Jon, apropos your question, 'What is classical music?', let me share a few passages from Alex Ross's piece, "Listen to This," in the New Yorker, Feb. 16 & 23:
[I hate 'classical music': not the thing but the name. It traps a tenaciously living art in a theme park of the past....The phrase is a masterpiece of negative publicity, a tour de force of antihype.... For at least a century, the music has been captive to a cult of mediocre elitism that tries to manufacture self-esteem by clutching at empty formulas of intellectual superiority. Consider some of the rival names in circulation: 'art' music, 'serious' music, 'great' music, 'good' music. Yes, music can be great and serious; but greatness and seriousness are not its defining characteristics.... The best music is music that persuades us that there is no other music in the world. This morning, for me, it was Sibelius's Fifth; late last night, Dylan's 'Sad-Eyed Lady of the Lowlands'; tomorrow, it may be something entirely new..... Some discerning souls believe that the music [we call classical, serious] should be marketed as a luxury good, one that supplants an inferior popular product. They say, in effect, 'The music you love is trash. Listen instead to our great, arty music.' They gesture toward the heavens, but they speak the language of high-end real estate. They are making little headway with the unconverted because they have forgotten to define the music as something worth loving. If it is worth loving, it must be great; no more need be said.] Regards, Stephen W. Gibson -----Original Message----- From: Jon Murphy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 11:59 PM To: LUTE-LIST; Roman Turovsky Subject: Re: Acrimony in pop music. Good Lord, I've been accused of uninformed comments, but this thread takes the cake. I'll not pick on the sources, too many messages involved. Homer "wrote" (and let's not pick on the fact that his poems were written down centuries later, and were probably an evolution) before there was polyphonic music, although I'm sure the sense of the independant melody was also there at the time. Instruments of that time were probably setting a mode for the poem. But there is no way for us to know. And I will object to the suggestion that real poetry is "best not set to music", that is directly contrary to many songs (including my own efforts to set A.E. Housman to music - successful on one piece). Did the words to the choral section of Beethoven's Ninth come before or after the music? Is that movement irrelevant to the Symphony (as some say)? I find it integral. And what is classical music? If you define classical as Classical, and by doing so define a form and a period (or several forms and periods), then what RT says could be correct. I'll buy that, but should you consider classical to mean "not modern" then you would have to include the troubadours (actually the bards, who spoke or sang - the musician being considered a lesser technician). Woody Guthrie's songs were words written to old ballads, on the whole, Billy Joel writes both (although I'm too old to know much about him, for the life of me I couldn't name a song of his). Sullivan wrote his music to Gilbert's words (and plots) - and they got pissed at each other, but got back together (and that is the pop of their time). Music isn't singular, and isn't a matter of individual genious. Nor is poetry. There have been over the millenia certain towering figures who have moved their milieu into a new form. Shakespeare invented words, although he only perfected the free verse form of his plays. I'd like to give credit to that unknown ancient Greek who took his lyre or kithera and played a melody to set the sense for the poem he was about to accompany. The oldest instrument that has been found, to my knowledge, is a 30,000 year old "willow flute" - which was probably used to imitate bird songs. This is speculation of course, as we have no written records. But the legends of the Celts, as written down long before the Renaissance, include the stories of the "songs" accompanied by the harpist. (Do remember that much of the written record of the Continent was destroyed in the Dark Ages, while the apochyphal legends of the Celts were being preserved). Like everything else in this world music is both an evolution, and is undefined. Suffice to say that music and poetry are one, both are ways to impart a feeling in the audience. It is my opinion that the poetry came first in time, but that is moot. Personally I prefer the instrumental music without the burden of the singer and the words. The subtleties of the rhythm, and the ornamentation of the notes, those I love. The internal movements of a Vivaldi or a Bach, I glory in them. But that is personal, not general. Listen to the unison singing, and polyrhythms, of the African group "Gum Boots" - a different milieu, but as musical (in the broad sense of the word) as any Classical piece. To complete the circle, some have mentioned composers and performers who are not to my taste, but that is my taste. The value of music is not in the details, but in the extent. Just as I enjoy Picasso better as I know he has the talent to draw, I also enjoy music better when I know the musician has the basic talents to play what is past. Best, Jon (and Rock Video Music is Video, not music - but I've heard Sting sing without background, and he is capable of "singing softly" - if the performer can play, or sing, without electronic enhancements, then it is a form of music).
