High and Low Music.

Just off the top of my head, there is one main reason that Beethoven, Mozart and the like are considered "high" forms of music. The answer is quite obvious. Staying power.

There were many other composers from hundreds of years ago who are gratefully, forgotten, in the sands of time. It was only the "cream" of the composers, whose music had some sort of appeal that is a relevent today as when it was written, who are remembered, and their music played over and over again.

The same can be said for great films. There are some films that seem "dated" even a few years after their release. There are others, although about a former time, that have an eternal appeal.

Which brings about another interesting question. I wonder which of today's composers will be remembered and played two hundred years from now!

I think the cultural elite play a big part in why the classical composers are still popular. I don't think for example house music will ever appeal to intellectual communitys.

There has always been and probably always will be art that is considered 'good' and art that is considered 'bad'. Classical composers like Mozart and Beethoven became canonized a long time ago and are likely to maintain their status for a long time to come.

It would be misguided, I think, to try to define "high" and "low" by looking only at works of art themselves--i.e. things like "innovation" and such. "High" and "low" are first and foremost social terms, so they have to be defined primarily with reference to the people receiving and using the art, not to the the artworks themselves. This isn't really an answer to your question so much as a qualification of it, but "high" art is art which (for better or worse) is thought to confer some sort of elevated status to its audience, and "low" art is art that does not.

This has been the case in classical music for most of its history (though it's arguable whether it is still the case today), and even within its history different genres had different levels of cachet. Haydn, Mozart, and Schubert were not the first to write Ländler by a long shot, but they were among the first to write them for elite audiences and not for the peasant cultures from which the dance was derived. That is why Hadyn, Mozart, and Schubert are canonical composers while the local village musicians of Moravia are not. Canons are instruments of cultural elites; that is virtually the definition of a canon. As you mentioned, the same system of status has been assimilated into pop music as well. Telling someone you were among the first people to be into the Sex Pistols gives you social credibility (in certain circles, anyway).

Again, none of this answers the question of why this happened, or why it happens for some artists but not others; but it is a reminder that questions of "high" and "low" are as much about the receivers of art as they are about specific features of artworks themselves. Trying to find answers in the artworks themselves would only perpetuate the myth that there is some objective quality of value that inheres in them.


EDIT: As I was typing up this response, Coolwhip managed to sneak in and say it much more succinctly.

Also, think of the times these works were composed. The only vehicle for hearing them was an orchestra - that's not the cheapest vehicle for promoting your tunes.

If rock bands thought they had to sell out to be heard in the twentieth century imagine how the classical composer in the 18th felt!

There was so much less competition too (because of the sheer economics of reproduction). Today you can here some amazing music for free (and legal) that would rival the 'quality' of anything produced in the last couple of centuries.

And I've read a few articles lately suggesting that live performance is the new economic driver of the industry - because reproduction/distribution costs are falling through the floor through technological changes.

Also, I don't think 'high' and 'low' has anything to do with longevity or importance, mostly it's about complexity. 'Happy Birthday' will be around for a long time (as has been 'Greensleeves' and 'Amazing Grace').

Those are loaded examples in a way because "Happy Birthday" has an advantage that Mozart and Beethoven pieces don't have: it's a functional piece. You're right that it will around for a long time, but I doubt it has much to do with an appreciation of its artistic qualities. It will be around for a while because it is part of the birthday ritual. If you sing it on your birthday, you aren't necessarily expressing a belief in its aesthetic value; even people who don't think much of the melody will sing it on someone's birthday.

Then again, this example still illustrates that longevity is as much a function of social utility as of the internal qualities of the artwork itself.

music is art... if it resonates with someone.... then it's done it's job. Different strokes for different folks.

There is no high or low music, only music.

I believe that music is a completely subjective thing, but I look for music that is original, or in my opinion original, but I believe that anyone can make a catchy song, but to put your raw emotion into a song, that I believe is different, and that is where you find the most original music, where the music is an extension of the artist, not just a catchy track that will sell for the sake of selling, there is listening to music because it is catchy, and there is listening to music to try and understand and interpretate it. There is no such thing as "high" or "low" music.

Gilbey, thats interesting.
In your opinion, what is the advantage of being original?
It sounds as though you see original as possibly 'better' or 'higher' than non-original music- although you know this is subjective.

Is putting raw emotion into a song what makes it original? People have been doing that for centurys, namely about love.

I'm not saying i disagree btw, I'm just trying to get more out of you

I believe putting your raw emotion into a song makes it original, or at least the sound of the song, if you cannot easily think of any artists which sound similar to a particular artist, that makes it original, and of course I think original music is "better", because that is what I look for in music, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is "better", because like I said music is a subjective thing.

There is a difference between how it should be and how it is.
You really can't escape the fact that some kinds of music is considered 'better' than other types of music. That doesn't mean that this kind of music really is better than other kinds of music, just that there is a general agreement that it is.

just because there is a "general agreement" that it is better doesn't necassarily make it so.

Yes, thats what I've been saying.

but I sumed that up with my point at the top of the page, before you did.

But it does mean there's "general agreement", so there is a high/low category in the "general" population's mind?

I still don't think the high/low dichotomy is really about quality, more about access, and our modes of creation and distribution of music have been massively democratised by technology and education.

Exactly. Quite regardless of whether "high" and "low" are inherent properties of artworks, they are an indisputable reality of the reception of artworks. Any doubts about this can easily be dispelled by asking a music professor how long it took for the Beatles to become an academically legitimate subject to teach.



Bingo.