teens and classical music
*blackbird*
this post isn't a request for information....just a thought...well, a few
thoughts...
I am going to be 18 years old in 5 days and I love classical music....let me
tell you, it's a lonely world for the teenager who drifts over to the
classical music section while her friends are checking out the newest Spice
Girls' release. <g> Last Christmas, noone understood my joy in recieving
the EMI Centenary Edition box set...I mean, who cares about hearing what's
left of some guy named Grieg playing An den Fruhling, right? As if the
dismissal of my taste in music by my friends wasn't enough...I was treated
very rudely in an unnamed music shop in London last summer. I made a
seemingly decent enquiry about a certain recording which almost got me
kicked out. I suppose I'll have to wait a few more years until people around
me accept and recognise the importance of classical music...and the fact
that SOME teenagers have 'real' taste. <bg> Until then, I just sit back and
enjoy the other posts...and even though most of you have more experience and
knowledge in this area, I'm glad to be able to snoop around the ng and see
what you have to say....without the strange looks. Cheers.
best regards, Stacy Kinoshita.
***************
works of art are not created;
they are there,
waiting to be discovered.
-Elgar
***************
ki...@kuentos.guam.net
KimbaWLion
Stacy Kinoshita wrote:
>I am going to be 18 years old in 5 days and I love classical music....let me
>tell you, it's a lonely world for the teenager who drifts over to the
>classical music section while her friends are checking out the newest Spice
>Girls' release. <g>
I was in about the same position when I was about your age. It can feel lonely
at times. That's one of the beauties of the Internet...you can connect with
others that share your interests.
> Last Christmas, noone understood my joy in recieving
>the EMI Centenary Edition box set...I mean, who cares about hearing what's
>left of some guy named Grieg playing An den Fruhling, right?
Well, someone must have understood, or else you wouldn't have received it! :)
But I know what you mean. And I've always gravitated toward "historical"
recordings myself. People _really_ didn't understand why I could _enjoy_
re-equalizing acoustic recordings and otherwise "restoring" old 78s...
(Stokowski's records still knock my socks off.)
>As if the
>dismissal of my taste in music by my friends wasn't enough...I was treated
>very rudely in an unnamed music shop in London last summer.
It's some of the easiest things in the world to do...being rude or dismissing
someone out of hand. When your friends treat you like that, it may be hard to
let it go, but if they're real friends, they won't continue to dismiss your
tastes. If you're all willing to listen, you can find some common ground.
>I suppose I'll have to wait a few more years until people around
>me accept and recognise the importance of classical music...and the fact
>that SOME teenagers have 'real' taste. <bg>
Just remember that you have a role in being accepted too. That same statement
without the grin would alienate people _really_ quickly.
>I'm glad to be able to snoop around the ng and see
>what you have to say....without the strange looks. Cheers.
Again, that's what's so beautiful about the 'net. There are even groups for far
"stranger" lifestyles. :) Hang in there...you're not totally alone!
Kimba W. Lion
------
Hush my darling, be still my darling, the lion's on the phone...
(from "The Guitar," They Might Be Giants)
Kjetil Helstrup
*blackbird* wrote:
> I was treated
> seemingly decent enquiry about a certain recording which almost got me
> kicked out.
By the staff? In the classical department?
Sounds weird to me. The English are normally polite.
> best regards, Stacy Kinoshita.
>
> ***************
> works of art are not created;
> they are there,
> waiting to be discovered.
> -Elgar
> ***************
> ki...@kuentos.guam.net
Kjetil
MUH LIN
I started to listen to music (I feel a little queasy to term it as
"classical", since most popular music, IMO, is tonal and technically
not very sophisticated) at the age of 16. Not long after I "discovered"
my passion for music did I go further into historical stuffs. To
this day, conductors of "core" repertoire in my collection are all
but two (C.Kleiber & Giulini) in another world.
Strange? Maybe. But I can't see why I should conform in terms of
tastes. If one could compromise on preference, then one could also
conform on all other issues.
Hang on, the longer you're immersed in music, the greater the reward
from music you'll get.
Cheers,
Muh-Chung Lin 980304
Opus47
Well at least you sound pretty open-minded.
I know an 18 year old female french horn player who has her favorite orchestras
and she is unwilling to get any recording without a favorite orchestra.
So far I have debunked her thinking in this regard and have gotten her two
recordings that bowled her over.
Don't give up. As you go to college (as you certainly will) you will probably
find more people who like classical music.
Fred
Mitchel L. Galishoff
Way back in the mid 1960's, when I was about 6-7 years old my father
took me to see a re-relese of Fantasia in the theater. That was my
introduction. 25 years later, when I took my wife to see Fantasia in
the theater, she was amazed that I remembered all the music as well as
the visual art. I had only seen it once before. It brought tears to
my eyes the second time around because of the found memories.
Copeland, Beethovan and Gershwin followed soon thereafter as my father
introduced me to some more music. I became addicted and quickly
expanded beyond what my family and most friends knew.
Music became an intensly personal experience. To this day, I listen
alone and have a hard time listening with others. Concerts are a
different story, however.
Because I had few people and outside resources to rely upon, I spent
the better part of the past 30 years browsing, buying, listening,
putting a CD away for several years only to rediscover it a decade or
more later.
I fellow physician, who also loves music, and I were riding in teh car
to a nearby town and I was playing some Irish Rhapsodies by Charles
Villers Stanford in my car. He took out the CD box and said: "How
did you learn about this and decide to pick out this CD?"
He has a hard time accepting that I just buy things that I have never
heard before and "take a chance." My friend likes to listen first.
You can't expand your universe if you are not willing to take some
risks in life. It is a great joy to descover someone's music all by
yourself -- without any preconceived notions or ideas.
For me, the music is something unique to me in my little world.
I have enjoyed it that way and I don't feel lonely at all. I have
hundreds of friends that lived from 1500 to the present that left us
great things to listen to.
Enjoy yourself.
Oh, by the way, your posting made me feel a bit old.
Mitch
"*blackbird*" <ki...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
>this post isn't a request for information....just a thought...well, a few
>thoughts...
>
>I am going to be 18 years old in 5 days and I love classical music....let me
>tell you, it's a lonely world for the teenager who drifts over to the
>classical music section while her friends are checking out the newest Spice
>Girls' release. <g> Last Christmas, noone understood my joy in recieving
>the EMI Centenary Edition box set...I mean, who cares about hearing what's
>left of some guy named Grieg playing An den Fruhling, right? As if the
>dismissal of my taste in music by my friends wasn't enough...I was treated
>very rudely in an unnamed music shop in London last summer. I made a
>seemingly decent enquiry about a certain recording which almost got me
>kicked out. I suppose I'll have to wait a few more years until people around
>me accept and recognise the importance of classical music...and the fact
>that SOME teenagers have 'real' taste. <bg> Until then, I just sit back and
>enjoy the other posts...and even though most of you have more experience and
>knowledge in this area, I'm glad to be able to snoop around the ng and see
>what you have to say....without the strange looks. Cheers.
>
KimbaWLion
In article <34fe2081...@news.mindspring.com>, dr...@mindspring.com
(Mitchel L. Galishoff) writes:
>Way back in the mid 1960's, when I was about 6-7 years old my father
>took me to see a re-relese of Fantasia in the theater. That was my
>introduction.
Ah, just by bringing up the age thing, you brought back many fond memories.
When I was about 5, my grandmother gave me some classical records. Toscanini's
set of Beethoven symphonies--still have it! :) --the Rubinstein/Dorati version
of Grieg's Piano Concerto on sparkling red 45s (still my favorite performance),
the Monteux Scheherezade (never did care for that piece), and maybe others that
have long since left me.
The best thing was that the records were gifts...they were not legacies,
"important" documents or anything pretentious. They were mine. I played those
45s on my kiddie phono, I put a needle in a paper cone and played them that
way, and did general kid things. Along the way, I learned to like the music
(this was the only exposure to classical music I had in my home). The Beethoven
set was a bit different, that had to be played on my parent's phono, which
meant less access and less freedom--and it took me longer to appreciate them.
And I still appreciate what my grandmother did for me.
>He has a hard time accepting that I just buy things that I have never
>heard before and "take a chance." My friend likes to listen first.
>You can't expand your universe if you are not willing to take some
>risks in life. It is a great joy to descover someone's music all by
>yourself -- without any preconceived notions or ideas.
That's what always made cut-out bins so wonderful. Showing my age, I have fond
memories of scooping up LPs simply on the basis of trusting certain labels to
have good music...and at 2 or 3 for a dollar, I could afford a clinker or two!
And there weren't ever that many clinkers. Even that record of Emil Gilels
getting totally lost in Tchaikovsky's second piano concerto had a lot to say.
>Oh, by the way, your posting made me feel a bit old.
Heh...those sparkling red 45s were new when I got them. :)
Dan McGarvey
As a music teacher I'd like to share my thoughts on this issue.
A few years ago I had the misfortune of guest-lecturing to a high school "music
appreciation" class. These students were generally 14 or 15, not music
students, and in the class because it was the only elective they could fit in.
It was all I could do keep their interest. They had obviously been alienated
from the subject earlier in the school year from lack of success in this class.
(I could point out all the things that the regular teacher did wrong, but I
won't yet.) One student even interrupted me in mid-sentence with "This music
blows!" And it was at this point that the following revelation came to me:
Imagine yourself in an auditorium listening to speaker. (Assume you're there by
choice and interested in the topic.) Now imagine that the entire speech in in
Russian. That's fine of you understand Russian, but if you don't you're going
to become bored and uninterested very quick. The same goes with what commonly
passes as "classical music" these days. It's not the same "language" as pop
music. Pop music is manufactured to be catchy and disposable, just the opposite
of classical music. It requires little to no thought to listen to (convenient,
no?). Also, in an image-conscious society, there is no "image" in classical
music to copy. No big hair or Doc Martens. How can a guy in a tux sitting in a
chair with a oboe compare to Trent Reznor or Schubert's lieder to Madonna? This
is what we spoon-feed to our children from birth. They are never taught the
language of classical music, therefore when they hear it at a later age it's
completely alien to them. What I mean are the basic concepts such as form and
theme and development and so on. These are vital elements to be able to grasp
what goes on in a symphy, for example. They're not the easiest concepts,
either, I know; it takes a slightly higher level of intellect than the typical
American teenager is willing, (althoguh able) to achieve. As long as they can
recognize Blue Danube when they hear it, they think they've understood it all.
As teachers and parents, this is our failure. Muisc "appreciation", if it is to
be taught at all, is something that needs to be taught in the cradle, not the
high school classroom. It's too late by then. Now I don't mean to devalue pop
music -- I have an extensive CD collection myself. After all I was brought up
on the same music as the rest of America, and I've taken the time to look at its
roots and its function. However, I honestly think that if we teach our children
from the getgo that Mozart, for example, is just as valid as, say, REM or They
Might be Giants or whatever, we can begin to eliminate this problem, and maybe
perhaps begin to get more educated opinions on classical music other than the
afomentioned quote.
I would love to hear thoughts from other music educators on this subject.
Especially if you've come up with ways in the classroom to help make accessible
"classical" music.
Thanks for reading, everyone.
Regards,
Dan McGarvey
Edward A. Cowan
*blackbird* wrote:
[snip]
>
> I am going to be 18 years old in 5 days and I love classical
> music....let me
> tell you, it's a lonely world for the teenager who drifts over to the
> classical music section while her friends are checking out the newest
> Spice
> Girls' release. <g>
Count your blessings: In two years, you will no longer be a teenager. (I hated
being a teenager, mainly because, on the inside, I was actually older than I
was on the outside! I could write and speak literate English, although my
Texas accent would not be lost to me until after I had spent several years
learning to speak German.)
As for your "friends" checking out the newest Spice Girls' release, just tell
them you've released the Spice Girls for good. You'll have to work out your
liberation from teen bonding on your own. I had no trouble doing that, though
it cost me a lot of social ridicule. I just considered the source.
[snip]
> As if the
> dismissal of my taste in music by my friends wasn't enough...I was
> treated
> very rudely in an unnamed music shop in London last summer. I made a
> seemingly decent enquiry about a certain recording which almost got me
> kicked out.
Just don't go back to that store. They don't want your business, anyhow. So
why should they have it?
> I suppose I'll have to wait a few more years until people
> around
> me accept and recognise the importance of classical music...and the
> fact
> that SOME teenagers have 'real' taste. <bg>
No one has to "accept" you: You are what you are, and your taste is what it
is. Just feel luckier than your contemporaries for having gotten onto the
right track, whether or not that occurred though sheer serendipity.
And don't waste pity on your contemporaries, either: They deserve what they
get for being so ignorant as to accept what they get, having been convinced by
"marketing" that they actually want what they get.
You, meanwhile, are embarked upon a wonderful journey of discovery. It will
take you to many musical ports of call. Send us a message from time to time
and report what you have discovered. Perhaps one or two of your contemporaries
will have grown up and waked up and entered upon the journey as well. You
might run across one of them down the road a piece listening to Schubert or
Hindemith or whatever. And then that one will be worthy of your time spent in
the great conversation
> Until then, I just sit
> back and
> enjoy the other posts...and even though most of you have more
> experience and
> knowledge in this area, I'm glad to be able to snoop around the ng and
> see
> what you have to say....without the strange looks.
There are no strange looks, but sometimes there are flames. Be prepared with
an asbestos suit. (We won't tell the EPA... <g>) Best, E.A.C.
Jeff Lamy
Dan McGarvey (mcga...@westol.com) wrote:
: As a music teacher I'd like to share my thoughts on this issue.
: A few years ago I had the misfortune of guest-lecturing to a high school "music
: appreciation" class. These students were generally 14 or 15, not music
: students, and in the class because it was the only elective they could fit in.
Hah! I was in one of these classes. The teacher's attempt to hold our
(the students') interest was really pathetic. We were listening to
classical music with a pop/dance beat underneath to give it pop appeal (i
suppose). I remember terms like "Rock with Bach" being used. At this
point the class was a big joke.
: music. Pop music is manufactured to be catchy and disposable, just the opposite
: of classical music. It requires little to no thought to listen to (convenient,
: no?). Also, in an image-conscious society, there is no "image" in classical
: music to copy. No big hair or Doc Martens. How can a guy in a tux sitting in a
: chair with a oboe compare to Trent Reznor or Schubert's lieder to Madonna? This
: is what we spoon-feed to our children from birth. They are never taught the
: language of classical music, therefore when they hear it at a later age it's
: completely alien to them. What I mean are the basic concepts such as form and
Good points.. I think the biggest reason why classical music is not
popular with teens (i'm 22) has to do with pop culture. Everything is
fast paced: action movies, TV commercials, video games. Few teens have
the patience to sit and enjoy a symphony. Teaching the "language of
classical music" at any early age may help, but i think the kids will have
to come to appreciate classical music on their own (i did!). They tend to
do the oppostie of what parents and teachers recommend anyway :)
: roots and its function. However, I honestly think that if we teach our children
: from the getgo that Mozart, for example, is just as valid as, say, REM or They
: Might be Giants or whatever, we can begin to eliminate this problem, and maybe
: perhaps begin to get more educated opinions on classical music other than the
: afomentioned quote.
I don't think comparing classical music to pop music is a good idea. It
goes back to setting Bach with a beat. Don't put classical music on the
same level as pop music. They are two completely different things. You can
enjoy both kinds of music on different levels. Classical music portrays
subtle and complicated emotions that often require a mature mind to
appreciate. Explain what you like about a certain piece of music and how
it makes you feel, and maybe you will open up some doors in the
kids/students head that they didn't know existed.
: Thanks for reading, everyone.
: Regards,
: Dan McGarvey
-jeff
np: Debussy: Preludes book 1
G.Giamberduca
On Wed, 04 Mar 1998 15:06:22 +0000, "*blackbird*"
<ki...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
>this post isn't a request for information....just a thought...well, a few
>thoughts...
>
>I am going to be 18 years old in 5 days and I love classical music....let me
>tell you, it's a lonely world for the teenager who drifts over to the
Hallo, blackbird! In nomen omen, say latins.
