|
ahinton
|
 |
« Reply #60 on: 21:51:26, 16-07-2007 » |
|
But even though 95% of musicological work will have no wider application, that doesn't mean that we should concentrate all our efforts on the remaining 5% (an argument frequently advanced to justify cuts in research subsidies). The little steps that lead to the major discoveries might come from anywhere; intellectual advance is a corporate, communal effort, not something that comes about through a handful of brilliant, independent individuals - even though they may be the ones to make the final leap.
To continue the parallel with composition, it wouldn't be hard to make a case that 95% of composition past and present is unlikely to make any lasting impression, either. But without the freedom to try things, and possibly fail, neither composition nor musicology would get anywhere. I would like to ask the various people who are making wildly generalised comments about a whole discipline to come up with a range of diverse and representative examples of what they mean. In particular for Alistair in his crusade against the infiltration of gender studies into the massively white male-dominated field of music that he is so precious about. You have written about a "mission" - and now a "crusade" - that you claim me to have about various issues. I have never accused any field - of music or otherwise - of being "white male dominated" I (by the way, Ian, are you a white male, or does that idea exist only in my profoundly corrupt imagination?) in the way that you imply here. I am "precious" about nothing, nor do I wish nor can I afford to be so. As to the subject matter that may or may not be involved at any given moment, we may have to agree to disagree (whuich I will do in a civil manner) but, even if we do that, I have to add that I am not here to go on missions and crusades for or against anything, thank you. I point out things that I note and notice and I proffer my opinion about them as an opinion - but then along comes Ian Pace to tell me that I can't utter a single word on such matters without accusing myself of being on a "mission" and a "crusade", neither of which are easy options for a non-subscriber to a particular faith as I am. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 23:16:01, 16-07-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #61 on: 22:00:50, 16-07-2007 » |
|
I'm sure Alistair will be surprised to learn that he's on a crusade. He'll be needing that suit of armour by the sound of it.
Alistair reiterates, in a tedious fashion, kneejerk anti-intellectual and defensive reactionary positions on art and culture, fervently here and on other messageboards and websites, strongly opposing any arguments that suggest that class, gender, ethnicity, or other political matters might permeate music. Clearly they matter a lot to him. That sounds like a crusade to me - and a very right-wing one at that. A rather pathetic lament for a world of easy certainties which is no longer plausible. I find it all very tiresome. Given the massive intellect that you possess and the widely read person that you so obviously are, I have to admit to being utterly astonished at the extent of your misunderstanding of my position vis-à-vis the kinds of issue under consideration here. Richard is quite right; I do indeed find myself in need of some kind of riot shield (not his words, admittedly) to defend myself against the accusations of being on some kind of "crusade", which I am certainly surprised to find being claimed by anyone. You write that I apparently "strongly oppose any arguments that suggest that class, gender, ethnicity, or other political matters might permeate music". I do not "oppose" these things per se - I simply point out (or try to, as best I can, which may not be at all well enough) that it does not at present seem at all possible to claim, with credibility and certain proof on one's side, that any or all of these issues do or don't "permeate" music or, if they do, how or why they do and/or what the effects or consequences thereof may or may not be. You seem determined to try to state that my position is one of utterly inflexible dogma, whereas it has always been one that tells me that I should not claim that anything is incontrovertibly true unless it can be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that it is so. The dogmatic stance sems to me to come not from me but from you. You also accuse me of being "very right-wing" in the views that I express (and I stress again that they are views alone and the best ones up with which I can sincerely come); I have to say in response that I am not at all conscious of having any particular "wings" that incline themselves in any particular direction, so the point of your "right wing" accusation remains entirely unclear. Perhaps someone might clip yours sometime. That was extremely rude of me, so I apologise unreservedly (and do so rather than delete what I wrote, so that people can see what I think and am prepared to say and mean). Please, Ian, talk to us all instead about Brahms, Chopin, etc., where you really have some wonderful insights to offer which delight me and, I'm sure, must delight and stimulate others too. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 22:06:21, 16-07-2007 by ahinton »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #62 on: 23:00:29, 16-07-2007 » |
|
