---Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> Daniel wrote:
>
> >Does that mean it's hard to understand? I've heard people say
> >that a canvas of Hieronymus Bosch is extremely complex. Look at
> >Michelangelo's Judgment Day. Can anyone absorb such wealth of
detail in a
> >single look? Yet, there's nothing difficult to understand.
> >
> >There is nothing difficult to understand in Schoenberg either.
>
> Oh, maybe if you've studied music for years, Schoenberg isn't
difficult,
> and if you're steeped in Western art, Bosch & Michelangelo are easily
> comprehensible too. But really, how many people put Pierrot Lunaire on
> their CD players around the world on an average day? 5? Let alone go
to a
> performance? Come down Daniel, you're lost in High Cultureland.
This itches at me also when I read your posts, Daniel. Surely there are pleasures to be had in pop music. The question it seems to me isn't about form and content in some idealized "musical" sphere. There's the social and historical context. Who's listening to the music, who's making it? Why? What's the scene around the music? What are some of the underlying class, race, even gender issues. Schoenberg at one point was interested in a special music appreciator's society. One set apart, untainted from the vulgar listening habits of the (working) masses.
Alec _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com