On 13 Jan 2007 at 23:59, Andrew Stiller wrote: > On Jan 13, 2007, at 9:43 PM, John Howell wrote: > > > prior to the 20th century "popular taste" could not exist in the > > stratified, class-conscious societies of Europe and, yes, America, > > with its pre-melting-pot amalgam of ethnic enclaves and rigid class > > distinctions in the Eastern seacoast cities, where the upper classes > > paid for the construction of concert halls and opera houses. > > This is conventional wisdom, but it's simply untrue. Any culture, at > any time, that has an identifiable classical music must also have a > popular music lying outside those boundaries. Certainly in 19th c. > America there were quite distinct classical and popular song styles > that can be very easily distinguished even within the work of single > composers (classical: virtuosic solo singer w. piano accompaniment; > pop: non-virtuosic solo stanzas alternating with 4-part "chorus" > refrain, with piano or guitar accompanying). I could cite examples > from both A.P. Heinrich (a classical composer who dabbled in pop) and > Henry Clay Work (a pop composer who dabbled in classics).
Gregory Sandow, in talking on his blog ( http://www.artsjournal.com/sandow/ ) about the future of classical music has made some important points about the history of classical music. The most important one I've taken away from it is that a lot of music that was considered "popular" in its day has now been subsumed under the classical music rubric. One example is the piano virtuosi of the 1st 2/3s of the 19th century. Liszt's early piano music is, in this sense, a form of popular music, not classical. I'm not sure the point is 100% convincing, but it certainly is a useful distinction to be made within the body of music we now call "classical." -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
