nightspore
Group: Members
Posts: 4770
Joined: Mar. 2008 |
|
Posted: Nov. 28 2010, 19:03 |
|
Quote (Sir Mustapha @ Nov. 28 2010, 11:58) | Like Lars, I refuse the idea that classical music is "for the brain" if it means that non-classical music is not. Any music is for the brain as much as it is to the whole body.
Maybe you could say Bach was extremely cerebral in his process of composition, but what do you say about the likes of Beethoven? Reading the things he said and thought about his works, it's clear that he was so passionate, so corporal about his music that he was, at times, almost irrational.
I think Classical music being considered "cerebral" nowadays is just a form people thought to put themselves above the rest. Lots and lots of elitist groups do that -- people will call themselves "smarter" just for watching Animé, for chrissakes!
Yes, there is musical theory, people study classical music in universities, but what does that mean? It just means that we have a lot of intellectuals trying to give themselves more importance than they have, that's what! People can study Beethoven as much as they can study Robert Smith or Wayne Coyne -- they are just human beings, aren't they? |
I actually agree with you, Sir M. I don't think you can underestimate the power of the music professors, though: they ultimately control the future's perception of what "serious" music is: what will survive and what will be forgotten. Moreover, they create students in their own image (by failing students who don't tow the theoretical line). The fact that the general music-enjoying public doesn't care about their opinions doesn't matter to them, because the academic papers and theory that they produce will outlive a given generation of the music-enjoying public. Does all this matter? Probably not!
|