Anuradha Sivagurunathan wrote:

>Chris Bonds wrote:
>
>>...  That thought is: maybe we should ask ourselves "what payoff were
>>the audiences of the 18th and 19th centuries getting from the music that
>>we today call "classical" that we as a society don't?"
>
>The question as I see it has no relevance at all, Mr Bonds - comparing
>18/19th century society to us is like looking at two different cultures on
>different planets.

Please read my response to Bert Bailey on this thread, and then if you want
to respond we may both be talking about the same thing.  I guess I wasn't
very clear on my original contribution to the thread.

>I'm beginning to meander a bit...but I think you get the picture
>- classical music was 'pop' then....in the 60's Garcia was GOD, in the
>70's it was who's Garcia??...welcome the Bee Gees...in the 90's it's
>hurrah 'crap' and boy bands, not forgetting Spice Girls. People change -
>the same 'payoff' that the 18/19 century blokes got, we're getting
>now....only from a different source. The song you're singing now....is
>exactly the same that my boyfriend sings about 'classic rock' .

No, here I disagree.  It's not the same payoff at all, because the music
of the 18th/19th centuries (I really shouldn't lump them in together so
cavalierly) emphasized different values.  I think that music stressed a
level of considered craftsmanship and complexity that pop music of the 20th
century rarely if ever even attempts.  This is not to "diss" the latter,
of course--because that isn't the purpose of pop. Where the two musics
overlap is that both do have an entertainment component, and both exhibit
craftsmanship and professionalism in production values when they are at
their best.  (I call "professionalism in production values" the act of
knowing what sound you want and then producing that sound to the best of
your ability.)

Jazz is a case in point.  Jazz "moves" differently than CM although there
is overlap in many areas.  This is evident in that most people can tell the
difference between true jazz, true CM, and CM that is "inspired" by jazz
(the reverse-- CM-inspired jazz a la MJQ or Jacques Loussier--is also a
recognizable style although here the jazz element perhaps more readily
absorbs the CM element at least IMO).  "Swing" is a major factor, although
there is jazz that doesn't swing, e.g.  Cecil Taylor.  Is Babbitt's All Set
jazz? Maybe it is if he says it is (actually what he said was that scoring
it for traditional jazz ensemble put it in the category of jazz, though he
hoped the performers wouldn't improvise).  Where jazz and CM appear to
overlap today is in something vaguely called "seriousness of intent." Could
that be ranking the music above the money? Who knows...  it may be nothing
more than a matter of personal prediliction.  But I digress...  Jazz and
CM may serve different "markets" but it's possible for the same person,
obviously, to appreciate both.  But for different reasons.

I stand by my original point: if music reflects the values of its society
and Zeitgeist, then we as a society appreciate the music of the 18th and
19th centuries primarily to the extent that something of the values of that
time remain with us.  Cultural and social values lie at the heart of all
music production, and music in turn reflects, reinforces and perpetuates
those values.  How could it be otherwise and have society claim that music
has any importance at all?

Part of the problem is that in today's America it's hard to find anything
on which society as a whole will rally behind.

>On a completely different note..How to make classical cool????
>
>1.  Banish penguin tails on stage....
>
>3.  Marketing, marketing, marketing.....look where it got Nigel
>Kennedy......

So changing the costuming of performers and fans will change attitudes
to the music? I think these are band-aids (no pun intended--but if one
happens, I'll take it!)

Chris Bonds