Klarinet Archive - Posting 000876.txt from 1998/01

From: SDM@-----. Morrow)
Subj: Re: Music: Modern vs. 'Old'
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 09:07:35 -0500

>This discussion of "modern" and "contemporary" music is a little muddy.
Janet wrote:
>As an amateur musician, I am just starting to learn the language to describe
>musical forms. To the general public, "classical" means music that we go
>the concert halls to hear, and to many people it means boring. We need to be
>more specific.
>
etc.

I think this is an important clarification. While I am not a
musicologist, I've always understood that terms like "classical" and
"baroque"referred to a style of music written during a particular period in
history. What seems to happen is that the period becomes synonomous with
the style: it is possible to write a piece in the baroque style, but we
cannot write "new" baroque music. The umbrella term "classical" has become
a style, as well.
But "classical" and "popular" are not mutually exclusive. I'm sure
any "average joe" (i.e., "person", NOT an uninspiring cup of coffee!),
without thinking too hard, could hum a bit of "classical" music to you - be
it the opening to "Thus Spake Zarathustra" or the opening to Beethoven's
Fifth Symphony. True, this is probably due more to the music's permeation
into our culture through films and television, but does that make it NOT
"classical" in the general definition?
I've long believed (and probably stated here, as well!) that, if
Mozart were alive today, he'd be writing film scores. What is the purpose
of music, anyway, if not to transmit emotions to listeners aurally?
I apologise if I've been too didactic - I've been recovering from
sinus surgery!

-Scott

Scott D. Morrow
Department of Biochemistry
School of Hygiene and Public Health
Johns Hopkins University
(410) 955-3631

SDM@-----.edu