Is disappointing the episode you are referring but is just an episode
and watever was the reason for the shop assistant's rudeness (his soup
too much salted at lunch time, or a Pig's Bay veteran, or the
beginning of a Proust-like aversion feeling against the whole human
kind) I don't think this should have cared you for no more than the
time you were in that shop.
It occurred to me to experience this atmosfhere of hostility in
London too at The DunHill shop were I bought an expensive (for me
still very young, but certanly not worthing his time for the chap
"serving" me ) an expensive pipe, I was saying; but apart that
sanctuary, in all other shops in London I have always found kindness
and professionalism.
So don't give up the ship, give up the captain!
I think afterwards that even in the feeble voice of a teenager and
surprisingly of a nowdays teenager, there might be reasons of learning
for anybody.
Therefore pop up from time to time from your listening post and post
us your musical interests and opinions.
Ciao!
Giuseppe
giamber AT tin DOT it
Jo Ma
I am a teen in the upper midwest, where classical music is even more scarce
than would be anywhere else. I played string bass for 5 years and was
forced to quit when the town i moved to didn't have an orchestra program. I
miss classical music more than I thought I would. Music teachers should
really be proud of what they do. My teacher introduced me to something that
I can use for a lifetime. The reason classical music isn't very popular is
because people do not want to think anymore. They want to sit and be
entertained. Classical music requires the listener to put in an effort, as
well as the performer. Just my two cents worth.
Michael Kagalenko
John Copella (j...@digital.net) wrote in article <35033058...@digital.net>
]I was introduced to classical music in 5th grade through a remarkable experience:
]watching the movie "Star Wars". The combination of visual imagery, storytelling,
]excitement, and emotional content of the music of that movie is one of the major
]influences in my life. I grew up to study music performance and composition in
]college, and I'm now a software engineer working on computer systems for NASA space
]projects.
]
]What's that got to do with this thread? Perhaps one way to introduce teens to
]classical music is through the movies -- start with the soundtrack to "Last of the
]Mohicans" or "Titanic". The "Shark Cage" fugue from "Jaws". Work backward from
]there.
I think that this is not very good way. Pupils may think that all classical
music is boring because John Williams has no talent and originality.
If you want to introduce someone to classical music, you should start
with real classics, not second or third-rate imitations.
Dan McGarvey
Michael Kagalenko wrote:
Notwithstanding Michael Kagalenko's pompous remarks, there's a valid point being made
here. After all, any teacher worth their salt (or chalk as it were) knows that the way
to accessing a student's interest is through what's most familiar to them, which would
be film music. It would also be good to point out that film is in fact one of the major
markets for composers these days.
I got to thinking back about my attitudes as a teenager. For example, I remember that I
was utterly bored with history until we got to present-day events. So I thought of
actually taking this music apprecation course and teaching it entirely in reverse. I
know a lot of students have a prejudice against "classical" music, accociating it with a
bunch of powdered wigs with violins, and it might turns their heads if the first thing I
played for them was Varese, for example.
I have no idea if it would be more effective or not; it was just a thought.
Dan
John Copella
I was introduced to classical music in 5th grade through a remarkable experience:
watching the movie "Star Wars". The combination of visual imagery, storytelling,
excitement, and emotional content of the music of that movie is one of the major
influences in my life. I grew up to study music performance and composition in
college, and I'm now a software engineer working on computer systems for NASA space
projects.
What's that got to do with this thread? Perhaps one way to introduce teens to
classical music is through the movies -- start with the soundtrack to "Last of the
Mohicans" or "Titanic". The "Shark Cage" fugue from "Jaws". Work backward from
there.
It's not a purist's approach but it might work. It led me to an undergraduate
degree in music.
You might start with exciting movies that teens are familiar with. Show them, for
example, how the composer associates certain themes with certain characters (can you
say "letimotif"?). Show how the motive is exposed, developed, and transposed to fit
the evolution of the character, or storyline. Williams is superb at this.
Focus on showing how rhythm, harmony, and orchestration supports the emotional
content of the film. How certain rhythms and harmonies have come to be associated
with certain archetypal images (open 4ths and 5ths for primitive peoples, martial
trumpets and drums with the military, dissonance with conflict, consonance with
resolution).
Eventually you can show how these techniques have their roots in the music of
Strauss, Mahler, and Holst, to continue with Williams. Ein Heldenleben, Das Lied
von Der Erde, The Planets.
In any case, I think you have to establish positive associations with classical
music first, at a very early age.
Just a thought.
Dan McGarvey wrote:
> As a music teacher I'd like to share my thoughts on this issue.
>
> A few years ago I had the misfortune of guest-lecturing to a high school "music
> appreciation" class. These students were generally 14 or 15, not music
> students, and in the class because it was the only elective they could fit in.
> It was all I could do keep their interest. They had obviously been alienated
> from the subject earlier in the school year from lack of success in this class.
> (I could point out all the things that the regular teacher did wrong, but I
> won't yet.) One student even interrupted me in mid-sentence with "This music
> blows!" And it was at this point that the following revelation came to me:
>
> Imagine yourself in an auditorium listening to speaker. (Assume you're there by
> choice and interested in the topic.) Now imagine that the entire speech in in
> Russian. That's fine of you understand Russian, but if you don't you're going
> to become bored and uninterested very quick. The same goes with what commonly
> passes as "classical music" these days. It's not the same "language" as pop
> music. Pop music is manufactured to be catchy and disposable, just the opposite
> of classical music. It requires little to no thought to listen to (convenient,
> no?). Also, in an image-conscious society, there is no "image" in classical
> music to copy. No big hair or Doc Martens. How can a guy in a tux sitting in a
> chair with a oboe compare to Trent Reznor or Schubert's lieder to Madonna? This
> is what we spoon-feed to our children from birth. They are never taught the
> language of classical music, therefore when they hear it at a later age it's
> completely alien to them. What I mean are the basic concepts such as form and
> theme and development and so on. These are vital elements to be able to grasp
> what goes on in a symphy, for example. They're not the easiest concepts,
> either, I know; it takes a slightly higher level of intellect than the typical
> American teenager is willing, (althoguh able) to achieve. As long as they can
> recognize Blue Danube when they hear it, they think they've understood it all.
>
> As teachers and parents, this is our failure. Muisc "appreciation", if it is to
> be taught at all, is something that needs to be taught in the cradle, not the
> high school classroom. It's too late by then. Now I don't mean to devalue pop
> music -- I have an extensive CD collection myself. After all I was brought up
> on the same music as the rest of America, and I've taken the time to look at its
> roots and its function. However, I honestly think that if we teach our children
> from the getgo that Mozart, for example, is just as valid as, say, REM or They
> Might be Giants or whatever, we can begin to eliminate this problem, and maybe
> perhaps begin to get more educated opinions on classical music other than the
> afomentioned quote.
>
> I would love to hear thoughts from other music educators on this subject.
> Especially if you've come up with ways in the classroom to help make accessible
> "classical" music.
>
Mitchel L. Galishoff
I disagree. I was introduced as a kid through Fantasia, falts and
all. For classical music to survive, we must improve access. Those
so inclined to be interested will make an effort to learn more (as the
host of this string is doing). It took many years for me to
appreciate modern music. Had I been thrown in to the water, naked,
without a life preserver, I think that I would be reluctant to go back
in.
My daughter is 16 months old. I let her listen to whatever I am
listening to. Sometimes she will pay attention and actually conduct a
little (Yes I have been known to "air conduct" in the privacy of my
home) However, I have come to accept that the only thing she can
really pay attention to for any length of time at this age is Barney.
If it takes a 10 foot purple dino to get her attention and hear
rhythms and some music, then so be it. Daddy is willing to share in
what interests his little girl in the hope that one day she will say
"Hey dad -- how about playing that Schoenberg Octet for Winds that you
wanted me to listen to when I was 2 years old?"
OK, I am dreaming a bit -- but If she can learn to enjoy Mozart, Bach,
Beethovan, Copeland and others -- I would be happy. She has a long
life ahead of her.
My friend has two boys, 5 and 8. The older one likes classical music
but his parents don't listen and do not even hve a stereo. I recently
replaced my system adn gave my old one to him for Christmas. II tried
to help him pick out CD's but at this stage he is listening to the
childrens CD's "Beethovan lives upstairs" etc. They use a story to
help introduce the kids to music.
Neither he or his brother have enough attention to sit through a long
piece. So these CD's make it interesting for them.
I was baby - sitting for them one night and I played Fantasia video on
my system. It is amazing what a lot of power and two subwoofers can
do to even an old recording. Anyway, by the end of the video, they
were both standing up and conducting.
The visual art helped them to appreciate the music by providing a
familiar reference. The good experience they had will hopefully be
remembered for years.
I appreciate what you are saying but there are tradeoffs. I favor
easy access with a mentor around to guide the interested to future
descovery.
Regards!
Mitch
mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu (Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
>John Copella (j...@digital.net) wrote in article <35033058...@digital.net>
>]I was introduced to classical music in 5th grade through a remarkable experience:
>]watching the movie "Star Wars". The combination of visual imagery, storytelling,
>]excitement, and emotional content of the music of that movie is one of the major
>]influences in my life. I grew up to study music performance and composition in
>]college, and I'm now a software engineer working on computer systems for NASA space
>]projects.
>]
>]What's that got to do with this thread? Perhaps one way to introduce teens to
>]classical music is through the movies -- start with the soundtrack to "Last of the
>]Mohicans" or "Titanic". The "Shark Cage" fugue from "Jaws". Work backward from
>]there.
>
Mitchel L. Galishoff
Teaching music appreciation in reverse sounds like an interesting idea
provided that you can pick works that are approachable and grounded in
common experience. It should work!
Music appreciation is different that music history or learning music
structure/form etc. The goals of the class should be different. What
if the music was presented in the context of cultural history? If the
goal is to help young folks appreciate fine music, then we have to
introduce it to them in terms that they can feel comfortable with.
I can think of nothing worse that spending the first few lectures on
ancient polyphony. I enjoy ancient music now but would not ahve made
it through the first hour years ago.
Why not start with Gershwin, Copeland, Bernard Herrman's film music
etc? This could simply be another road back to Bach!
Mr Holland's Opus?
Regards
Dan McGarvey <mcga...@westol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Michael Kagalenko wrote:
>
>> John Copella (j...@digital.net) wrote in article <35033058...@digital.net>
>> ]I was introduced to classical music in 5th grade through a remarkable experience:
>> ]watching the movie "Star Wars". The combination of visual imagery, storytelling,
>> ]excitement, and emotional content of the music of that movie is one of the major
>> ]influences in my life. I grew up to study music performance and composition in
>> ]college, and I'm now a software engineer working on computer systems for NASA space
>> ]projects.
>> ]
>> ]What's that got to do with this thread? Perhaps one way to introduce teens to
>> ]classical music is through the movies -- start with the soundtrack to "Last of the
>> ]Mohicans" or "Titanic". The "Shark Cage" fugue from "Jaws". Work backward from
>> ]there.
>>
>> I think that this is not very good way. Pupils may think that all classical
>> music is boring because John Williams has no talent and originality.
>> If you want to introduce someone to classical music, you should start
>> with real classics, not second or third-rate imitations.
>
Dan McGarvey
Mitchel L. Galishoff wrote:
> Teaching music appreciation in reverse sounds like an interesting idea
> provided that you can pick works that are approachable and grounded in
> common experience. It should work!
I'm glad I have some encouraging words. I would like to find the best cross-section of 1)the
most "approachable" music, as you say, and also selections of more experimental music, such
as, as I said before, Varese's Poeme Electronique, maybe Bartok's String Quartet no. 4.
Tastes vary among studens just as they do among composers, after all.
> Music appreciation is different than music history or learning music
> structure/form etc.
Actually, I look at music appreciation as a synthesis of these two. I feel it's quite
important to talk about music in its historical context -- how world events effect composers,
and vice versa. Many composers have their political streak. Britten was a pacifist, Debussy
was a French nationalist, and so on. Knowing a little about structure and form is also
essential, since it makes it easier for students to follow a piece, and perhaps make a
lengthy piece more tolerable to listen to. This goes back to my original comment about
knowing the "language" of classical music. (One thing I've noticed is then when listening to
a symphonic movement in sonata-allegro form, the students' attention span wanes conspicuously
shortly into the development section.)
> I can think of nothing worse that spending the first few lectures on
> ancient polyphony.
How about ancient monophony? I'd rather go to the dentist myself. :)
> Why not start with Gershwin, Copland, Bernard Herrman's film music
> etc? This could simply be another road back to Bach!
There are so many starting points, to many to mention here. I might even begin with Elfman.
Brian Newhouse
In article <6dvko6$u...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx02.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) wrote:
"John Copella (j...@digital.net) wrote in article
<35033058...@digital.net>
"]I was introduced to classical music in 5th grade through a remarkable
experience:
"]watching the movie "Star Wars". The combination of visual imagery,
storytelling,
"]excitement, and emotional content of the music of that movie is one of
the major
"]influences in my life. I grew up to study music performance and
composition in
"]college, and I'm now a software engineer working on computer systems for
NASA space
"]projects.
"]
"]What's that got to do with this thread? Perhaps one way to introduce teens to
"]classical music is through the movies -- start with the soundtrack to
"Last of the
"]Mohicans" or "Titanic". The "Shark Cage" fugue from "Jaws". Work
backward from
"]there.
"
" I think that this is not very good way. Pupils may think that all classical
" music is boring because John Williams has no talent and originality.
" If you want to introduce someone to classical music, you should start
" with real classics, not second or third-rate imitations.
Now, now...as Debussy said to Stravinsky about his *Firebird*, "Well,
you've got to start somewhere..."
But seriously, there is a bit of a problem of introducing classical music
through film music. I can hear how it would be easy enough to go from
quasi-programmatic full-orchestra soundtracks to nineteenth- and
twentieth-century program music for full orchestra. But how do you go
from there to all the orchestral music of the same period that _doesn't_
have an explicit program?--not to mention the solo and chamber music, the
vocal music (and unamplified singing voices, especially if female, are
from all accounts a major turnoff to those used to pop music), and all the
other classical music out there that neither sounds nor behaves like
Hollywood soundtracks? I can't see the road back to Bach even from
Bernard Herrmann, let alone, oh, James Horner...
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net
cyn...@mailexcite.com
In article <01bd4964$221990e0$140ca3d1@jimfox>,
"Jo Ma" <je...@NOSPAMrconnect.com> wrote:
>
> I am a teen in the upper midwest, where classical music is even more scarce
> than would be anywhere else. I played string bass for 5 years and was
> forced to quit when the town i moved to didn't have an orchestra program. I
> miss classical music more than I thought I would.
The reason classical music isn't very popular is> because people do not want
to think anymore.
Personally,I think that the lack of a decent music program in your school is
more sue to the schools lack of finances. IF the budget is limited, then they
[prioritise. Unfortunately, not enough people in power in school districts
seem to realise the importance of classical music, especially in relation to
other academic disciplines such as mathematics. This is a sad situation.
I wish the government would help schools out financially so that they CAN
offer these musical programs. We just moved our children to Kansas City
from Arkansas and were so pleased to see what wonderful music and art programs
that they have to offer from strings to a performing chorus for elementary
students. At the old school, there was a music program of sorts...but not
much, however it IS better than nothing to me. I wish there were better
consistancy in the school system with these things though. Like a lot of
things, even if the schools offer weak music programs, if any, parents should
realise that there is SOOOO much that their children can learn about music
(and poetry, literature and art) in the home. Expose them to all kinds of
music, and if you know little or nothing about it, make it a family project to
learn together! But for parents to do this, they must MAKE the time and find
the interest themselves. Believe me, your children will reap the benefits,
and really, so will you!
They want to sit and be> entertained.
To a degree, that is part of the charm of it. :>)
Classical music requires the listener to put in an effort, as well as the
performer.
Where there is a will there is a way!!! I hope that YOU continue to find a
way to go on with your music. I wish you the best with it! Maybe someday in
the future, you will help others find their spot in music the way your old
teacher inspired you!
Good Luck!
CY
Just my two cents worth.
