What happened to music?

[Ramlick]

Classical music gets relegated further and further to the fringes of our culture with each passing year. Any thoughts as to why?

 

[Carl East]

It just appears that way Ramlick, Classical music can't die, and will always be there somewhere, after all it's our heritage. A legacy that will out live time it's self, and thank god for that.

It doesn't matter that some people hate Classical music, or that it appears to be disappearing from the scene. What does matter is that we were and are inspired by the masters of yesterday. It will continue in my humble opinion, to be that way for a long time to come.

Carl.

 

[Tess1]

The music is still there, people just don't always recognize it, because it's been covered with the products and technology of today. My point is, cartoons, commercials, television sitcoms, etc, use classical music on a regular basis.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Ramlick sweetie, while definately fringe couture, Yanni just doesn't qualify as classical music.

 

[Naked Hunny]

Hey i love classical music just dont let my friends know!!

 

[CreamyLady]

Classical music is alive and well, and continues to be written.

A few months ago, my sister and I received tickets to a recital with Mitsuko Uchida. The place was packed, and there was nothing marginal or fringe about the audience.

 

[Bobtoad777]

where did the classical music go?

i took it all i have a 769 CD, 1334 tape, 341 8Track, and 59 record collection of classical music.

i took it all bwahahahahaha

 

[Ramlick]

Creamy Lady,

Uchida is phenomenal. The best Mozart interpreter around today. I have several of her CDs. When was the last time she appeared on TV? I've never seen her there. How many people have even heard of her? She's one of the best pianists in the world, but I doubt more than .2% of the population has ever heard of her.

I'm not a musical snob, although I know a lot about music. I like all types of music. But I just don't think our culture celebrates classical music anymore. Carl East made the point that classical music is our "heritage." I'm not so sure classical music IS part of America's heritage, and I think that's one reason American society is so oblivious to it.

And of course classical music doesn't mean it has to be old. All "classical" really means is that it's written down and performed as the composer intends. There are plenty of classical composers writing today, but who knows their names? Who listens to their music? Who buys tickets to hear their music?

Sure, there will always be classical music. if you live near a big city or a university you might even be able to hear a big-name performer. Most of the classical audience, though, just wants to hear the same 50 or so pieces performed by symphony orchestras. They don't support piano recitals anymore, or chamber music. It's there, but hardlt in abundance. And it's not because we don't have quality musicians. It's because we don't have a market.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Audiences for classical arts are getting older and dying off and they are not being replaced -- which is not neccessarily a bad thing. Art changes, and as important as Mozart is tastes and styles change with the times. Mozart will always be appreciated, but perhaps not by the majority which is becoming increasingly ethnic. Asian and Latin American cultures are all over the arts centers of America, and there is an increasing audience for them. The classics will never die, but they won't always maintain the same level of audience participation.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Simple, as usual -

It's bad business. The unions have a stranglehold on the musicians. The record publishers are vultures. Most venues are too pretentious and snobbish. Young conductors and potential maestros are shunned in favor of the classics. And in general it's not taught or funded well in the public school system.

 

[Ramlick]

Dixon, you make some good points.

What bothers me is not that art changes. That's a healthy thing. Even if people's sensibilities toward the arts change, that's a good thing. And the wider the choices and differences in sensibilities, the better. The problem is this: people just don't give a damn about art. I'm going to limit this discussion to art music, although it's true in all the arts.

You must remember that the classical tradition of Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms is still being carried on by composers all around the world. It's serious music, just like the music of the old masters. But it's a lot different.

What needs to be understood, however, is that "pop" music, or commercial music, is a whole other category. It's not art music. The problem I see is that the music of the classical tradition is virtually ignored in our society.

Now some would argue that "pop" music IS art music. Many people will argue that their favorite pop group or performer is a great artist in the tradition of Tchaikovsky or Copland. But that line of argument comes from a lack of understanding and perspective about music. I really question whether the music of groups whose fans consist of screaming teenagers is as deep and complex as a Bach fugue. Part of the appeal of pop music is that it can be understood quickly. Substantial contributions to art are always complex, and take some effort and examination for their worth to be appreciated.

It's a pity that even highly educated people these days, who fifty years ago would have had an appreciation for serious music, now are satisfied listening to the rock bands they worshipped as teens.

 

[Bonnie Wee Lassie]

Hasn't died in my family! Me and my father have a great love of Classical music.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

"Now some would argue that "pop" music IS art music."

