12 Extremely Disappointing Facts About Popular Mus

Schubert writes,

I suspect(strongely) there were be NO current acts even known a hundred much less three hundred years from now.
Popular music is utter garbage plain and simple.

A related question (or two):

How much contemporary classical music will be remembered a hundred years from now?

and

Where does classical (oh, say) Indian music sit on the universal scale of musical value?

Marty

PS It need not be a given that all great art comes from the academy. The guitar has the ability to emulate that most essential of human communications - speech. However, that emulation involves bending strings - a technique central to the blues and (virtually) absent from classical Western guitar music. My own guess is that the blues-based, guitar music of the 20th century will survive and remain of interest to a small group of people, much like (tho likely smaller than) those small groups that follow the various strains of classical music today.

Just a guess, obviously.

This is not to suggest that blues-based guitar music is "superior" to Western Classical music. The structural complexity and ambition of Western classical music separates it from pop and folk forms. However, that is not the only measure of artistic value. A simple idea, communicated in a straightforward and effectively way has artistic value. Enough to last for centuries? Only time will tell.

Posters might want to remain a bit sensitive to the merits of historically African (or other non-Western culture) based art forms. You can pick your own scoring system, but you should always understand that it is your own scoring system, reflecting your own cultural biases - not a universal "truth".

Rok2id,

My point was that "Western Classical Music" (as narrowly used by some who have posted here, please refer to the names/period Schubert mentions in the post directly above this one for an example), represents an expression of Western (as opposed to universal) values. It is structurally complex and emotionally/intellectually ambitious. Contemporary music based on historically African musical forms (I'm specifically thinking of the blues - but jazz, rock, and some contemporary Western classical music also qualifies), often reflects a different ideal:

Communicate a single idea/emotion simply, directly and with great urgency (thanks John Atkinson, Stereophile for that line).

To suggest that the former is worthwhile and the latter worthless - see my copied quote from Schubert - strikes me as culturebound and insensitive. More obviously, other culture's complex musical forms (i.e. Indian classical music) get summarily dismissed in those sweeping claims of the superiority of Western Classical Music.

This view is both narrow and - as I noted - somewhat insensitive.

Marty

PS This was PRECISELY the point of the Nazi embrace of classical music. It was an attempt to establish the superiority of a single culture (Aryan) and its values. I'm not suggesting that any posts here are racist or facist, but I am pointing out that some border on - IMO - the insensitive.

No "politically correct" responses please. I am talking about the substance of the underlying assumptions, not the semantics.

Schubert writes:

It does nor demean any other form,time, society ,nation,race or culture to state the obivious and that is the music of Bach,Mozart,Beethoven,Schubert et al is the greatest artistic acheivment of the human race.

That statement demeans EVERY other form, time, society, nation, race and culture.

Asserting that the superiority of this music is OBVIOUS doesn't change the basis of your assessment. Putting pop music aside, this statement demeans the serious (i.e. classical) music tradition of other cultures (again, Indian music comes quickly to mind) and other times (today, for instance). You assert the superiority of a widely (tho not universally) accepted high water mark of a specific culture over the best of all other cultures.

Either you have really unusual breadth of knowledge of the music of the world or your statement is presumtuous.

Chuck Berry?

Schubert....so ticket sales are your measuring stick? And THAT's what establishes Mozart as the pinnacle of human artistic expression. Now I got it!

I also note your deep familiarity with the alternative classical traditions. It is this full appreciation of context that animates your judgement as to the superiority of Mozart, Schubert, et. al.

Upon reflection, I now see that there is no cultural bias in your posts.

Marty

BTW, you been following the economics of classical music lately? The are just over 300 million people in this country and (last I looked) +/- 30 classical radio stations (not one of which is economically self-sufficient). As a statistical matter, virtually no one cares about Mozart. Institutions and a very small number of wealthy, self-perceived cultural elites subsidize (and have always subsidized) Mozart. And THAT money is all about maintaining the perception of superiority of the culture it represents.

To be clear, I am not denigrating the music you love. I'm merely highlighting the sweeping generalizations you've made in an effort to establish its "superiority" to other forms of music (and, when you're on a roll, all other artistic expression).

Fair enough