[WisdomListens]

bigshot message me if you want to continue our debate.

 

[logwed]

Quote:

Holy crap! That's a really good theory! I'll have to think about it a bit, but it does make sense. In 1900, most parlors had a piano, and most families played or sang. Sheet music was to them what CDs are to us.

As we slide further and further into a passive role in creative culture, things might just continue to get worse and worse. Ouch! I don't want to think about that! It's bad enough already!

Where it will really get bad is when music education falls totally by the wayside. I've benefited greatly from having music classes in my life, and it makes me sad to see that lots of other people aren't going to get that.
 

 

[Ynoskire]

I disagree about the statement made about jazz and classical music requiring knowledge of music. I believe jazz and classical require two things: genuine intrest in music and persistance. This is due to the vast differences between jazz and classical on one side and chart pop on the other. Kids nowadays grow up with mtv, this has a huge influence on the rest of their musical life because it sets a reference point. Classical and jazz are the opposite of this reference, causing people without an interest in music or persistance to stop trying and listen to music that they are already familliar with. I'm not a believer in the whole generation gap theory. I grew up playing piano, my mom played piano, so did my das, so did my uncle and so did my aunt. And honestly, i didn't like it one bit at the time. I wanted to play chart pop and all i got to play was this boring beethoven crap. I stopped playing piano for about seven years before being reintroduced to the instrument because of, well, classical music. My knowledge of music theory hadn't increased. But i've matured a bit since then altering my intersts and behaviour just enough to enjoy different types of music. It's not about the knowledge, it's about the person.

 

[rroseperry]

The Clarke link is, as it states in the subtitle, a polemical history of popular music that acts as though jazz was the sole popular music of the 20th century when it's actually coexisting with a number of other genres, like show tunes which give rise to the American Songbook as well asblues and other roots music which are huge (for the time) bestsellers among people without a lot of discretionary income.

I love jazz as much (probably more) than the average music lover. I even love it when it goes into the "art music" phase that bigshot and Clarke both decry. But I expect that people will learn to love it or not, same with classical and that they're not less for not ever understanding that the Grosse Fuge was the first piece of 20th century music (written in 1825).

 

[falis]

They named a very nice arts and performing center on a new campus of the local University for him.  The school has a long-time well-regarded music program.
 
- Ed
 
Quote:

Quote:

I grew up in his hometown, which oddly enough revered him (because he was supposed to be famous), but I doubt very many people there would have appreciated his work.

It's funny that even his neighbors didn't appreciate him as anything other than a good insurance salesman until Koussevitzky and Bernstein told them they should. Is there a museum dedicated to him? His is one of the most amazing and sad stories I have ever heard. He must have been strong as granite inside.

 

 

[bigshot]

I disagree about the statement made about jazz and classical music requiring knowledge of music. I believe jazz and classical require two things: genuine intrest in music and persistance.

I think you're probably right. But they're still related. Learning about music that requires a certain amount of engagement from the listener and taking the time to develop a skill at playing an instrument both take patience and effort. Today, a lot of people have neither. They want their education to be spoon fed to them. They won't make the effort to dig up the facts for themselves.

Perhaps with the Internet it's all too easy. People who grew up in the great depression and endured a world war had to be industrious to survive. Life is so easy now, we expect it to come to us instead of reaching out and grabbing it for ourselves.

 

[bigshot]

The Clarke link is, as it states in the subtitle, a polemical history of popular music that acts as though jazz was the sole popular music of the 20th century when it's actually coexisting with a number of other genres

That isn't exactly true. The book covers all genres. It's just organized chronologically, and discusses the primary musical form of each era, without fragmenting off into the smaller coexisting genres. Since jazz was the dominant form through the 30s to the 50s, it focuses on that, but it covers the rise of R&B and rock n roll and how they supplanted jazz too.

It's the story of the mainstream of pop music. I'm constantly amazed at how younger people don't realize that jazz was mainstream pop music for many years. It wasn't always crappy.

 

[rroseperry]

The Clarke link is, as it states in the subtitle, a polemical history of popular music that acts as though jazz was the sole popular music of the 20th century when it's actually coexisting with a number of other genres

That isn't exactly true. The book covers all genres. It's just organized chronologically, and discusses the primary musical form of each era, without fragmenting off into the smaller coexisting genres. Since jazz was the dominant form through the 30s to the 50s, it focuses on that, but it covers the rise of R&B and rock n roll and how they supplanted jazz too.

It's the story of the mainstream of pop music. I'm constantly amazed at how younger people don't realize that jazz was mainstream pop music for many years. It wasn't always crappy.

It may be true that he touches on other popular music (though not in much depth, really look what he's not saying about the Songbook), but my main objection is that he's making a specific argument about jazz. it's a personal essay, with not much in the way of cites (sorry, I'm an ex-academic and look for these things) and a lot of opinion. For example, what he says about Broadway, that it no longer contributes to mass culture, is not supported by the phenomena of "Cats", "Rent", "Les Mis", or '"Phantom". You might not like the music, but when protestors in Madison are singing a song from LM during their sit-in in the capitol, you can't say the music isn't reaching people. Also he seems to completely miss what's going on with bands like Louis Jordan's during WWII.

Pop music has always been a mix of the good and trashy. Now is no different than any other time.

