CLASSICAL Archives

Moderated Classical Music List

CLASSICAL@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Steve Schwartz <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 2 Nov 2001 07:44:17 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (76 lines)
Mark Landson disagrees with me:

>>According to me, the main problem with the acceptance of 20th-century
>>music is that amateur music-making has dwindled. In part this is due to
>>the rise of mechanical and electronic reproduction and, I would add, the
>>decline of school music programs
>
>I'll have to disagree with you.  First of all, the quality of professional
>classical musicians is at an all time high.

Support for this statement deleted.  I don't disagree.  But professional
musicians playing for passive listeners don't give those listeners insight
into the music hands-on experience with the music does.  Gustav Holst
remarked, memorably, that "Anything worth doing is worth doing badly."
The fact that amateurs used to go through piano works or piano reductions
of orchestral scores gave them an intimacy with the music very few get
by "just listening." By the time, for example, the audience attended the
orchestral premiere of a Brahms symphony, many in that audience had already
several months of familiarity with that music, because they had worked
through the piano 4-hands edition (published before the orchestral score in
every case) many times.  This simply doesn't happen today.  Most classical
listeners can't even read the music they listen to.

>One could infer from that fact that the amateur ranks are also better.

But they're also smaller, and this is due in large part to the rise of
mechanical reproduction.  You don't have to be able to make music yourself
in order to hear it, and most people don't.

>The other reason that doesn't hold water is that is not how kids decide
>to play an instrument.  They don't say, "I play the violin, therefore
>I like violin music." They come to a certain instrument because they are
>attracted to the music they hear.  There are certainly no shortage of kids
>playing the electric guitar, and they don't even offer that in school.

I'm not quite sure which point this is supposed to answer, so if my reply
seems off the mark, you know why.  My father wasn't particularly attracted
to the violin, but -- like many Jewish kids of a certain age (maybe we'll
get another Heifetz) -- he was forced to go to lessons.  In fact, in the
19th century, many middle-class and wealthy children were subjected to
lessons whether they wanted it or not.  In the early to mid 20th century,
music instruction was a substantial part of public education and the
settlement house movement.  I would bet that those kids currently playing
the electric guitar know something of blues structure, and the better ones
probably listen and copy people like Hendrix or Van Halen.  However,
classical music differs from rock forms.  I do know several classical
musicians who began music in garage bands, but I have no idea how general
this is.  All of my acquaintances also eventually went to school to study
classical music, precisely because they recognized the forms and procedures
differed somewhat.

When I say school, I don't mean the music-appreciation horrors customarily
perpetrated under the name of musical instruction.  I, for example, was
taught to sight-read in a public school.  I was taught the rudiments of
harmonic and score analyses in a public school.  I was taught an instrument
and choral singing, all in public school.  It's been a long time since I've
attended, and I have no direct knowledge of what current public-school
music programs are like or how extensive, but I have heard the testimony of
several public-school music teachers, who complain of the lack of support
from their respective administrations and communities.

>Thirdly, a piano is an instrument that has never been cheap, and 100 years
>ago, a family that owned one would probably be well off.

Actually, the piano was a sign of status in many middle- and lower-class
homes.  One could rent a piano or buy on time.  These marketing strategies
made the piano affordable.  The Gershwins, for example, owned or rented a
piano, and they weren't wealthy or middle-class.

As for electronic keyboards, most of them really don't help one learn
classical music from the inside out or, indeed, keyboard technique.
There are so many bells and whistles on the thing, you can sound pretty
extraordinary simply by pressing down one note.

Steve Schwartz

ATOM RSS1 RSS2