Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.music,net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Why classical music is not popular
Message-ID: <211@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 19-Jul-84 19:55:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.211
Posted: Thu Jul 19 19:55:41 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 20-Jul-84 04:52:39 EDT
References: <659@flairvax.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 49

[what, me worry?]

I rarely read an article with which I have so completely disagreed
than Michael Ellis' recent posting. I don't mean to be contrary, but I
was hard-pressed to find any common ground. I guess some people just
have little respect for the truth as I see it... :-)

>Another reason why classical music is not popular is that it is, for all
>practical purposes, `dead'.

>By which I mean there is relatively little experimentation with new ideas,
>few or no new schools of thought, no exciting breakthroughs, and nothing
>to attract the most brilliant new musical minds of our time.

This is simply untrue. It's just there is little unity of opinion on
what is quality work in the present era, while in previous eras there
was often some consensus (though not necessarily the one most moderns
hold). Experimentation is the hallmark of contemporary "classical"
music.

>Look at the explosive development of classical in the first forty years of
>this century (or in practically any other period since ~1600, except for the
>equally dead `classical' period). Major new styles used to revitalize
>classical music with each new generation, and the new music was eagerly
>consumed by the listening public within 20 years after its invention.

First, the major composers of the classical period (Haydn, Mozart,
Beethoven, and Schubert) were revolutionaries. They abandoned
polyphony to explore harmony; they freed music from aristocratic
dependence; they introduced new instruments; they overhauled
orchestral techniques; they created new forms. There is more. Also,
anyone who thinks quality compostions are eagerly awaited by the next
generation of the public must be totally unaware of the century-long
lag after Bach's death before his works were popularized by
Mendelssohn.

>Whereas now aging ideas (like serialism, which goes back to the 30's) are
>still treated as overly modern, at least by the majority of the classical
>listening audience. No wonder so many young creative composers prefer to go
>into jazz, esoteric rock, &c, rather than waste their time with a listening
>public that will not accept any innovation whatsoever.

>Classical has died from an overabundance of conservatives.

If you want to see a field that is populated by conservatives, try
popular music. Innovators among rock composers are much more scarce
than among "classical" ones. 

					David Rubin