From the article:
"I think that those who prefer orchestral film music to classical music very often reduce music (or, to put it more accurately: all that music can be) to a comfortable, easily accessible and predictable trigger of emotions. In other words, they confuse musical appreciation with emotional response. It’s not necessarily a fully conscious decision and there’s more to it than just that of course, but this confusion does play a large part nonetheless: people are absolutely convinced that they are enjoying the music, when in fact they’re overwhelmed by something entirely different: some memory, association, emotion, fantasy or other. Nothing wrong with that, certainly not, but it is not an experience driven by music alone, despite what many may believe."
Perhaps, but I think the reason Classical music is so unapproachable by most is because academia has made it unapproachable. I had a college professor who once said this about modern Classical music: "If the general public likes the music, then it must be garbage." This kind of arrogance is so prevalent in modern Classical music, no wonder "the general public" stays away from it. I've expended all of my ammunition on this battlefront in the forum and I don't wish to dig up hatchets I've buried with other forumites.
"If you’re listening to the ‘Raiders March’ for example, and you feel that familiar and pleasant rush of excitement going through your body, you’re not really listening to the music itself (and I mean: the naked musical content, the dots on the paper), but you are carried away into the realm of imagination, memories, feelings, projection and/or fantasy."
I'm not so sure. If Lucas and Spielberg decided to replace Williams' music with Prokofiev's Third would the effect have been the same? I think Williams best march is the '1941 March.' I heard the music before I saw the movie but I knew it was a Williams theme but whenever I hear it I'm not "carried away into the realm of imagination, memories, feelings, projection and/or fantasy." Or maybe I am but it's not because of a mediocre movie like 1941.
" It is quite easy for most people to distinguish between powerful, inspired work and bland mediocrity in film music."
Apparently Mr. Ridder hasn't heard any recent film music as this statement doesn't explain the current state of affairs.
"And while we’re here, let’s maybe also have a quick look at ‘modern’ classical music: a vast majority of the audience (and their number must be much larger than just those who are prepared to admit it) simply doesn’t have a clue if they are listening to a complete hack or a genuinely talented composer."
LOL amen to that!!!
"Many listeners find this music very hard to enjoy, not only for aesthetic reasons, but also because it makes them feel limited, small, unsophisticated or culturally under-prepared."
The writer forgot to include insulted, degraded, and apathetic.
I may sound like I'm mocking Mr. Ridder but I do agree with his overall premis that there is "More to Music Than Music" but I think how much more depends on the listener. I know friends who are hard core Heavy Metal listeners who rattle off the names of obscure artists most have never heard of and intensely listen to swaths of loud distorted power chords, and high pitched overdriven arpeggio patterns bobbing their heads up and down (called 'head banging'). I just don't hear what it is my friends are hearing. Is there art or aesthetic nourishment in what they are listening to? They can't hear what I'm hearing in Prokofiev's Third. Why is Classical and/or Film music considered high brow while everything else is not?