bloatfish said:
Accuracy, not being to the fore of the discussion so far.
Please do point out the inaccuracies and correct them so we can all learn something
bloatfish said:
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.
It's standard terminology used in musicological discussion. I don't know who coined the term, but I'm afraid you'd more-or-less be arguing against the English language on this one.
bloatfish said:
Classical music is a genre, distinct from other musical genre's, but, nevertheless, recognisable as one among other musical genre's.
Tony has pointed out - in a pejorative context - the fact that what we now call "classical" music is not derived from various kinds of folk music in the same way that modern pop music generally is. There
is a useful distinction there, whether or not you choose to recognise it.
bloatfish said:
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.
That's a very odd statement indeed. "Overtly commercial"? "Not particularly challenging"? Have you
heard any classical music? Charlotte Church's
Tissues and Issues doesn't count BTW

.
bloatfish said:
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...for many lover's of classical music, it is a genre that probably ended with Mahler
Yes, I'd imagine most of the classical people in this thread have barely even
heard of Prokofiev, Ravel, Shostakovich, Vaughan Williams, Tippett, Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, Sibelius, Dutilleux, Lutoslawski, Gorecki, Britten, Walton, Martinu, Berg, ....
bloatfish said:
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.
Musicology tends to lag behind other fields of aesthetic study a bit, but I can say with a fair degree of certainty that it's got some way beyond Picasso by now
bloatfish said:
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 don't think I really understand this paragraph

. Are you saying that to "progress" music should be assimilating non-musical artforms? That music isn't enough in itself without "visual elements"? As I've already said, music is often a little bit tardy in jumping on aesthetic bandwagons, but it's always got there in the end...