I wouldn't - I would argue that all your "old masters" were the pop musicians of their day.

What is pop music? All music. If it's not popular it doesn't sell. What is folk music? All music. All music made by folks. What is country music? All music. All made in a country. What is classical music? All music. By degree it all has historical relevance.

What is art? Not anything an artist takes money for. Once remuneration is asked for and especially when it is taken - art ceases to be art and it becomes a craft.

In the end "art" and what about it makes it art or not is only relevant to the consumer - the one who enjoys it - or doesn't.

 

[Laurel]

What is art? Not anything an artist takes money for. Once remuneration is asked for and especially when it is taken - art ceases to be art and it becomes a craft.

By that definition, Picasso was not an artist but a craftsman. He certainly sold paintings within his lifetime - that's how he made a living. Neither was Van Gogh, or Mozart, or Rembrandt, or the Renaissance painters, many of whose greatest works were commissioned by the royal court or officials in the church.

I don't think art and money are oil & water. In fact, it is usually the subsidizing of artists - by private parties or by government - that's enabled some of the greatest writers/painters/musicians to concentrate fully on their craft.

As far as classical music goes, I agree with what many have said here - classical music WAS the popular music of the day. Many varieties of classical music are lovely (chamber music bores me to tears, though). However, it's OLD. Not that old is bad, but it isn't necessarily better, either. I've heard electronica that is just as complex and varied as any Mozart concerto.

Classical music isn't "off the people" - it is today, and was in its time, entertainment for the upper and upper-middle class. And it doesn't generally "speak" to people my age the way the music they created does. The world isn't the same place it was 400 years ago. To claim that not appreciating classical music makes the youth "shallow" while at the same time completely denying the importance and significance of today's music - by labeling it all "crap" - is the ultimate in hypocrisy.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The notion that classical music was the pop music of its day is a misnomer. Yes, the masses had their popular classical favorites, but by and large they preferred the simpler folk music and madrigals and bar songs, just like they do today. Symphonic music, Opera, and much later, ballet (which came out of opera), were, and still are, slightly elitist -- not so much out of upper-class snobbery, but because they required a trained asthete that your average ditch digger didn't have time or the inclination to learn.

The concept that art sold is not art is snobby and dumb. Laurel pointed out well that great artists made plenty of money. Every classical musician and composer and painter and dancer you can think of had a patron of some sort, whether it was an individual, a Foundation, or a school. The image of a poor starving artist being somehow more venerable than one who eats is a romantic image created by hungry, crappy salon-haunting artists. (I love Rob Reiner in "Bullets Over Broadway" as a Greenwich Village playwright who writes plays specifically NOT to be produced.)

Art does have everything to do with the audience, however. As I said before, I've always felt that art is the mirror of the soul. When you view a painting, or hear music, or read a novel and the experience transcends beyond entertainment or diversion to personal illumination -- that's art.









[Edited by Dixon Carter Lee on 08-31-2000 at 02:24 PM]

 

[Ramlick]

Dixon, I agree with everything you said in the first two paragraphs of your last post. Classical music and popular music have always been two different strains of music. Just because some classical music is indeed popular when it's written, classical music is not "popular" music.

I disagree with you in the last paragraph. Good art music doesn't have anything to do with an audience. A composer or artist who believes that is a business man, not an artist. The artist must be true to himself, and express through music the ideas that are relevant and exciting to him. The artist hopes people will like his work, but he doesn't write for them. He has to be an idealist who expresses himself with uncompromising integrity. There have been many composers whose unwillingness to compromise led to their personal poverty and frustration. Schubert comes to mind. He was totally unappreciated in his day outside his small circle of friends.

Laurel, you also made good points early in your post but definately strayed when you wrote that classical music is "old." I made the point in my earlier post about what classical music is, and that there are still living composers, even young ones, writing classical music. Then you really got weird on me in your last paragraph. Part of your mistake, I believe, is with your definition of classical music, because in that last paragraph you mention "400 years ago." Again, there's 400 year old popular music, and there's brand new classical music.

I wouldn't say that youth are "shallow." But I would say that most youth are not as learned and experienced as adults. The problem I see in America are people that never seem to want to grow up.

I never labeled popular music as "crap" either. Maybe you were referring to someone else here. I like popular music very much. I like a pretty melody as much as the next guy. But a pretty melody does not a composer make, and a tunesmith, although possessing a real talent and skill, isn't a Copland, Barber, or Corilgiano. Let's keep things in perspective.

