English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I’m talking about composers like Ives or Mahler or Liszt or Bolling or Vivaldi or many more who’s body of works is often dismissed by critics? Only to be ‘re-discovered’ a generation or two later?

If the music is substantial enough, why would it ever really fall into or out of fashion?

2006-07-14 17:38:19 · 3 answers · asked by Doc Watson 7 in Entertainment & Music Music

Vogue. Sorry for the typo.

2006-07-14 17:44:01 · update #1

3 answers

People like variety. You and I probably don't play the same albums or CDs all the time, just put them into a rotation.

I think a professional music critic might say, "Oh no, not another artist with Goldberg variations!" and decide thay no longer like JS Bach. If he's a persuasive enough writer, other critics also decide they have heard enough Bach.

The 'rotation time' among critics is longer than among individuals, but I think it's the same principle. Critics are always critics, but good music will always stand on its own.

2006-07-14 17:48:36 · answer #1 · answered by OldFogey 3 · 1 0

I think that movies have an incredible influence on things like this. If a piece of music is used in a popular film then it often times has a resurgance. Although it is not classical, an example might be something like Bohemian Rhapsody when it was featured in Wayne's World. It was hardly a forgotten song but it suddenly had mass appeal for a younger generation who may not have come across it otherwise. Given time, it is much easier for someone to form their own opinions on music as oppsosed to when something is fresh and we have hundreds of reviews and critics shoving their own opinions down our throats, which can influence people's perception.

2006-07-15 09:05:50 · answer #2 · answered by sticky 7 · 0 0

Nature.

2006-07-15 00:41:10 · answer #3 · answered by NA A 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers