why is some music preserved, why not?
Mouse
christian newsgroup arouse my interest to discuss it again.
why is some music preserved, why not?
what elements are there in the natural selection of music history, so that
we know only _some_ of the compositions but not _all_?
and, why we know _this_ bunch of "some compositions" but not _that_ "some
compositions"?
Mouse
. . . . . .
. Accende lumen sensibus
. Infunde amorem cordibus
.
. http://www.mousehk.net
aldous
wrote:
>i've once discussed this question with aldous. a recent mention in a
>christian newsgroup arouse my interest to discuss it again.
>
>why is some music preserved, why not?
>
>what elements are there in the natural selection of music history, so that
>we know only _some_ of the compositions but not _all_?
>
>and, why we know _this_ bunch of "some compositions" but not _that_ "some
>compositions"?
>
We will never know why...haha
BTW, even the popularity/ranking of major composers is also varied
from time to time. And there is a tendency to re-discover obscure
composers recently. I think the quantity of music we can access (find
a score or cd..etc) now is unprecedented in human history.
Michael Lee
> why is some music preserved, why not?
>
> what elements are there in the natural selection of music history, so that
> we know only _some_ of the compositions but not _all_?
>
> and, why we know _this_ bunch of "some compositions" but not _that_ "some
> compositions"?
I think popularity and/or quality are the major elements that determine
whether a work will be preserved. They ensure that a work will always be
published and played. If a work is neither popular nor of high quality, it
will most likely be forgotten within a few decades.
Michael Lee
_____________________________________________
Yahoo! Gustav Mahler Club
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/gustavmahlerclub
aldous
<le...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>Mouse wrote:
>
>> why is some music preserved, why not?
>>
>> what elements are there in the natural selection of music history, so that
>> we know only _some_ of the compositions but not _all_?
>>
>> and, why we know _this_ bunch of "some compositions" but not _that_ "some
>> compositions"?
>
>I think popularity and/or quality are the major elements that determine
>whether a work will be preserved. They ensure that a work will always be
>published and played. If a work is neither popular nor of high quality, it
>will most likely be forgotten within a few decades.
>
>
However, I think this two are neither necessary nor sufficient
condition. (and not interesting as well :P because they are too
obvious answers.) Moreover, there is no universal standard of
"quality". It is difficult to define what do mean by "quality" in the
this context. At least it is difficult to think of any unified
conception of "quality" beside "with enduring value" which is begging
the question.
I guess mouse is asking for some "irrational" elements.
Vincent Lau
> >
> >I think popularity and/or quality are the major elements that determine
> >whether a work will be preserved. They ensure that a work will always be
> >published and played. If a work is neither popular nor of high quality, it
> >will most likely be forgotten within a few decades.
> >
> >
> However, I think this two are neither necessary nor sufficient
> condition. (and not interesting as well :P because they are too
> obvious answers.) Moreover, there is no universal standard of
> "quality". It is difficult to define what do mean by "quality" in the
> this context. At least it is difficult to think of any unified
> conception of "quality" beside "with enduring value" which is begging
> the question.
> I guess mouse is asking for some "irrational" elements.
There are, of course, other factors. For example, I found Braunfels's
opera DIE VOGEL to be a most delightful and finely crafted work.
However, it was suppressed by the Third Reich and most people only got
to know about it through Decca's recent recording under the laudable
"Entartete Musik" series. I believe that many works of that period
shared the same fate - they were banned from European opera houses and
concert halls by the Nazis and, after the war, when Europe lay in ruins
and that a new wave of contemporary classical music came to the fore,
people just forgot those composers (e.g. Goldschmidt, Korngold, Krenek,
Schreker etc.) and their works, which might still be lying buried
somewhere in the archives of libraries, museums or private collections.
There may also be some composers who have, due to one reason or other,
failed to secure the publication or performance of their works. Of
course, these pieces may fall into oblivion irrespective of their
merits.
Then there are works which have been eclipsed when a newer type of
musical style becomes dominant so that works composed in an earlier
style are perceived to be old-fashioned and are therefore unjustly
neglected or side-lined. For example, I believe that the rise of the
Darmstadt School might have prevented certain works which were then
considered retrograde in style in obtaining a fair critical appraisal
which in turn might have diminished their chances of being performed and
ultimately led to their disappearance from the repertoire.
Similarly, the rise of Wagnerianism might have helped to overshadow
operas composed in an earlier romantic style, while operas composed in a
Wagnerian idiom might be considered no longer interesting when a more
avant-garde style held sway as from the middle of this century (or
perhaps even earlier).
