Bill Pirkle wrote:

>Karl Miller wrote:
>
>>From my perspective music theater is written to be popular, whereas the
>>primary goal of art music is to please the composer.  ...
>
>I'm not so sure that many composers did not write hoping that their
>music would be published and performed to the masses (or some masses
>anyway).  Also much popular music (composers of rock) often say that
>write for themselves.  This gets into to issue of whether life imitates
>art or art imitates life.

I know that Bill hoped his music would find an audience and would guess
that most composers (perhaps other than Babbitt-as that famous quote of
his...something like "who cares if they listen.") feel the same way.
However, I think that the reason one writes popular music is, by
definition, to have it be popular.

Historically, what we consider art music, in earlier times, was also meant
to be popular.  All it would have taken would have been one improperly
handled 7th and Palestrina would have been without a job.

>>And what about all of those fine composers who are still writing opera?
>
>Maybe I should have said "musicals are a modern form of opera", not the
>modern form.  Thanks for the correction.

I didn't mean to correct but to raise a question.  In some ways Mozart's
operas were the musicals of his day.  Look at all of those concert
paraphrases (arrangements?) of Bellini, Verdi et al.  Then there were
the simplified versions people could play in their homes.

I find it all very confusing. What is the difference between an operetta
and an opera? Is there a difference between an operetta and a musical?

Karl