That is a very naughty thing to say Vindanpar. People look for different things in music. The main thrust of my argument is that little has progressed in presentation of classical music for many many years. Maybe a few people here and there think about what can be achieved, but generally they are shameful in sticking to old rut fomulae. Maybe there are enough old skool people out there listening happily to combined sounds for a blob of music, but I doubt it. You will of course disagree, and so be it. Hail mono. So many old composers loved to push sensitivity and listening experiences, and were often getting into trouble. As I have written before, I would imagine that their fertile minds would leap at the opportunities today. Probably most of the marketplace is pretty conservative, so any reaching out would generally be self indulgent and pointless and will pretty well almost die in due course.
I hate jazz, but was caught up in listening to Box Biedebecke. I kept on wondering how many were in the group. After listening more specifically I realised it was the same number, but they kept on swapping instruments. Why? Well apart from being impressive it lent different textures to basically the same refrains. They understood this concept nearly 100 years ago - but it has meandered nowhere since - especially of you want to listen to the blob of music from 20 yards away without the detail. You look at the score of any symphony and I would take huge sums of money off you betting you could not hear more than 30% of what was going on.
Did composers write so you only heard an impression of what they wrote? Of course not. They wrote all the extra bits you just will not hear because they knew they were writing to satisfy their own mind.
You can hear the blob music on Itunes and so many people are clearly happy at all the limitations of that.
As a young girl who worked for me once said "Who are the Beatles?"
