they did -- back when Michael Robertson personally answered email. (With MP3.com gone, some of that wonderful genre richness is also gone from visibility.) >Although I am often reduced to calling an entire genre "classical" or >"art music" or whatever, I try to be as specific as Tower is with >what we call "pop" music. If someone asks me what kind of music I >write, I generally say "what kind of music do you want?" If you are introduced as a composer offhandedly at a party, do you *really* say that? I *really* say I compose nonpop. If there's a quizzical look, I add, "what used to be called classical music." There are almost never followups to that, except for the necrosone crowd (mostly National Public Radio listeners, a realm where new nonpop is rarely heard), who will take offense to their beloved [fill in the composer] being dissed with such a term. >"My favorites kinds of music to write are symphonic works, chamber >music, and music for film or theater.." >That's too many words, perhaps, but it's pretty clear. That's a good qualification, but it's mostly nonpop you're writing, isn't it? Why not just say that? One word and you're done! >And radio programs are called "Evening concert" or "Symphonic >Masterpieces" or even "Morning classics" (all of which I've heard on >radio stations across the country) pretty much tell it all. any of >those can be partly or all "new music," partly or all old music, or a >mixture. But no one is going to tune in expecting Eminem or the >Beatles (however "classic" the latter might be). How about stopping at "But no one is going to tune in"? :) >Ah... language... dontcha love it? You bet. Dennis a/k/a Senior Editor, The Transitive Empire _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