 

[bigshot]

Pop music has always been a mix of the good and trashy. Now is no different than any other time.

The proportion of one to the other varies a LOT from decade to decade.

It's been a few years since I read the book, but I remember a bit discussing how jump blues developed as an alternative to the overly academic aspects of modern jazz. That thread leads into rhythm & blues and rock n roll. Louis Jordan is in there.

 

[scompton]

Quote:

My favorite genre is rock of the progressive variety, generally (sorry bigshot...). 
 
However, I have a great deal of respect for jazz, and I do enjoy listening to it. However, I derive most of the enjoyment from thinking about when I played, and recognizing the technical ability and creativity that the musicians have. I don't think that jazz is genre that people today can appreciate and relate to if they do not have a playing background/a very in-depth study of music. I know that if I hadn't played in a competition  big band for 4 years of my rather short life, I almost certainly would not be listening to jazz today. 
 
I think that a similar problem affects how the mainstream appreciates classical music, since it and jazz are both built around subtlety and musicianship. If you don't know how it is played from experience/study and you don't know what to listen for, you won't appreciate the music.
 

 
I'm not sure how I missed this post, but I don't entirely agree with it.  I love jazz and classical, including free jazz and quite a bit of the 20th century classical I've heard.  I've head very little musical experience, although I have had some, and even less music theory education.  I have had other creative activities though.  My avatar is a painting I did.  I spent most of my childhood doing art instead of music.  That may be why I can appreciate other forms of creativity.  I may not appreciate it as much as someone with years of musical performance experience, or someone with musical theory knowledge, but I can appreciate it. 
 
One other thing, I don't think someone who has just played from sheet music for years can appreciate music any more than I can with only a year or so of playing from sheet music.
 
 

 

[logwed]

That's why I also included study of music (which may have been misconstrued, I apologize for the unclear wording), meaning that those who also have made a very dedicated effort to learn about music and explore the different types of musical expression. I don't doubt those with little playing experience can still appreciate loads of different music, but I strongly believe that a strong musical background will change how that person appreciates music. 
 
I'll use the analogy of sports. Someone can appreciate baseball without having played it, but someone who has played baseball for years will have a much deeper understanding of the game, and be able to think about it more closely than the uninitiated. Whether that translates into a deeper enjoyment of the game can certainly be debated, but there is no way to deny that the player can watch the game on a deeper level than the passive watcher. This analogy should hold true for music listening as well.
 
Obviously I don't mean to step on any toes, anyone is able to enjoy music, but there must at some level be a difference in how people enjoy it. 
 
 
 
Quote:

I may not appreciate it as much as someone with years of musical performance experience, or someone with musical theory knowledge, but I can appreciate it. 

 

One other thing, I don't think someone who has just played from sheet music for years can appreciate music any more than I can with only a year or so of playing from sheet music.
 

 
Which one??

 

[scompton]

The first sentence, I was thinking of people who play professionally.  There is going to be some type of creativity involved even if they haven't written the music.  The second, I was thinking of some people I've met who have played music for years, but just play at home out of a fake book.  I've known people like that who have very narrow tastes in music and no curiosity to expand their exposure.  My wife actually fits in this category, but she's deaf so it boggles my mind that she plays music at all.  She really can't hear anything over 500 Hz yet she can play her Hammond organ in tune out of a fake book.   I've known hearing people who had similar behavior without the excuse of deafness.

 

[bigshot]

That's why I also included study of music (which may have been misconstrued, I apologize for the unclear wording), meaning that those who also have made a very dedicated effort to learn about music and explore the different types of musical expression.

That describes me. I play uke and guitar, but just cowboy chords- enough to know how little I know about playing.

My two loves are cartooning and music. I chose animation as a career, and that left music as my personal passion. I actively study music. My goal is to know a little bit about a whole lot. This means that my path has taken directions most people never take. I'm interested in everything from classical to jazz to country and folk to ethnic music of all kinds. I used to think that the "good stuff" was a small rarefied pool of music I already knew about. I now know how little I know, and I'm always looking for new sources of inspiration.

I understand enough about the variety of forms that music takes to know that excellence is possible in any genre. But it is more common in some than others. I have changed my mind about things in the past, but i want to be convinced by evidence. Just saying something is good isn't good enough. Knock my socks off and make me admit I'm wrong. If the greatness is there, we'll both be happy... You because you won the argument, and me because I've been turned onto something great I didn't know existed.

But I know where my frame of reference ends. I look at that video of Sviatislav Richter and I can see the millions of precise judgements that go into a performance like that. I'd never be capable of an iota of that kind of understanding.

You're definitely right that there is a level that only musicians attain.

 

[Prog Rock Man]

I have tried and failed with bass guitar and mouth organ to learn an instrument. I have watched many a musician live, of all genres from Opera to metal to know that it requires great skill, talent and dedication to become great. So I am the audience, the music fan who is one part of the music industry. I am the chap who woops and applaudes and punches his fist in the air at concerts (not Opera!) and so gives a little appreciation back to the musician which they enjoy, I see it in their faces, and income.
 
As for knowledge, here a few books from my music library that I would recommend on music history in general.
 
   
 
 

 

[blitzace50]

Here's something to broaden your musical palette then bigshot, a chiptune 8 bit progressive death metal composition. I am serious, and yes I enjoy this music.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krKP66dXZpc&feature=related