The Mellotron Group

No, I think you are right. But classical music was written and performed  
before there was any ability to duplicate it. Orchestras and ensembles were  
created to interpret those creations (with obvious varying degrees of skill) 
for  the masses. The only way to share music was to perform it. The 
intricacies of a  Beethoven quartet or a Verdi Opera make them attractive to 
perform live because  there is no expected standard. We don't say that the 
orchestra is a Beethoven  cover band. We don't listen to Virgil Fox and say, "that 
sucks compared to when  I heard Bach do it," even if we're not Virgil Fox 
fans.
 
Pop songs lose their luster because they cease to be interesting. I don't  
consider relevance. I don't put on Moody Blues albums any more to just sit 
and  listen to, however, when I'm in the shop and the iPod is shuffled, I 
song of  theirs may come up now and again. There are more than 10,000 songs so 
it is not  frequent. But when I hear one, I enjoy it.
 
 
In a message dated 7/26/2011 6:28:22 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
tronbros@aol.com writes:

 
 
 
The main difference in all this is that within rock and pop you have a  
definitive recording, be it Strawberry Fields or Nights.  Nobody really  wants 
to hear a copy, there is no score, it was captured once in a particular  
way.  Classical music is realised through the interpretation of scores,  
modified endlessly by the vision of conductors and the sonority of individual  
orchestras.  Therefore the audience for pop will diminish as you move  away 
from the time of it's original creation.  Okay, the Beatles defy  this theory a 
little.  Thomas Tallis wrote in the 16th century and is  still performed.  
Nights in White Satin will fade as it is the sum of  unique parts one day in 
1967 and that cannot be replicated closely and  regularly.  Classical music 
can be.  I may be wrong.......


M

_mellotronics.co.uk_ (http://mellotronics.co.uk/)   






On 26 Jul 2 011, at 22:08, Mike Dickson <_mike.dickson@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mike.dickson@gmail.com) >  wrote:





 
On 26/07/2011 21:17, _lsf5275@aol.com_ (mailto:lsf5275@aol.com)  wrote:  
 
No, your point was about Justin  Hayward. He was just part of his 
generation.  



Actually my point wasn't specifically  about him at all.  Someone else 
brought him up.



 
 
Much of his music is/was  timeless and will be relevant long after we are 
gone. People will  rediscover Tuesday Afternoon,and Nights in White Satin 
over and over  again. His relevance might be to a narrower audience, but no 
musician is  relevant unless someone thinks they are... ever. All it takes is 
one. More  is better, though.





That's  just simply not true.  The difficult thing is that I think you  
know it.   If something is an entity that 'people will  rediscover' then it is 
an apparent truth that it has to be undiscovered  first,and that process is 
well underway.  They may well be your  personal favourites, but ask your 
average 20 or 25 or 30 year old what they  know about The Moody Blues (to name 
your specific) and the overwhelming  likely answer will be a blank stare 
back at you. No one know. No one  remembers. Far fewer ever care. Music is an 
evanescent thing, so get used to  it and enjoy what you have. At best they 
might name NiWS.  But that's  all, and that is by an Herculean effort. 

His audience is  narrower is because his audience is dying slowly.  That is 
how stuff  works.  And I have no issue with that at all. 

Mike