REK2575
Active Member
And yet, straightforward "Boogie Woogie" appeals to many more people than Beethoven. Put some Beethoven on your gramophone and most people will yawn. Put some Jools Holland on (I'm not a fan, myself) and many more of them will be smiling and loving the music. What does that tell us? That Beethoven could have churned out boogie woogie by the bucket load but resisted the populist route because he didn't want his music to be enjoyed by common people? Or that Jools Holland is more of a genius than Beethoven because his music has more appeal to more people?
Wow. If I wanted to find a perfect example of utterly baseless -- and meaningless -- generalization about classical music, or Beethoven in particular, I could not do better than this.
I think Schiff is a wonderful musician, but I could not care less if Beethoven 'prefigured' Boogie Woogie or not. I'm not at all persauded by the argument that he did, and not at all persuaded that it would even matter if he had.
Nevertheless, it's always a fallacy to universalize one's own limited experience to 'obvious truths' like this. In your experience, Boogie Woogie may appeal to more people than Beethoven. Fantastic. But, it's your own experience. Don't try to pass it off as 'fact.'
Millions of people love Boogie Woogie. Millions of people love Beethoven. It's not a popularity contest. Both are beloved and enjoyed by many, many people. Some of them even love both.