Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
If I was teaching a class on music (and thank fuck I'm not), I would be very inclined to dismiss lots of sorts of music not because they're not good but because they're not conducive to the purposes of education. If, as a lecturer, I'd had 30+ years of people mentioning the Beatles, I'd probably dismiss them out of hands not on the grounds of their merits, but on the grounds that I'd be paid to explain fugues, not whether straberry fields forever is 'really' about acid.
I'm not intimating a sense of quality in any, I just reckon it just seems very self-explanatory that in a classical music class certain sorts of music are not really part of the deal. Obviously, you're right that Coltrane and the like potentially provide a challenge to that, and you could always put forward a Simon Williams-esque argument for Wonky, or whatever, ought to be included in the critical lexicon. But there is definitely a time and a place for that sort of criticism, and I imagine the hitherto mentioned professor was intimating this.
|
This professor played trumpet which explains the Jazz obsession. Yes I do agree that in a classical learning atmosphere you will be taught the fuction, creation, and basic rules of writing and reading classical music. In the reality staying in that narrow minded world would limit the learning oppurtunities of what you can do to move classical music into modern times. The Beatle's music was not just about acid and hidden messages. They intigrated classical souds with Rock n Roll and did so very succesfully. There are many musical scores of the Beatle's that in my mind blow Mozart away.