# The genius of Thomas Bergensen



## SpanishFly (Oct 13, 2012)

I *had* to share this with everyone. I saw it on Facebook and it was too good to let go.

In fact, what Mr. Bergensen said almost directly ties in to my other post about purist classical musicians disregarding the genre of dubstep or, for that matter, any other genre different from their own, as a distinct musical form and can be applied to any one of us. It shows what I was trying to demonstrate, how we, as a vast population of classical musicians, can become far too complacent and proud under the façade of the music form we are communed with and ignore the great works that constantly surround us.

Without further ado, Thomas Bergensen.

I just wanted to say a few things on dubstep, as some people seem to focus on it, not as the musical device that it is, but rather its status in our culture and society. People identify themselves through music, and express themselves through their taste in music. Sometimes people get so caught up in the attributions of genres that they forget what music is about in the first place. They limit themselves to certain styles because their mind is not free. Music can and should be enjoyed across all genres, regardless of social value, political statement, mainstream success, stigma and so on, because great talent is to be found in every aspect of art, from the popular to the most obscure and unknown. Dubstep has a perceived low social value because of widespread misconceptions, ignorance and bitterness. Bitterness from the UK and surrounding cultures because the US dubstep variant, Brostep, by proxy of the masterful producer Skrillex became an overnight phenomenon that completely overshadowed a decade or so of dubstep history from the country and followers of origin. Ignorance, because people do not understand the considerable talent and work that goes into high quality music of any genre, and finally misconceptions because people think dubstep is written exclusively by teenagers with laptops, no musical education or comprehension of simple musical concepts and theory. Classical music, contemporary and traditional is considered "sophisticated", "academic", "intelligent" and so on, because the ignorant consensus is that it "obviously requires a much greater mind and skillset to write music for something as complex as an orchestra". Thus, so-called "elitist" and "purist" followers of classical/orchestral music are born, and they, like every other culturally selective group in society stick together to spread the message that the music and art that they identify themselves by is vastly superior to that which the unwashed masses enjoy, such as Justin Bieber and Skrillex.
As someone who has written music for orchestras, choirs, metal bands, trance, country, bubblegum pop, hollywood movies and tv jingles I can assure you that neither musical genre is more sophisticated, intelligent or difficult to do than another. I feel compelled to address the gross ignorance that is displayed increasingly frequent when people trash great pop acts of our time such as Britney Spears, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry and so on. The collective talent, musicianship, intelligence and hard work behind these acts is unparalleled. There is a reason why these people are popular, and it's not the image or look that they carry. The music may not be to your taste, but be honest with yourself and man enough to admit that the reason you don't listen to Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga is because of its perceived social stigma, your own ego and/or your views on manufactured talent packages. I myself choose to keep an open mind and never ever mix music and art with politics or as a social affiliation and identification factor. Wherever great men pave new road, greater minds will follow, and the collective great minds will eventually reach the limits of what we are intellectually capable of, only to carry this knowledge forth into new fields of discovery. The principle of evolution is as sound in the context of music as in the context of nature. Do you follow the herd or is your mind free? Think about it. Do you identify yourself through music? Do you hide behind it or do you actually choose to be free and embrace everything without prejudice? Life is so rich and full of beauty, and art is truly limitless, so why limit ourselves to the sheep mentality in our appreciation of it? Embrace without prejudice and cultivate that which resonates within you, not what resonates with others.


----------



## Schubussy (Nov 2, 2012)

> The music may not be to your taste, but be honest with yourself and man enough to admit that the reason you don't listen to Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga is because of its perceived social stigma


If this was the reason, I wouldn't listen to opera either.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Quite interesting and open minded post, BUT... 
He is right and what he's saying is true, but still, there is difference between quality and crap. I simply can't understand people who listen ONLY to classical music simply because it's classical music just like I can't understand people who listen to metal music ONLY because it is metal. 
Such people are lying to themselves. Metal is not the best (I personally can't stand it). Classical music is not the best (I personally love it or like it in many cases). 
It has much to do with ego and not with true musical quality. I think that's 'teenager' mentality that some people never got out of it. By that I mean that those certain people want to be part of something. They want to be accepted somewhere by some people that most of the time has same problems with ego. 
To say that classical music is the best music simply because it's classical... it's nonsense. Such things are very relative... there is better and worse classical music. There is pop music better than some classical music. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and Chopin are not Gods that came down to Earth to show us what kind of music God listens. They're people with flaws and virtues. They were sometimes more and sometimes less inspired while composing. Sometimes they are generic and they suck. And to be honest, I think that Ennio Morricone is better composer than all of them together. It's my taste and I'm open to really everything. I'm not open to metal or hip-hop because I simply don't like it and I don't lie to myself, really.

But on the other hand, we must not banalyze everything. Music is art. You need talent for it. Complex or not complex it doesn't matter. Talent and musician skills are what counts actually. But then, you can compose great tune simply by whistling that is better than 70% od complex classical music. Why not!?

People are closed minded simply because they think they're better if they listen to certain type of music. I don't know why, but I've met some horrible and snobbish people who listen to jazz. I really think that some of them has some personality issues.
And what is the most sad, people are unable to feel music most of the time, but they're listening to it simply because they think it's 'intelligent' music. WTF!?

