...higher

>
> >Perhaps I should define what I mean by popular-"having record sales equal
> >to or above any top 40 chart dweller."
>
> Paul replied :
>
> Sorry if I refuse to submit myself to the artistic dismemberment that
> constitutes the requirements for being "popular" these days.
> <snip>
> Forgive me if I aspire to something a little higher.
>

Although I largely agree with the sentiment, I do take exception with
the word 'higher', especially in THIS music community where many of
us have a deep appreciation for musics that are considered 'lower'
by much of the mainstream (and not so mainstream) music communitys
(I'm referring to blues, 'world' musics, 'pre-tonal' Western music
and probably others that come up on this list).

Also, each of us has our own examples where 'higher' defined as the
opposite of 'popular' has been used to justify experiments and/or
movements in the arts which we find of questionable success.

Bob Valentine

Robert Valentine wrote,

>Although I largely agree with the sentiment, I do take exception with
>the word 'higher' . . .

>Also, each of us has our own examples where 'higher' defined as the
>opposite of 'popular' has been used to justify experiments and/or
>movements in the arts which we find of questionable success.

Good point, Robert, though the music I make is certainly meant to be popular
in that it is meant to appeal to people, regardless of any training or
education. They may not know which piece is microtonal and which isn't, but
as long as they like one or the other or both, I feel I've succeeded. That's
the "highest" thing in music to me . . . communication (and originality).