Laurel, listen to more chamber music. Try Dvorak's Piano Quintet in A Major. If you don't like it, I'll eat shit.

 

[Weird Harold]

I can think of several reasons for a decline in the "popularity" of orchestral music. (AKA "classical music")

First and foremost, the cost of an orchestra. There is a huge investment involved in money, traing, and rehearsals that more "modern" musical forms don't require. The same thing applies to "swing" or "big band" music. The costs involved in producing it reduce the profits.

As several people have pointed out, it's "OLD", and to the youth of any era, that equates to "bad." It's an aquired taste in music that the young don't "want" to acquire for many complex reasons that have nothing to do with music.

There are several modern groups that do include orchestral arrangements in their popular music. The Moody Blues are probably the most successful and well known.

The rise in popularity of rap and hip-hop in recent years seems to have put a hold on using the melodic themes of classical music for new lyrics to create pop songs. That leaves a hole in the music appreciation education of the younger generation. There is a lack of melody in popular music that causes a lack of appreciation for melody. Not all of today's pop music suffers from a lack of melody, but there is far less than in earlier decades.

Amplifier and speaker technology has allowed the creation of "speakers bigger than the engine" to be placed in cars that have the power that in past years has been reserved for stadiums and auditoriums. An unfortunate side effect, is a large percentage of people who are tone deaf because of exposure to too many decibels for extended periods of time. People who can't even hear the intricate harmonies and majestic themes that make orchestral arrangements so moving.

I do see some signs that popular music is turning away from the low melodic standards of the 90's and back to the lyrics and harmonies of earlier eras. There are several movements (like MTV's campaign) to reemphasize music education in the schools. If you are truly concerned about the decline of classical music, then bug your local school board to increase the budget for choir, band and orchestra classes. Not only will it make the next generation aware that classical music even exists, it will make them better students overall.

 

[Ramlick]

Once again, classical music does not have to be old. Classical music is music that comes from a written tradition. A classical composer is someone who notates exactly what notes are to be played and what instruments are to play them. He then notates exactly how loud the notes are to played, how fast, and in what rhythm. This is the written tradition.

Classical musicians are living and writing today. They write for all sorts of ensembles including choruses, orchestras, chamber ensembles of every shape and size, solo instruments, and solo voices. They write for every instrument you can possibly imagine: traditional acoustic instruments, electronic instruments, folk instruments from every part of the globe, and even instruments they create.

Classical music does not sound like Beethoven anymore. Just as Beethoven didn't sound like Mozart, who didn't sound like Bach. It doesn't sound like Stravinsky, or Schoenberg, Copland, or Cage even. There are thousands of composers working around the world, some famous and respected, such as Carter, Gorecki, Boulez, Henze, Penderecki, Stockhausen, Glass, Reich, Adams, Tower, Corilgiano, Paart, and Taverner, to name a few. Then there are thousands of others working writing their music and trying to make a living teaching. These are serious artists, writing music that they hope will sell, but who put their artistic ideals and integrity before fast profits. These are the musical counterparts to the World's serious authors, painters, dancers, playwrites, actors, and other artists.

These composers are trying to explore all the possibilities of music. Their goal is to help explain the universe. They're not providing simple diversions, or light escapism, or an excuse for teenagers to shake their collective booties. They're serious, mature, thoughtful, disciplined, well-trained, and very fussy.

They're also unrecognized, misunderstood, and underappreciated.

My hope is that someday people will unplug themselves, learn how to listen to music again, and appreciate all that the World has to offer. There's more to life than what's fed to you over the radio and television to help sell useless crap.

 

[Laurel]

I never labeled popular music as "crap" either. Maybe you were referring to someone else here.

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular, Monsieur Ramlick. As with the rest of my post, I was addressing attitudes in society and the subject of the post, not you or any specific poster.

Part of your mistake, I believe, is with your definition of classical music, because in that last paragraph you mention "400 years ago." Again, there's 400 year old popular music, and there's brand new classical music.

Ah, I wasn't discussing the age of specific composers and works. I was saying that classical music, as a genre, is not a new one. It's centuries old. Rock is mere decades old. Hip-hop and rap aren't even a quarter of a century old. Electronica's even newer than that. And as we sit here gabbing, I'm sure brand new genres of music are being invented.

I wouldn't say that youth are "shallow." But I would say that most youth are not as learned and experienced as adults. The problem I see in America are people that never seem to want to grow up.