An important two-cents worth, and now I've added mine too! There is so much
more to be said on the subject. Alas, so little space! :>) Any thoughts out
there??
>
>
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Don Drewecki
Let me say, first of all, that it is REALLY tough to be a teenager and
hooked on classical music. I began listening at age five, and within a
few years I was looked upon as a freak case at best, and a fag at worst
(I am using that derogatory term in exactly the way it was used on me,
just to make a point, not to slur any group). Not even my teachers knew
anything about classical music, though one or two of them cared.
Perhaps in high school you'll find one or two more people who are also
interested, but otherwise, forget it. So what can you do?
Classical music was one of the ways in which I screwed up my life.
Instead of studying for school I was reading "High Fidelity", "Stereo
Review," and, later, B. H. Haggin, who turned me on to so much music,
and criticism by Robert Craft, Virgil Thomson and George Bernard Shaw.
Within a few years I became a very critical and demanding person, and
never expected anything less than absolute perfection out of everyone
and everything. And, needless to say, I NEVER found any girls who
shared my passions -- they all just wanted to dance to pop trash. (And
it was especially difficult because I grew up during the disco era,
which was about as anti-intellectual a musical era as we've ever had.)
The problem is, most people don't take classical music seriously, just
as the average American really doesn't take much of anything seriously.
Classical music is about seriousness. Classical music is about time.
Classical music is about multiple ideas and contrasts and mood swings
and clarity and formal logic. Classical music is about double meanings
and endless discoveries of even familiar works. In short, classical
music is a real pain in the ass, because you have to work at it, keep
your mind fresh, and also discover more, because you want to. Classical
music is incredibly exciting and exalting too. But it doesn't make life
any easier. In fact, it probably makes it worse, exactly because there
are so few people who are really "into" it. As Toscanini once said,
"Anything you do is good enough for the audience," because most people
just don't care to work at appreciating it.
All I can say is, I really don't know if it is worth it to stay the
course and be involved in it for the rest of your life. On the other
hand, the thrills it has given me are things that I cherish.
It's your call!
--
Don Drewecki
<dre...@rpi.edu>
Carl Tait
Many people will disagree, but for both teens and children I'd suggest:
* Avoid most music written specifically for young people
(e.g., "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" or the unspeakable
"Carnival of the Animals")
* Avoid "light" music (e.g., Strauss Waltzes, Light Cavalry Overture)
* Don't assume that program music will be more appealing
* Avoid long pieces of any kind
In short, don't select musically inferior pieces just because
they seem more accessible. At the same time, take the reduced
attention span and the urge for instant gratification into account.
Short, fast, dramatic pieces are good choices, especially if they
are strongly rhythmic. Here are some suggestions:
Bach: Brandenburgs 2 and 4 (mvts. 1 and 3), "Great" Gm Organ Fugue,
Preludes from the English Suites (esp. 2 and 3)
Brahms: Hungarian Dances, Symphony 4 (mvt. 3), Piano Quintet (mvt. 3)
Beethoven: Symphony 5 (mvt. 1), Moonlight or Appassionata finales
Chopin: Fast Etudes (ditto Scriabin and Rachmaninoff)
Gershwin: Preludes
For more aggressive ears:
Prokofiev: Piano Sonata 7 (finale)
Bartok: Quartet 4 (finale)
Ginastera: Piano Sonata 1 (mvts. 1 and 4)
--
Carl Tait IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
cdt...@us.ibm.com Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Dan McGarvey
> Many people will disagree, but for both teens and children I'd suggest:
>
> * Avoid most music written specifically for young people
> (e.g., "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" or the unspeakable
> "Carnival of the Animals")
Agreed, but Prokofiev's children's music, in my opinion, would be an
exception to this rulen and I say that for this reason: Prokofiev goes out
of his way to make the pieces educational, and that is the goal after all.
> * Avoid "light" music (e.g., Strauss Waltzes, Light Cavalry Overture)
I back this suggestion up fully. After all, we're competing against the
high energy of rock music for kids' attention, and the way to do that is to
show that classical music can have just as much "attitude" as your rock
bands.
> * Don't assume that program music will be more appealing
Agreed. I have developed a lesson that I use to encourage students to come
up with their own visual imagry with a given piece. It forces them to be
active listeners, and one thing that I've learned from doing this lesson is
that any piece of music, to some extent, can serve as a "program" piece --
it's all in what the student wishes to get out of hte music.
> * Avoid long pieces of any kind
Well, yes, but in order to showcase some of the more important repertiore
playing some more lengthy pieces is, in my opinion, inescapable. I don't
see how you could exclude, for example, Mvt. I from Shubert's Symphony no.
8. However, in order to keep the eyelids open, it may be advisable to paue
the piece at key points to discuss what's going on. (Which also beats
trying to talk over the music.)
Thanks for your thoughts, Carl.
Dan
Brian Newhouse
Never having been in a position to do this, I talk off the top of my
head--but a few minor comments--
In article <3504C16E...@westol.com>, Dan McGarvey
<mcga...@westol.com> wrote:
"> Many people will disagree, but for both teens and children I'd suggest:
">
"> * Avoid most music written specifically for young people
"> (e.g., "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" or the unspeakable
"> "Carnival of the Animals")
"
For the record, Dukas did not write *L'apprenti sorcier* as a children's
piece. I suppose it got that status because unlike most symphonic poems
it's based on a fairy tale, and it was used as the Mickey Mouse number in
*Fantasia*, both of which would appeal to the more stodgy
music-appreciation racketeers.
"> * Avoid "light" music (e.g., Strauss Waltzes, Light Cavalry Overture)
"
"I back this suggestion up fully. After all, we're competing against the
"high energy of rock music for kids' attention, and the way to do that is to
"show that classical music can have just as much "attitude" as your rock
"bands.
Amen!
"
[snip to save screen space--but I would also disagree with Mr. Tait about
avoiding program music in general; the question is how to move from
explicitly programmatic music to music without an explicit program without
remaining mired in programmatic habits of listening. I would think Mr.
McGarvey's encouraging children to think up their own programs, as it
were, would actually _help_ the move from one to the other; it gets the
children to think of something in the music beyond what someone else's
program gives them, so they can use programs as a way into the
piece--which is how nineteenth-century program music actually developed;
it was a way to help make sense of musical forms and gestures that
couldn't easily be fit into standard schema. After all, visual images and
stories have structure, just like music. In that respect, pieces without
a full-scale program, but which can be interpreted as having programmatic
aspects--see my discussion of the Beethoven fourth piano concerto
below--might prove more helpful than pieces with a full-scale program.]
"
"> * Avoid long pieces of any kind
"
"Well, yes, but in order to showcase some of the more important repertiore
"playing some more lengthy pieces is, in my opinion, inescapable. I don't
"see how you could exclude, for example, Mvt. I from Shubert's Symphony no.
"8. However, in order to keep the eyelids open, it may be advisable to paue
"the piece at key points to discuss what's going on. (Which also beats
"trying to talk over the music.)
"
Well, part of Mr. Tait's point is that long pieces would tax the attention
of a beginner simnply because they're long. Long pieces, particularly
long non-theatrical or not explicitly programmatic pieces, should be
worked up to; leave the symphonies until you know the person in question
is capable of attending to at least, oh, fifteen minutes of music at a
sitting.
(Incidentally, this posting brings to mind Owen Jander's famous article on
a possible Orpheus program behind Beethoven's fourth piano concerto,
particularly the middle movement--it appeared in the journal
Nineteenth-Century Music in the mid-to-late 1980s. but I haven't a
citation for it. I wonder if the programmatic aspects might not help make
it a useful beginner's concerto, particularly since the piece has little
either of the stereotypical piano vs. orchestra battle or the
stereotypical *Warsaw concerto* texture of piano crashing over lush tutti,
both of which might strike the novice listener as unbearably corny and
cliched. (Unfortunately, for the present-day audience it's the weepies
that date the worst.))
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net
Doug McKay
Why should a kid listen to classical music? Where does the Should come
from? For many people classical music is museum music, created for the
upper class of past cultures. It's like looking at old paintings
commisioned by kings. It has no clear voice for the modern kid who
doesn't want to pretend he's high class and "cultured."
Behind all this is a desire to sustain a particular *kind* of culture.
Otherwise why not jazz? Or some other kind of music?
Music has to speak to us or we will not listen. If you want to broaden
a kid's music listening it's not important that it be "classical", it
just has to be music outside the genre he/she already listens to.
If you're on a mission to proseletize for classical, then find
something enough like what the kid already likes to create a doorway
to classical. For me it was Bach and baroque in general. It moves. It
has interesting rhythm. It's not stuffy or pretentious like a symphony
can be.
I talk a lot with college kids and those who mention liking classical
often say they like Beethoven or sometimes Vivaldi. I recently met a
young kid who was into 70's progressive rock such as Emerson, Lake and
Palmer, and Rush. He had the complete symphonies of Dvorak. Somehow he
found his own way into the classical realm.
For me, string quartets and other chamber music are more interesting
than symphonies. I like the intimacy of quartets. I tend to dislike
the big motions of symphonies. But that's me and that's my
prejudices. Someone else not "naturally" into classical is going to
have other problems in appreciation.
What is the emotional tenor of the music the kid already likes? Find
something similar. Maybe he likes bombast. Give him some classical
bombast. Don't apply *your* values and try to make a copy of yourself.
Be generous and allow him to like something you don't.
If you're trying to get a kid to enjoy reading literature you don't
start off by having him read a story he can't relate to in some way,
just because you think it's great. You find something that will draw
him in. If all he reads now is R.L. Stine maybe you give him some Poe
or Ambrose Bierce. He's started reading something linguistically and
pychologically more complex than before and probably enjoying it. He's
underway. That's more than he was before.
You can't force aesthetic insight. But you can coax it to birth by
empathy and well-choosen, progressive complexity.
Doug McKay
In Minnesota
David R L Porter
The message <6e1pl3$k...@ground.cs.columbia.edu>
from ta...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Carl Tait) contains these words:
> * Don't assume that program music will be more appealing
> * Avoid long pieces of any kind
> In short, don't select musically inferior pieces just because
> they seem more accessible. At the same time, take the reduced
> attention span and the urge for instant gratification into account.
> Short, fast, dramatic pieces are good choices, especially if they
> are strongly rhythmic. Here are some suggestions:
> Bach: Brandenburgs 2 and 4 (mvts. 1 and 3), "Great" Gm Organ Fugue,
> Preludes from the English Suites (esp. 2 and 3)
> Brahms: Hungarian Dances, Symphony 4 (mvt. 3), Piano Quintet (mvt. 3)
> Beethoven: Symphony 5 (mvt. 1), Moonlight or Appassionata finales
> Chopin: Fast Etudes (ditto Scriabin and Rachmaninoff)
> Gershwin: Preludes
> For more aggressive ears:
> Prokofiev: Piano Sonata 7 (finale)
> Bartok: Quartet 4 (finale)
> Ginastera: Piano Sonata 1 (mvts. 1 and 4)
But just look at what music *has* made an impact on youth music charts:
Nigel Kennedy, Vivaldi 4 seasons -- programme music per excellence!
Gorecki 3rd symphony -- looong!
Karl Jenkins -- Adiemus etc.; Helfgott and the Shine music, plus his
sell-out concerts with large audience of young people -- Rachmaninov
3 -- all the movements!
etc etc
I'm not disagreeing that young people will enjoy much of what is in
your list but I think you're transferring a certain snobbishness to
young people that they really don't have. Kennedy is the key, I
think. He disproves an assumption that I suspect (wrongly, I hope)
lies behind your post; that young people have to be seduced and
weedled into classical music. I think the problem is more the venues
in which we make them listen to music than the music itself. I like
the Viennese concert house tradition where people in evening dress
sit alongside youngsters in jeans and sweaters. Or our British proms,
which on their own contradict your thesis handsomely.
But I'd happily give your list to any young person confident that
they'd find a lot of things to enjoy in it.
--
Best wishes,
David.
david....@zetnet.co.uk
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Shall I go on? / Or have I said enough?"
Milton, 'Comus'.
Nancy A. Mantick
On 9 Mar 1998, Don Drewecki wrote:
>
> Classical music was one of the ways in which I screwed up my life.
> Instead of studying for school I was reading "High Fidelity", "Stereo
> Review," <snip>
> and criticism by Robert Craft, Virgil Thomson and George Bernard Shaw.
**> Within a few years I became a very critical and demanding person, and
> never expected anything less than absolute perfection out of everyone
> and everything.**
And THIS, dear readers, is the reason that classical music is struggling
to hold its own in the marketplace -- because of this arrogant,
insufferably self-important attitude that so many people who have anything
to do with classical music seem to feel that they are required to have.
NOTHING will ever be good enough or satisfying to people with this
attitude, because all human beings are imperfect. Instead of embracing
and enjoying life and the human experience (which includes music) with all
its variety and flaws, they demand that everything fit into their rigid,
unachievable definition of 'perfection'. Then they use this attitude as
a weapon to drive away from 'their' little domain anyone who does not
meet their narrow criteria.
OF COURSE there are not many new classical music enthusiasts arising --
so many who might be are turned away at the start!
JPITMAN
Michael Kagalenko
Dan McGarvey (mcga...@westol.com) wrote in article <350363A2...@westol.com>
]
]
]Michael Kagalenko wrote:
]
]> John Copella (j...@digital.net) wrote in article <35033058...@digital.net>
]> ]I was introduced to classical music in 5th grade through a remarkable experience:
]> ]watching the movie "Star Wars". The combination of visual imagery, storytelling,
]> ]excitement, and emotional content of the music of that movie is one of the major
]> ]influences in my life. I grew up to study music performance and composition in
]> ]college, and I'm now a software engineer working on computer systems for NASA space
]> ]projects.
]> ]
]> ]What's that got to do with this thread? Perhaps one way to introduce teens to
]> ]classical music is through the movies -- start with the soundtrack to "Last of the
]> ]Mohicans" or "Titanic". The "Shark Cage" fugue from "Jaws". Work backward from
]> ]there.
]>
]> I think that this is not very good way. Pupils may think that all classical
]> music is boring because John Williams has no talent and originality.
]> If you want to introduce someone to classical music, you should start
]> with real classics, not second or third-rate imitations.
] Notwithstanding Michael Kagalenko's pompous remarks, there's a valid point being made
]here. After all, any teacher worth their salt (or chalk as it were) knows that the way
]to accessing a student's interest is through what's most familiar to them, which would
]be film music. It would also be good to point out that film is in fact one of the major
]markets for composers these days.
You are talking rubbish (moreover, you do it using lines that are longer then
80 charachters, which is against Usenet etiquette). If you try to compete
with pop-music on its terms, you will lose. Moreover, by promoting
"accessible" classical music you make the real thing harder to find,
and thus are actually hurting the case of promoting classics.
Don Tveter
Don Drewecki wrote:
>
> The problem is, most people don't take classical music seriously, just
> as the average American really doesn't take much of anything seriously.
> Classical music is about seriousness. Classical music is about time.
> Classical music is about multiple ideas and contrasts and mood swings
> and clarity and formal logic. Classical music is about double meanings
> and endless discoveries of even familiar works. In short, classical
> music is a real pain in the ass, because you have to work at it, keep
> your mind fresh, and also discover more, because you want to. Classical
> music is incredibly exciting and exalting too.
For me I've found that any classical piece has to be played multiple
times before I make sense of it. In the worst case I got William
Schuman's Third Symphony, played it 10 times and never made any sense of
it. I put it aside for almost a year, tried it once more and in that
playing it all made sense! It seems brains are funny that way. When
a classical piece does not grab you the first time around people
automatically reject it, the idea that multiple playing are necessary
should be spread around to people ahead of time.
But I also wonder if perhaps the structure of classical pieces somehow
fits the world view of people, maybe a hundred years people were more
concerned with clarity and logic and development in their normal lives.
But now maybe there is less clarity, less logic, less willingness to
take time for things to develop and as Don says people don't take
much of anything seriously. What I'm trying to say is, and I'm not
doing a good job, is that maybe there is a different kind of psychology
in people today than there was a hundred or two hundred years ago.
