Topic: The death of classical music

[karlhenning]

The truth is good music is rarely popular.

The truth is, that is a tendentious (and frequently self-flattering) myth.

[karlhenning]

a quote from Gerald Schwartz: "they teach Shakespeare in Highschool, so why not Beethoven?"

You mean, they haven't managed to excise Shakespeare from the high school curriculum yet?

[karlhenning]

Classical music is not easy to "find". I was an ignoramus myself 15 year ago.

Just a refreshed caution, 71 dB, that you must not take your personal experience as normative for the world.  It's that simple.

For some people, classical music is relatively easy to find.

[karlhenning]

Gotta love reverse snobbery/elitism - if you didn't listen to their music out of hand like that you'd be labeled a snob, but apparently the reverse is ok.

Word.

[karlhenning]

Just as the language of Shakespeare proves a certain barrier to many students, so does the language of classical music. To appreciate either, one must cross that barrier.

Without gainsaying this in substance, I wish to add that simple exposure at a formative age, reduces the barrier significantly.

[Grazioso]

without warning. It's not easy to read. That is why we have edited texts which are based on the original folios. What's important about Shakespeare's texts, is, and will always be meaing. He confronted the nature of man more completely than any other writer in the Western World. Preserving ancient language, at the expense of clarity doesn't make much sense. I say if someone needs a Modern Edition, let them have one. I read the Arden Texts, the original folios, and modern translations.

But that neglects the vital point that much of his writing is poetry or at least poetic prose, and translating/updating poetry necessarily alters it substantially. Meanings, rhythms, etc. start to shift. A great deal of Shakespeare's profundity and beauty lies in his use of language.

Editing Shakespreaean texts is nothing new.

True, and that editing has been a thorny issue and ongoing process from the start. But it's one thing to (partially) normalize spelling and punctuation to modern standards or take make educated scholarly guesses on the best text that can be derived from the quartos and First Folio, and another to intentionally water down the whole of a text to make it understandable to young, lazy, or poorly educated readers.

Without gainsaying this in substance, I wish to add that simple exposure at a formative age, reduces the barrier significantly.

And with repeated exposure, Shakespeare's language becomes familiar and relatively easy.

[karlhenning]

I agree with this wholeheartedly.  But we've got to be careful.  Too often it's the assigned books, poems, music, etc., that become most disliked later, simply because they're assigned.

Part of this must be presentation:  does the pupil feel that the instructor is presenting the material "because it's good for you," or does the instructor have enthusiasm and fondness for Shakespeare himself?

My tenth-grade English teacher had been in the original Broadway cast of The Fantasticks.  And from the first day that he started reading out Julius Caesar to us, I was a Shakespeare fanatic.

[karlhenning]

I'm inclined to grant you your points . . . .

Excellent post, and welcome back, Patrick!

[karlhenning]

If this happens, I want to hear it.  It might be entertaining in a weird sort of way.

Heather

Walter Murphy Band, anyone?

[Larry Rinkel]

As to your assertion that Eliabeathan english is not entirely different from modern English, you're mistaken. The Shakespeare texts which are accepted as reference today look very little like the original texts. They have undergone a great deal of editing to preserve the poetic quality. Trust me, if you read an original Shakespeare folio, you would not be able to read it, even with 'a great deal' of effort.

Where on earth are you getting this idea from? Linguistically speaking, Shakespeare writes modern English. The primary "editing" found in modern editions of Shakespeare is to regularize Elizabethan spelling, not to alter the texts.

[Steve]

But that neglects the vital point that much of his writing is poetry or at least poetic prose, and translating/updating poetry necessarily alters it substantially. Meanings, rhythms, etc. start to shift. A great deal of Shakespeare's profundity and beauty lies in his use of language.

True, and that editing has been a thorny issue and ongoing process from the start. But it's one thing to (partially) normalize spelling and punctuation to modern standards or take make educated scholarly guesses on the best text that can be derived from the quartos and First Folio, and another to intentionally water down the whole of a text to make it understandable to young, lazy, or poorly educated readers.

And with repeated exposure, Shakespeare's language becomes familiar and relatively easy.

Indeed, which is why for the serious scholar, they could never function as a substitute.

[Steve]

Where on earth are you getting this idea from? Linguistically speaking, Shakespeare writes modern English. The primary "editing" found in modern editions of Shakespeare is to regularize Elizabethan spelling, not to alter the texts.

