> I would answer with one word: karaoke. I myself have never
> participated in karaoke, but I've had some horrifying glimpses of it.
> I suspect karaoke's popularity owes much to another popular pastime --
> drinking -- but regrettably as a non-drinker I lack that experience
> enhancer.
A suggestion: try thinking yourself imaginatively back to the days before *any* Edison "talking machines," etc. Way back before karaoke. Imagine a world in which you could *only* hear "live" music, and most people in this country and elsewhere lived in small towns and rural communities in which the only music they heard was made by family, friends, neighbors, etc. I repeat: why wouldn't people have enjoyed listening to them?
On Feb 1, 2005, at 12:50 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Yes, and back in the old days, when families hung around the piano
> making music, everyone had beautiful voices and the accompanist could
> fling arpeggios like a pro. I keep forgetting that everything sucks &
> is getting worse.
You're missing the point, too, Doug. Most people in those days rarely if ever *heard* pros. Amazing to me how hard it is for people to use their historical imaginations. The past was a very different country in many ways.
And many people seem to think that listening to music is not worthwhile unless the musicians are "pros." This, I think, is an artifact of the modern situation in wealthy countries like ours, in which people spend so much time listening to recordings of pros, as I mentioned before. After all, if you have to pay for a recording, it had better be "good."
Actually, it goes back to the 19th century, and earlier, when aristocrats hired the best musicians for their entertainment, and, as the bourgeoisie became more powerful than aristocrats, they organized concerts at which fabulous performers like Liszt, the precursor to today's pop stars, wowed the ladies. But of course most people didn't hear these stars, because they couldn't afford to.
On Feb 1, 2005, at 5:43 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> Aside from the fact that they were probably playing songs that other
> people had written, does that make it better? And what were they
> playing/singing? Not Beethoven string quartets, I'm guessing.
Yes, they did. And Schumann and Schubert and Chopin and Brahms and whoever else you'd care to mention. (Of course the more complex later Beethoven quartets were considered almost unplayable even by the pros for a long time, so the amateurs concentrated on the earlier ones.) The music publishing industry was a very large one in the 19th century, and much if not most of their sales were to amateurs.
(PS: Turbulo and Joanna's points were very well taken.)
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________ Had I been present at the Creation, I would have given some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe. -- Attr. to Alfonso the Wise, King of Castile