Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site tellab1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!tellab1!etan From: etan@tellab1.UUCP (Nate Stelton) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: In defense of musical snobbery Message-ID: <246@tellab1.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Jun-84 14:41:29 EDT Article-I.D.: tellab1.246 Posted: Mon Jun 11 14:41:29 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 12-Jun-84 01:27:00 EDT Organization: Tellabs, Inc., Lisle, Ill. Lines: 43 After reading Peter Merchant's article, I thought, "Well put, Pete." However I go through musical snob phases on a week to week basis, so I thought about the times that I have implied to others that they should listen to better music and asked myself why. While I can't condone such actions, I do think that some of the reasons the "snobs" (and I'm too confused to decide whether to include myself or not) impose their tastes should be brought to light. For the sake of simplicity, let me divide musical snobs into two categories: snob musicians, and snob listeners. (I'm getting tired of the word 'snob', so I'll refrain from overusing it.) Some musicians are driven by their love of the art form to the point of working their asses off in school for four or more years, studying under gurus privately (and I do mean gurus as opposed to ordinary private instructors), spending their life's savings on that one special instrument, practicing hours a day, year after year, and generally sacrificing a 'normal' life for music. I would say that among these people, there is a general consensus concerning the quality of top 40. Many of these people have a very difficult time making even a meager living. How do they feel when they hear that Michael Jackson makes more money in one night than they probably will over the next ten years? All they can say is "Hey, listen to me... please?". Some listeners find enjoyment in the compositions and performances of the aforementioned musicians. Unfortunately, they are rarely blessed with the opportunity to experience a live performance by them because the artist can't afford to tour to their city. When they go to the record shop to pick up a recording, It is most likely not available or discontinued due to lack of sales (i.e. it wasn't a platinum or gold). Many record companies are not interested in new acts if they do not feel that it will compete in the top 40, hence much of the 'serious' music is not made available to any of the record buying public. The snob listener then thinks "I wish more people would listen to good stuff." But who's to blame? You can't deny the public their right to choose the music they listen to. By the same token, the record companies have to make a buck in order to feed their families. Hey, maybe we can dump all the blame on the radio stations. Do they decide what America listens to? I don't know. Does anybody out there have an answer? -etan