On Sun, 1 Oct 2000, Linda Fox wrote:
> Tako Oda wrote:
> > The ONLY reason classical music *seems* superior now is because only the
> > better stuff has survived. The ratio of sublime/decent/crap has and always
> > will be something like this: 0.2% : 9.8% : 90%
>
> Did you mean this to read the way it sounds? That 90% of Classical music
> is/was "crap"? If it hasn't survived, how can you possibly tell?
Dear Linda,
Sorry, you're absolustely right - "crap" is too strong a word! All music
has some value, at the very least to the person composing it. I need to
watch my "subvert the dominant paradigm" reactions - I'll try to keep them
in check!
By "survive" I mean "still performed". There are quite a number of operas
that musicologists know about from manuscripts but are never put on by
modern companies. A few are gems that should be revived, but with the
*vast* majority it is clear why noone wanted to continue staging them.
While they aren't terrible, they don't deserve to share the stage with
true masterpieces, which are well written, express a universal theme in an
orignal way, and strike a chord with many people across generations.
Think about it - there are literally thousands of classical operas
available to perform (and probably many more we don't know about). Only
about a hundred are put on regularly. For the most part, it is an issue of
quality. Of course, there are, as always, exceptions (hidden masterpieces,
overdone drivel). The idea is that universally great music tends to stand
the test of time.
"Not-so good operas": A number of classical-era operas, for instance, were
vehicles for stage gimmicks that wouldn't impress us now, with very little
musical substance. Some Baroque operas were just "Malmsteen-esque"
show-off opportunities for famous castrati (consider Farinelli's composer
brother).
> And the point about "classical" as opposed to "popular" in any age - and
> there was a lot of popular music in every century - is that it's meant
> to last.
The difference between classical and popular wasn't as clear in the past
as it is now, because opera used to be popular! Many lute songs, and
madrigals were pop music! Part of our society's attachment to opera now is
due to the ruling classes wanting an esoteric art form to call their own.
Opera requires a great deal of money to put on, and has a long history of
rich benefactors. It is a status symbol, because you must have money to
support it, and to lesser extent, to attend. Knowlege of a historical
musical form also implies superior schooling. It is form of entertainment
that separates the haves from the have-nots to a certain extent. In our
upwardly mobile world, many middle-class citizens embrace opera in an
effort to elevate themselves socially.
Of course, this isn't the case with everybody, but opera is particularly
susceptible to drawing this kind of "fan", because of its classist
assocations. "Opening Night" in particular, panders to this image.
> I don't think it's even slightly correct to say that 90% of classical
> music has "not survived"! just because some of it is rarely performed
> nowadays.
But isn't that what it means? Sitting in a musicologist's library isn't my
idea of survival... Music is nothing if not performed.
> Only 10% of classical music ever written has _not_ been _crap_? (And
> Tako, do you make any distinction between "crap" and "not to my taste"?)
Again, I apologize for my colorful language :-) I was going overboard and
went a little far to illustrate my point, and it obviously back-fired.
What I meant was music which is 1) without any originality 2) a show-off
vehicle 3) without universality 4) poorly conceived and executed 5) not
well received more than 3 years after its release, or 6) a combination of
the above. To reiterate, I'm not saying this music is value-less, and it
is not crap - just not worthy of putting into an ever-growing canon of
music we continue to perform.
> If I hadn't seen your name at the top of this post, I would have thought
> this was the pronouncement of a teenager of very little experience
> indeed, which I know you not to be - so, to stop me twitching, please
> could you tell us why you think the proportion of quality is divided in
> this way?
I truly appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt here, and I
promise I'll try not to test your faith in me again ;-) I was
over-reacting to recent claims on our list that so-called classical music
is intrinsically superior to popular music now. Most of us genuinely love
opera (myself included) but I feel many of us fail to examine the classism
we have internalized in considering it to be the paragon of great art.
According to academic standards, opera is great - but we never challenge
the underlying values which inform our judgements. Academia has its own
biases and originated as a status-quo-perpetuation hot-house for the
leisure class.
If we look at the finances of an opera house - we realize opera singers
are primarly on the bankroll of the worlds richest people. Surely they
enjoy themselves and are being paid, but in a sense they are pawns in a
status game amongst philantrhopists vying for the highest spot on the
donor roster. I'm not saying that none of these donors have pure motives,
but anyone willing to look at the opera world honestly will realize it is
a playground for the elite class. Anyone else's enjoyment of it is a side
benefit. Without the rich, classical opera really wouldnt get performed as
much. What does it say of opera's value to "normal" people?
Our memory and canon tends to retain the good things. Of course most
operas that are in our canon now are works of genius. They wouldn't be
there if they weren't. I feel we are producing just as much great work
now, and it will be apparent 200 years from now once the filtering process
is complete :-) We might be surprised to find a significant showing of
"popular" works (I'd guess Count Basie, Annie Lennox, Beatles) in the mix!
Thanks again for giving me a chance to explain (redeem ;) myself. I
realize even this time that I have probably over-emphasized the role of
the wealthy in shaping our perceptions of classical music. I will try to
behave myself! Great classical music, like great popular music is
universal and is of value to and belongs to everyone.
-Tako
|
|  |