I put Yanni for example earlier and even here and on other forums people are making fun of him. I love his music... he is brilliant and unique composer. On the other hand all critics will praise Bjork's music simply because it's quasi 'art' and you need 'acquired taste' to understand it. That's crap. What I've heard from her is nothing special to me. I don't need special taste because I do understand her music very well and I think it's phony and empty. But hey.. I'm not saying that someone is not capable to love her music for real. Who am I to judge musicians and other people taste!?

I was always open to music. I don't know what to say about Lady Gaga or Justin Bieber... I didn't listen much of their music and what I've heard I didn't like that much. Not crap either. It just doesn't say anything to me. When I was twelve years old I was listening to soundtrack from Twin Peaks over and over and over again. Nobody else listened to it. Nobody ever told it is smart thing to do to listen to it. It was somehow crazy to listen something like that, but I loved it and I still love it today. 
In high school I became big fan of Elton John... kids were laughing at me... they were listening to DJ Bobo, Scooter and such things. Today I can laugh at them because Elton is still legend and popular and all those DJ's are not only ancient history and forgotten, but it's hillarious to hear them today since they sound so dated with their synthetic and minimalistic melodies. 
When you're teenager it's probably ok to try to fit in and to be accepted (even though I've never tried to be acccepted), but when you're 40 years old snobbish *** that is problem then.

People should always be open and listen to music in which they can enjoy. If some people are not able to truly feel music and enjoy in it, they don't need to listen to it then since they're most probably tone deaf and don't have any sensibility for music.

Unfortuantelly, nobody is completely free of prejudices EVER because we live in such society and we're trained like monkeys most of the time to think like this or like that. If you want to be free of prejudices towards music you should be born again... you should become little baby who doesn't know anything and someone should play some music to you then. And THEN you would really know if you like something or not... Lady Gaga? Mozart? Does baby understand or care for differences? No, he/she doesn't.

I remember when I was very young... cca 5 years old... I was with my parents watching TV and movie started.. it was 'Breakfast at Tiffany's.... music played at begining of the movie... I was shocked at that moment... I don't remember did I know how to tell my parents that what I'm listening right now is so beautiful to me. Only because of melody that was ofcourse 'Moon River' I never forgot that moment. It was so long ago... probably more than quarter of century ago. It's still probably my most favorite song.... 
When you're almost fetus and you really love some music, that's saying something.
I made my point, I guess.


----------



## SpanishFly (Oct 13, 2012)

Very well said, and craftily intertwined with seasonings of humour here and there


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

SpanishFly said:


> Very well said, and craftily intertwined with seasonings of humour here and there


Thanks 
Did you nickname yourself based on that brilliant little composition best known in Herb Alpert version?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The social relevance of music to all people seems to be quite all the current fashion, it does it does. It is here being used to not justify dub-step, but to less than subtly elevate it to where it might be thought it has the same formal structure and architectural worth of Buckingham Palace, the White house or the Kremlin.

But, at the front of the article, the author rightly called the music's M.O._ a device._

This is Popular Dance Music, guy, and you're trying to push it as some huge sociological cultural art phenomenon of ultra major significance -- completely overblown.

I ain't dissin' it or dismissin' it - but it seems you are trying to blow it up way out of proportion to what it is not.

It is just dance music, highly popular dance music. Why can't its success in its own arena on its own terms be, like, enough for you?

You do realize, no matter how 'sophisticated' within its own context, that much modern and contemporary dance music is in a relentless 4/4, and though a lot of other music is still in 4/4, most classical will not have a relentless and obvious percussion section making that basic rhythmic element so central and prominent throughout the duration of a piece?

The presence of that constantly hammered out foursquare element alone, regardless of the variety or genre, is enough to make a listener looking for something else from the music sign off within less than one minute -- and is there anything innately 'wrong' or 'snobbish' or 'class-bound' about wanting something else from music? I think the only fair and reasonable answer is 'of course not.'

Is there something at least bizarre in someone who is hoping for a wider approval, seemingly appealing mostly to the classical community, hard-core lobbying that community to reassess dubstep? (It seems as if you are hoping it will be found on a technical par and as 'worthy' as classical music.) You have launched a virtual 'campaign' all because the popular dance music of this particular genre is -- for you -- successful, and that you seem to love and admire it -- well, I find that a bit obsessive, weird, and maybe more freighted with sociopolitical issues about 'class' than having anything to do with music.

I repeat:

It is just dance music, highly popular dance music. Why can't its success in its own arena on its own terms be, like, enough for you?


----------



## paulc (Apr 18, 2011)

I agree with PetrB.

Until these popular musicians, whether they be Justin Bieber, Skrillex, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga or Katy Perry start writing their own orchestral material rather than relying on others to do this for them, they won't be taken seriously. Unless, they can demonstrate an equal form of sophistication with contemporary instruments.

The genre of music is less important than the craft.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

SpanishFly said:


> The music may not be to your taste, but be honest with yourself and man enough to admit that the reason you don't listen to Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga is because of its perceived social stigma, your own ego and/or your views on manufactured talent packages.


Or because even if you don't mind "designed" pop personalities, there were people who did it better than these tools.

I mean seriously, this modern watered down pseudo-R&B & club **** is the pits.


----------