Vincent
aldous
<vinc...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>aldous wrote:
>There may also be some composers who have, due to one reason or other,
>failed to secure the publication or performance of their works. Of
>course, these pieces may fall into oblivion irrespective of their
>merits.
I remember a story about Prokofiev second piano concerto. The orignal
version was burnt as fuel for cooking omelette by others.
The version we are having now is his reconstruction of something
similar after ten years. I wonder if the original version is more
barbaric and cold blooded. (really love this works...even more than
no.3 now)
klam...@my-dejanews.com
> I believe that many works of that period
> shared the same fate - they were banned from European opera houses and
> concert halls by the Nazis and, after the war, when Europe lay in
ruins
> and that a new wave of contemporary classical music came to the fore,
> people just forgot those composers (e.g. Goldschmidt, Korngold,
Krenek,
> Schreker etc.) and their works, which might still be lying buried
> somewhere in the archives of libraries, museums or private
collections.
Thinking of von Bingen as a "composer" in 11th century... Social and
Religious reasons (and now: ideology) could also ban certain composers
works from the world. Just like in-between Shostakovich and Schnittke,
there were a number of composers whose works could not receive any
performances, or manuscripts even disappeared. These composers maybe now
well-known in Russia, but not known world-widely.
> Of
> course, these pieces may fall into oblivion irrespective of their
> merits.
Then, how about the critics? I think in previous times, critics played a
dominant role of certain works or even certain composers. I don't know
the situation now, as there are numberous composers who are only some
"advertisement objects" by the publisher, I think.
> Then there are works which have been eclipsed when a newer type of
> musical style becomes dominant so that works composed in an earlier
> style are perceived to be old-fashioned and are therefore unjustly
> neglected or side-lined. For example, I believe that the rise of the
> Darmstadt School might have prevented certain works which were then
> considered retrograde in style in obtaining a fair critical appraisal
> which in turn might have diminished their chances of being performed
and
> ultimately led to their disappearance from the repertoire.
Henze is already an outstanding example, whose work, although composed
in 12-tone mostly, followed Classical styles rather than mathematical
structures. On the other hands, many composers who were once fond of the
extremeist styles in the Dramstadt movement disappeared or have works
seldom performed. Those less well-known like Bussotti, Dieter Schnabel,
Goeyvarts (once a close friend of Stockhausen), Henri Pousseur, etc.
Their works are seldom performed. I think most of these names, among
with other could never be mentioned, could only remain in Music History
books.
> Similarly, the rise of Wagnerianism might have helped to overshadow
> operas composed in an earlier romantic style, while operas composed in
a
> Wagnerian idiom might be considered no longer interesting when a more
> avant-garde style held sway as from the middle of this century (or
> perhaps even earlier).
I'm not familiar with opera, but I think if one still write an opera
with arias and recitatives, I don't know whether I would say that opera
is a "conservative" one. (cf. the operas by Henze and Berio) But at
least, could a modern composer still have inspirations to write a good
aria, duet or chorus in an opera? I wonder...
KL
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Vincent Lau
>
> > I believe that many works of that period
> > shared the same fate - they were banned from European opera houses and
> > concert halls by the Nazis and, after the war, when Europe lay in
> ruins
> > and that a new wave of contemporary classical music came to the fore,
> > people just forgot those composers (e.g. Goldschmidt, Korngold,
> Krenek,
> > Schreker etc.) and their works, which might still be lying buried
> > somewhere in the archives of libraries, museums or private
> collections.
>
> Thinking of von Bingen as a "composer" in 11th century... Social and
> Religious reasons (and now: ideology) could also ban certain composers
> works from the world. Just like in-between Shostakovich and Schnittke,
> there were a number of composers whose works could not receive any
> performances, or manuscripts even disappeared. These composers maybe now
> well-known in Russia, but not known world-widely.
>
> > Of
> > course, these pieces may fall into oblivion irrespective of their
> > merits.
>
> Then, how about the critics? I think in previous times, critics played a
> dominant role of certain works or even certain composers. I don't know
> the situation now, as there are numberous composers who are only some
> "advertisement objects" by the publisher, I think.
I'm not very sure of the influence wielded by critics these days. There
are certainly no Ernest Newman around whose words alone may make or
break a work or even a composer. Perhaps as society becomes more
pluralistic, people rely less on critics, who necessarily represent only
their personal views from a particular perspective. As a result, people
have become more skeptical of their pronouncements.
