I have loads of issues with the way classical music is presented. It has been too reverential, too 'high art' - if you're not in the club, they're not going to let you join. It's like The Turin Shroud: don't touch it because it might fall apart.
I'd like to explode a few myths about what we call classical music. It's not high art for the titillation of a chosen few.
When you get the high art of William Shakespeare and the greatest love story ever told, and you collision crash it with the low art of the tacky garden gnome, you're going to have lots and lots of opportunity for fun and putting your tongue very firmly in your cheek.
I am all for high art but I owe it to myself to be clever about it and do commercial things too.
The leading edge in evidence presentation is in science; the leading edge in beauty is in high art.
I think that high art reposes on popular art, without one there cannot be another.
Warhol had resonance because it was high art and low art. And you could argue about it endlessly.
I don't make a particular distinction between 'high art' and 'low art.' Music is there for everybody. It's a river we can all put our cups into and drink it and be sustained by it.
The spectacle of a good bar fight, properly executed and healthily ended, is not merely annoying boorishness. The best of them - an admittedly minor slice - are shaded with the elements of high art.
For me, sampling is a high art. Most people don't see it that way, but it's a beautiful thing. I wouldn't know anything about music if it wasn't for samples.