--
************************************************************************
The Pattern Recognition Basis of Artificial Intelligence
Backpropagator's Review NN freeware for UNIX and PCs
A Professional BP Version for X and W95
************************************************************************
Don Tveter -- d...@mcs.com -- http://www.mcs.com/~drt/home.html
************************************************************************
Dan McGarvey
Michael Kagalenko, who is obviously not a teacher, wrote:
> You are talking rubbish (moreover, you do it using lines that are longer then
> 80 charachters, which is against Usenet etiquette). If you try to compete
> with pop-music on its terms...
Who's competing? I'm not playing this silly game of "My Muisc Can Beat UpYour Music" and I
make that clear to my students.
> you will lose. Moreover, by promoting
> "accessible" classical music you make the real thing harder to find,
> and thus are actually hurting the case of promoting classics.
You're obviously reading too much into this. I'm not standing in front
of a classroom preacing the superiority of "accessibility" in music. This is about
finding the most painless way of introducing self-concious American teenagers to
a genre of music they tend to ignore because it's not "cool" and doesn't cater to
the lowest common artistic denominator. From this starting point that you so
vehemently oppose I can later introduce more sophisticated and complex music,
and the students, with a more solid background than they had before, can
pass more educated judgements on what they hear.
I teach facts, Michael, not opinions.
By the way, my newsreader is set to wrap at 72 character, and it's obviously not
working, so maybe someone would like to give me some tech advice.
Dan
Dan McGarvey
Don Tveter wrote:
> For me I've found that any classical piece has to be played multiple
> times before I make sense of it. In the worst case I got William
> Schuman's Third Symphony, played it 10 times and never made any sense of
> it. I put it aside for almost a year, tried it once more and in that
> playing it all made sense! It seems brains are funny that way. When
> a classical piece does not grab you the first time around people
> automatically reject it, the idea that multiple playing are necessary
> should be spread around to people ahead of time.
This is no small point that you've made here. Listening to a piece
multipletimes in order to "get it" is perfectly valid (which seems obvious to
some but
maybe gets glossed over in the general sceme of things) and the fact that you
do this doesn't make you slow, it just means that you're making an honest
effort
to get something out of the piece other than, "Oh, this is pretty."
> But I also wonder if perhaps the structure of classical pieces somehow
> fits the world view of people, maybe a hundred years people were more
> concerned with clarity and logic and development in their normal lives.
> But now maybe there is less clarity, less logic, less willingness to
> take time for things to develop and as Don says people don't take
> much of anything seriously. What I'm trying to say is, and I'm not
> doing a good job, is that maybe there is a different kind of psychology
> in people today than there was a hundred or two hundred years ago.
Well, yes, different periods of history will present a different world view
fromsociety's standpoint, but I don't really thing that the structure and form
of music
draws directly from this. A good piece of music works for the exact same
reasons
that a good novel works, or even a good play or painting. There's a logical
pattern,
repetition and development of the basic thematic developments, it rises and
falls
when it should, and so on. This is true even today, I believe.
My theory is this (and it's not too far from what you might be saying):
We live in a consumerist culture. We can no longer say that we're
materialistic, because
materialists cherish objects; we just use them and throw them away. We've
grown
accustomed to disposable lighters, disposable cameras, disposable cars,
relarionships,
religions and planets. We've carried this attitude into music as well.
Convenience =
complacancy = why should I have to think when I pay good money not to?
Because
of this attitude, having to work at understanding a piece of music goes
against the
grain of popular thought (or the lack thereof), and is considered an
abomination.
My critique of society for the week. Thanks for calling. :)
Dan
Michael Kagalenko
Dan McGarvey (mcga...@westol.com), whose lines are _still_ too long, wrote:
]Michael Kagalenko, who is obviously not a teacher, wrote:
]
]> You are talking rubbish (moreover, you do it using lines that are longer then
]> 80 charachters, which is against Usenet etiquette). If you try to compete
]> with pop-music on its terms...
]
]Who's competing? I'm not playing this silly game of "My Muisc Can Beat UpYour Music" and I
]make that clear to my students.
If you are trying to make your students to listen to something,
you are competing for their attention, like it or not.
]> you will lose. Moreover, by promoting
]> "accessible" classical music you make the real thing harder to find,
]> and thus are actually hurting the case of promoting classics.
]
]You're obviously reading too much into this. I'm not standing in front
]of a classroom preacing the superiority of "accessibility" in music.
I never contended you do anything of a kind. I am talking about the idea
of "light" classics as a first step to the "real stuff."
] This is about
]finding the most painless way of introducing self-concious American teenagers to
]a genre of music they tend to ignore because it's not "cool" and doesn't cater to
]the lowest common artistic denominator. From this starting point that you so
]vehemently oppose I can later introduce more sophisticated and complex music,
]and the students, with a more solid background than they had before, can
]pass more educated judgements on what they hear.
I am not sure whether this is wise. I think that the amount of effort
needed is the same, you just spread it over longer time.
]I teach facts, Michael, not opinions.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You teach opinions, and you better be open about it.
"It is good idea to listen to classical music" is an opinion, not a fact.
]By the way, my newsreader is set to wrap at 72 character, and it's obviously not
]working, so maybe someone would like to give me some tech advice.
Your newsreader has less to do with it then your text editor.
You should hit "Enter" every 72 or so characters.
Mitchel L. Galishoff
Accessibility does not have to be synonemous with "inferior" or
"light" or "high energy" or "bad". Also, you really don't have to
compete with rock etc.
To be accessable, to my mind, means easy access for those interested.
Some of those students exposed to good music in the setting of a
classroom may not take to it right away but a spark of interest may be
left. We should provide the "kindling" for that spark.
Appreciating fine music is a lifetime endeavor (thankfully) and cannot
be accomplished in school alone. I think that it is important to
create a positive atmosphere. The content may be secondary.
As far as competing for kids attention by competing with popular music
and culture -- forget it! Thats a looser by definition. Young people
are proud of their "unique" culture. They really don't appreciate
that it is usually a different version of what we all went through.
Just as my 16 month daughter goes through a developmental stage of
exerting independence by wanting do try new things by herself, pushing
us away (ohh the heartbreak!!), teens are terrribly independent.
Their music and social networks are the instrument of this
independence. To compete with that, ask of them to adopt "our" music
and ideas (as they may see it) is hard to expect and perhaps a bit
unnatural.
The teen years, in part, may be about reinventing the wheel all over
again (I sound like Yogi Berra here). The challenge for us as
teachers, musicians, composers, and parents is to create an
enviornment where they can incorporate finer elements into their
rediscovery and reinventions.
I have no idea how to do this. At this point I will be lucky if I can
teach the meaning of the word "no". I think that we have to listen to
voices that have years of experience in the classroom.
There is probably no one way. The energy, support and inspiration of
the teacher will likely be the main ingredient no matter what the
content of the class.
Scott Richards
During a recent vacation in London, we attended two classical music
events. First a Royal Opera production of Rossini's "Il Barbiere di
Siviglia" and the second a LSO concert with a piece by Michael Tippett
(The Rose Lake), the Beethoven Violin Concerto (Vengerov) and the
Dvorak 7th Symphony with Colin Davis conducting. My 14 year old
daughter attended both.
(This is the same daughter who a couple of years ago fell asleep at a
Philharmonia Baroque concert of Mozart Piano Concertos and the 40th
Symphony.)
She clearly enjoyed the opera and tolerated the symphony. As a matter
of fact she has just walked by me and verified that the opera was
"awesome" and the symphony concert was "OK". At the concert she liked
the Dvorak best, thought the Tippett started out good but was too long
although it was fun watching the percussionists get their workout in
the Tippett.
She thought the opera was good because it was "it was modern (they
used a modern setting and sets), funny, entertaining and anyone would
have liked it." It was also "better" than Carlisle Floyd's "Of Mice
and Men"--which is the other opera she has seen.
So, with all the recent commentary about the decline of the symphony
orchestra, record sales and attendance etc., I have heard several
times that opera attendance is up, especially among the younger
audience. Apparently, the extra musical facets of opera increase its
appeal and might make it the best gateway into the world of classical
music for teens.
By the way, I haven't given up on symphony concerts for her. I'll let
you know what she thinks of Mahler's Eighth Symphony (SF Symphony)
this summer.
Scott Richards
Edward A. Cowan
Don Drewecki wrote:
>
> Let me say, first of all, that it is REALLY tough to be a teenager and
> hooked on classical music. I began listening at age five, and within
> a
> few years I was looked upon as a freak case at best, and a fag at
> worst
> (I am using that derogatory term in exactly the way it was used on me,
> just to make a point, not to slur any group).
That was certainly my experience, although, in my innocent age and time and
place (Texas in the 1940s), I had no idea until very much later what a "fag" was...
[snip]
>
> Classical music was one of the ways in which I screwed up my life.
> Instead of studying for school I was reading "High Fidelity", "Stereo
> Review," and, later, B. H. Haggin, who turned me on to so much music,
> and criticism by Robert Craft, Virgil Thomson and George Bernard Shaw.
I discovered _High Fidelity_ while I was still in high school. It never
occurred to me *not* to study for school, and I did pretty well in a time when
a high school education still meant something. In my senior year, my German
teacher, Frl. Else Trenckmann, was also my English teacher. She was tough in
both _Fächer_ and I prospered. I also had a plane geometry teacher, one Edna
von Rosenberg, also a stickler for detail (she made us prove every statement
we made about a geometrical figure), whose memory remains fond. We did have an
opera club in my high school (Austin HS, Austin TX), and it was quite
well-attended, so I wasn't alone in my liking for classical music. (My
attraction to classical music began with opera but soon expanded to other forms.)
> Within a few years I became a very critical and demanding person, and
> never expected anything less than absolute perfection out of everyone
> and everything.
Ah, the "Haggin syndrome"! <g> I, too, suffered for a while from that, but,
with time, one does grow up...
> And, needless to say, I NEVER found any girls who
> shared my passions -- they all just wanted to dance to pop trash.
> (And
> it was especially difficult because I grew up during the disco era,
> which was about as anti-intellectual a musical era as we've ever had.)
That was also my difficulty, one that still hangs over me, alas! And even when
I proposed marriage to a very fine young lady in my professsion, one who also
shared my musical interests and other aspects of my _Weltanschauung_ (does
anybody else have such a thing any more? <g>), she immediately stopped
speaking to me and returned all correspondence. I remain baffled -- and much
saddened -- by this mind-set...
>
> The problem is, most people don't take classical music seriously, just
> as the average American really doesn't take much of anything
> seriously.
[much excellent stuff snipped here for space]
>
> All I can say is, I really don't know if it is worth it to stay the
> course and be involved in it for the rest of your life. On the other
> hand, the thrills it has given me are things that I cherish.
Certainly I believe it to be worth it, despite some pain along the way. If we
didn't think so, a ng such as this would not exist... --E.A.C.
SAP23556
>> Within a few years I became a very critical and demanding person, and
>> > never expected anything less than absolute perfection out of everyone
>>
>> And THIS, dear readers, is the reason that classical music is struggling
>> to hold its own in the marketplace -- because of this arrogant,
>> insufferably self-important attitude that so many people who have anything
>> to do with classical music seem to feel that they are required to have.
>>
>> NOTHING will ever be good enough or satisfying to people with this
>> attitude, because all human beings are imperfect. Instead of embracing
>> and enjoying life and the human experience (which includes music) with all
>> its variety and flaws, they demand that everything fit into their rigid,
>> unachievable definition of 'perfection'. Then they use this attitude as
>> a weapon to drive away from 'their' little domain anyone who does not
>> meet their narrow criteria.
>>
Wow! This is really sad. The only one you should blame for your overweening
ego is yourself. Your life is what you make of it. Music doesn't do anything
to anybody. People do it to themselves. There are plenty of healthy musicians
who don't fall into this category! Speak for yourself, not for others.
SAP
po...@hotmail.com
In article <35033058...@digital.net>,
j...@digital.net wrote:
>
> I was introduced to classical music in 5th grade through a remarkable
experience:
> watching the movie "Star Wars". The combination of visual imagery,
storytelling,
> excitement, and emotional content of the music of that movie is one of the
major
> influences in my life. I grew up to study music performance and composition
in
> college, and I'm now a software engineer working on computer systems for
NASA space
> projects.
Although I had more significant experiences later on, and some experience
before (including the Star Wars ST), my first "love" was Glazunov's
Seasons. My 7th grade social studies teacher, a kindly old gent
by the name of Leo Hamilton (Mr. Ham) who taught at Stanley Jr. High in
ca. 1979 and who, before he was a teacher, played timpani in the San
Diego symphony, largely single-handedly introduced me to classical music.
Through the year, he rarely played anything else besides Glazunov's
ballet, though I also remember hearing things like Strauss' Alpine
symphony and a recording of Arrau playing the famous-er Beeth. sonatas.
His was the last period of the day, and he always had "music time" on
Friday afternoons, after a long, usually hot, San Diego day. To sit in
his cool classroom, with the lights dimmed, and unwind with the music
made the experience all the more pleasant. I think that was the period
in my life when I first began to truly enjoy music.
I don't remember anything else from my social studies class. ;-)
ciao,
J
Mahesh Sardesai
> In article <35033058...@digital.net>,
> j...@digital.net wrote:
> >
> > I was introduced to classical music in 5th grade through a remarkable
> experience: watching the movie "Star Wars".
[snip]
> Although I had more significant experiences later on, and some experience
> before (including the Star Wars ST), my first "love" was Glazunov's
> Seasons. My 7th grade social studies teacher, a kindly old gent
> by the name of Leo Hamilton (Mr. Ham) who taught at Stanley Jr. High in
> ca. 1979 and who, before he was a teacher, played timpani in the San
> Diego symphony, largely single-handedly introduced me to classical music.
[snip]
> I don't remember anything else from my social studies class. ;-)
Neither do I, but mine had a lot more to do with learning state capitals
than good music. ;-)
My introduction to classical music was a fourth-grade music class, when a
substitute teacher who really had nothing prepared put on a videotape from
PBS of James Levine conducting God-knows-what orchestra in an all-Gershwin
program of An American in Paris and Rhapsody in Blue. I was absolutely
amazed by the variety of instruments and their different sounds, yet how
they all played so beautifully together and how the music could portray a
specific scene or event. That got me into buying $1.99 cassettes from
Kmart for my walkman (when my parents still listened to 8-tracks!). In
8th grade, our music class listened to Dvorak's "New World" Symphony, and
I was hooked. Listening to classical radio, accumulating CDs, joining the
college choir...
I graduate this May with a degree in economics, then I enter medical
school in the fall, but in some strange way, it would be a lot emptier
without being able to understand and enjoy classical music. Kind of makes
me thankful for those required music classes early on in school.
--
Mahesh P. Sardesai
Brown University (A.B. 1998)
Mahesh_...@brown.edu
Check out: http://www.brown.edu/Students/Brown_University_Chorus/
Carl Tait
In article <199803101...@zetnet.co.uk>,
David R L Porter <david....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm not disagreeing that young people will enjoy much of what is in
>your list but I think you're transferring a certain snobbishness to
>young people that they really don't have.
Mmmm, not so much snobbishness as different expectations and
assumptions. If you're coming from a background of loud, repetitive,
three-chord music, then many classical pieces are going to seem
effete and boring at first blush -- even for open-minded listeners.
>Kennedy is the key, I
>think. He disproves an assumption that I suspect (wrongly, I hope)
>lies behind your post; that young people have to be seduced and
>weedled into classical music.
I didn't mean to imply that seductive trickery was necessary.
Just the opposite: don't patronize classical newcomers (of any age)
by offering them second-rate bonbons as an easy way in. There are
lots of accessible masterpieces, so no compromises are necessary
-- only judicious selection. And no comments along the lines of
"That's too mature for you" if a youngster *wants* to listen to a
Mahler symphony!
>I think the problem is more the venues
>in which we make them listen to music than the music itself.
Yes, I think that's part of it. Fine halls and attentive audiences
are desirable, but the attendant stuffiness is not. I've always
thought that both concertgoers and performers should dress for
comfort: it's supposed to be an enjoyable experience! (My own
style of dress could charitably be described as "preppy slob,"
so the above opinion should be treated with caution.)
