Steve Schwartz wrote:

>Karl Miller:
>
>>And speaking of the classical market...I am reading a book "Who Needs
>>Classical Music." Anyone else out there reading it?
>
>No surprise to anyone who knows me: the argument strikes me as
>ultimately specious.  Johnson tries to argue for the "intrinsic aesthetic
>quality" of classical music over popular forms.  ...
>
>The problem with all the attempts I've encountered to argue "this is
>better than that," rather than "this differs from that in these ways,"
>is that the most the writers seem able to establish is the latter.

It used to be easier for me to make a differentiation...classical
music, since Beethoven, while the composer hoped the audience would be
appreciative, perhaps the measure of success was how well it achieved
the creative needs of the composer.  Popular music, as perhaps we once
knew it, measured its success on how popular it was.  Then, I wonder if
it is not a contradiction to suggest that many composers of "popular"
music, a judgement based possibly more on the gestures of the music than
the intent of the composer, might actually have some of the same goals
of classical music, and vice versa.

For me, the "moral" of the book, is that classical, or perhaps art music,
or perhaps music in general seems to have become devalued as a means
of communication and expression.

I also find it interesting how so many people seem content with
downloading MP3 files, where the fidelity is so low...yet, in a related
discussion, there seems to be interest in "higher fidelity." For me, I
wonder if there is a widening gap between those who listen with their
full attention and those who do not.  I think to myself, anyone listening
to an MP3 is really "hearing" the music.  On the other hand, does fidelity
equate to one's intent in listening...I love those old recordings from
the 30s and 40s.

I remember those wonderful ads from the early days of records and
radio...images of people sitting and listening...how many really sit and
listen...or, am I just one of those middle age people who are nostalgic
for the "old days," and yet the old days really weren't all that different,
or perhaps all that wonderful.

What I like about the book is that it seems to suggest that music, by
the nature of the market place, and therefore, how we measure what society
values, is being limited to the notion that it must please.  Must we be
"pleased" with every image we see or every book that we read for it to
have value.  Should not some art disturb us, and give us pause to think,
and do we derive "pleasure" from something that can disturb us.  I derive
something positive from being informed, even if the news isn't good.

Writing this, I cannot help but think about the contrast between two
"love stories," Romeo and Juliet, and Erwartung...a love story of a very
different sort.

I guess my question, assuming there is a point to my rambling, is has
the recording changed our valuation of music as a human expression?

Karl