# Why I'm glad classical music is still progressing



## Kuhlau (Oct 1, 2008)

Earlier today, I was flicking idly through the TV channels, trying to find something vaguely interesting to watch. Along the way, I had inevitably to scroll through dozens of popular music stations. I stopped on a few of them and listened.

Now, although I love good rock, pop, dance, soul or whatever kind of music as much as the next person, all I could hear today were tunes, hooks, bass lines and lyrics that were either a derivative _of_ something else, or borrowed _from_ somewhere else.

I'll be honest - this got me down. 

It also got me thinking about how so many avenues of popular music seem to have turned into comfortable cul-de-sacs in the last decade or so. Where's the originality gone? Where's the creative genius of Kate Bush or David Bowie, the anger of The Sex Pistols, the imaginative songwriting of Peter Gabriel, the biting, brilliantly observed lyrics of Joni Mitchell, Kirstly MacColl and more? And if genuinely talented people still _are_ making popular music, why aren't they more prominent?

These are just a handful of names, and I suspect we could fill a forum, let alone a thread, with others. But let's stick to my point, which is that while some have complained about the direction in which classical music is going, at least it's still _going_ somewhere. Whether or not we like where it's headed, it continues to try new things, challenge accepted ideas and give us something fresh and original. I, for one, applaud this.

What are your thoughts on either the 'stagnation' of popular music (Jazz excepted, as this is still very much going forward in many new and surprising ways), or the continued creative progression of classical music?

FK


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

I think the creativity is still there - just not in the music industry. I have found as I get older I have less time to research new creative musicians or groups, so all I'm often exposed to are the "hits." The big hits are rarely very creative and the music industry rarely sinks a lot of funding into outre' artists. It makes it seem like creativity is dead.

It's always been this way hasn't it?. Has Kate Bush ever hade any huge hits? No - and thank goodness. That would make her not as special I think.

There is a groundswell of support for new progressive rock through the web though. The self promoted acts don't always have the greatest production because the industry hasn't the funds or the imagination for them, but the creative flag is still flying and always will be.

A couple of interesting groups to check out:
http://www.ozonequartet.com/
http://www.10trecords.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=4
http://www.univers-zero.com/downloads.htm

Though none of these is entirely new, I find them a creative breath of fresh air in a world seemingly full of Brittneys, Shakiras, and people with the initials "DJ" in their stage names.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Kuhlau said:


> What are your thoughts on either the 'stagnation' of popular music (Jazz excepted, as this is still very much going forward in many new and surprising ways), or the continued creative progression of classical music?


I wonder if this would always seem the case (more or less) at most points in history, for anyone alive at the time? When we look at the art of the past, what we see is what has survived - which is presumably 'the best' (in some sense) of the art that was made. Huge quantities of bad or highly derivative art are simply neglected and forgotten. That's certainly true in the visual arts, so I guess it's probably true of music too.

When we observe the contemporary scene, 'the best' hasn't yet been weeded out. It's all still mixed in with the bad and the derivative, and swamped by it, because the bad stuff hasn't yet been filtered out. I suppose what I'm saying is that surveying the art of the present _en masse_, may always seem more depressing than a survey of the art of the past, (and possibly always did).


----------



## Kuhlau (Oct 1, 2008)

Thanks to those who've expressed their thoughts so far. 

Weston, you make some interesting points in your reply. I'm particularly in agreement with you about acts having to 'go it alone', owing to lack of imagination and/or resources on the part of record labels. What I saw yesterday was nothing short of 'sausage factory' pop: long strings of very similar-sounding music, churned out to sate, briefly, the appetites of those who are easily bored but not really looking for something that challenges their palates.

I also think the emergence of so many modern-day communication channels - the internet being a prime example - has produced a baffling array of sub- and sub-sub-genres, such that the word 'mainstream' no longer applies to anything above X-Factor-style 'hits' that get endless airplay on commercial radio stations the world over. So perhaps great pop _is_ still being produced, but is just so much harder to find unless one knows what one's looking for.

Contemporary classical music is possibly just as difficult to access (some will argue it's become less accessible, certainly) for those with no understanding of western art music. Those of us who _have_ some knowledge will be aware of at least a handful of modern composers, even if we're not familiar with their entire output. But those coming from a non-classical background will probably be as baffled by all the periods, styles and forms of music so many of us enjoy as we are when trying to relate to the sub-categories of music they're more used to.

So, where does this leave us? Is _*all*_ music still progressing, rather than just classical and jazz as I initially opined? Are too many communication channels obscuring these progressions within popular music - except for those who know where to look? Is a gulf growing between classical music and everything else _because_ of these many channels and so many sub-genres? Or is it simply, as Elgarian suggests, that we're trying to assess the state of our art before all the forgettable dross (from all forms) has sunk to the bottom of the history books?

FK


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

In support of Elgarian's view, Handel was extremely popular in his time and Bach was thought to be just a pretty good organist. We revere them both from our perspective in their far future.

This gives me solace that music of the great popular acts and the truly creative unkowns may all survive the test of time. That does not help us very much in our present perspective. At the risk of sounding pretentious and profound -- I cannot readily see the shape of my house when I'm inside it.


----------