>I like
>the Viennese concert house tradition where people in evening dress
>sit alongside youngsters in jeans and sweaters. Or our British proms,
>which on their own contradict your thesis handsomely.
This is encouraging -- but surely we agree (sadly) that only a
small percentage of teens have any interest in classical music.
>But I'd happily give your list to any young person confident that
>they'd find a lot of things to enjoy in it.
Thanks; I hope you're right. The key is to open the door: grab the
ear with a great piece and let the new listener in on the excitement.
>But just look at what music *has* made an impact on youth music charts:
>
>Nigel Kennedy, Vivaldi 4 seasons -- programme music per excellence!
I didn't mean to imply that program music should be avoided -- only
that it shouldn't be given undue prominence, as is often the case in
Music 101.
>Gorecki 3rd symphony -- looong!
And boooooring! The degree of monotony in this piece -- nearly
unendurable for many classical music lovers -- is actually an
advantage for newcomers who are used to (and can even enjoy)
endless repetition.
>Karl Jenkins -- Adiemus etc.; Helfgott and the Shine music, plus his
>sell-out concerts with large audience of young people -- Rachmaninov
>3 -- all the movements!
This has indeed been the biggest advantage of the Helfgott phenomenon.
He may not be able to play the "Rach 3" competently, but his story
and endearing personality have (at least temporarily) gotten a lot
of people to listen to music they might never have heard.
Dan McGarvey
Michael Kagalenko wrote:
> I never contended you do anything of a kind. I am talking about the idea
> of "light" classics as a first step to the "real stuff."
I've never been the sort of person to force my students to eat all of theirvegetables before
they can have dessert, as long as they show a willingness
to try everything on the plate. Someone else earlier mentioned the crime of
"tricking" or "luring" students into classical music with second-rate "bonbons"
as I recall. Gosh, how absolutely tyrranical that makes it sound. I'm crouched
down luring the timid little students with Danny Elfman music into a dark dark
room and suddenly HA HA! HOW ABOUT A LITTLE BARTOK'S CONCERTO
FOR ORCHESTRA YOU FOOL!! (Fade out evil laughter.) This argument
has really come down to nothing mroe than aesthetic nitpicking, which irritates me.
> ] This is about
> ]finding the most painless way of introducing self-concious American teenagers to
> ]a genre of music they tend to ignore because it's not "cool" and doesn't cater to
> ]the lowest common artistic denominator. From this starting point that you so
> ]vehemently oppose I can later introduce more sophisticated and complex music,
> ]and the students, with a more solid background than they had before, can
> ]pass more educated judgements on what they hear.
>
> I am not sure whether this is wise. I think that the amount of effort
> needed is the same, you just spread it over longer time.
I thought long and hard about this thought of yours, and while I still don't agreeentirely with
it it does being up a valid point. For more complex music, far too
little time is generally spent listening and analyzing the music. I made the
comparison in another post that music works for the same reasons that a fine
piece of literature works. And anyone who's taken a high school literature class knows
how much time is spent picking apart "classical" writing, if I dare say it that way.
A good symphony, for example, needs that sort of magnifying glass taken over it.
In order to do this, I would be willing to talk about the less-relevent composers in
history and spend more time focusing on the people and pieces that pushed the
art form to the next level.
> You teach opinions, and you better be open about it.
> "It is good idea to listen to classical music" is an opinion, not a fact.
You're right, that is an opinion -- one I hold dearly. But I don't teach that. I teachmusic
history, form and structure, key periods and composers, etc. Teaching my
opinion of this is like saying, "I like this, and you must also in order to pass my course.
That's an unprofessional attitude, authoritarian, and has no place in a classroom.
I went back to your original post -- the one that got my gander up in the first place.
You wrote:
>I think that this is not very good way. Pupils may think that all classical
>music is boring because John Williams has no talent and originality.
>If you want to introduce someone to classical music, you should start
>with real classics, not second or third-rate imitations.
Regardless of whether or not I agree with that statement, I don't have the luxury
of being able to parade such opinions in front of my students. That will make me
look like a snob, and I work hard not to look like a snob. I stand behind the
assertion that using modern film music, like Williams, is valid because:
1) It's more familiar to most students.
2) It's rooted in popular culture, which most teens are obsessed with anyhow.
3) Its simplicity enables teachers to point out key elemets like form, theme, etc
and transfer that knowledge to larger, more complex and sophisticated works,
like I said before.
The above "pro" statements, by the way, are facts. Your "con" statement was
1) John Williams has no talent and originality.
Like it or not, this is an opinion, and I try not to base my professional decisions
on opinions alone.
Nowhere in my lesson will I teach that it's "good" or "bad music, because I can't define
"good" or "bad" music for my students, that's something they must do themselves. My
immediate goal is to get my students to stop throwing paper airplanes and take an
active part in the discussion. If that means playing the "Imperial March" then I'm not
above that. This is a language that I'm trying to teach here, Michael, and I'm sure you
know that. In order to broaden my students' vocabualry I have to start with the
phrases they already know. If they're interested enough to know what I _think_
of the music, well...that's a level of discussion I've only ever dreamed of having with
my students. They just want to take the quiz and go to lunch. *sigh of resignation*
> You should hit "Enter" every 72 or so characters.
I'm doing this now. Let's see if it works. It it doesn't, well, I dunno. Sue me I guess.
Dan
Carl Tait
In article <newhouse-100...@t1-48.crisp.net>,
Brian Newhouse <newh...@mail.crisp.net> wrote:
>
>For the record, Dukas did not write *L'apprenti sorcier* as a children's
>piece. I suppose it got that status because unlike most symphonic poems
>it's based on a fairy tale, and it was used as the Mickey Mouse number in
>*Fantasia*, both of which would appeal to the more stodgy
>music-appreciation racketeers.
Thanks for the correction -- and you're right: Mickey and countless
"Children's Concerts" had led me to the wrong conclusion. Was
"Carnival of the Animals" originally written for children, or was
it conceived as an exquisite torture for adults?
>[snip to save screen space--but I would also disagree with Mr. Tait about
>avoiding program music in general;
As mentioned in another post, I didn't mean that program music should
be rejected -- only that it shouldn't be *favored* simply because it
has an explicit program.
>the question is how to move from
>explicitly programmatic music to music without an explicit program without
>remaining mired in programmatic habits of listening. I would think Mr.
>McGarvey's encouraging children to think up their own programs, as it
>were, would actually _help_ the move from one to the other;
While I agree that's a good idea for people who find programs helpful,
the programmatic approach just doesn't work for some beginning listeners.
As you may have guessed, I was one of them: listening for the part where
the bird tootled or the storm raged or the monkey guffawed seemed tedious
and silly. To this day, I'm baffled when people ask me (as a performer),
"What do you think about while you're playing that piece?" My half-
joking answer: "Hitting the right notes."
Michael Kagalenko
Dan McGarvey (mcga...@westol.com) wrote in article <35071A4B...@westol.com>
]
]> I never contended you do anything of a kind. I am talking about the idea
]> of "light" classics as a first step to the "real stuff."
]
]I've never been the sort of person to force my students to eat all of theirvegetables before
]they can have dessert, as long as they show a willingness
]to try everything on the plate.
How about feeding them SPAM(r) so that they could stomach rare steak later ?
That seems to be the approach you defend.
] Someone else earlier mentioned the crime of
]"tricking" or "luring" students into classical music with second-rate "bonbons"
]as I recall. Gosh, how absolutely tyrranical that makes it sound. I'm crouched
]down luring the timid little students with Danny Elfman music into a dark dark
]room and suddenly HA HA! HOW ABOUT A LITTLE BARTOK'S CONCERTO
]FOR ORCHESTRA YOU FOOL!! (Fade out evil laughter.)
Now, that scenario *does* tend to make the job of teacher to sound interesting.
On the serious note, I think that was not the point being made. No one
complained about poor mislead students, to my recollection.
]> You teach opinions, and you better be open about it.
]> "It is good idea to listen to classical music" is an opinion, not a fact.
]
]You're right, that is an opinion -- one I hold dearly. But I don't teach that. I teachmusic
]history, form and structure, key periods and composers, etc. Teaching my
]opinion of this is like saying, "I like this, and you must also in order to pass my course.
]That's an unprofessional attitude, authoritarian, and has no place in a classroom.
But learning all those facts is hardly possible if one does not buy
the opinion "It is good idea to listen to classical music." You can lead
the horse to water, etc.
]I went back to your original post -- the one that got my gander up in the first place.
]You wrote:
]
]>I think that this is not very good way. Pupils may think that all classical
]>music is boring because John Williams has no talent and originality.
]>If you want to introduce someone to classical music, you should start
]>with real classics, not second or third-rate imitations.
]
]Regardless of whether or not I agree with that statement, I don't have the luxury
]of being able to parade such opinions in front of my students.
That is hardly the point being made, though, is it ? If you can't parade it,
sneak it in stealthily.
] That will make me
]look like a snob, and I work hard not to look like a snob. I stand behind the
]assertion that using modern film music, like Williams, is valid because:
]
]1) It's more familiar to most students.
]2) It's rooted in popular culture, which most teens are obsessed with anyhow.
]3) Its simplicity enables teachers to point out key elemets like form, theme, etc
]and transfer that knowledge to larger, more complex and sophisticated works,
]like I said before.
This attitude seems to be representative. I just received 3rd brief edition
of "Listen," having decided to check it out, based on the reviews on
this group. Its foreword boasts that one of the book's virtues is that
it's using "shorter words". I thought for a second they were kidding.
Back to the shop it goes.
]The above "pro" statements, by the way, are facts. Your "con" statement was
The statements themselves are facts, yes. But that they are "pro" is not.
(most strikingly, fact 1) isn't. It might be more effective to impress
students by something unlike anything they heard before)
]1) John Williams has no talent and originality.
]
]Like it or not, this is an opinion, and I try not to base my professional decisions
]on opinions alone.
I think that Williams' lack of originality is somewhat more then
just an opinion.
]Nowhere in my lesson will I teach that it's "good" or "bad music, because I can't define
]"good" or "bad" music for my students, that's something they must do themselves. My
]immediate goal is to get my students to stop throwing paper airplanes and take an
]active part in the discussion. If that means playing the "Imperial March" then I'm not
]above that. This is a language that I'm trying to teach here, Michael, and I'm sure you
]know that. In order to broaden my students' vocabualry I have to start with the
]phrases they already know. If they're interested enough to know what I _think_
]of the music, well...that's a level of discussion I've only ever dreamed of having with
]my students. They just want to take the quiz and go to lunch. *sigh of resignation*
I applaud you for working against great odds to spread the word about
the great music. But is it not self-defeating to limit oneself to the
venue already familiar to the students ? They are going to be bored
anyhow, why not make them bored with "Brandenburg Concerto" or
"Military Polonaise, "rather
then "Darth Vader Stomps the Sh*t out of Rebels"
]> You should hit "Enter" every 72 or so characters.
]
] I'm doing this now. Let's see if it works. It it doesn't, well, I dunno. Sue me I guess.
It works when you are not forgetting to do it.
Dan McGarvey
Michael Kagalenko wrote:
>If you can't parade it, sneak it in stealthily.
*wince* I can't do that -- that goes against my professional ethic. See, if
I'm trying to slip in my own opinion, under the table, in the course of my
lesson, then I've robbed the students of the opportinity to form their
own opinions and discussing them intelligently. I've failed to improve
their critical thinking skills, and they were no better off than when they
first walked into the classroom. They just think they like some music
because I told them so. Like I said, I'm not above talking about my
opinions in class, if their questions lead to such a discussion, but sadly,
that rarely happens.
> I applaud you for working against great odds to spread the word about
> the great music. But is it not self-defeating to limit oneself to the
> venue already familiar to the students ?
Woah woah woah, could this be a misunderstanding? I certinly don't wishto limit what the students
hear. The music we've been arguing about here
doesn't deserve such a large percentage of my class time as to overshadow
what's more relevent in the terms of music history. I never meant to imply that
I'd spend weeks and weeks discussing the Nighmare Before Christmas
soundtrack. Naturally I can agree that feeding them nonstop ear candy is going
to bias them against anything that comes down the pike that actually makes them
think. But completely shunning it on the basis of "John Williams stinks" is doing
a disservice by not giving them the opportunity to come to that conclusion on their
own. They might, they might not, and if they don't I'll have you talk to them. :)
They are going to be bored
> anyhow, why not make them bored with "Brandenburg Concerto" or
> "Military Polonaise, "rather
> then "Darth Vader Stomps the Sh*t out of Rebels"
Students will only get as bored as a teacher allows them to get. There's
a sort of psychology that takes place in the classroom that has to be experienced
to be understood. I spend the bulk of my class time in lecture and discussion. The
actual listening part takes up a very small amount of time, and I do this because
students will drift off once my big mouth's been shut for more then two or three
minutes, regardless of what's being played. I'd much rather have us talking than
listening.
Thanks for listening. :)
Dan
Brian Newhouse
In article <6e75k1$m...@ground.cs.columbia.edu>, ta...@news.cs.columbia.edu
(Carl Tait) wrote:
"In article <newhouse-100...@t1-48.crisp.net>,
"Brian Newhouse <newh...@mail.crisp.net> wrote:
[snip to save screen space]
">the question is how to move from
">explicitly programmatic music to music without an explicit program without
">remaining mired in programmatic habits of listening. I would think Mr.
">McGarvey's encouraging children to think up their own programs, as it
">were, would actually _help_ the move from one to the other;
"
"While I agree that's a good idea for people who find programs helpful,
"the programmatic approach just doesn't work for some beginning listeners.
"As you may have guessed, I was one of them: listening for the part where
"the bird tootled or the storm raged or the monkey guffawed seemed tedious
"and silly...
Well, if you had thought up your _own_ program, you wouldn't be listening
in vain for things you hadn't put into it <grin>. One point of making up
a program on one's own would be that the process of making up the program
would force the student to find words to describe what in particular was
happening in the music, and in the process to come to some sort of
understanding. A kid probably doesn't have much of an ability to abstract
schemata on demand; but she can make up stories and pictures, which could
be one big step toward abstracing schemata. (Also, if different kids come
up with different programs for the same music, it's a perfect chance to
discuss the common elements one can abstract from different stories, as
well as the arbitrary nature of the symbols used to describe those common
elements. If you can get away from the notion that every piece must have
one and only one specific program, you're well on the way to
understanding the less representational sorts of listening required for so
much of the musical canon.)
--
Brian Newhouse
newh...@newton.crisp.net
BHeneg8560
In article <6e7el2$i...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu>, mkag...@lynx01.dac.neu.edu
(Michael Kagalenko) writes:
>I think that Williams' lack of originality is somewhat more then
> just an opinion.
But that's also an opinion - or do you have proof will be valid for any
context? After all, there is an infinity of ways and degrees by which two
pieces of music can be said to be similar or dissimilar. Among that infinity,
some people will make much of similarities that others find negligible.
Therefore, I can't see how your statement can ever be more than an opinion
itself.
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
"What! No gwavy?!?"
johan...@iname.com
In article <6e6u5g$k...@ground.cs.columbia.edu>,
ta...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Carl Tait) wrote:
> >Gorecki 3rd symphony -- looong!
>
> And boooooring! The degree of monotony in this piece -- nearly
> unendurable for many classical music lovers -- is actually an
> advantage for newcomers who are used to (and can even enjoy)
> endless repetition.
Funny. I once asked my younger brother (11) why he didn't like the music I
like, (mostly baroque - I love Johan Helmich Roman's sonatas for harpsichord;
I've done a couple of midi-files at the Classical Midi Archives (
http://www.prs.net/others.html#r ).
Anyway, the answer I got quite surprised me, it was something like: "It
sounds all the same the entire time!"
Jacek F. Karczmarczyk
On Thu, 12 Mar 1998 johan...@iname.com wrote:
> Funny. I once asked my younger brother (11) why he didn't like the music I
> like, (mostly baroque - I love Johan Helmich Roman's sonatas for harpsichord;
> I've done a couple of midi-files at the Classical Midi Archives (
> http://www.prs.net/others.html#r ).