I have never accused any field - or music or otherwise - of being "white male dominated" No, but I think it would be hard to make a case to the contrary. (by the way, Ian, are you a white male, or does that idea exist only in my profoundly corrupt imagination?) Absolutely I am and feel the need not to dismiss perspectives emerging from non white male quarters on these subjects all the more strongly as a result. You write that I apparently "strongly oppose any arguments that suggest that class, gender, ethnicity, or other political matters might permeate music". I do not "oppose" these things per se - I simply point out (or try to, as best I can, which may not be at all well enough) that it does not at present seem at all possible to claim, with credibility and certain proof on one's side, that any or all of these issues do or don't "permeate" music or, if they do, how or why they do and/or what the effects or consequences thereof may or may not be. There is a very sizeable body of scholarship which has investigated not so much whether some essence of these identities unfailingly permeates the music per se, but that constructions of gender, class, ethnicity, are deeply embroiled in the whole sets of musical value systems that have informed institutionalisation, financial support, teaching, and so on. Just to give the obvious example, the gendered view of sonata form and its importance was taught widely in many universities and conservatoires in the 19th and earlier 20th centuries - are we really to believe this had no effect whatsoever? And various feminist musicologists (most notably Marcia Citron in this particular sub-field) have investigated how women composers may have been discriminated against and excluded on account of their music failing to satisfy certain criteria perceived as masculine. Let alone the whole constructions of aesthetic value systems that systematically decry any sort of music-making that is perceived to appeal to members of classes other than that which is dominant, other ethnicities, and so on and so forth. These are just a few ways in which these value systems have permeated music and music-making for some time. You seem determined to try to state that my position is one of utterly inflexible dogma, whereas it has always been one that tells me that I should not claim that anything is incontrovertibly true unless it can be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that it is so. The dogmatic stance sems to me to come not from me but from you. My position is that the issues that these branches of musicological discourse have raised cannot be dismissed in a summary fashion. Simply that these are very real issues, that's all. If you call that dogmatic, so be it. Actually, I have very big contentions with the ways in which some of the practitioners address them, not least because of their wilful neglect of economic issues on one hand, and positive valorisation of that produced exclusively under market conditions on the other. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #63 on: 23:10:28, 16-07-2007 » |
|
And (while I'm at it  ), I think one of the very encouraging developments in the science world is that there is now a realisation that promoting 'public understanding of science' is actually an important and integral part of the scientific enterprise itself. Some of the popularisers jumping on the bandwagon are admittedly pretty dire but, very significant I think, is that many of the academic big beasts in science see it as part of the job to write substantively, clearly and well for a general public. I'm not sure I can think of anyone who is doing quite that in musicology. Charles Rosen and, um, .....? Just one thought on this: I have a lot of time for Charles Rosen's writings and quite often cite them, but he really isn't a musicological scholar. He regularly makes all sorts of factual and historical claims without almost ever providing sources to back them up; indeed some of them seem utterly unfounded. Many of his claim concerning performance practice are of this nature, and don't stand well against those of people who have really researched these matters in detail. He has a very elegant style, but arguably (like some others) can maintain this more easily by virtue of sometimes presenting simplistic arguments and conclusions (conclusions deriving from exhaustive investigation of sources are often nothing like so neat or elegant). This is not to want to knock his work necessarily, but I would take many of his claims with a big pinch of salt for that reason. To the best of my knowledge, Rosen has never practised as a musicologist in a university environment, and I'm afraid that shows at least at times. Most of his information would seem to come from secondary or even tertiary sources. It may be possible to do scholarly rigorous work and make it accessible in the manner he does, but achieving the latter at the expense of the former is a dubious end. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #64 on: 23:26:16, 16-07-2007 » |
|
Not being a musicologist but a mere practising musician working in HE, I must admit to a degree of frustration as I work my way through this thread. I have a certain sympathy with Richard and Alistair who seem both in their different ways to have said (I think - do correct me if I am wrong or putting words into your mouths) that even as professional musicians they do not find an enormous amount of current musicological writing of relevance to their work, or even particularly edifying. That is my experience also - I sense a potential for interesting and exciting, thought-provoking writing of the sort that Ian has mentioned in passing - illuminating the listening experience, seeking to explain the compositional process, providing valuable insights into performance practice, giving a work/ composer an historical/ social context, etc etc - but find that my expectations are rarely, if ever, met. I don't have the time to look at many articles or books unless I know that I am going to get a good payback for the time I put into reading them, and it may be that I am missing a few gems, but the law of averages (and the profoundly depressing experience of reading these posts) suggests that I am probably right.
