Consider the following exchange...

>John Smyth asks Denis Fodor:
>
>>Do we really enjoy 'old' music ...by celebrating the whimsies and
>>extravagance of a creation resulting from the imperfect logic or incomplete
>>knowledge of its creator?
>
>Not my view.  We enjoy it because we are satisfied by it.  New music is a
>historical accretion ; on being inztroduced it is tthen fated to stand the
>test of time.

I once asked list members under a thread called "Where is the Value in
Classical Music" to assign percentages to each of these four categories
as regards the value in classical music, noting that they should add up
to 100% of music's value.

Its historical value - that it was written in another time
Its musical value - that is it musically well done, emotional, pleasing, etc.
Its composer - that it was written by, for example, Beethoven, Bach,...
Its performance value - that it was performed by, for example, Rubenstein

Nearly everyone gave high values to the music itself regardless if its
source and/or time implying that the music should stand on its own, i.e.
"its all about the music".

However, I wonder if that is really what people believe.  It is sounding
like its the composer, performer and the time, more than the music, that
represents its value.  Here is some supporting material.

The success of Christainity in the middle ages was due, in large part, to
its support by Royality, the kings, queens, etc.  But their support was for
another reason than their abiding by the teachings of Christ (those were
bloody times).  By embracing and associating themselves with the Catholic
Church, which could trace itself back to the Roman Empire, Royality was
then also able to trace itself back to the Roman Empire by association,
giving Royality a petigree and, thus, the right to rule.  It is in this
way that some Americans can trace themselves back to the founding fathers -
thereby inheriting a certain esteem and petigree for themselves and their
families, and/or going to a university that dates back to those times.
I'm recalling the lyrics of a song from the 30's "I danced with a man, who
danced with a girl, who danced with the Prince of Wales.", thereby tracing
her social petigree back to the Prince

Likewise in classical music, we can associate ourselves with European
history, the Romantic Age, the La Belle Epoch, etc.  by embracing the music
from those periods and gaining a certain petigree in the process - you are
what you like.  This "petigree inheritance" is not possible by embracing
avant-garde music which associates one with today, rebellion, rejection of
the status quo, etc.  There is no petigree in that.

The name "Classical Music" as it turns out, originated in Boston in 1869,
to distinguish "our music", the music the intellectual, of Royality, and
of history, from "their music" the music with no petigree.  (Curiously,
the revolutionary war, defending the principle that all men are created
equal, started in Boston.)

Also, by placing emphasis on the composer, name dropping becomes possible.
If one is going to drop names, famous names are much better that some
little known composer of today who is writing weird music, albeit good
music by music standards.

But since this is a bit pretentious, we have to claim its the music
itself that carries the value, not the implied petigree we inherit from
embracing it.  This may, in part, explain the general public's perception
of the snobbish nature of CM and the rejection of the avant-garde (by the
petigreed) who may be so intellectualized, that they understand the falsity
in the concept of petigree, except as is applies to dogs, cats, and race
horses.  Our beloved Beethoven seemed to have rejected it, leaving for
posterity, the thought "Alles Menchen willlen Bruder".

Is it really all about the music, or is the music merely a vehicle.

Bill Pirkle
http://www.pirkle-websites.com/