"What's the matter with kids today?" lol... My parents said that to me, and their parents said that to them, and on and on...the old generation gap. People as a race don't change dramatically from one generation to the next. All the "faults" that you notice in young people today existed in people of your peer group, and the one before that, and the one before that...the impatience, the self-absorption, the need for a quick fix...Advertisers play off these qualities more than ever, but that doesn't mean they were invented by kids today.

I had friends in high school who studied the cello and cranked Bach on their car stereos. Dixon's right - I doubt there's ever been a time when classical music was big with the teenybopper set. I doubt even in Weird Harold's day that all his contemporaries were grooving to Beethoven - they were probably into the pop hits of his time. Sinatra, The Kingston Trio, The Moody Blues, The Fugees...it's all pop, baby. I'd guess, with the Internet and communication being what it is today, that there are even more fans of classical music than ever before, but it's still a sliver of the pie compared to the fans of current, fun, simple pop.

I like pop. I'm not a big fan of Britney Spears/Paula Abdul/NSync/The Monkees-type fair (though so of it's catchy). I like songs with hooks and lyrics I can relate to. Music's supposed to invoke a visceral response, and while some classical pieces do that to me, so does a lot of contemporary music. I don't think that makes me any less "deep" than anyone here. It's entertainment - that's all it is. It's not going to end world hunger, cure cancer, or pay the national debt. If the music empowers us - touches us deep inside and makes us happy - then it shouldn't matter what genre it is. Appreciation of music - ANY music - is a beautiful thing.

 

[Ramlick]

Laurel, I like discussing this issue with you, because I believe you're a thoughtful person. I love this subject, and hope others will contribute to the discussion. Maybe more people will write about some of their favorite composers/recordings/musicians.

My issue is not with youth. Like you said there are plenty of serious-minded youth who are good students, literate, and enjoy "sucking the marrow out of life." My problem is with adults and their misconceptions and lack of understanding of music. My problem is with adults whose tastes never change, who stop learning, who stop being curious, who become complacent, intellectually lazy, and who pretend to know everything about subjects they know very little about. It's not the youth who are shallow. They don't know any better. It's adults glued to TV's watching endless sports, talk shows, and getting all sentimental about their own youths attending "oldies" concerts. I'm afraid to say as a culture, we're getting really stupid.

The classical music pie isn't just small in relation to the overall music pie. It's actually disappearing. There have been studies on it. I'm not just making it up. There was a time when pianists and conductors were houshold names. You didn't have to be a "snob" to have heard of Toscanini, or Bernstein, Horowitz, Heifetz, Rubenstein, Caruso, Paderewski, etc...The list of serious musicians and conductors that were famous was large. Today, most people can hardly name one working pianist. Ask yourself this: "Who's today's Horowitz or Rubenstein?" And believe me, there are plenty of great pianists out there, so it's not that there aren't any good ones. The problem is, that classical musicians used to be celebrated through popular media venues such as television and radio, and now they're not. It's that simple. People used to go to piano recitals. Today, even the biggest names like Barenboim, Ashkenazy, Axe, Perahia, and Volodos, (hardly household names but just as great as former household names), play only in places like New York, Chicago, or other huge cities.

It's also a fact that the classical recording industry is in trouble. Even 10 years ago, classical CD's were decent business. Now record companies are dropping their classical labels.

Last point: I don't feel all warm and fuzzy with those "Mr. Holland's Opus" proclamations like "as long as I can teach kids to love music, ANY KIND of music, blah blah blah." That's a bunch of crap. Why? Because EVERYBODY likes some kind of music. Liking music is essential to our humaness. We all like to eat and pick our noses too. Big deal. If somebody tells me they like music, I say "no shit. Who doesn't?" But can you discern between quality and fluff? Are you musically literate? Can you tell the difference between a flute and a fucking tuba? Can you play an instrument? Do you participate in the making of music somehow? That's what I care about. And when people stop being able to do that, then we've all lost something.

Some music is for entertaining. Some music is art, just like a great book. Shakespeare wasn't just a "story-teller" afterall. He wasn't just providing escapist entertainment. Shakespeare, like so many other good writers of the past and of today, go the extra mile. They put things into their works that they didn't need to if their goal was just to provide some entertainment to the masses. This kind of artistic integrity survives today in writers and musicians. What's lacking is the audience that takes the time to discover these great treasures.

