Bravo John!! Cheers K
Keith Helgesen. Director of Music, Canberra City Band. Ph: (02) 62910787. Band Mob. 0439-620587 Private Mob 0417-042171 -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Howell Sent: Monday, 30 January 2006 4:31 AM To: finale@shsu.edu Subject: Re: [Finale] Happy 250th Birthday Mozart At 1:32 AM -0500 1/29/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >In order to stretch beyond the already-familiar, audiences need to >do some work, which starts with arts education in the schools, >public funding, and all the rest of it. And it's the job of music >educators to motivate people to exercise their brains a little, and >accept that that's part of the process of experiencing art. This is >not the same thing as saying that all "difficult" art is worth the >effort. But some of it is, and in any case, "relaxation" is not the >goal. >--David A. Lawrence David, with all respect for your opinion and your belief, I believe you just put your finger on the single biggest problem with 20th century "art" music. It's like "take Latin because it develops your mind." It's the mindset that (a) anything worthwhile requires hard work, and that (b) anything that doesn't require hard work is not worthwhile. As an example of circular reasoning it is brilliant. As a description of reality it is not. Music's power is its ability to speak directly to the emotions, not in the metaphysical way put forth by the ancient Greek philosophers with their doctrine of ethos ("Well, ya got trouble my friends, right here in River City"), but through the composer's and performers' ability to push both the emotional buttons that are hard-wired in our brains and the emotional buttons that we learn within our culture. It is the composer's responsibility to find ways to do this. It is not my responsibility to take over his responsibility when he proves unable to do so. Each and every style period in our view of music history has ended by becoming more complex, more convoluted and involuted, and more difficult for the average listener to understand and enjoy. And each and every style period has begun in reaction to that by returning to simplicity and emphasizing melody. And at each transition point in history it could be--and probably was--argued that the listeners simply weren't doing their homework and would understand the complexities if they would only work at it. But it has always been simplicity and melody that has won out, because complexity was only for the small in-group. It happened in the early 15th century, with the beautiful soaring melodies of DuFay and Binchois. It happened in the early 17th century, with the introduction of monody. It happened in the mid-18th century with the Pre-Classical and Classical return to accompanied melody. And I believe that it happened again in the early 20th century, but we're still too close to see it. My premise is that the entire 20th century in "art" music is simply an extension of the complexity of late Romanticism, kept on life support by an "arts" industry and an academic culture that held the power to extend the life of various kinds of complexities which clearly, at this remove, did lose the ear and the appreciation of the average listener. And to what did the middle classes turn in this situation? (And Andrew's comment on the explosive growth of the middle classes, not only in North America but certainly as an important and unprecedented social phenomenon here, is well taken and absolutely true.) The audience turned to simplicity and to melody, in the form of American Popular Music and the melodies of Irving Berlin, the Gershwins, Cole Porter, and all the other giants of the Golden Age of Tin Pan Alley. What is happening to that Popular Music in the early 21st century would make an interesting study. Commercialism rules, of course, but it always has. Modern communications simply makes it easier and quicker for it to act. Already jazz--at least the cutting edge of it--has lost its middle class audience and become too complex for that audience either to understand or to enjoy. And enjoyment is the key. People are attracted to music they enjoy. They always have been and they always will be. Note that this is not a value judgement as to whether the music they enjoy is "good" music or "bad" music, a mistake which too many apologists for "art" music do make. The market is the market, and the public votes with its feet and with its credit cards for the music it enjoys. And in terms of income generated and seats filled, "art" music is what, less than one percent of that market? Sounds pretty close. A sub-sub-sub-culture at best. That I happen to be a member of that sub-culture is irrelevant. I can still see and interpret what is happening. And no, I don't want to know that a new piece uses quartal harmonies or the world's cleverest tone row or calls for the Theremin in a new way, I just want that music to speak to me and invoke a response in me. Some music's got it, and some don't! John -- John & Susie Howell Virginia Tech Department of Music Blacksburg, Virginia, U.S.A 24061-0240 Vox (540) 231-8411 Fax (540) 231-5034 (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/howell.html _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.375 / Virus Database: 267.14.23/243 - Release Date: 27/01/2006 _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list Finale@shsu.edu http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
