In all this talk about listening recommendations and canons, I've been
waiting for someone to make a fairly obvious observation.  The fact that
no one has probably indicates that it is either *too* obvious, or too
simple, or flawed; in any case, I may as well make it myself and "remove
all doubt", as the saying goes.  Here it is:  I'm guessing that many people
grew up surrounded by popular music and TV/radio ad jingles.  (For example,
I grew up hearing my older sister's 70's and early 80's pop and rock
records (with the occasional addition of my mother's Liszt and Rachmaninoff
on 78 rpm).) The distinguishing characteristic of popular music, it seems
to me, is the overwhelming emphasis on a simple, repetitive tune, usually
delivered by a single voice.  It follows, then, that a reason that Mozart,
Beethoven, and Tchaikovsky are so popular on the radio and in the
"averaged" tastes of many listeners might be that they often provide a
catchy, sing-able tune or two.  Of course there's a lot more going on, but
why else is Beethoven's 5th so well-known, if not for "da-da-da-DUM!".  If
I'm right, the advocates of the "Received Canon" are saying something like,
"if you listen to Mozart first, you're more likely to pick up on a catchy
tune that will appeal in a way similar to the kinds of music you are used
to," while the detractors are saying something like, "if all you listen for
are catchy tunes you'll either get stuck on a superficial listening level,
or just get bored, so do not emphasize this sort of music, which tends to
initially encourage that kind of listening." Neither side is, of course,
wrong, but the individual's listening background determines which approach
will work for them.  Comments?

Richard Tsuyuki
Virginia, USA