> Anyway, the answer I got quite surprised me, it was something like: "It
> sounds all the same the entire time!"
>
> -----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
>
If you ask someone who likes classical music what does he think about
pop,rock,disco etc. I think you would get the same answer... Am I right?
BTW-I also like baroque (ie harpsichord pieces by Johann Jacob Froberger)
bye!
Jaun...@mailcity.com
In article <6djllg$u...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>,
"*blackbird*" <ki...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
>
> this post isn't a request for information....just a thought...well, a few
> thoughts...
>
> I am going to be 18 years old in 5 days and I love classical music....let me
I'm 19!
> tell you, it's a lonely world for the teenager who drifts over to the
> classical music section while her friends are checking out the newest
> Spice Girls' release.
Have you considered having your pet accompany you (I hope you have one)?
Cats make wonderful companions and oftentimes like classical music. My
favorites are Meowszart and Rawssini.
jT
---------
Jaune Tom
Chief Mischief Officer,
Rodent Consultants, Int.
Main and Wall Streets
Catskill, NY 12414, USA
Jaun...@MailCity.Com
phone: 1-800-FOR-CATS
fax: 1-800-FOR-RATS
------------------------
Better Than a Maws Trap!
------------------------
Jaun...@mailcity.com
In article <6e1pl3$k...@ground.cs.columbia.edu>,
ta...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Carl Tait) wrote:
>
> Chopin: Fast Etudes (ditto Scriabin and Rachmaninoff)
What are the opus numbers of the fast etudes?
Mahesh Sardesai
In article <6ecfnk$5qk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Jaun...@MailCity.com wrote:
> In article <6djllg$u...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>,
> "*blackbird*" <ki...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
> >
> > this post isn't a request for information....just a thought...well, a few
> > thoughts...
> >
> > I am going to be 18 years old in 5 days and I love classical music....let me
>
> I'm 19!
>
> > tell you, it's a lonely world for the teenager who drifts over to the
> > classical music section while her friends are checking out the newest
> > Spice Girls' release.
Stomach, be still.
> Have you considered having your pet accompany you (I hope you have one)?
> Cats make wonderful companions and oftentimes like classical music. My
> favorites are Meowszart and Rawssini.
Or the obvious choice, of course: Purrrcell.
Carl Tait
In article <6e9670$msl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, <johan...@iname.com> wrote:
>In article <6e6u5g$k...@ground.cs.columbia.edu>,
> ta...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Carl Tait) wrote:
>
>> >Gorecki 3rd symphony -- looong!
>>
>> And boooooring! The degree of monotony in this piece -- nearly
>> unendurable for many classical music lovers -- is actually an
>> advantage for newcomers who are used to (and can even enjoy)
>> endless repetition.
>
>Anyway, the answer I got quite surprised me, it was something like:
>"It sounds all the same the entire time!"
The odd part is that "sounding the same the entire time" may be the
result of complexity the listener doesn't hear. The piece therefore
seems to be a semi-random collection of similar sounds. This is
exactly the response I have when listening to the Second Piano Sonata
of Boulez: I can follow the structure on paper, but I don't *hear* it,
so the piece sounds like rocks falling on the keyboard for 30 minutes.
In the Gorecki, the structure is mind-numbingly obvious, despite the
great length of the piece. As in the Pachelbel Canon, the gestures
that seem overly obvious and repetitive to many of us are welcome
signposts for those new to classical music.
HOWARD HELLER
-=> Quoting Carl Tait to All <=-
CT> @FROM :ta...@news.cs.columbia.edu
CT> N @SUBJECT:Re: teens and classical music
CT> N @UMSGID :<6eh8kt$g...@ground.cs.columbia.edu>
CT> N @UNEWSGR:01rec.music.classical
CT> N In article <6e9670$msl$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
CT> <johan...@iname.com> wrote: >In article
CT> <6e6u5g$k...@ground.cs.columbia.edu>, > ta...@news.cs.columbia.edu (Carl
CT> Tait) wrote: >
>> >Gorecki 3rd symphony -- looong!
>>
>> And boooooring! The degree of monotony in this piece -- nearly
>> unendurable for many classical music lovers -- is actually an
>> advantage for newcomers who are used to (and can even enjoy)
>> endless repetition.
:
>"...It sounds all the same the entire time!"
CT> The odd part is that "sounding the same the entire time" may be the
CT> result of complexity the listener doesn't hear. The piece therefore
CT> seems to be a semi-random collection of similar sounds. This is
CT> exactly the response I have when listening to the Second Piano Sonata
CT> of Boulez: I can follow the structure on paper, but I don't *hear* it,
CT> so the piece sounds like rocks falling on the keyboard for 30 minutes.
[...]
Commenting about the music of J.S. Bach, a friend once said to me,
"What's so great about his music ? It all sounds the same. That constant
'deedle-deedle-deedle' of baroque music"
Chac un son gout.
.. A thing of beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
David Morriss
Mahesh Sardesai wrote in message ...
>In article <6ecfnk$5qk$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, Jaun...@MailCity.com wrote:
>
>> In article <6djllg$u...@lehi.kuentos.guam.net>,
>> "*blackbird*" <ki...@kuentos.guam.net> wrote:
>> >
>> Have you considered having your pet accompany you (I hope you have one)?
>> Cats make wonderful companions and oftentimes like classical music. My
>> favorites are Meowszart and Rawssini.
>
>Or the obvious choice, of course: Purrrcell.
>
And let's not forget Milhaud. Or, indeed, NZ composer Douglas Mews... ;-)
David Morriss
dmor...@ihug.co.nz
Franzst
I think the biggest difference between classical music and pop, rock... is
that classical music is the work of geniuses, while those popular music is
produced by people who want to provide entertainment to others. But what a
pity that most young people rather have music produced by ordinary people
instead of works of geniuses!
And I do agree that the popular music sounds all the same (except a few)...
Mike Davis
There is a great editorial in the latest issue of American Record Guide
by editor Donald Vroon on the issue of declining classical music
awareness and the "elite" who still enjoy it. His column is usually
the first thing I turn to when I buy a copy. Don't always agree with
Mr. Vroon, but he is right on with this topic.
Mike Davis
mailto:mda...@clandjop.com
HOWARD HELLER
-=> Quoting Franzst to All <=-
Fr> @FROM :fra...@netteens.net
Fr> N @SUBJECT:Re: teens and classical music
Fr> N @UMSGID :<01bd547e$1115dd60$44648bd0@cwin95>
Fr> N @UNEWSGR:01rec.music.classical
Fr> N I think the biggest difference between classical music and pop,
Fr> rock... is that classical music is the work of geniuses, while those
Fr> popular music is produced by people who want to provide entertainment
Fr> to others. But what a pity that most young people rather have music
Fr> produced by ordinary people instead of works of geniuses!
Fr> And I do agree that the popular music sounds all the same (except a
Fr> few)...
I was in the laundromat yesterday which had the local "Lite-FM" station
playing on the radio. Usually just a background sound, the music was
audible due to the fact that the place was practically empty.
Anyway, while in the midst of folding my clothes and day dreaming my
attention was suddenly drawn by a soft caypso-like acoustic guitar intro
with some light percussion in the background. The music was so refreshing
and so uplifting and so different from the usual blather these stations
play...and in an instant I thought, "this could only be the Beatles".
Sure enough, Paul McCartney's beautiful voice flowed in as he sang the
lyrics: "There were bells on the hills...but I never heard them ringing
till there was you."
The music was beautifully played amidst complicated syncopations which
sounded easy and natural. The harmonic changes were deftly handled
and unpredictable...right up to the last augmented chord. Hearing this
great tune for the first time in probably ten years brought a smile to
my face and filled me with a sense of musical satisfaction similar to
that of a beautifully simple melody of Bach sung by a boy soprano in one
of his cantatas. My point being...good music is wherever you find it.
btw...The Beatles, IMHO, classify as geniuses.
Cheers...Howard Heller
.. Unleavened bread is bread made without ingredients.
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
Mitchel L. Galishoff
David Samuel Barr
HOWARD HELLER wrote:
>
>
> I was in the laundromat yesterday which had the local "Lite-FM"
> station playing on the radio. Usually just a background sound, the
> music was audible due to the fact that the place was practically
> empty.
>
> Anyway, while in the midst of folding my clothes and day dreaming my
> refreshing and so uplifting and so different from the usual blather
> these stations play...and in an instant I thought, "this could only be
> the Beatles". Sure enough, Paul McCartney's beautiful voice flowed in
> as he sang the lyrics: "There were bells on the hills...but I never
> heard them ringing till there was you."
>
> The music was beautifully played amidst complicated syncopations which
> sounded easy and natural. The harmonic changes were deftly handled
> and unpredictable...right up to the last augmented chord. Hearing
> this great tune for the first time in probably ten years brought a
> smile to my face and filled me with a sense of musical satisfaction
> similar to that of a beautifully simple melody of Bach sung by a boy
> soprano in one of his cantatas. My point being...good music is
> wherever you find it.
>
> btw...The Beatles, IMHO, classify as geniuses.
Except for the fact that the song in question was not a Beatles song,
but "Till There Was You", a song from "The Music Man" (music and lyrics
by Meredith Willson).
baldwin
In article <01bd547e$1115dd60$44648bd0@cwin95>,
"Franzst" <fra...@netteens.net> wrote:
>I think the biggest difference between classical music and pop, rock... is
>that classical music is the work of geniuses, while those popular music is
>produced by people who want to provide entertainment to others. But what a
>pity that most young people rather have music produced by ordinary people
>instead of works of geniuses!
Then again, we should also keep in mind that a lot of 'classical' music *was*
the pop music of the time. Composers worried incessantly about the popularity
of their pieces, etc. Who knows, in 100-200 years, there might be some
'classics' from this era's pop songs too.
Cheers...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please remove the 'spamnot' from the address above to reply to this
message.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HOWARD HELLER
-=> Quoting David Samuel Barr to All <=-
DSB> @FROM :dsb...@mindspring.com
DSB> N @UMSGID :<351603...@mindspring.com>
DSB> N @UNEWSGR:01rec.music.classical
DSB> N HOWARD HELLER wrote:
>
> ...and in an instant I thought, "this could only be
> the Beatles". Sure enough, Paul McCartney's beautiful voice flowed in
> as he sang the lyrics: "There were bells on the hills...but I never
> heard them ringing till there was you."
DSB> Except for the fact that the song in question was not a Beatles song,
DSB> but "Till There Was You", a song from "The Music Man" (music and
DSB> lyrics by Meredith Willson).
Quite right, and I stand corrected, thank you. However, I hope you
understand the point I was attempting to make in the example.
The error I made highlights an interesting point of our culture whereby
certain people, or groups of people, will associate a particular pop
song with the artist they know while being unaware of its origins.
In the case above, I grew up hearing the Beatles version of "Till There
Was You" and, while I knew full well its origins, I always think of it
as a "Beatles Tune."
I still find it amusing when I meet someone who thinks the tune "This is
Dedicated to the One I Love" was originally done by the Mamas & Papas.
Thanks again for clearing this up.
..Howard
.. Gutenberg invented the Bible.
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
Charles Jordan
bh...@spamnot.unixg.ubc.ca (baldwin) wrote:
>In article <01bd547e$1115dd60$44648bd0@cwin95>,
> "Franzst" <fra...@netteens.net> wrote:
>>I think the biggest difference between classical music and pop, rock... is
>>that classical music is the work of geniuses, while those popular music is
>>produced by people who want to provide entertainment to others. But what a
>>pity that most young people rather have music produced by ordinary people
>>instead of works of geniuses!
>Then again, we should also keep in mind that a lot of 'classical' music *was*
>the pop music of the time. Composers worried incessantly about the popularity
>of their pieces, etc. Who knows, in 100-200 years, there might be some
>'classics' from this era's pop songs too.
Quite right. Anyone who claims that Foster, Joplin, Gershwin, Porter,
Ellington, Jobim, Lennon, McCartney, LeGrand, Wilson, Bacharach, and
Simon lack the intelligence of Scarlatti, Couperin, Telemann, Stamitz,
Meyerbeer, or Delibes has confused style for substance. One might as
well claim that navigation is a dead art because no one has charted a
new continent in years.
Waranun Bunjongsat
Hi,
> >In article <01bd547e$1115dd60$44648bd0@cwin95>,
> > "Franzst" <fra...@netteens.net> wrote:
>
> >>I think the biggest difference between classical music and pop, rock... is
> >>that classical music is the work of geniuses, while those popular music is
> >>produced by people who want to provide entertainment to others. But what a
> >>pity that most young people rather have music produced by ordinary people
> >>instead of works of geniuses!
Well, what if Beethoven had born in 20th century in Liverpool or
Tennessee and he had started music with a Guitar or drum, then he wouldn't
have been a genius, or would he ? I don't think that all classical music's
composers are geniuses though.
Waranun,
Shelia2972
>> >>pity that most young people rather have music produced by ordinary people
>> >>instead of works of geniuses!
Well what is a genius?
If we want to look at "genius" from a financial point of view some of these
"popular" artists would be considered geniuses. For one they shock people, two
they are well known for whatever little trick they do on stage. Mozart I would
say he was up there in the genius area, also Bach. But look at there lives.
Look how they died.
I have a problem with what Franzst said.....
>>pity that most young people rather have music produced by ordinary people
>> >>instead of works of geniuses!
As a classical and rock lover I know this statement is a very uneducated one.
Take a look at the music of Pink Floyd. They take a motive and develop it very
much in the same fashion as some romantic and 20th centary symphonies.
What also upsets me is that the typical "classical" response that all rock
music is just a bunch of marijuana smoking musical rejects. Thats just like
some kid saying that all classical music is boring.
I find it funny how there are all these music lovers on this newsgroup, but
they can't find anything musical about any type of music other than classical.
Yes I relize that this is a classical discussion list, but come on. This isn't
the lets rip on anything that isn't classical newsgroup now is it?
So I suggest we grow up, get some "popular" CDs at you local library and see
how some of these "long haired punks" barrowed some ideas from these wonderful
musical geniuses from your favorite period of classical music. You have to
give us young poeple some credit. We are not all Mmm Bop or Korn
freaks....some of us to have taste.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
Ask me about mircowaving cats for fun and profit.
Mike Coldewey
Shelia2972 wrote:
>
>
> >>pity that most young people rather have music produced by ordinary people
> >> >>instead of works of geniuses!
>
> As a classical and rock lover I know this statement is a very uneducated one.
> Take a look at the music of Pink Floyd. They take a motive and develop it very
> much in the same fashion as some romantic and 20th centary symphonies.
>
> What also upsets me is that the typical "classical" response that all rock
> music is just a bunch of marijuana smoking musical rejects. Thats just like
> some kid saying that all classical music is boring.
>
Well, no. A kid saying that classical music is boring isn't envious of
the people who make classical music ...
> I find it funny how there are all these music lovers on this newsgroup, but
> they can't find anything musical about any type of music other than classical.
Whoa there, flame-a-rama. Wasn't there a recent thread about just this
issue? "Music I like that isn't classical".
If you were to start it again you might be surprised at the breadth of
taste.
> Yes I relize that this is a classical discussion list, but come on. This isn't
> the lets rip on anything that isn't classical newsgroup now is it?
Well ... judges???
>
> So I suggest we grow up, get some "popular" CDs at you local library and see
> how some of these "long haired punks" barrowed some ideas from these wonderful
> musical geniuses from your favorite period of classical music. You have to
> give us young poeple some credit. We are not all Mmm Bop or Korn
> freaks....some of us to have taste.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------
> Ask me about mircowaving cats for fun and profit.
... glad he didn't say "microwaving" - that's a harrowing thought. My
mircowave is at the cealners.
Seriously, this group isn't all snobs. I mean it. Really.
Hubert Schmid
The real difference is, that "popular" music is written for the people, and
new composed "serious" music is written for the critics. If music doesn't
move in heart, it is not interesting for anybody
John Underwood
In article <199805281646...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, Shelia2972
<sheli...@aol.com> writes
>I find it funny how there are all these music lovers on this newsgroup, but
>they can't find anything musical about any type of music other than classical.
