I wrote:
> > opera singers are obviously expected to have BETTER culture, be that
> > technique, languages, History, etc.
and Yako asked:
> You need to be really clear in your own mind what you mean when you say
> "BETTER" culture. What is it "better" at? Does it touch people's hearts
> more poignantly? Does it promote critical thinking? Does it allow joy to
> well up in your soul? From your earlier postings on guitarists, I suspect
> when you say "better", you mean "difficult" or "esoteric".
By BETTER I mean:
1. better singing technique: pop singers may have good technique or not, and
generally not, since pop audiences generally don't expect them to have any
technique at all and generally don't even know how to tell good from bad
technique.
2. better 'languages': or better: better language skills :-) Well ( just for
a change ), pop singers don't generally sing in a foreign language if they
are singing THEIR music( that's what happens most often ).
3. History: pop singers don't have to do any research, since they have no
roles and no commitment to the past. BTW, they generally try to represent
contemporary popular culture, concern, etc.
4. ETC: etc, etc, etc :-)
BETTER and WORSE are objective categorizations, regardless of your liking a
singer or musician or not. Classical music is better than pop music under
that objetive perspective. Touching people's hearts is something completely
subjective: something may touch your heart, but not mine, but they mean
something culturally which is above our personal likes and dislikes. If you
prefer McDonald's, that doesn't mean it's BETTER than French cuisine. I'm
not a guitarist, but I'm touched by Malmsteen and not by Cobain or BB King.
On the other hand, I think operas are a bore and histrionic, although I like
Bach. Each one is going to be touched by different things, depending on
their own lifestory. I know a great philosopher who listens to classical
music only OR country music from anywhere in the world. Why is that? Because
he grew up in the country and is touched by that kind of music! That brings
back memories that most urban classical music connoisseurs don't have.
Everything you have in a museum has a cultural value of its own, although
most people nowadays is not touched by what they represent. I'm a leftist
but not a communist ), but to me the leftist ideal has always represented
making it possible for the 'folk' to have the options the elite has, not to
transform popular limitations into a value in itself! I want the poor to
have the option of eating French food, not to make it acceptable to order
hamburger and fries at a fancy restaurant.
> You have yet to address the fact that much of our best "classical" music
> was also popular in its time.
Here we go again: popular means both appreciated by most people AND created
by the 'populace'. WHENEVER THE WORD POPULAR IS USED AS OPPOSED TO CLASSICAL
MUSIC, IT'S THE SECOND MEANING THAT'S BEING USED. Do you mean that pop music
which is not popular ( with the first meaning ) is not pop music. What is
it: UNpop music?!
Bye,
Caio Rossi
|