And of course, there are examples of works which have fallen into
oblivion despite drawing raves from the critics and vice versa.
>
> > Then there are works which have been eclipsed when a newer type of
> > musical style becomes dominant so that works composed in an earlier
> > style are perceived to be old-fashioned and are therefore unjustly
> > neglected or side-lined. For example, I believe that the rise of the
> > Darmstadt School might have prevented certain works which were then
> > considered retrograde in style in obtaining a fair critical appraisal
> > which in turn might have diminished their chances of being performed
> and
> > ultimately led to their disappearance from the repertoire.
>
> Henze is already an outstanding example, whose work, although composed
> in 12-tone mostly, followed Classical styles rather than mathematical
> structures. On the other hands, many composers who were once fond of the
> extremeist styles in the Dramstadt movement disappeared or have works
> seldom performed. Those less well-known like Bussotti, Dieter Schnabel,
> Goeyvarts (once a close friend of Stockhausen), Henri Pousseur, etc.
> Their works are seldom performed. I think most of these names, among
> with other could never be mentioned, could only remain in Music History
> books.
As I'm not familiar with the contemporary music scene, perhaps I don't
know how much chances there are for modern composers to have their works
published, performed or revived. However, I note that, as far as
composers are concerned, there appears to be nowadays more scope for
them to pursue their own personal styles without fear of being
side-lined by one major composing style. Thus, even if a composer opts
to return to tonality or a more conservative style, he will be subject
to less criticisms from his peers than before. I think the situation is
therefore healthier now although the forces mentioned yesterday may
continue to apply.
But another explanation may simply be that musical style has changed
once again and, as we've discussed briefly under the thread relating to
the DG 20-21 series, composers are returning more to tonality. As
audiences seem to accept this style, many composers may follow suit in
order to obtain a commercial success (which is understandable in this
commercial world). So, adherers to the Darmstadt School or more
"extremists" compositional methods may have been put to a disadvantage
under the current musical climate.
I'm afraid that, with the exception of Henze, I've never heard of the
names you mentioned, which may indeed remain in the exclusive domain of
academic circles.
>
> > Similarly, the rise of Wagnerianism might have helped to overshadow
> > operas composed in an earlier romantic style, while operas composed in
> a
> > Wagnerian idiom might be considered no longer interesting when a more
> > avant-garde style held sway as from the middle of this century (or
> > perhaps even earlier).
>
> I'm not familiar with opera, but I think if one still write an opera
> with arias and recitatives, I don't know whether I would say that opera
> is a "conservative" one. (cf. the operas by Henze and Berio) But at
> least, could a modern composer still have inspirations to write a good
> aria, duet or chorus in an opera? I wonder...
>
> KL
I can't say whether opera as a music form is necessarily more
"conservative" than non-vocal music or not. Perhaps you may feel that it
is more conservative because operatic composers have to have regard to
the limitations of the human voice, the libretto and other stage
constraints when composing the work. As a result, he may not be able to
give free rein to his imagination. But then, this has always been the
case for musico-dramatic works and perhaps we can treat it as a
characteristic of the genre rather than anything else.
Well, the old aria/duet/chorus form of opera has been exhaustively
exploited throughout the ages, I'm afraid. If you encounter a new work
with these traditional forms, it may well be a musical rather than an
opera. I think modern composers do know how to write a traditional set
piece. Yet, they just don't want to replicate what has been done by
their illustrious predecessors. So, they intentionally avoid the
traditional aria/duet/chorus structure, although some of its vestiges
can still be observed from time to time. (After all, as I said, you've
got to tell the story instead of indulging in sound effects!)
But then, modern opera can still succeed from time to time. For example,
both Ades's POWDER HER FACE and Ligeti's LE GRAND MACABRE are written in
very modern styles (although there are some quasi-set pieces in the
former). If the audience can get attuned to the idiom, they are both
workable and enjoyable in their own unique ways. Despite their lacking
in readily "hummable" melodies (there's actually one in POWER HER FACE),
from the number of productions/revivals they've received, it seems that
these two pieces will be able to survive in the repertoire. And there
are other examples, too.
After all, Berg's WOZZECK also sounds very modern to the average
opera-goer. Yet, it has become an established piece in the repertoire
and receives plenty of new productions each year. Of course, as people
often prefer singers to sing "tunes", musical taste may be a bit more
conservative in the field. But then, modern operas are not without an
audience and from what we can see, a number of modern pieces are
gradually gaining ground, which in fact is necessary if the genre is to
survive in the future.