That some of the composers and performers contributing here feel this way (not that the members of this mb are in anyway a truly representative cross-section of the listening public) seems good evidence that whilst certain branches of musicology are thriving (the ones that musicologists find interesting), there is less in periodicals to excite the composer or performer, and still less the general listening public. So how this cutting edge research filters through to the "real world" of music I am at a loss to understand.
Don't misunderstand me - I have no problem with anyone getting on and researching music in any way they feel is important to them; but it seems to me that much that is less than relevant to anyone but those ploughing the same deep but narrow furrow is being celebrated at the expense of perfectly respectable scholarly (in GG's sense) work - and we are not seeing anywhere near as much of that.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #65 on: 23:35:34, 16-07-2007 » |
|
Well, I have to ask, roslynmuse, what would be examples of periodicals where you find what you describe to be the case? And in what sort of subject areas?
One other caveat to add - I imagine that many here (not everyone, but many) are primarily thinking of English-language musicology. Whilst I'm no expert on that in other countries, I know a certain amount of musicological work in German on certain particular areas, and a little about some Hungarian work on Liszt that has been translated into German, French and English. Certainly these are very different traditions in many ways, and we should be cautious about judging a whole discipline on the basis of its practitioners in just one language. The German tradition has a long history (albeit very mixed - the musicological traditions in the early 20th century are heavily tainted, and some of this carried on past 1945 - Pamela Potter's book on the subject has much on this) and accounts for at least as much if not more work than appears in English.
And to add, as aaron alluded to in an earlier post - many of the charges made against musicology, in terms of its aloofness and supposed irrelevance to the wider musical world, can and have been made about a lot of contemporary music as well. It's easy to forget how much the majority of classical music lovers and practitioners have little or no time for much of the stuff that those of us here who value new music think highly of.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 23:38:21, 16-07-2007 by Ian Pace »
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #66 on: 23:37:47, 16-07-2007 » |
|
I have never accused any field - or music or otherwise - of being "white male dominated" No, but I think it would be hard to make a case to the contrary. Well, Ian, I wasn't trying specifically to "make a case" here one way or another; you seemed to be seeking to do that for me and then commenting on it as though it had been all down to me all the time... (by the way, Ian, are you a white male, or does that idea exist only in my profoundly corrupt imagination?) Absolutely I am and feel the need not to dismiss perspectives emerging from non white male quarters on these subjects all the more strongly as a result. And I do dismiss such perspectives? (presuably you think that I do so from the well-heeled comfort of my right-wingèd granite tower but, if you do, then I have to retort that this notion would be a "construct" of your own making, no more, no less)... You write that I apparently "strongly oppose any arguments that suggest that class, gender, ethnicity, or other political matters might permeate music". I do not "oppose" these things per se - I simply point out (or try to, as best I can, which may not be at all well enough) that it does not at present seem at all possible to claim, with credibility and certain proof on one's side, that any or all of these issues do or don't "permeate" music or, if they do, how or why they do and/or what the effects or consequences thereof may or may not be. There is a very sizeable body of scholarship which has investigated not so much whether some essence of these identities unfailingly permeates the music per se, but that constructions of gender, class, ethnicity, are deeply embroiled in the whole sets of musical value systems that have informed institutionalisation, financial support, teaching, and so on. Just to give the obvious example, the gendered view of sonata form and its importance was taught widely in many universities and conservatoires in the 19th and earlier 20th centuries - are we really to believe this had no effect whatsoever? No, Ian - we are not - but does that fact of itself justify such ideas and the past teaching thereof? And various feminist musicologists (most notably Marcia Citron in this particular sub-field) have investigated how women composers may have been discriminated against and excluded on account of their music failing to satisfy certain criteria perceived as masculine.
