Bernard Gregoire reports:

>Singer/composer Billy Joel appeared on Charley Rose' interview show late
>last week and commented on classical music in the context of a typical
>music listener.  In effect he put the knock on classical listeners as too
>elitist and out of reach for ordinary mortals.

That's probably true, to judge by the reaction I get when I try to
persuade people to attend a local classical concert.  From the "deer in the
headlights" look that comes over them, I can tell I'm causing psychological
distress without, of course, meaning to.  I can assure you I don't talk
about technical terms, tell them they *should* enjoy it, or persuade in any
way other than I would use to talk up a movie like Bandits (which I haven't
yet seen -- any good? It looks good).  I think perhaps even mentioning a
name like Mozart or Brahms would have the same effect.  That doesn't seem
to me my fault, but a pre-trauma in them.

>I suppose, given the aesthetic of these times, but was it always this way?
>Were the Toscanini/NBC Symphony broadcasts considered that "elitist"?

Sure.  Look at the Marx Bros.'s Night at the Opera or any number of
Thirties cartoons on "Symphonic vs.  Swing."

>He called us too nerdy, technical and arcane to paraphrase his descriptions.
>Ordinary listeners are put off by too much insider discussions with key
>signatures and opus numbers, etc.

As is clear from the writings of this group, he is wrong.  How many times
has anyone on this list talked about any of these things? He is essentially
asserting a prejudice.

>But in the end, I don't worry too much about it.

I worry in the sense that I don't want concerts and recordings of CM to dry
up (or to be supplanted by inane crossover).

Steve Schwartz