Klarinet Archive - Posting 000015.txt from 1997/05

From: Roger Shilcock <roger.shilcock@-----.uk>
Subj: Re: Music, performance, and marching bands
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 18:16:31 -0400

On Thu, 1 May 1997, Jonathan Gordy wrote:

> Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 10:10:16 -0400
> From: Jonathan Gordy <gordyjd@-----.edu>
> Reply-To: klarinet@-----.us
> To: klarinet <klarinet@-----.us>
> Subject: Re: Music, performance, and marching bands
>
>
>
> ----------
> > From: Edwin V. Lacy <el2@-----.edu>
> > To: charette@-----.us
> > Subject: Re: Music, performance, and marching bands
> > Date: Wednesday, April 30, 1997 11:48 PM
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 1997, Mark Charette wrote:
> >
> > > This brings me to a slightly different point. Once in a while on this
> > > list I hear "pop" music being denigrated - it's not "serious" music, it
> > > won't stand the test of time, it's only "movie" music, it's too
> > > commercial. It may be well to remember that opera was the "movie" of
> its
> > > time. Maybe the "Star Wars Theme" isn't the "Marriage of Figaro", but
> > > they stem from the same needs. How many pieces were commisioned way
> back
> > > then for special occasions; gee, isn't that awfully commercial?
> >
> Ed Lacey writes:
>
> > Can we imagine that Mozart would or could have accepted a commission with
> the proviso
> > that he write inferior music? I don't think so. On the other hand, if
> > sufficient dollars were at stake, would Liberace or Elvis Presley produce
> > music of pretty much any quality, or no quality at all? The evidence
> > speaks for itself.
>
> Pardon, but doesn't the thing that makes modern music great is that
> everyone buys it, not just the rich who can afford to buy (and therefore
> listen)? and if Elvis did inferior products he would have disappeared, and
> he knew it too. Which is more than I can say for some of our "standards" in
> the classical world. We don't like them, yet because of their greater
> "musical" value we play them, and notice who is disappearing... not to say
> that great music is not its own reward, but I know that in the pop world
> there is only more money involved when you product has superior quality in
> the marketplace.
>
> As musicians we should be finding ways to pull more than "antique" music
> collectors to ourselves, but when "movie" music, perhaps the most
> recognizable of our art music, is derided by the musicians who play it we
> damage ourselves more than those that we thumb our noses at. John Willams
> has done more to improve the status of the symphony with a few movie scores
> in the last decade than all the Schubert and Brahms we play. I detest the
> attitude of the musicans who grumble over the "Pops" concerts they do.
> These concerts are the only bridge to our audience that many orchestras
> provide.
>
> What's wrong with the world is not that it is commercial, but that we think
> commercial @-----. To me this disscusson is
> beginning to have nothing to do with "art" and a whole lot more to do with
> how we feel about making money from our music.
>
> Now Jonathan steps down off his soapbox.
> Back to your regularly scheduled program.
>
> Jonathan Gordy
> Student
>
>
I disagree with you almost conpletely. For one thing, has it struck you
that to sell "commercial" music, the first thing you have to do is sell
it
to people don't like or understand music? That's the only way to make the
millions that seem to be the expected reward.
Roger Shilcock