3 ms·
What ostentatious and reactionary puerility this is. No doubt the author is aggravated by the perceived decadence and decline of contemporary popular music. Ye
by vezzy-fnord 13y ago
What ostentatious and reactionary puerility this is.
No doubt the author is aggravated by the perceived decadence and decline of contemporary popular music. Yet, what is popular has for the most part always been mediocre or subpar.
The 'classical' (a very generalized descriptor, and completely inaccurate to contrast with 'rock and popular music') music he so yearns for was predominantly enjoyed by the aristocracy of its day and wasn't intended for the common layman. He also comfortably ignores all the hack composers who were likely forgotten and their legacies erased, instead only pointing out one of the three most undoubtedly famous.
His main argument for advocating classical music is its focus on instrumentals and "a logic entirely based on the abstract relationships inherent in the pitches and rhythms."
There are many (admittedly postmodern, likely much to the chagrin of the author) tendencies and genres in today's music, such as avant-garde jazz, noise, progressive rock and so on, which also employ eclecticism and complexity on a scale that trumps famous, beaten-to-death classical composers. Of course, these genres aren't popular, but that is to be expected.
This is simply another example of leftist academic snobbery.
- rotten 13y agoWhat makes it "leftist"? I think it is just snobbery.
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoThe magazine is openly left-wing, as specified in their "About Us" page. In hindsight, the political slant is irrelevant, though leftism is typical of academia.
- vixen99 13y ago'Yet, what is popular has for the most part always been mediocre or subpar.'. What, on your say? You might want to take a look at 'The Culture of the Europeans' by Donald Sassoon to see how wrong you are.
- Schiphol 13y ago>His main argument for advocating classical music is its focus on instrumentals and "a logic entirely based on the abstract relationships inherent in the pitches and rhythms." >There are many (admittedly postmodern, likely much to the chagrin of the author) tendencies and genres in today's music, such as avant-garde jazz, noise, progressive rock and so on, which also employ eclecticism and complexity on a scale that trumps famous, beaten-to-death classical composers. Of course, these genres aren't popular, but that is to be expected. Your appeal to eclecticism makes me think that you are not focusing on the feature of classical music the author has in mind. He means, I think, the kind of formal "problem-solving" that one can find in (to cite a comparatively recent example) the [Fugue in Hindemith's 3rd Piano Sonata](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpAIEp6DUo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTpAIEp6DUo). Such very elaborated formal structures are much less important in rock or avant-garde jazz. They are also very hard to write, and comparatively hard to decode as a listener. But they are very rewarding once you sort of get them. Isn't all of that true?
- vezzy-fnord 13y agoI listened to your example, and yes I can see what you are referring to. The sonata is complex and involves lots of nuances and subsystems playing together to form a coherent, yet intricate and sophisticated whole. The "problem-solving" technique you mention is still, I believe, very much present in my aforementioned genres. They're definitely not accessible to everyone, however, especially the casual listener. That is true.