Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site astrovax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!astrovax!tss
From: tss@astrovax.UUCP (Thomas S. Statler)
Newsgroups: net.music.classical
Subject: Re: Differences between pop and classical
Message-ID: <427@astrovax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Sep-84 12:45:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: astrovax.427
Posted: Sat Sep  1 12:45:45 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Sep-84 20:09:11 EDT
References: <3452@decwrl.UUCP> <4017@tekecs.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Astrophysics
Lines: 11



   To Mr. Janzen's remarks I would also add that classical music requires
a great deal more mental effort from all parties involved-- composer,
performer(s), and listener-- than does pop. And I don't mean merely that
classical works are longer and therefore require sustained concentration,
though this is a major part of it. I mean that the effort-per-unit-time
is higher in classical music. I admit I don't know much about how pop
songs are produced these days, but I can't help but get the impression
that quite a bit less work goes into a five-minute rock tune than went
into a piece of comparable length by, say, Stravinsky.