Please don't turn this into a silly debate about "old" vs, "contemporary." It has nothing to do with that. Or youth vs adults. It's about a culture that self-absorbed, preoccupied, and distracted.

 

[Svedish_Chef]

In amogst all of my other CD's I still have a few classical and will happily listen to it. However with the supposed me now generation... maybe we cant wait to listen to a thirty minute piece anymore when we could have it in three minutes. I dont really know anymore...


Da chef

 

[Weird Harold]

Please don't turn this into a silly debate about "old" vs, "contemporary." It has nothing to do with that. Or youth vs adults. It's about a culture that self-absorbed, preoccupied, and distracted.

I think there is some degree of confusion about what is "classical" that is gumming up the debate a bit. To me, Classical Music is music that has withstood the test of time. Music that is written in that style by modern writers, whether orchestral arrangement, string quartet, Massed choral arrangement, or piano solo, is not "classical" but "in the style of the classics." That's why I chose to address orchestral music.

While a particular piece of music may be anywhere from 400 years to 40 seconds old, that style of music is perceived as old, or at least old-fashioned. It's the perception that counts, not the age of the music. That has been the case for at least a half century, and probably much longer than that. It used to be called "long-hair music" (before the hippy movement usurped that labe for acid rock. <G>)

There is one additional point to consider in the decline of symphonies and other such instrumental musical forms, above the production cost. That is the time factor.

A piece of music that runs 30 to 90 minutes without repeating itself can't hold the attention of the average person used to 30 second sound bites and "7 minute radio cuts." When the "long" or "dance mix" versions run 10 minutes or less, a piece of music that requires long periods of attention to enjoy is less likely to attract a following.

Laurel said:
"It's entertainment - that's all it is. It's not going to end world hunger, cure cancer, or pay the national debt."

I sort of disagree with you Laurel.

True, the music itself is not going to accomplish any of those things. On the other hand, without music education in schools, there is a a chance that there won't be anyone intuitive or brilliant enough to solve them either.

I don't know whether the studies that "prove" the connection between music education and higher science and math scores show a cause, an effect, or just a coincidence. I can look back and say that there does seem to be a link between intelligence and taste in music in the people I've known.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

I disagree with you in the last paragraph. Good art music doesn't have anything to do with an audience. A composer or artist who believes that is a business man, not an artist. The artist must be true to himself, and express through music the ideas that are relevant and exciting to him. The artist hopes people will like his work, but he doesn't write for them. He has to be an idealist who expresses himself with uncompromising integrity. There have been many composers whose unwillingness to compromise led to their personal poverty and frustration.

You misunderstood me. I'm not saying that a man must create art for a buck to be an artist, I'm simply refuting that a finanical transaction can't take place for art to be art. Anyne who takes work strictly for the cash alone is not an artist, he's an artisan, which is just as nobel a profession.

And art is all about the audience. Just as a tree falling in forest doesn't make a sound unless someone is there to hear it, an artist's work is never finsihed until it is performed, read or viewed. The audience's relationship to the themes presented is a character in every play, their eardrum the final instrument to every concerto, and their percepyion the final brush stroke to every painting. Art in a vaccuum isn't art. and this soen't mean that an artist isn't free to pour his heart and soul into a work. That's great for him, but art requires interpretation, and that comes from an audience.

 

[Laurel]

It's also a fact that the classical recording industry is in trouble. Even 10 years ago, classical CD's were decent business. Now record companies are dropping their classical labels.

I'll agree with that...the publishing industry is going the same way. Whatever's the flavor of the month is where they put their money. But that's nothing new.

Laurel said: "It's entertainment - that's all it is. It's not going to end world hunger, cure cancer, or pay the national debt."

I sort of disagree with you Laurel.

True, the music itself is not going to accomplish any of those things. On the other hand, without music education in schools, there is a a chance that there won't be anyone intuitive or brilliant enough to solve them either.

I agree music education makes a person well-rounded. However, the people who've made history are not usually well-rounded people. "Renaissance men (and women)" are not common - it's more common for great doctors or scientists or astronomers or discoverers to be so steeped in their studies that they have no idea about music or the culture around them - to be EXTREMELY one-sided. I guess it comes down to this: who do you think had more of an impact on our lives: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Thomas Alva Edison? I happen to believe that the latter had much more of an impact, but you're welcome to disagree.

