Stephen E. Bacher wrote:

>Karl Miller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>Even in higher education, some music schools are shifting towards
>>teaching popular music to increase enrollments and musicologists are
>>writing "scholarly" papers on the subjects like the significance of the
>>Bee Gees.  I am amused to hear some of those music reviews on "Fresh
>>Air," reviews which speak to things like punk rock...reviews which really
>>say little about the music...perhaps because there isn't much to say
>>about 4 minutes of a rather conventional harmonic rhythm.
>
>Another likely reason is that rock reviewers tend not to be trained in
>the theory of music, so they wouldn't know how to describe it even if
>there were something of interest there (which there is, on occasion).
>Most are far better at analyzing lyrics, or at least spend much more
>time and energy on them, whether they be worth the effort or not.

I sometimes wonder if it isn't a reflection of what music is in the
minds of many.  There is a great deal of creativity to be found in popular
music, yet, the creative side seems to be story telling aspect of it.
At times I wonder if the music really is equal to the words.

And then I think of the creativity that could be found in the work of
some of the lyric writers of the past, Ira Gershwin being but one example.

Continuing to ramble...are there anymore popular music instrumentals
being recorded these days?

And on another somewhat related thought...assuming one can make something
of an objective evaluation of music...I wonder if the ratio between what
is "good" and what is "bad" in popular music would be the same when
applied to art music.  Somehow I think not, as it would seem to me,
thinking off the top of my head as usual, that composing an extended
piece of art music requires a different skill set, one that might demand
a more (I am stumbling for words here) involved knowledge of the process.

Any thoughts or random speculation would be of interest to me...

Karl