:
|
You couldn't be more wrong, perhaps the interest in it is declining but it is far from dead nor is it lacking interesting pieces.
|
I don't think I'm wrong at all. The "contemporary" classical pieces I've heard in that vein appear to be marketed at the group of people who believe that "high art" in music is classical music of that whole era. And I do not find Toccata and Fuge in D Minor (if you're talking about Bach) the least bit interesting, because I am sick of hearing it. There was a time when I liked Bach a lot, but I have grown to dislike the overall aesthetic of his pieces out of boredom.
And if the genre technically is not dead, I still maintain that the "classical" focus should be on contemporary composers of contemporary music with the niche market being the old-sounding classical stuff, not the other way around which it is now. Sadly, that isn't going to happen, because unfamiliar experiences are not as saleable as familiar ones.
:
|
However I do agree with you that composers and bands these days need to look at music in the light it was looked in, music is a fine art and musicians with auto-tune and synthesised music need to go back to the roots.
|
And views like yours are the kind of views I'm talking about. What I'm saying is that we should expand on the roots, not go back to them. Auto-tune is great for creating a certain aesthetic (provided it is done intentionally) and I love synthesised music because there is a great deal you can do with computers which you cannot do with acoustic instruments or live musicians. I do, however, object to the commercialisation of that kind of technology, because the decisions made with that stuff more often than not are business decisions and not artistic decisions.