Overheard from an interview with a Catholic priest (paraphrased): "And don't try to tell me that The Da Vinci Code will at least get people interested in religion and the history of religion. People who read that won't be picking up [insert definitive tome on church history], they'll be picking up another Dan Brown book."
This is the same problem I had with "pops" versions of classical pieces. They don't introduce new listeners to the style and certainly don't act as a stepping stone to understanding how to listen to different styles of music. Ubiquitous music has created music wallpaper; converting classical music to wallpaper does not mean that you've brought it to the masses. If the masses wanted classical music, it wouldn't need to be bastardized.
This is similar-but-different from Scott Spiegelberg's defense of classical neophytes. Exposing a different style to others who are, or may be, interested is always a noble effort. Watering down or mutating the style--whether it's art or music or theater--and saying that it represents the original is just bad form.
I think that this is where much of the conflict occurs. Priests are getting pelted with questions based on an inane theory that an uneducated public falls for, despite the fact that the theory is present in a work of fiction. You can't blame the priests (or anyone interested in history for that matter) for being frustrated. And when someone says Unsteady volume = Most annoying thing about classical music
, they're asking classical music to be something it's not. It's sort of like wanting to look at Rembrandt painting's only if they have red in them. Sure, some do, but does that request have anything to do with looking at art? The volume "problem" could be solved by listening to some Baroque music--which the listener would then allow to drop into the background and they might as well just be listening to white noise. Is that really introducing them to the music? The art "problem" could be solved by simply purchasing some crap corporate art, designed as decoration, that fits a color scheme.
Ultimately, Art is larger than one person's opinion; and yet it can't be all things to all people. Those who want to restrict Art will invariably yell "relativists!" and "postmodernists!" when confronted by a more encompassing definition. Conversely, those who try to open all Art to all people will invariably yell "elitist!" when confronted with a more narrow definition. Conveniently, I'll put myself on the side that fits best whatever my current argument is. I'm a postmodern elitist.
What makes a bona-fide classical work a "pop" rendition. How would you briefly describe the properties that indicate to you, the work has been transmutated?
Posted by: Mason at May 18, 2006 11:56 AMFurthermore, as I listen to Debussey and consider it soothing (I particularly like Arabesque #1), am I selling the work short?
I'm assuming that there are several aspects that go into "appreciating" the art that is a classical piece of music. Is it because I'm not actively engaged in the entire piece? Is it because I lack music theory expertise? To which I wonder, is it even conceivable that "bringing it to the masses" is a realistic proposition? And if the full arc of appreciation for some, if not most (the masses) is not possible, does that render the value of listening to such music devoid of value?
Your point is not lost, I may be discussing this tangentially. It is suggested that certain types of work cannot be vehicles that necessarily lead to a more robust comprehension of history or art or philosophy.
I was curious if it was an all or nothing proposition.
Posted by: Mason at May 18, 2006 12:07 PMI think that classical offers a different set of experiences to the listener than pop. Some classical composers less so (e.g. Delibes) and some pop more so (Costello); I'm not suggesting any absolutes.
Much of pop is listened to as background music and offers little to contemplate if focused on in isolation. This is perfectly fine, and it suits it's listeners needs. Classical can be listened to as background music, but it can also be more actively engaged in. The rhythmic twists in a Beethoven sonata or the dramatic pulse of a Chopin ballade most effective emotionally and intellectually when you're actually listening and not reading a book or driving or whatever. And certainly, the more you understand about music--or art or literature, etc.--the more you'll get out of it.
Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't listen to classical as background, but I am saying that it will give up its greatest rewards when actively listened to. Pop does this less so, so people generally have been given fewer reasons to actively listen to music. That's fine, but treating classical like pop is a little unfair because it leaves so much unexperienced.
Does that make sense?
Posted by: sstrader at May 20, 2006 4:46 PM