This particular point was only about my own experience (for me, to me, etc.) and not to be generalized per se.
I also wouldn't say your experiences disprove any theories. In my experience, classical music simply requires a far greater degree of familiarity to become "effective" so to speak. As a child I hate classical music, and it wasn't until I had studied it for years that it really clicked, and I've heard the same from others.
If it's not to be generalized, then it is useless, because you ARE generalizing. MY experiences don't disprove your theories, ANY experience that doesn't jibe with your theory disproves your theories. So you keep saying this stuff because it applies to you, and there are 10 people in this thread that have a different experience and you don't seem to want to adapt information that doesn't fit your "pet theory". That's bad science, right there.
Like I said, I don't have time or energy now to write a whole essay on a backwater forum where a handful of people will read it. I don't doubt your intelligence.
Ok. We'll leave it at "no energy" and "backwater". Not "I got nothin'".
Depends on your definition. I think the whole of culture is much too broad a topic to discuss, hence my preference for discussing slivers.
That's your prerogative, but you do so at your own peril. You can't really prove a theory by defining the universe in a way that it seems to work. You can't ignore all this evidence that undercuts your theory.
Beethoven was perfectly capable of writing very simple though high quality pieces. Take the Für Elise for example. Since he was able to write good simple music, he must have felt limited by the lack of complexity or have had another good reason to write difficult music, or otherwise he wouldn't have taken the (much greater) effort required to do so.
Okay... doesn't have any bearing on the topic at hand though. It's just one artist that made an artistic decision. That happens every day; take King Crimson: A complex band, who arguably veers into complexity for the sake of complexity and sometimes suffers for it (see Islands for example). Then there is the song "Trio", for which Bill Bruford received a writing credit for NOT PLAYING ONE NOTE. The premise was, for a band that errs - errs! - on the side of complexity, Bill took the simpler route, against type, and it was SO effective that the band opted to formally and financially credit him with that choice.
For most people in their teens and twenties they're indeed gone like the wind. The name remains, but most young people rarely listen to Elvis or the Beatles nor do they have a lot of knowledge about them. Most would be hard pressed to name a single song by either of them.
And likewise Beethoven and Bach. I'm not sure where you're going with that. Elvis and The Beatles are iconic, and will be. I have over 2,000 CDs, and 23,000 songs on my iPod, and my kid has asked for music from TWO bands: Fleetwood Mac and The Beatles. Again, only a data point, but a data point that runs afoul of your theory.
Compare the amount of academic papers on classical music and pop music and you'll see that the bollocks are not so pure. Most papers on pop music are written by anthropologists researching the cultural implications of pop music, not the music itself. The first academic society on pop music wasn't founded until 1994, and even now it remains fairly weak and little research is performed. From a theoretical point of view, there's just not so much to write about in pop music compared to dense contrapuntal music on which you can build a career.
Your argument is akin to saying "well, there is more documentation about the sun than there is documentation about Pluto, therefore... " but the sun has been in the consciousness of the human species since it's creation, and we only discovered Pluto less than 100 years ago. I would totally expect and be completely stunned if you told me the academia was the same. Bach wrote his works in the early 1700's; that's 300 years of scholarship, versus, say, the Sex Pistols who released their first single in 1976, a mere forty years ago. Frankly, when you have an artist that is STILL producing relevant work (as Paul McCartney and John Lydon are) I think it is foolhardy and maybe even poor academics to try to ascertain what the long-term impact will be. We can only compare Bach to the Beatles when the Beatles have 300 years of influence behind them.
Beatles cover bands generally have a pretty limited following of people pretty much exclusively in the "Beatles generation age" (50-60) and will likely never be close to mainstream. The Beatles as they were recorded are gone forever which I think is problematic for their survival.
You're just guessing now. Prove any of that. Prove it. According to Mark Lewisohn, there are hundreds and hundreds of hours of tapes of the Beatles in the vaults, only a mere fraction of which were tapped into for the Anthology works and the "Let It Be... Naked" album. You're just throwing opinions around as if they are facts.
Topic: Why does DT not get all the respect they deserve? (Read 20507 times)