Oh, indeed, let's not pretend that there was never any negativity shown towards women who aspired to compose, for you and I well know and deprecate the fact that there once was just such a distasteful and disgusting thing in a most embarrassing and damaging abundance... Let alone the whole constructions of aesthetic value systems that systematically decry any sort of music-making that is perceived to appeal to members of classes other than that which is dominant, other ethnicities, and so on and so forth. These are just a few ways in which these value systems have permeated music and music-making for some time.
I'm not at all disagreeing with you here either, for there can be no doubt whatsoever that what you state here is shamefully correct. Where I part company with you and some of the gender-musicologist fraternity is when the latter seek to make conjectural statements about the actual nature of the music that women (or homosexuals, if you like), oppressed or otherwise, write, as though women composers were for the most part so weak-spirited and artistically subject to this kind of oppression AS COMPOSERS that their work can itself somehow be identified per se as having emerged from that very kind of background; I rather douibt that Ethel Smyth or Betty Maconchy would have stomached that notion easily - and I imagine that the wondrous Grazyna Bacewicz might have flung her violin at it! You seem determined to try to state that my position is one of utterly inflexible dogma, whereas it has always been one that tells me that I should not claim that anything is incontrovertibly true unless it can be demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that it is so. The dogmatic stance sems to me to come not from me but from you. My position is that the issues that these branches of musicological discourse have raised cannot be dismissed in a summary fashion. Simply that these are very real issues, that's all. If you call that dogmatic, so be it. Actually, I have very big contentions with the ways in which some of the practitioners address them, not least because of their wilful neglect of economic issues on one hand, and positive valorisation of that produced exclusively under market conditions on the other. Yes, I do realise from what you have written elsewhere that you do not simply accept wholeale and without intellectual discrimination every word that emanates from the pens of these people just because it happens to do so, but whilst such issues indeed "cannot be dismissed in a summary fashion", that fact does not of itself mean that they can instead be dealt with credibly by people who think that they have - or are on the track of - all the truths about them, for it simply is not and indeed cannot the case at present. You still haven't answered my points about listener experience and gender; if I draw attention to that fact as much as just once more, I will probably risk irritating readers immesurably, so I'd better shut up on it now... Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
ahinton
|
|
« Reply #67 on: 23:43:35, 16-07-2007 » |
|
One other caveat to add - I imagine that many here (not everyone, but many) are primarily thinking of English-language musicology. Whilst I'm no expert on that in other countries, I know a certain amount of musicological work in German on certain particular areas, and a little about some Hungarian work on Liszt that has been translated into German, French and English. Certainly these are very different traditions in many ways, and we should be cautious about judging a whole discipline on the basis of its practitioners in just one language.
Indeed so; I accept that in principle, without doubt. My remarks were, however, more specifically confined to certain particular kinds of musicological persusasion rather than directed at musicological research, development and presentation per se in whatever language it may be written or into whatsoever language it may get to be translated. Best, Alistair |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #68 on: 23:45:23, 16-07-2007 » |
|
There is a very sizeable body of scholarship which has investigated not so much whether some essence of these identities unfailingly permeates the music per se, but that constructions of gender, class, ethnicity, are deeply embroiled in the whole sets of musical value systems that have informed institutionalisation, financial support, teaching, and so on. Just to give the obvious example, the gendered view of sonata form and its importance was taught widely in many universities and conservatoires in the 19th and earlier 20th centuries - are we really to believe this had no effect whatsoever?
