[Fwd: Re: This temperament thing]

[JIMRPT]

In a message dated 98-01-20 13:24:42 EST, Michael.Jorgensen@cmich.edu writes:

<< This is how substandard popular music can survive
 when there is music of much  higher quality available. >>

Mike;

  Whose Standards ?  Which music of "higher quality" ? Isn't this the type of
attitude that Les and I and several others spoke of as being a negative in the
promotion of "classical music".  Attitudes such as this leads the movers and
shakers in the "classical" music scene to put more emphasis on the "class"
than on the Music. Unless, and until, this prima donna attitude changes where
"classical" is good or superior to other forms of music there will never be a
broader acceptance of the genere than there is now and has been historically.
This is true no matter what temperament we use or what we should or shouldn't
hear.
  Music is music Mike and some of it appeals to more people than does other
types, without regard to which type we are speaking of.  All music is
'different' and there is none that is of a "higher quality" than other types.
There are only types that are accepted by fewer or greater numbers of people. 
  Music has been performed on everything from Bull skulls to dried human hide
and there weren't any temperaments to be arrogant about then. Arrogance does
nothing for the "classical music" genre, especially coming from a tech.  For
anyone to say, oh so condescendingly, that some music is  "substandard" seems
to me to be elitism of the highest and worst order.  If dealing with persons
who only play "substandard" music on their instrument will save me from the
likes of the "classical crowd" (as defined by you) give me a customer list
full of substandard types and I will be happy without regard as to which
temperament they want on their instrument. 

Jim Bryant (FL)
"we are what we do for the doing makes us what we are"