You're quite mistaken. Actually that famous speech in my previous post, was actually achieved by combining three different folios, and some altering. Of course, the language is English and not Chinese, but they are not 'modern' in any sense of the word.

Where am I getting the idea from?

I've read the folios.

[karlhenning]

Well, I don't want Shakespeare to become the province of scholars;  his work lives on the stage!

[karlhenning]

Shakespeare is modern English;  even Chaucer, ancient as he seems to us, wrote in middle English, I think.

[PSmith08]

You're quite mistaken. Actually that famous speech in my previous post, was actually achieved by combining three different folios, and some altering. Of course, the language is English and not Chinese, but they are not 'modern' in any sense of the word.

Where am I getting the idea from?

I've read the folios.

Where on earth are you getting this idea from? Linguistically speaking, Shakespeare writes modern English. The primary "editing" found in modern editions of Shakespeare is to regularize Elizabethan spelling, not to alter the texts.

Shakespeare is modern English;  even Chaucer, ancient as he seems to us, wrote in middle English, I think.

Larry and Karl are indeed as correct as one can be on this subject. The English written by the Bard is as modern, speaking in a strict linguistic sense, as the English written by you or me. In fact, most serious historical linguists would consider Shakespeare the primogenitor of Modern English, in a literary sense. Beowulf is Anglo-Saxon or Old English, Chaucer is indeed Middle English, and our friend Bill is Modern English. This isn't a question of when they wrote, it's a strict and well-defined linguistic question. The folios have little to do with it (i.e., the issue of Shakespeare's English), other than to help scholars understand the development of certain structures out of the Middle English.

So, then, Larry is right - and I've done quite a bit of study on the subject of the history of the English language and Shakespeare - most editing is indeed bringing the spelling and some grammar up to date. Shakespeare, while writing a long time ago, wrote in Modern English.

[greg]

Part of this must be presentation:  does the pupil feel that the instructor is presenting the material "because it's good for you," or does the instructor have enthusiasm and fondness for Shakespeare himself?

My tenth-grade English teacher had been in the original Broadway cast of The Fantasticks.  And from the first day that he started reading out Julius Caesar to us, I was a Shakespeare fanatic.

i like this point.
Maybe if i had this teacher i (and the rest of the class) would find Shakespeare interesting, or at least easier to find interesting? Our English teacher last year was so ridiculously bored about everything and made us have to read it out loud. I remember the only person i ever payed attention to (same with the rest of the class) was my friend, who started rapping it. But when it was someone else, my mind started to wander.....

[Larry Rinkel]

Shakespeare is modern English;  even Chaucer, ancient as he seems to us, wrote in middle English, I think.

Absolutely correct. There are three primary phases of English: Old English, as found in Beowulf; middle English, as in Chaucer; and modern English, of which Shakespeare is most definitely an example according to any history of linguistics.

As for Steve's example, well, yes, there are defective lines and other textual problems in the various sources. But there's a major difference between scholarly editing to reconstruct the most probable syntax and meaning of various lines, and modern "updating" to substitute 20th-century vernacular for Shakespeare's own language.

Steve claims he has read the "folios." Good for him. All four editions of the folio from 1623, 1632, 1663, and 1685? Has he read all the extant quartos as well, including all the so-called "bad quartos"? Does he know which plays have only been transmitted from the First Folio, and does he have an opinion on (say) the textual problems of King Lear, in which there are significant discrepancies between the first quarto and first folio? Does he think in such a case that readers should use only one or the other version, or would he follow Alexander Pope's lead and conflate the two to produce the most complete text based on the available source material?

[Larry Rinkel]

i like this point.
Maybe if i had this teacher i (and the rest of the class) would find Shakespeare interesting, or at least easier to find interesting? Our English teacher last year was so ridiculously bored about everything and made us have to read it out loud. I remember the only person i ever payed attention to (same with the rest of the class) was my friend, who started rapping it. But when it was someone else, my mind started to wander.....

Go see some of the plays and that should focus your wandering mind.

[greg]

Go see some of the plays and that should focus your wandering mind.

you know what'd be really cool?
to go back in time and see the ORIGINAL Shakespeare plays 
time to practice my English accent and also, i need to go out and buy old clothes from that era....

but my time machine is broken 

[Tsaraslondon]

Well, I don't want Shakespeare to become the province of scholars;  his work lives on the stage!

Indeed it does. Shakespeare's Globe Theatre in London continually sells out, as do productions at the Royal Shakespeare Theatre in Stratord. And as yet, they seem to be making no effort to render the language into a more modern parlance, thank Heaven.