No, Ian - we are not - but does that fact of itself justify such ideas and the past teaching thereof? I don't see what you are saying? What feminist musicology does teach us, I believe, is to look rather more critically and sceptically at the whole value systems underlying such things, and possibly the work that was produced whilst adhering to such things. Let alone the whole constructions of aesthetic value systems that systematically decry any sort of music-making that is perceived to appeal to members of classes other than that which is dominant, other ethnicities, and so on and so forth. These are just a few ways in which these value systems have permeated music and music-making for some time.
I'm not at all disagreeing with you here either, for there can be no doubt whatsoever that what you state here is shamefully correct. Where I part company with you and some of the gender-musicologist fraternity is when the latter seek to make conjectural statements about the actual nature of the music that women (or homosexuals, if you like), oppressed or otherwise, write, There are some who make such essentialist claims, but I don't accept that's the majority viewpoint. And certainly no more than those in the past who praised certain music on account of its 'manly' qualities and so on. You still haven't answered my points about listener experience and gender; if I draw attention to that fact as much as just once more, I will probably risk irritating readers immesurably, so I'd better shut up on it now... I don't answer that question because (a) I make no claims in terms of the relationship between listener experience and gender, and (b) I am not an expert on musical psychology and gender (are you?), so do not feel qualified to ascertain whether there may or may not be some essential links between gender and perception. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
SimonSagt!
|
|
« Reply #69 on: 23:51:46, 16-07-2007 » |
|
Good grief, Ian - do you have to keep harping on about this "white male" domination thing? Nobody would deny that such a situation exists in the field of what we think of as classical music, but you seem to be trying to say either that it is somehow "wrong" or the result of some kind of conspiracy. You really need to understand some basic points about how the world is, with one of the most fundamental being that there is, and always has been, a difference between communities, areas, races and social groups. It's part of the great diversity of the human condition. Black males from places like Ethiopia have, traditionally, been able to run further and for longer periods than most other people from elsewhere. Science, especially involving heat and fire, advanced further in China, 2000 years ago, than it had anywhere else. Same with building ideas in Egypt, hence the pyramids being so old and ahead of their time. White males from Europe have, for the past 500 years or so, been able to write the sort of music that is generally enjoyed in a large part of the world more succesfully than most other people from elsewhere. There's nothing wrong in that: it's just how we've developed over the centuries. If an eskimo appeared at the next Olympics and won the 10000 meters, then I'm sure everyone would be delighted for him/her. Same as if a South American Indian wrote a symphony to rival one of Mahler's. But they probably won't. And there's no reason why they - or anybody else - should worry about it or feel aggrieved. "Stick with your strengths and do what you can do to the best of your ability" is good advice. Nobody can do everything. And nobody, ever, can be "equal" to anyone else. A good thing, too - imagine a world full of Ian Paces or S-S's!!  bws S-S! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The Emperor suspected they were right. But he dared not stop and so on he walked, more proudly than ever. And his courtiers behind him held high the train... that wasn't there at all.
|
|
|
|
increpatio
|
|
« Reply #70 on: 00:04:09, 17-07-2007 » |
|
To my eyes, it seems the main issue in contention here is the validity of various readings of musical works rather than general feminist/queer historical scholasticism, the value of which I think it would be rather difficult to deny (at least in unearthing various female composers of times past). In response to this thread, I read a paper "Critics of Disenchantment" by Stephen Miles (following a post on this blog entry : http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/music/Feminist-Musicology.html), as a reply to an article by Rosen which criticized "new musicology". It was rather informative and interesting in several respects, but I couldn't fully take the social readings of various pieces described as literally/seriously as people seem to want them to be taken, as I do not share them. I would recommend it to anyone how has access to jstor. You really need to understand some basic points about how the world is, with one of the most fundamental being that there is, and always has been, a difference between communities, areas, races and social groups. It's part of the great diversity of the human condition. Black males from places like Ethiopia have, traditionally, been able to run further and for longer periods than most other people from elsewhere. Science, especially involving heat and fire, advanced further in China, 2000 years ago, than it had anywhere else. Same with building ideas in Egypt, hence the pyramids being so old and ahead of their time. White males from Europe have, for the past 500 years or so, been able to write the sort of music that is generally enjoyed in a large part of the world more succesfully than most other people from elsewhere.
