the professor seems to be an advocate of the music-appreciation racket.

the sort of thing that has kept me away from classical music.

And John Coltrane and various modern composers are easier to qualify as real music? What right does composition have to quality? It should be taken as indicative to the placement of the composition class if it isn't advanced enough to address complex music.

I suppose any 12 tone modernism is what, the opposite of real music? And Charles Ives composed anti music.

This. Examples: Andrew W.K., Current 93, and The Cure.

IT'S TIME TO PARTY LET'S PARTY
HANG OUT WITYOSELF AND HAVE A CRAZY PARTY

Oh god.

Next time i'm in Tower Records I'm gonna ask them where there 'Real' music section is so i can see what's in it. That should settle it.

I don't care about defining what makes music 'real'. It's something that isn't important to me. 'Real' in most musical conversations is understood as 'authentintically part of x'. Willie Nelson is not 'real' music in the context of a lecture on hip-hop.

Composition, as I either said or alluded to or intended to allude to, defines the parameters of description. It also tends to expand the vernacular of description. This is a null-statement.

The quality in the context of modern composition is not the same quality as in, say, Khoomei singing.

If I was teaching a class on music (and thank fuck I'm not), I would be very inclined to dismiss lots of sorts of music not because they're not good but because they're not conducive to the purposes of education. If, as a lecturer, I'd had 30+ years of people mentioning the Beatles, I'd probably dismiss them out of hands not on the grounds of their merits, but on the grounds that I'd be paid to explain fugues, not whether straberry fields forever is 'really' about acid.

I'm not intimating a sense of quality in any, I just reckon it just seems very self-explanatory that in a classical music class certain sorts of music are not really part of the deal. Obviously, you're right that Coltrane and the like potentially provide a challenge to that, and you could always put forward a Simon Williams-esque argument for Wonky, or whatever, ought to be included in the critical lexicon. But there is definitely a time and a place for that sort of criticism, and I imagine the hitherto mentioned professor was intimating this.

There's always exceptions, and it does very much depend on the individual. Obviously, people like Herr Park are serial forummers as much as serial musicians. I suppose I'm imputing my own ideal-case music made by people who hate music. That's half a joke, obviously.

Paul Leary is a gold-star forum-poster.

the "new" album by Carny is almost 2 years overdue (and likely never to hit shelves).

coincidence? you tell me.

his royalties may have plummeted but i'm sure his rep is triple platinum.

Butthole Surfers. Now there's a shit band.

Carny > Butthole Surfers

Whatever <> whatever.

This professor played trumpet which explains the Jazz obsession. Yes I do agree that in a classical learning atmosphere you will be taught the fuction, creation, and basic rules of writing and reading classical music. In the reality staying in that narrow minded world would limit the learning oppurtunities of what you can do to move classical music into modern times. The Beatle's music was not just about acid and hidden messages. They intigrated classical souds with Rock n Roll and did so very succesfully. There are many musical scores of the Beatle's that in my mind blow Mozart away.

It's music. Music isn't exclusively an art form. Music started out as folk music. Which is really what rock and roll is to us today. Many great classical composers had appreciation for this and did incorporate that into their music.

That last sentence is massively contentious to me, but it's good that someone thinks it, and I'm not sufficiently versed in classical criticism to negate it. The only question I'd ask is which Mozart?

I think the thing for me is that most musical worlds are narrow-minded, it's not exclusively classical musicians and composers who are myopic. One of the problems with a lot of rock music now is that it's a sufficiently expansive genre for people to not need to venture outside of it. I'd argue that rock, unlike jazz, doesn't become stolid when it's entirely self-referential (the Cramps vs Courtney Pine).

I mean, I think the basic division I'd make is that the classical era is definitely a limited corpus, and a lot of 'classical music' fans are obviously narrow-minded (this is true of fans of most things, in general) but I personally (and naively) believe in a sense of 'art music' which includes Bingen, Tallis, Bach, Mozart, Mahler, Schoenberg, Messiaen, Cage, Feldman all the way through to, say, Sugimoto, Haco or at least Radelescu, Grisey, Parmegiani and Lachenmann.

ALL music is music.

however, there are only two kinds of music in the world:

good and bad.

That was a post so shiningly insipid it can only have been sarcastic.

you know me so well.

I think the whole argument can be resolved by the fact that if there is such thing as "Real music", then there is "False music". Then define it.
You should have answered your teacher "define false music"