Vincent
Mouse
> Moreover, there is no universal standard of
>"quality". It is difficult to define what do mean by "quality" in the
>this context. At least it is difficult to think of any unified
>conception of "quality" beside "with enduring value" which is begging
>the question.
this is a key point of mine. i wonder what is "quality of music". in
academic terms like good structure? adventrous harmony / harmonic system?
or simpler terms like easy to remember? or even just a word "meaningful"?
what triggers my question is of the value of contemporary pop music and
the related style. in the meanwhile, many of "classicists" claim it's of
no (or trace) musical value and thus it'll be forgotten after some yrs.
>I guess mouse is asking for some "irrational" elements.
well, i'm in a chaotic stage. totally brainless now... ^_^;
Falcon S. L. Poon
wrote:
>i've once discussed this question with aldous. a recent mention in a
>christian newsgroup arouse my interest to discuss it again.
>
>why is some music preserved, why not?
>
>what elements are there in the natural selection of music history, so that
>we know only _some_ of the compositions but not _all_?
>
>and, why we know _this_ bunch of "some compositions" but not _that_ "some
>compositions"?
I can see at least two questions here: first, why does some music
became loss; second, why are some music preserved?
For the first question I'd like to speak from the folk/traditional
music perspective. It is certain that the traditional music we are
able to listen today is just a tiny part of what used to be available.
Much of the traditional repertoire got loss because these are not
recorded as notations of any kind -- the reason is usually not
illiteracy, as folk musicians are often very well versed. In many
cultures there is a mistrust in written forms of music, believing in a
prolonged period of apprenticeship as the only way to learn music.
Only rarely is a "master" able or willing to teach his whole
repertoire to his students; so when a master dies, some music is gone
forever.
This of course does not apply to the classical world, and I doubt much
of the classical repertiore is indeed "lost", in the sense that all
trace of it is gone -- only a truly catastrophic event will cause
this; and much of the "lost music" is just sitting in some antics and
dungeons, waiting to be recovered.
Folk/traditional music, on the other hand, suffers from other
"selection pressures" that probably also affects classical music to
some extent. Politics has always been an enemy to humanity (in EVERY
sense of the word). Tyrants have their ways to silent the people, and
how much folk and classical works were loss because of politics is
anyone's guess. Vincent has already mentioned the suppression of
classical works by the Nazis; and folk music suffered an even worst
fate. Some folk forms (like the Jewish music in Transylvania) have
been eradicated during the Holocaust -- all we have are
"reconstructions" now. Even the folk tradition of Germany herself did
not go unscathed -- the Nazis had adapted almost all available German
folk music as propragada. So to the Germans, their folk music reminds
them of that tragic page in history, and they wouldn't play them
again. Under the government's financial support, folk music from
nearby regions have been "imported" to fill in the void.
Religion/superstition may account for the lost of traditional music
repertoire. Some religions (e.g Islam) explicitly discourage certain
types of music. Music associated with "pagan" beliefs obviously
cannot survive the Inquisition (this could be the reason we cannot
identify a type of "proto-Celtic" music...) On a smaller scale,
certain pieces are banished because they supposedly "bring bad luck".
As for how much of these apply to classical music, I have no
information. Perhaps there are anecdotal evidences that certain
classical pieces are not played because they are considered
"inauspicious".
The second question is "why are some music preserved?" I'd suppose
the word "preserve" is used in the sense that the music continues to
be played, and cherished by many people, long after its publication.
It is tempting to explain the longevity of certain musical pieces with
aesthetic/ academic criteria, yet I have doubts about this approach.
We all know examples of musicians "being ahead of their time" -- their
works may be more ingenious, may even be more aesthetically pleasing,
but they could not compete with their "less advanced" contemporaries
and were subsequently forgotten.
Music "preservation" occurs within society at large (the academics
merely "archive" music, not "preserve" them in the aforementioned
sense). Most people don't think in musicological terms, and do not
judge music the ways professional critics do. To explain the
longevity of musical pieces with purely musicological terms may,
therefore, not be the most rewarding approach.
Why then does society wants to preserve some music and not others? My
believe is: a piece of music is preserved if it serve a persisting
"social need". What is meant by "social need" depends on the musical
piece and the social situation. An example -- during war times people
naturally wish their own country to be victorious, so music with a
patriotic leaning serves a social need and therefore will be favoured.
If, after the war, some people (veterans, for example) still wish to
have tokens of their country's "glory days", then the "social need"
became persistent -- and so will the music.