>the lets rip on anything that isn't classical newsgroup now is it?
What do you mean? I like baroque, romantic, various schools of twentieth
century music, including minimalism. I even like some modern works in
the style of medieval modal folk melody performed on modern instruments,
even if it often relies excessively on electronic media for performance
and on recording engineers to introduce acceptable tonal quality.
--
John Underwood
Stephen Axcell
I don't think that was what he meant. I take it classical was in the wider
definition. But anyway, my music collection stretches beyond "classical"
in that sense.
Stephen Axcell (19)
Mary Malone
Please. How can you seriously suggest that all classical music "is the work
of geniuses?"
Have you really sat through the entire repertoire of every classical
concert series you've been to recently and said to yourself, "Oh yes, every
piece I've heard tonight is a work of genius." I doubt it.
As for why teens prefer pop music -- bear in mind that they bring another
element to their appreciation of what they hear: raging hormones. Teens
like music that is presented by performers who are visually exciting (to
them). Older classical music fans can be stirred by an attractive,
charismatic perfomer. They just don't expect it to happen as often. But are
certainly grateful when it the sparks do fly.
So, I'd say that teens demand emotional / visual / sensual stimulation from
music virtually all the time. Older classical fans settle for what they can
get.
Mary Malone
Charles Jordan <al...@rev.net> wrote in article
<6kip95$n0f$2...@mahler.rev.net>...
> bh...@spamnot.unixg.ubc.ca (baldwin) wrote:
>
> >In article <01bd547e$1115dd60$44648bd0@cwin95>,
> > "Franzst" <fra...@netteens.net> wrote:
>
> >>I think the biggest difference between classical music and pop, rock...
is
> >>that classical music is the work of geniuses, while those popular music
is
> >>produced by people who want to provide entertainment to others. But
what a
> >>pity that most young people rather have music produced by ordinary
people
> >>instead of works of geniuses!
>
Killane
note that I am a teen for approximately 2 more years...
Mary Malone wrote:
> Please. How can you seriously suggest that all classical music "is the work
> of geniuses?"
right. One can't claim that all classical music is the work of genius. it is
just not true. period. Anyone can make classical music, it doesn't have to be
good.
> As for why teens prefer pop music -- bear in mind that they bring another
> element to their appreciation of what they hear: raging hormones. Teens
> like music that is presented by performers who are visually exciting (to
> them).
> So, I'd say that teens demand emotional / visual / sensual stimulation from
> music virtually all the time.
I will agree with this. As a general rule, this seems to be true. however,
there is more to it that just this.
That most teens do not like classical is not a problem; their liking of pop
music is not a problem either. as many have said, much serious music was in its
time the Pop and dance. Thier dislike of classical does not stem from some sort
of musical inferiority (that they are incapable of liking "quality" music and
prefer "ordinary" music to that written by geniuses) Rather it is a much deeper
issue that encompasses not only music, but the rest of our culture.
The problem is consciounessness. People just do not think about what they are
doing. In the young, this is accepted, but as children ,mature and become
teens, they should become more conscious of themselves and their world.
Unfortunately, this is not so. The musical ramification of this is that any old
music will do, and since pop music has much to do with the "scene" - MTV, rock
concerts, T-shirts, etc., it is more appealing. It has more "charisma" it's
flashy and glamorous. Classical music seems dull and unexciting. Well, the
thing is, most teens don't have a high level of consciousness and as a result
do not LISTEN to music. Sure they hear it and say "that's a good song" but they
don't really pay attention to it.
As one gains consciouness, their taste becomes more discriminating as they pay
attention to what is happening. Sometimes, this manifests itself in an interest
in classical music - but it doesn't have to.
the bottom line is this: Any type of music is fine to listen to as long as one
really listens to it. If you find the Spice Girls to your taste, go for it. But
remember to pay attention to it. Actually listen to the individual notes, the
rhythm, how it flows. What musical feeling is there at the end of the song that
there wasn't at the begining? DO you get anything out of listening? How did
they come up with the melody?
in much pop music it may be easy to answer these questions. If you do, it's
very likely that you're musically (and consciously) better than the people who
are playing it to begin with.
Quality in art is a subjective matter, and it can remain so if we pay the same
amount of attention to everything we listen to.
(I am by no means saying that we must listen to all kinds of music, but if you
listen to more than one kind, they should all get equal consideration)
I appologize for being excessivly wordy and to the people with slow ISP
connections who spent a good three hours dowloading this message, but I really
had to contribute to this subject which is of great importance to me.
--
Killane
Stephen Axcell
>(snip)
>
> As for why teens prefer pop music -- bear in mind that they bring another
> element to their appreciation of what they hear: raging hormones. Teens
> like music that is presented by performers who are visually exciting (to
> charismatic perfomer. They just don't expect it to happen as often. But are
> certainly grateful when it the sparks do fly.
>
> get.
there? Among my (technically teenage) friends, I can count a Susato fan, a
Gabrieli fan, a Beethoven fan, a Mozart fan, and me, a Mahler, Bruckner
and Wagner fan. I have substantially less Backstreet Boys fan friends.
Stephen Axcell (teenage for at least another 9 months)
tsiatsos
The two, that is classical and rock (under which, for conversation sake, falls all
pop, classic, etc.) are not able to be compared fairly. To compare the two is to
compare the automobile to the airplane, (while time is in opposites here, the
analogy still applies) and point out the shortcomings of one in comparison to the
other. Both were first developed under different circumstances with different
materials on hand for the inventor.
In comparing say, the Goldberg variations, to any a piece by the modern group
Radiohead, one will find obvious differences. One can point out the "genius"
behind the variation pattern of Bach and the symmetry. One can marvel at the
rhythmic intricacies of even the aria. One can listen to Feltsman's mirror image
recording, so to speak, and marvel further. In comparison one would say that the
piece by Radiohead was obviously lacking in musical quality.
However, the well-informed listener of Radiohead cold point out, for instance, on
the 6th track (let Down) of O.K. Computer, the piece begins with a very unusual 5
pattern. This pattern repeats two and a half times and is placed over a 4/4
meter. At this point, anyone who didn't know any better would just disregard the
five pattern in their head, and go along with the 4 pattern which obviously
prevails throughout the song. Important to note that the 5 pattern is not against
the four, but on top of it, thus creating more uncertainty as to where the first
beat actually falls. This pattern is augmented further by a 3 pattern in half
time on top of the five, and over the four. In addition, the 5 goes into
something like cut time further in the piece, still maintaining its integrity.
Now, where is this in Bach? It is all relative. For most modern (non-classical)
bands, this is really quite rare and unordinary, but not a necessary exception.
We as classical musicians must be able to recognize the genius in all kinds of
music, by not holding to one standard of genius.
Waranun Bunjongsat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > >In article <01bd547e$1115dd60$44648bd0@cwin95>,
> > > "Franzst" <fra...@netteens.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>I think the biggest difference between classical music and pop, rock... is
> > >>that classical music is the work of geniuses, while those popular music is
> > >>produced by people who want to provide entertainment to others. But what a
> > >>pity that most young people rather have music produced by ordinary people
> > >>instead of works of geniuses!
>
John Underwood
In article <Pine.OSF.3.95.98052...@sable.ox.ac.uk>,
Stephen Axcell <newc...@sable.ox.ac.uk> writes
of some of the hundreds of teenagers who come to those concerts ranging
from baroque and earlier (Hildegard von Bingen among others) to
premieres at least once a week. We even have a dip into history with a
late night concert of reggae among other things.
--
John Underwood
John Grabowski
Hubert Schmid wrote:
>
> The real difference is, that "popular" music is written for the people, and
> new composed "serious" music is written for the critics.
Then how come so many critics hate it so much?
> If music doesn't
> move in heart, it is not interesting for anybody
And what moves your heart will move mine, of couse....
:-/
John
--
The first time I played at the Hollywood Bowl, it was Tchaikovsky.
The second time, two years later, it was the same Tchaikovsky.
The third time, two years after that, I was again told "Tchaikovsky."
--Gary Graffman, I Really Should Be Practicing.
al...@rev.net
bh...@spamnot.unixg.ubc.ca (baldwin) wrote:
>In article <01bd547e$1115dd60$44648bd0@cwin95>,
> "Franzst" <fra...@netteens.net> wrote:
>>I think the biggest difference between classical music and pop, rock... is
>>that classical music is the work of geniuses, while those popular music is
>>produced by people who want to provide entertainment to others. But what a
>>pity that most young people rather have music produced by ordinary people
>>instead of works of geniuses!
>Then again, we should also keep in mind that a lot of 'classical' music *was*
Don Vu
I am in high school and I personally listen and love all kinds of music,
except for rap. I listen to classical music probably more than any of my
friends, but this is probably becuase I play the violin. The only
explaination for this, though, is that I have been exposed to classical
music more and have grown to love it. Among all of my other friends, I have
found one ironic thing. The ones who appreciate classical music the most
are the same ones you guys would call the pot smokin crack heads. The
reason is becuase they play guitar, drums, or bass, or whatever else and
they understand music a lot more than most teens. When I play Mozart's
Violin Concert No. 4 for them, they think it's awesome becuase of the double
stops in the cadenza. I was pretty much shocked when I heard one of them
say that. I recently played Spring from the Vivaldi's Four Seasons for a
school orchestra/chorus concert I received 2 ovations. The crowd was about
half students and half parents. Afterwards, I got compliments from other
kids, not parents. People said when I was finished everyone sat there in
kind of disbelief. Yeah, sure, teens think classical music is boring, I do
myself sometimes, but if they listen to it more, they can enjoy it. So
don't underestimate kids. We have a better grip on reality than most adults
think. But that's just my opinion...
Michael
-only 7 more months and 7 more days before I can drive at the ripe old age
of 16!
Waranun Bunjongsat
Hi,
> explaination for this, though, is that I have been exposed to classical
> music more and have grown to love it. Among all of my other friends, I have
> found one ironic thing. The ones who appreciate classical music the most
> are the same ones you guys would call the pot smokin crack heads. The
> reason is becuase they play guitar, drums, or bass, or whatever else and
> they understand music a lot more than most teens. When I play Mozart's
> Violin Concert No. 4 for them, they think it's awesome becuase of the double
> stops in the cadenza. I was pretty much shocked when I heard one of them
> say that. I recently played Spring from the Vivaldi's Four Seasons for a
As I said, it's not the look or style that is matter.
> myself sometimes, but if they listen to it more, they can enjoy it. So
> don't underestimate kids. We have a better grip on reality than most adults
> think. But that's just my opinion...
We're also listening to music that a lot composed by kids, like a
lot of Mozart's and Mendelsohn's, people worship those pieces like music
from heaven. I believe there are still a lot kids that could be Mozart and
Mendelsohn. They just do not have chances to shine. Fate brought them in
different way. I have heard also that a lot of spoiled kids has I.Q. more
than 140 (on Stanford Scale) which is considered 'GIFTED' to 'GENIUS'.
A lot of good kids also may have the same ability, but their ability has
never been polished and supported to the best. The kids themself also do
not have inspiration or ambition to do so, or they just do not want to do
it, they found their own world that may be different from others the most
enjoyable. Who could say that they are wrong, I'm not, though.
Waranun,
-used to be a conservative kid like Michael but also never think that the
pot smokin crack heads are weeds or wasteful.
Albert Silverman
In article <356F50...@earthlink.net>,
John Grabowski <jg...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Hubert Schmid wrote:
>>
>> The real difference is, that "popular" music is written for the people, and
>> new composed "serious" music is written for the critics.
>
>Then how come so many critics hate it so much?
"Serious" music is written for _other composers_, particularly those
within the halls of academia.
This is not the kind of "critic" that hates it.
He has his "critics" all mixed up!
Matt
In article <01bd8a70$91f0f5a0$89c0...@bm427357.muenchen.org>,
Hubert Schmid <hubert...@muenchen.org> wrote:
>The real difference is, that "popular" music is written for the people, and
>move in heart, it is not interesting for anybody
The real difference is that popular music is written to make money
and "classical" music is written to make works of beauty.
Or were we arguing that the film Titanic was made as a work for the people
rather than to extract money *from* the people? If that's what
"for the people" means, I worry about what "Government by, of, and
for the people" means now.
--
Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
619-469-0564 web...@SOLUSOFT.NET lsto...@EAGLE1.EAGLENET.COM
Be sure to send them all the spam mail you send to me!
Waranun Bunjongsat
Hi,
> The real difference is that popular music is written to make money
> and "classical" music is written to make works of beauty.
> Or were we arguing that the film Titanic was made as a work for the people
Yes, Popular music is written to be popular (so for the money). -
but perhaps, people also like beautiful music.
Classical music is written to make works beauty <- well, who knows
the composer's mind.
However, the music that written to be progressive with
concentration on the artistical value, of course are not written to be
popular (or make money) - but to be precious art works of real artists.
Such as some (or most) of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven and etc. However, if you
investigate into the development of modern music, there were also that
kind of progression. The level of seriousness on artistics may be
different between pop, rock, progressive and so on. Among the rock music
listener, they also talk about music that are made to be popular to
stimulate the listener's sensimental and the music that made to be
artworks. I believe in classical music, there are also that weight between
popularity and artistics in the composer's mind and also in the listener
feeling.
But we know for sure that both classical music and
modern/contemporary music that are immortal, all have great value. I do
love song like 'As time goes by' even more than a lot of classical music.
There are also a lot other works, like of Pink Floyd and so on. That
probably have higher value than some classical music that some of them
like to give the audience a few Bangs, because audience always like that.
OR making his works sound like Beethoven's because knowing that the
audience admire.
Thanks,
Waranun,
Rich Wood
On 31 May 1998 03:30:17 GMT, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt) wrote:
>The real difference is that popular music is written to make money
>and "classical" music is written to make works of beauty.
That would be an interesting concept to most composers who wrote for
money. As I recall, Bach wrote for money and had to "fill time" during
each Sunday's service.
When a composer wrote for the Pope was he trying create great beauty
or was he attempting to please the Pope so his appointment would
continue? Somehow I doubt the Pope, however heavenly inspired, is the
ultimate judge of beauty.
> Or were we arguing that the film Titanic was made as a work for the people
>rather than to extract money *from* the people?
Were Operas made as "works for the people" or as a way to make money
by attracting people to Opera Houses? If audiences didn't come, how
long were the Operas performed? Even worse, if the Emperor, Pope,
Bishop or whoever was in charge of public taste didn't like it, how
long would it live?
There's little difference between the economics of Classical music and
that of popular music.
>If that's what
>"for the people" means, I worry about what "Government by, of, and
>for the people" means now.
I think you should have begun worrying about that in the late 1700's.
Rich
Matt
In article <357166dd...@news.mindspring.com>,
Rich Wood <rich...@commspec.com> wrote:
>On 31 May 1998 03:30:17 GMT, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt) wrote:
>
>>The real difference is that popular music is written to make money
>>and "classical" music is written to make works of beauty.
>
>That would be an interesting concept to most composers who wrote for
>money. As I recall, Bach wrote for money and had to "fill time" during
>each Sunday's service.
>
>When a composer wrote for the Pope was he trying create great beauty
>or was he attempting to please the Pope so his appointment would
>continue? Somehow I doubt the Pope, however heavenly inspired, is the
>ultimate judge of beauty.
Indeed, Bach was solidly competent at what he did and accumulated a large
repertoire before working on his cantata cycle---then swiftly recycled
many of his instrumental works into cantata movements.
>> Or were we arguing that the film Titanic was made as a work for the people
>>rather than to extract money *from* the people?
>Were Operas made as "works for the people" or as a way to make money
>by attracting people to Opera Houses? If audiences didn't come, how
>long were the Operas performed? Even worse, if the Emperor, Pope,
>Bishop or whoever was in charge of public taste didn't like it, how
>long would it live?
Precisely so. I must say, the lives of composers have oft been
precarious... and I'm not entirely surprised that I find Rossini more
than a little bit boring.
>There's little difference between the economics of Classical music and
>that of popular music.
