David Runnion wrote:

>Kevin Sutton wrote:
>
>>I don't buy the egalitarian view of high art.  It isn't for everyone,
>>only for those who make the effort to truly appreciate it.
>
>I'm not entirely sure I agree with you here.  Why isn't it for everyone?
>When did it stop being for everyone?  When Verdi wrote an opera all of
>Italy hummed the tunes.  Maybe not "everyone" likes "high art," whatever
>that means, but surely it "is" for all of humanity to enjoy, no?

I am not saying (and perhaps I could have said it better) that it is
not available to everyone.  It does, however, require some effort on the
part of the listener.  If art music is to be put on a par with pop music,
then why do we bother to work so hard to perform it well.  Let's just
learn three chords and do the Pachelbel Canon all day.  That's what
sells.  Sure, all of humanity may in enjoy it if they want to, but all
of humanity should put forth some effort.  All of humanity is allowed
to be a brain surgeon if so chosen.  I wouldn't want them to do it though
without the proper training and proof of skill.

>I think the elitist view of CM, this-is-mine-because-I'm-smarter-than-you,
>is dangerous to the survival of the form.  It's what turns off young
>people, it contributes to the general decline of record sales and concert
>attendence, and it doesn't get us in the business anywhere at all.

It has thus survived for nearly a thousand years now.  Why is there a
problem with elitism?  When I was a young(er) person, I thought I was
pretty special because I DID understand Beethoven.  Elitism is a fact
of life, and it's necessary.  Engineers who build bridges are an elite
group.  Not everyone can do that, and not everyone should.  If Joe Sixpack
wants to become a classical music fan, then by all means let him, but
let him also do what it takes to understand the form and hopefully, his
education will help him enjoy the music even more.

Kevin Sutton