I'm disappointed that Tony didn't stick to his original argument, as it struck me as being both coherent, and accurate.
Accuracy, not being to the fore of the discussion so far. What I've found most intensely annoying, is the reference to 'western art music', or 'classical art music'. I've never before heard classical music referred to in this way. I wonder what the source of this novel characterisation is? Classical music is a genre, distinct from other musical genre's, but, nevertheless, recognisable as one among other musical genre's. All these genre's have a distinctive aesthetic, and as such, are all art forms.
Is the author of this term 'art music' trying to co-opt the distinction in film between commercial film's and art film's, into the world of music? Both commercial and art film's share a common cinematic language, they differ as regards their cinematic aims, ideological construction, and visual language, but are still recognisably the same medium. I see no such distinction between classical music and other musical genre's. All are overtly commercial, and with a few honourable exceptions, pursue a not particularly challenging emotional/nutritional content.
Indeed, I think Michaelab made a reference to the staging of Shakespeare in reponse to one of Tony's looser points, which I think is interesting to explore. I suspect that those posting a love for classical music in this thread, are referring to a canon of music that largely ended with the nineteenth century. Classical music didn't end with the nineteenth century, it continued with the Vienna School, Serialism, the excursions of Cage et al. They all saw themselves as inheritors of the classical tradition, but, responding and innovating to the changing trends of intellectual and musical exploration in the twentieth century. In this respect, they were no different from composer's in previous centuries. Often overlooked is how radical the musical ambitions of previous generations of classical composer's have been.
Yet, for many lover's of classical music, it is a genre that probably ended with Mahler. This conservatism is reflected in the programme selections of Orchestra's, Opera Houses, music festival's etc (the Prom's has got better in this respect, in recent years). This is a dual conservatism: a restrictive canon, which permits of a few exceptions, and thus becomes self-defining; and a conservative performance environment, which permits of few innovations.
In contrast with the staging of Shakespeare, whose play's have been pushed, pulled, prodded, re-evaluated, stripped, transformed in their varied performances, in trying to explore meanings within the works, trying to place them within a contemporary context etc - classical music performances tread a well trodden path. This results in the 'emotion' that several posters have referred to in listening to classical music, being a singular, contained emotion(s), a repeated singularity, performance by performance. A singularity which is constantly reinforced by the power of convention, of tradition of performance and canon. In this world, the twentieth century never happpened, the debate between Picasso, the artist as a genius, and Duchamp, art as a concept, has never taken place. In this world, the relationship of art to technological innovation is invisible, the sharing of ideas between musical and visual elements non-existent, and the intellectual practices and thinking of this century, a necessary absence.
I know that reference has already been made to the impact of different performer's approach to a canonical work - this is a variation within a conservative tradition, but, much less radical, say, than the shredding of convention within Serialism.
Akram