And I think you may have it backwards. I don't think music appreciation makes someone brilliant - rather, a brilliant person may be more capable of appreciating complex music. But that doesn't mean they need ENJOY complex music. Stephen Hawking may rather get down to James Brown than listen to a Puccini opera. Does that make him "intellectually lazy"?

Some music is for entertaining. Some music is art, just like a great book. Shakespeare wasn't just a "story-teller" afterall. He wasn't just providing escapist entertainment.

Ah, but Shakespeare was as pop as they come! His works are chock-full of ribald humor and gutter jokes that don't translate to today's audience. There are lines in which a sword is used as a euphemism for a penis - lines which would've provoked baudy laughter from the audience of his time, but we're so busy trying to see him as a "great artist" that we miss the good bits! He wrote for the masses - to entertain. The reason his works have lasted is because they ARE entertaining.

Last point: I don't feel all warm and fuzzy with those "Mr. Holland's Opus" proclamations like "as long as I can teach kids to love music, ANY KIND of music, blah blah blah." That's a bunch of crap. Why? Because EVERYBODY likes some kind of music. Liking music is essential to our humaness. We all like to eat and pick our noses too. Big deal. If somebody tells me they like music, I say "no shit. Who doesn't?" But can you discern between quality and fluff? Are you musically literate? Can you tell the difference between a flute and a fucking tuba? Can you play an instrument? Do you participate in the making of music somehow? That's what I care about. And when people stop being able to do that, then we've all lost something.

With all due respect, Ramlick, I stand by my statement that appreciation of music IS enough. I refuse to give in to the idea that a person who does not enjoy classical composers is somehow less intelligent or less worthy than someone who does not. That assumption is so amazingly biased that it makes me shudder. So, by your definition, the native peoples of Africa were "uncivilized" and unworthy until the Europeans came and taught them the difference between a flute and a tuba. For them to appreciate their OWN music is not enough - it's akin to picking their noses - while YOUR musical tastes are more refined, superior. How very...ethnocentric.

I took music courses in college and had to dissect concertos and sonatas, and while I have an understanding of movements and flow, I STILL don't listen to classical music. It doesn't touch me. It's a matter of taste. It is unrealistic to expect others to value the same things you do, and snobbish to think less of those who are different from you.

Can you tell the difference between hip-hop and trip-hop? Between house and ambient? Do you know the names of five contemporary DJ's? Of course not...because for you, Musical Appreciation is when people understand what YOU enjoy - heaven forbid you learn something new. Others should broaden their horizons to include YOUR tastes, while you should be free to stay in your narrow little corner of our culture, untainted by "pop".

I'm not trying to turn this into a youth vs. age argument. I was merely responding to your insinuations that a "good old days" existed when everyone was much more enlightened, and that today everyone's going to hell in a handbasket. My point is this...despite what every generation says about the generation after it, humankind is not degenerating into a jelly-like, id-obsessed mass. There were as many idiots today as yesterday, and as many geniuses.

These "intellectually lazy" people you like to rant about are the ones who created the Internet. Because of this, universities, corporations, and private individuals all over the world can exchange information like never before. Technology is advancing at a more rapid rate than ever before. We're curing disease, engineering crops to feed the hungry, launching probes to Mars..."Intellectually lazy"? Because they're spending time curing cancer instead of attending operas?

 

[Weird Harold]

And I think you may have it backwards. I don't think music appreciation makes someone brilliant - rather, a brilliant person may be more capable of appreciating complex music. But that doesn't mean they need ENJOY complex music. Stephen Hawking may rather get down to James Brown than listen to a Puccini opera. Does that make him "intellectually lazy"?

I don't know whether it's backwards or not. That's a claim made by MTVs 'save the music' campaign. I tend towards agreeing with the theory, but can't say whether the claims are valid.

The theory is that learning music somehow "enables" portions of the brain that are also used for logical thinking and mathematics. It doesn't have to be formal music that's learned, although complex harmonies and/or learning to get the right note out of a violin or other stringed instrument seems to do more than singing along with a favorite pop tune. Learning just the basics of music theory does a lot for the ability to think in patterns.

As far as who has done more: How much more or less would Edison have accomplished with a different music education. (As far as I know from Edison's biography's, he wasn't a trained musician. However, his tastes in music probably influenced his choices for the first musical recordings which were mostly selections from operas and symphonies.)

I can also say that while I'm not going to make a fortune in the music industry, I learned a lot more than music by singing in the church choir for eight years in addition to music classes all through elementary school.