How well a piece of music serves a social need has little or nothing
to do with its "aesthetic" or "academic" value as judged by critics
and academics. People who say "because pop music pieces are simple
/easy to compose/repetitive/aesthetically inferior/cheap, they cannot
last" should be reminded of the social role of music (incidentally
this fallacy is very common in the Taiwanese classical newsgroup.
Another of their favourites is "pop music is composed for money,
therefore it has no artistic value"). The best of pop music
celebrates the joy of romance, provides emotional solace for the
disenchanted, and reaffirms their belief in love. These are very
important "social needs", especially in the modern-day society where
relationships are often superficial and insecure. As long as such
social needs persist, the most successful pop pieces are likely to be
preserved.
At the other extreme we have esoteric, doubtless very revolutionary
compositions by academics. Will these be preserved? I think so, but
probably only within a small, mostly academic circle -- because as far
as I can see these pieces only serve the social need within this small
circle. But of course, what people needs changes all the time, and
perheps these music, considered incomprehensible by most people living
in the 20th centry, will find a bigger audience in the future...
F. S. L. Poon
-------------------------------------
Can a man hope to last
Not knowing his past?
If he chooses to stay
Will the world fade away?
-- "All You Can Know"
by Steve McDonald
-------------------------------------
Criticism is a cheap substitute for Analysis
-------------------------------------
Vincent Lau
What an enlightening article, Falcon! I particular agree with your
discussion of the role played by "social needs" in the justification for
the existence and preservation of certain types of music (e.g. pop).
That is why even though I certainly don't put classical music and pop
music on the same league (after all, they can't be assessed with the
same criteria), I'm of the view that pop music do play a considerable
role in contemporary culture and can therefore be a reflection of
society as well as its values and characteristics.
Thus, I continue to listen to pop no matter how deep I'm steeped into
classical music, for a certain part of me still need such a type of
music!
Vincent
aldous
<vinc...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
>What an enlightening article, Falcon! I particular agree with your
>discussion of the role played by "social needs" in the justification for
>the existence and preservation of certain types of music (e.g. pop).
>That is why even though I certainly don't put classical music and pop
>music on the same league (after all, they can't be assessed with the
>same criteria), I'm of the view that pop music do play a considerable
>role in contemporary culture and can therefore be a reflection of
>society as well as its values and characteristics.
>
>Thus, I continue to listen to pop no matter how deep I'm steeped into
>classical music, for a certain part of me still need such a type of
>music!
>
>Vincent
Thank for Falcon's article too.
Many interesting points but i don't have the time to reply them one by
one now. (some of you may wonder why i still have time to read the
ng...haha)
What i have to point out now is that we seems to tackle two different
(but certainly related) problems at the same time. The first is about
a historical question of why they are perserved (or not perseverd) at
first. The other is why they are deserved to be preserved (not just
historical or archival value) which is an aesthetic question.
Definitely, the answer to the second question will be heavily based on
the first but i don't think one can be reduced to the other. I am not
very clearly which is one Mouse want to ask at first.
And i think there is some "classical" pop or rock music which will
definitely become part of our history (Beatles, Led Zeppelin for
example). Sociological explanation does reveal a lot about thier value
but that doesn't mean that their musical value is minimal (although i
agree most pop songs don't have much to say musically) The problem is
we need a different (autonomous) standard to evalute them.
doctorjohn
evaluation and re-evaluation. These in turn are inseparable from politics. And
inseparable from the word/language. Even if some folk music depend on the oral
tradition more than anything, the music and lyrics are "verbal" to say the
least. Without some connection to the word, to something verbal, nothing can
sustain itself.
It is interesting Aldous mentioned "classical" pop music like the Beatles.
Indeed personally I think the most creative pop music era, like classical
music, has passed us by. Current pop has poor lyrics. It is hard to think of a
new major song writer. People like Elvis Costello, being old dogs, do not
count. And so current pop has eschewed the written word and hence declared
their own death.
Classical music has been dying for a long time. A hobby without much connection
to our world, it is doomed. I have been reading Jack Kerouac's "On the road" (I
know, kind of late for me) and it astonished me that the grandfather of hippy
living knew a thing or 2 about classical music, which actually popped up here
and there in his book. Well, that was over 40 yrs ago. It would be a rare book
now that mentions classical music as a strand in the daily fabric.
And so preservation will be up to academia and the rare individuals.
Fortunately one can never underestimate the latter. Through their dedication
much of the best classical music have been preserved.
