From: t-bird (djtbird1@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Oct 14 2002 - 06:00:38 CEST
--- Steven Catanzaro <stevencatanzaro@sprintmail.com>
wrote:
>
> the one and only dj tbird wrote
>
> > the whole point of doing "art music" is you're not
> > supposed to be fettered by popular taste. it
> should
> > be about moving the form forward.
>
> well, i think this is more of a 20th century notion
> than anything else. it
> never would've occurred to someone like mozart that
> they should compose
> music that people wouldn't like, because that's how
> he made his money,
> giving concerts to people. (and, contrary to
> generally held opinion, mozart
> made decent money... he just spent too much.)
i just spoke to an expert on this subject--i was gonna
try and refute your argument using j.s. bach--and he
said (unprodded) some VERY INTERESTING things about
mozart. first off he says that the "art for art's
sake" thing started w/beethoven, but really the
foundation of is the work of mozart. mozart basically
went and rounded up commissions for work and then
essentially wrote what he wanted, and made people
think it was what they wanted... he wanted to be an
independent composer, free financially to write what
he wanted to work on, and found a way to make that
happen, even if the method was slightly underhanded.
although he was a popular composer, his pieces were
still considered quite avant-garde.
see, i was never talking about "compose(ing)
music that people wouldn't like," per se, i was
thinking about writing things that might be a bit
ahead of the curve. just because you do something
people aren't ready for, doesn't mean they won't
*ever* be ready, just not now.
> but in the 20th century, you had two significant
> things happen.
>
> a) popular songwriters started to make tons of
> money, with the inception of
> ascap (and later bmi) royalties. this royalty
> structure was not known to
> 18th and 19th century artists, who were limited to
> giving concerts, selling
> their music to a publisher (one time only) and
> perhaps having a patron.
>
> b) "art" composers started to depend on universities
> for their income. all
> but a handful of 20th century classical composers
> were teachers at a
> university someplace.
>
> now, people who are getting paid salaries in
> universities are expected to
> works, but they have the liberty of not caring
> whether or not anyone listens
> to them. in fact, it is much more prestigious, in
> university circles, for
> your work to be lauded by the cognescenti (i.e.,
> other professors of
> composition) than by the general public.
>
> but i CAN name you some 20th century composers who's
> work has endured the
> test of time and was popular in their day as well.
>
> Maurice Ravel
> Claude Debussy
> George Gershwin
> Edward Kennedy "Duke" Ellington
>
> and, in our day right now, you've got Henryk Gorecki
> and Arvo Paart selling
> lots of albums.
>
> NONE of those guys depend, or depended, primarily on
> university salaries for
> their income. and guess what? the hoi poloi, the
> bourgeoisie, or whatever
> other disparaging term is used for the ignorant
> masses... actually LIKED
> their music.
>
> imagine that....
every one i know that likes and can name anyone you've
mentioned other than ellington or gershwin are MUSIC
HEADS! most of the people that own classical
records--that i know--know something about the music,
they're not just casual listeners...
-t
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Oct 14 2002 - 06:04:13 CEST