But wouldn't you agree that why white females, say, haven't written any fantastic symphonies would warrant inspection? And if it turned out that white females, say, were being actively discriminated against for purely social reasons that, just as one says "hurrah" every time a Mahler pops out another Symphony, that one should say "boo-hiss" every time a woman feels discouraged from trying to write a wee sonatina due to the overwhelming social expectation that she will fail? Same as if a South American Indian wrote a symphony to rival one of Mahler's. But they probably won't. And there's no reason why they - or anybody else - should worry about it or feel aggrieved.
I, for one, cannot think such matters put to rest in my mind unless factors of social/economical/racial/sexual prejudice have been ruled out. Otherwise it seems that many atrocities, when accepted as norms, can be justified (slavery, homosexuality, gender-based discrimination, various beliefs, &c.) |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 00:13:28, 17-07-2007 by increpatio »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
roslynmuse
|
|
« Reply #71 on: 00:08:19, 17-07-2007 » |
|
Ian - since you ask! Musical Times, Tempo, Music and Letters, Musical Quarterly, New Perspectives... probably others over the years too. My comprehensive school (  )did not equip me with more than basic French (which I have tried - not terribly successfully - to improve ever since) and I have no other languages (except a smattering of poetic German, Spanish and Italian, useful for song and opera texts) so academic articles in anything other than English are a non-starter. My interests - principally 19th and 20th century music, especially French music from Berlioz on. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #72 on: 00:32:04, 17-07-2007 » |
|
In response to this thread, I read a paper "Critics of Disenchantment" by Stephen Miles (following a post on this blog entry : http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/music/Feminist-Musicology.html), as a reply to an article by Rosen which criticized "new musicology". It was rather informative and interesting in several respects, but I couldn't fully take the social readings of various pieces described as literally/seriously as people seem to want them to be taken, as I do not share them. I would recommend it to anyone how has access to jstor. I hadn't seen that blog entry before, increpatio - thanks for the link! Worth reading for anyone interested in the subjects in this thread. I do know the articles by Miles and Rosen, though, and would second a recommendation to anyone to read them. All I can say to SimonSagt's post is - it's because of views like that that feminist and other comparable branches of musicology are so necessary. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 00:33:41, 17-07-2007 by Ian Pace »
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
Evan Johnson
|
|
« Reply #73 on: 00:38:30, 17-07-2007 » |
|
You really need to understand some basic points about how the world is, with one of the most fundamental being that there is, and always has been, a difference between communities, areas, races and social groups. It's part of the great diversity of the human condition. Black males from places like Ethiopia have, traditionally, been able to run further and for longer periods than most other people from elsewhere. Science, especially involving heat and fire, advanced further in China, 2000 years ago, than it had anywhere else. Same with building ideas in Egypt, hence the pyramids being so old and ahead of their time. White males from Europe have, for the past 500 years or so, been able to write the sort of music that is generally enjoyed in a large part of the world more succesfully than most other people from elsewhere.
Well. I am neither as invested in New Musicology as Ian (not at all, particularly, in fact, though I do think it has its function), nor usually one to talk about or display much interest in these sorts of sociological discussions, but it doesn't take much in the way of reflection to know that the last statement in the above paragraph is in quite a different category from the others. Yes, the Egyptians built massive things that stood, and technological development has been more rapid in some societies than others; but it doesn't follow at all, not at all, that European music is heard more or less worldwide because the music is in any sense "more successful." |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 00:45:33, 17-07-2007 by Evan Johnson »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
aaron cassidy
|
|
« Reply #74 on: 00:43:14, 17-07-2007 » |
|
(thank you, Evan!)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