Vincent Lau
>
> On Tue, 25 May 1999 10:50:08 +0800, Vincent Lau
> <vinc...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >discussion of the role played by "social needs" in the justification for
> >the existence and preservation of certain types of music (e.g. pop).
> >That is why even though I certainly don't put classical music and pop
> >music on the same league (after all, they can't be assessed with the
> >same criteria), I'm of the view that pop music do play a considerable
> >role in contemporary culture and can therefore be a reflection of
> >society as well as its values and characteristics.
> >
> >Thus, I continue to listen to pop no matter how deep I'm steeped into
> >classical music, for a certain part of me still need such a type of
> >music!
> >
> >Vincent
>
> Many interesting points but i don't have the time to reply them one by
> one now. (some of you may wonder why i still have time to read the
> ng...haha)
> What i have to point out now is that we seems to tackle two different
> (but certainly related) problems at the same time. The first is about
> a historical question of why they are perserved (or not perseverd) at
> first. The other is why they are deserved to be preserved (not just
> historical or archival value) which is an aesthetic question.
> Definitely, the answer to the second question will be heavily based on
> the first but i don't think one can be reduced to the other. I am not
> very clearly which is one Mouse want to ask at first.
>
> And i think there is some "classical" pop or rock music which will
> definitely become part of our history (Beatles, Led Zeppelin for
> example). Sociological explanation does reveal a lot about thier value
> but that doesn't mean that their musical value is minimal (although i
> agree most pop songs don't have much to say musically) The problem is
> we need a different (autonomous) standard to evalute them.
Well, perhaps Mouse can clarify what he's aiming at in his original
post. I got the impression that he's asking the historical (and thus
factual) question of why certain pieces of music have been preserved
while others have been lost rather than the theoretical (and, to some
extent, subjective) question of whether any given piece of music
deserves to be preserved or not. The second question no doubt may
influence the outcome of the former. Yet, as we all know, it is not the
single determinant factor.
Indeed, different standards are required to evaluate different types of
music although there can be overlapping in the different sets of
criteria to be used. (But I'm not sure what you mean by "autonomous
standard".) And perhaps we should also have regard to the time frame
when looking at the problem. For example, many (but, of course, not all)
pieces of classical music were considered "pop music" at their time of
composition. Thus, their initial penetration into society can be
explained by Falcon's theory of "social needs", just as it applies to
the pop songs of our present era. However, as time progressed, not all
of them were preserved as political, religious and other factors might
have come into play in it's own form of political/social/musical
"natural selection". Of course, all other factors being equal, musical
value (and the general appreciation of such) may be a very important
factor in ensuring the continued preservation of the piece.
As regards pop music of the present day, it is certain that many pop
songs will be forgotten very soon. Some which are ground-breaking, or
have assumed a special place in pop history, or become synonymous with a
certain epoch, or have a timeless appeal to many people, may continue to
survive. After all, "natural selection" (or, sometimes, "unnatural
selection") still applies to all kinds of music throughout the ages.
Vincent
Vincent Lau
Oh, you're in a good company, doctorjohn, for I also read Kerouac's "On
the Road" just a couple of months ago. (I've been buying quite a number
of titles from Penguin's "Essential Penguin" series lately.) And it's
also a bit late for me, too! :p
Times may indeed have changed. In the past, classical music, like other
types of more popular music, is woven into the fabric of people's lives.
After all, even the 15 year old Alex, the anti-hero delinquent in
Anthony Burgess's "A Clockwork Orange" (first published in 1962), is
also fond of classical music! (Well, this is a rather grotesque novel
and such characteristics cannot presumably be taken as representing the
norm for teenagers of the period.)
I'm not familiar with contemporary literature but I will be more
surprised that not if classical music gets any mention in a new novel.
The only contemporary writer I've come across who consistently refers to
classical music in his novels is the Japanese writer Haruki Murakami
(村上春樹).
Vincent
aldous
By "autonomous", I mean the standard is not grounded on any other
standard. It's free from any criteria other than itself.
BTW, a possibly relevant URL (for fun)
http://www.nationalpost.com/news.asp?s2=world&s3=specialreports&f=990518/2610950.html
Mouse
>Well, perhaps Mouse can clarify what he's aiming at in his original
>post.
i'm really sorry about my inactiveness after posting the question. i can't
access the ng daily because of my work and long working hour, and i fall
behind of you guys' discussion... but at a glance, there're really many
interesting points that i want to say a word on it and join, but ...
give me some time, ok? =)