True. There's more money to be made exploiting the long-since-dead and
out-of-copyright than the living. Expect to see a sudden interest
in Bartok in 15 years or so, to go with the current interest in Mahler.
>>If that's what
>>"for the people" means, I worry about what "Government by, of, and
>>for the people" means now.
>
>I think you should have begun worrying about that in the late 1700's.
You overestimate my age a bit.
--
Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
ca...@ELECTRICITI.COM loo...@SDDT.COM pu...@CERF.NET dom...@ELECTRICITI.COM
BHeneg8560
In article <6kqis9$9f0$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt)
writes:
>The real difference is that popular music is written to make money
>and "classical" music is written to make works of beauty.
What about music that many people find beautiful, and are willing to pay for?
Or is that just "marketing", a word, like "hype", that's often used to denote
the promotion of whatever you don't happen to like? If the UK "Gramaphone"
magazine were to sell twelve pages of its December issue to Sony to advertise
Sony's latest classical records, would that also be "hype"?
best wishes
Ben Heneghan
"What - no gwavy?!?"
Matt
In article <199806012147...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Making beauty is no guarantee that money will roll in. It's also no
guarantee that it won't.
BHeneg8560
In article <6kv7jt$g7m$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt)
writes:
>BHeneg8560 <bhene...@aol.com> wrote:
>>What about music that many people find beautiful, and are willing to pay
>for?
>>Or is that just "marketing", a word, like "hype", that's often used to
>denote
>>the promotion of whatever you don't happen to like? If the UK "Gramaphone"
>>magazine were to sell twelve pages of its December issue to Sony to
>advertise
>>Sony's latest classical records, would that also be "hype"?
>Making beauty is no guarantee that money will roll in. It's also no
>guarantee that it won't.
There's no beauty unless people find it. I agree that there's no guarantee that
the money will roll in. But what I said was "What about music that many people
find beautiful, and are willing to pay
for?" That is, surely, beautiful, commercial music, isn't it?
Matt
In article <199806012204...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
This raises the curious question---can the beauty of a work change
with time, e.g. when it goes out of fashion?
A possible way out of this is to ascribe beauty not to the work itself
but to the transaction of listening.
BHeneg8560
In article <6kv933$grt$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt)
writes:
>>There's no beauty unless people find it. I agree that there's no guarantee
>that
>>the money will roll in. But what I said was "What about music that many
>people
>>find beautiful, and are willing to pay
>>for?" That is, surely, beautiful, commercial music, isn't it?
>This raises the curious question---can the beauty of a work change
>with time, e.g. when it goes out of fashion?
The beauty takes place between work and hearer. Twelve different hearers may,
at the same particular date, love the work in twelve different degrees, ranging
from hatred to adoration. The reasons that lie behind these twelve different
responses may or may not include fashion. The longevity of each of the twelve's
responses doesn't matter much, surely?
>A possible way out of this is to ascribe beauty not to the work itself
>but to the transaction of listening.
Think of the Louvre. Is there any Art in it before the doors admit the public?
Without appreciators, I think not. Between the hours of six p.m. and nine a.m.,
there are lumps of stone, painted canvases, and sundry other materials. One can
almost say, art is a matter of louvre doors. The work of art itself would say
"I do not think (therefore I do not exist) before a.m."
David J. Loftus
Mary Malone (mma...@execulink.com) wrote:
: As for why teens prefer pop music -- bear in mind that they bring another
: element to their appreciation of what they hear: raging hormones. Teens
: like music that is presented by performers who are visually exciting (to
: them). Older classical music fans can be stirred by an attractive,
: charismatic perfomer. They just don't expect it to happen as often. But are
: certainly grateful when it the sparks do fly.
That's not all. Much rock music also expresses frustration, rage, power
(or the desire for it) expressed both in volume and in color/motion in
live and video presentations. There's a little of that in classical
music as well -- increasingly during the 19th century -- but not in such
raw form.
: So, I'd say that teens demand emotional / visual / sensual stimulation
: from music virtually all the time. Older classical fans settle for
: what they can get.
That too is a little simplistic. Classical fans are willing to work more
-- apply more mental attention and patience -- for their rewards, some of
which are not that different. Most rock music offers it in more blatant,
undigested form.
(I'm not trying to denigrate rock, by the way. I love Led Zep as well as
get an occasional kick out of bands like the Butthole Surfers and Thin
White Rope. But I like the more rarified, cerebral rock of King
Crimson and Gentle Giant, as well as the delicate pleasures of Joni
Mitchell, Tuck & Patti, and the Bobs.)
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Matt (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: This raises the curious question---can the beauty of a work change
: with time, e.g. when it goes out of fashion?
Certainly. People -- at least theater producers -- thought Shakespeare's
"King Lear" not suitable for popular consumption, so for a century and a
half they substituted Nahum Tate's version.
D.H. Lawrence found Joyce's _Ulysses_ filthy and disgusting.
: A possible way out of this is to ascribe beauty not to the work itself
: but to the transaction of listening.
To an extent, yes. Beauty lies (partly) in the eye (and ear) of the
beholder.
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
BHeneg8560 (bhene...@aol.com) wrote:
: Think of the Louvre. Is there any Art in it before the doors admit the
: public? Without appreciators, I think not. Between the hours of six
: p.m. and nine a.m., there are lumps of stone, painted canvases, and
: sundry other materials. One can almost say, art is a matter of louvre
: doors. The work of art itself would say "I do not think (therefore I
: do not exist) before a.m."
Beautifully put. Several years ago, I had a spirited debate with some
folks on the Camille Paglia list after I suggested that Emily Dickinson
was not a literary genius until many years after her death ... because
hardly anyone saw her work until then.
In a sense, it takes human appreciators to co-create a work (and artist)
of genius.
David Loftus
Matt
In article <dloftEt...@netcom.com>,
Ah, but Emily Dickenson was human and almost certainly appreciated her
own work. Solipsism of the sort you're advocating is not really all that
exciting.
--
Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
619-469-0564 dle...@VIRGIN.CO.UK sa...@iotech.co.uk ru...@IOTECH.COM
ca...@ELECTRICITI.COM loo...@SDDT.COM pu...@CERF.NET dom...@ELECTRICITI.COM
NDR
Don Vu wrote in article
> I am in high school and I personally listen and love all kinds of music,
> except for rap. I listen to classical music probably more than any of my
> friends, but this is probably becuase I play the violin. The only
> explaination for this, though, is that I have been exposed to classical
> music more and have grown to love it. (etc.)
Absolutely. Unless kids get a chance to hear real music, how are they going
to know whether they like it or not? I am tremendously impressed that you
are playing
Mozart's violin concerti and Vivaldi at such a young age. Keep it up, and
good luck to you in the future. (Oh, and driving is not the great thrill
it is imagined to be;
after a few months or years at most you will be cursing the idiot drivers,
just like
the rest of us).
BHeneg8560
In article <6l48qe$rsd$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt)
writes:
>David J. Loftus <dl...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> Several years ago, I had a spirited debate with some
>>folks on the Camille Paglia list after I suggested that Emily Dickinson
>>was not a literary genius until many years after her death ... because
>>hardly anyone saw her work until then.
>>In a sense, it takes human appreciators to co-create a work (and artist)
>>of genius.
>Ah, but Emily Dickenson was human and almost certainly appreciated her
>own work. Solipsism of the sort you're advocating is not really all that
>exciting.
Leaving aside the question of which sorts of solipsism are exciting and which
are merely run-of-the-mill, surely it's not enough for Emily Dickinson to
appreciate her own work in order to deserve being called a genius. How could
she know whether or not anyone else would agree with her self-estimation? For
her to insist, in the absence of any external judgment, that she was,
nevertheless, a genius, would certainly demand a degree of self-confidence that
approachs solipsism, if I understand the word correctly. The estimation of
(reasonably) impartial and (fairly) independent outsiders is surely a move
*away* from solipsism, isn't it?
brendo
Matt wrote:
> In article <01bd8a70$91f0f5a0$89c0...@bm427357.muenchen.org>,
> Hubert Schmid <hubert...@muenchen.org> wrote:
> >The real difference is, that "popular" music is written for the people, and
> >new composed "serious" music is written for the critics. If music doesn't
> >move in heart, it is not interesting for anybody
>
> The real difference is that popular music is written to make money
> and "classical" music is written to make works of beauty.
> Or were we arguing that the film Titanic was made as a work for the people
> rather than to extract money *from* the people? If that's what
> "for the people" means, I worry about what "Government by, of, and
> for the people" means now.
> --
> Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
> 619-469-0564 web...@SOLUSOFT.NET lsto...@EAGLE1.EAGLENET.COM
> Be sure to send them all the spam mail you send to me!
Not all the time did classical composers create for beauty. Here is something
Chopin said:
"Art, here, means painting, sculpture and architecture. Music is not art and is
not called
art... Music is a profession, not an art, and no one speaks or writes of any
musician as
an artist... These queer folk play for the sake of beauty, but to teach them
decent things
is a joke." - on England.
He thought playing for the sake of beauty is QUEER!
Warthog
Matt
In article <199806041230...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
I get exactly the opposite here. Does a single word of Dickinson's writing
change when I look at it?
To actually get away from solipsism, you have to admit that some
sentences, like "Emily Dickinson was a genius", have no objective meaning
in themselves but rather are stand-ins for one's own subjective response.
In other words, it's inappropriate to ascribe to these sentences the sort of
truth or falsity that you could ascribe to Newton's idea
f = Ma
or Einstein's refinement of it.
--
Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
Satire: http://www.goddard.edu/wgdr/kalvos/fieless1.html
619-469-0564 dle...@VIRGIN.CO.UK sa...@iotech.co.uk ru...@IOTECH.COM
BHeneg8560
In article <6l6eht$scr$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt)
writes:
>Subject: Re: teens and classical music
>From: fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt)
>Date: 4 Jun 1998 15:30:05 GMT
>BHeneg8560 wrote:
>>For [Emily Dickinson] to insist, in the absence of any external judgment,
that she was,
>>nevertheless, a genius, would certainly demand a degree of self-confidence
that
>>approachs solipsism, if I understand the word correctly. The estimation of
>>(reasonably) impartial and (fairly) independent outsiders is surely a move
>>*away* from solipsism, isn't it?
>I get exactly the opposite here. Does a single word of Dickinson's writing
>change when I look at it?
Of course not. But your, or anyone else's, opinion of her writing can easily
change over time, for any number of reasons, which may well affect how much you
agree with estimations of her genius.
> To actually get away from solipsism, you have to admit that some
>sentences, like "Emily Dickinson was a genius", have no objective meaning
>in themselves but rather are stand-ins for one's own subjective response.
>In other words, it's inappropriate to ascribe to these sentences the sort of
>truth or falsity that you could ascribe to Newton's idea
> f = Ma
>or Einstein's refinement of it.
I not only admit it, I whole-heartedly endorse it.
David J. Loftus
Matt (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <199806041230...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
: BHeneg8560 <bhene...@aol.com> wrote:
: >In article <6l48qe$rsd$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt)
: >writes:
: >
: >>David J. Loftus <dl...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >
: >>> Several years ago, I had a spirited debate with some
: >>>folks on the Camille Paglia list after I suggested that Emily Dickinson
: >>>was not a literary genius until many years after her death ... because
: >>>hardly anyone saw her work until then.
: >>>In a sense, it takes human appreciators to co-create a work (and artist)
: >>>of genius.
: >
: >>Ah, but Emily Dickenson was human and almost certainly appreciated her
: >>own work. Solipsism of the sort you're advocating is not really all that
: >>exciting.
: >
: >Leaving aside the question of which sorts of solipsism are exciting and which
: >are merely run-of-the-mill, surely it's not enough for Emily Dickinson to
: >appreciate her own work in order to deserve being called a genius. How could
: >she know whether or not anyone else would agree with her self-estimation? For
: >her to insist, in the absence of any external judgment, that she was,
: >nevertheless, a genius, would certainly demand a degree of self-confidence that
: >approachs solipsism, if I understand the word correctly. The estimation of
: >(reasonably) impartial and (fairly) independent outsiders is surely a move
: >*away* from solipsism, isn't it?
: I get exactly the opposite here. Does a single word of Dickinson's writing
: change when I look at it?
Nope. But for it to have value requires a reader/appreciator.
: To actually get away from solipsism, you have to admit that some
: sentences, like "Emily Dickinson was a genius", have no objective meaning
: in themselves but rather are stand-ins for one's own subjective response.
: In other words, it's inappropriate to ascribe to these sentences the
: sort of truth or falsity that you could ascribe to Newton's idea
: f = Ma
: or Einstein's refinement of it.
Which is precisely what I was saying: Dickinson was not a genius until
other human beings agreed that she was.
And you called ME a solipsist!
David Loftus
David J. Loftus
Matt (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
: In article <dloftEt...@netcom.com>,
: David J. Loftus <dl...@netcom.com> wrote:
: >Beautifully put. Several years ago, I had a spirited debate with some
: >folks on the Camille Paglia list after I suggested that Emily Dickinson
: >was not a literary genius until many years after her death ... because
: >hardly anyone saw her work until then.
: >
: >In a sense, it takes human appreciators to co-create a work (and artist)
: >of genius.
: Ah, but Emily Dickenson was human and almost certainly appreciated her
: own work. Solipsism of the sort you're advocating is not really all that
: exciting.
Say what? I am not advocating solipsism in any way!
What I suggested is that designation and valuation of genius is a social,
communal activity.
I never said geniuses were self designated.
David Loftus
Matt
In article <dloftEu...@netcom.com>,
You said:
: >In a sense, it takes human appreciators to co-create a work (and artist)
: >of genius.
I'm arguing that a work does not contain genius, that referring to a
work as a "work of genius" is a useful necessary shorthand but not
a description of truth.
--
Matt Fields, DMA http://listen.to/mattaj TwelveToneToyBox http://start.at/tttb
Satire: http://www.goddard.edu/wgdr/kalvos/fieless1.html
Matt
In article <dloftEu...@netcom.com>,
David J. Loftus <dl...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Matt (fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu) wrote:
>
>: BHeneg8560 <bhene...@aol.com> wrote:
>: >In article <6l48qe$rsd$1...@news.eecs.umich.edu>, fie...@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Matt)
>: >writes:
>: >
>: >
>: >>> Several years ago, I had a spirited debate with some
>: >>>was not a literary genius until many years after her death ... because
>: >>>hardly anyone saw her work until then.
>: >>>In a sense, it takes human appreciators to co-create a work (and artist)
>: >>>of genius.
>: >
>: >>Ah, but Emily Dickenson was human and almost certainly appreciated her
>: >>own work. Solipsism of the sort you're advocating is not really all that
>: >>exciting.
>: >Leaving aside the question of which sorts of solipsism are exciting and which
>: >are merely run-of-the-mill, surely it's not enough for Emily Dickinson to
>: >appreciate her own work in order to deserve being called a genius. How could
>: >she know whether or not anyone else would agree with her self-estimation? For
>: >her to insist, in the absence of any external judgment, that she was,
>: >nevertheless, a genius, would certainly demand a degree of self-confidence that
>: >approachs solipsism, if I understand the word correctly. The estimation of
>: >(reasonably) impartial and (fairly) independent outsiders is surely a move
>: >*away* from solipsism, isn't it?
>
>: I get exactly the opposite here. Does a single word of Dickinson's writing
>: change when I look at it?
>
>Nope. But for it to have value requires a reader/appreciator.
>
>
>: To actually get away from solipsism, you have to admit that some
>: sentences, like "Emily Dickinson was a genius", have no objective meaning
>: in themselves but rather are stand-ins for one's own subjective response.
>: In other words, it's inappropriate to ascribe to these sentences the
>: sort of truth or falsity that you could ascribe to Newton's idea
>
>: f = Ma
>
>: or Einstein's refinement of it.
>
>
>Which is precisely what I was saying: Dickinson was not a genius until
>other human beings agreed that she was.
No, this is precisely the kind of sloppy use of language that I'm
trying to say we may wish to watch out for. Who or what Emily
Dickenson was does not depend on the agreement of other human beings'
opinions, any more than the existence or non-existance of a deity
named Jupiter depends on people's opinions.