>was classical music ever 'popular' though? it was a patron
>arts, where an elite funded what they wanted and put on
>spectacles for the populace. sure the populace responded by
>the purchase of tickets to see the performances (and my some
>accounts many of these were more diverse in audience than one
>might instinctually believe).

i think you answered your own question. even after classical ceased being a patron art, people attended performances. you have to be very naive to believe it was just to be seen and not to hear. also look at the number of people who bought and continue to buy classical sheet music and learn to play the music voluntarily as opposed to being forced to by an instructor. factor in classical record sales. factor in the huge popularity of opera, which is classical music.


>i think you glamorize jazz's overall popularity.

you framed the conversation around these huge umbrella genres. that gives license to include all styles of jazz together since you're including all styles of electronic music and even pop music that is produced electronically and hip-hop.


>and that's the
>beauty of jazz is that all those diverse interpretations were
>able to carve their own niches and grow without the need to
>become *the* popular music. now parallel that with electronic
>music and the thing you find is that perhaps there is even
>more closeness between the niches despite more divergence in
>sound (you'll debate that and I won't argue). that's kinda
>beautiful.

i can see it both ways. the music probably converges and diverges as much as jazz did. i honestly don't see it as all that close. i think the eclecticism of many listeners creates that illusion.


>if you are studying the people, you study what is popular. if
>you are studying the art, you study its evolutions no matter
>how small or popular.

i agree, i just worry that some of the "evolutions" in electronic music have been so understudied contemporaneously, and then actively excluded in recent years, that it will be either very difficult to assess in the future or almost unknown.


>it's not that i don't care for the populous. i do. but i
>care for the art too. and i know that the populous doesn't
>always care for the art, though the art, when true to the muse
>is almost always for the populous. as the art grows so does
>the populous cousciously or subconsciously. is this an
>elitist stance? perhaps it could be perceived this way, but
>only by the populous. the muse has no word for elitist.

that isn't elitist, no.