# A message from the isles...



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Ralph Vaughan Williams's The Lark Ascending has been voted Britain's favourite piece of classical music in a poll of more than 100,000 people.

The composition - written in its earliest form exactly a century ago - toppled Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No 2, which had reigned for three years in the annual Classic FM Hall Of Fame list.

1. Vaughan Williams - The Lark Ascending 
2. Rachmaninov - Piano Concerto No 2 
3. Vaughan Williams - Fantasia On A Theme by Thomas Tallis 
4. Beethoven - Piano Concerto No 5 (''Emperor'') 
5. Mozart - Clarinet Concerto 
6. Elgar - Enigma Variations (includes Nimrod) 
7. Uematsu - Final Fantasy Series (soundtrack) 
8. Beethoven - Symphony No 6 (''Pastoral'') 
9. Allegri - Miserere 
10. Beethoven - Symphony No 9 (''Choral'') 
11. Elgar - Cello Concerto 
12. Jenkins - The Armed Man: A Mass For Peace 
13. Bruch - Violin Concerto No 1 
14. Holst - The Planets 
15. Barber - Adagio For Strings 
16. Tchaikovsky - 1812 Overture 
17. Soule - The Elder Scrolls Series (Soundtrack) 
18. Pachelbel - Canon 
19. Beethoven - Symphony No 7 
20. Dvorak - Symphony No 9 (''From the New World'')

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/10778394/Lark-Ascending-tops-classical-poll.html


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Poppycock !


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Same old thing every year from Classic FM. Just goes to show that a few more people thought "hey, I'm in a good mood for some Ralph Vaughan Williams rather than Rachmaninov........" which would most certainly be the result of what is played on that radio station.

I'm guilty of listening to this radio station on a number of occasions though! :lol:


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Next survey - the Daily Star newspaper asks readers to select their favourite Ancient Greek playwright. :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I can't believe there are tens of thousands of people who dare to have an opinion like that. Don't they know who we are? Don't they fear our scorn properly? I tell you what, we need to put them in their place. That's what. This wouldn't have happened if we'd dealt properly with Chartism in the first place.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Allow me to express my frothing disgust at the fact that people who aren't me don't like exactly the same things as me.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I'd venture to suggest that this isn't Britain's favourite pieces of classical music and a more true list might be something like.

1. Stella Artois - That one from that beer advert that goes la la laa laaa laaa lah luh
2. Elgar - Enigma Variations (includes only Nimrod not all that boring extra stuff)
3. Dr Who - His theme music
4. Bach or was it Mozart - That really dramatic one that goes Dah dah dah dum!
5. Cigar guy - that funny one when he falls over and loses his hair
6. Andrew Lloyd Webber - Phantom of the Opera
7. Snooker music
8. The Seasons - That really fast one

And a few others that I forget.

The original list clearly shows the fallacy of the voters, a self selected oligarchy that doesn't speak for the nation at all but merely repeat what they hear in their camp radio station.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Ralph Vaughan Williams's The Lark Ascending has been voted Britain's favourite piece of classical music in a poll of more than 100,000 people.
> 
> 7. Uematsu - Final Fantasy Series (soundtrack)
> 12. Jenkins - The Armed Man: A Mass For Peace
> 17. Soule - The Elder Scrolls Series (Soundtrack)


Yes, the good ole very well-written and, as already pointed out in ArtMusic's recent poll (Popular = Great?) very pretty Ascending Bird, sitting prettily in the top 20 easy listening chestnuts, _and look! The Vaughan Williams is but a stone's throw distance away from those other profoundly great pieces by Uematsu, Jenkins, and Soule_ 

The Lark Ascending sitting on this list so near those three others named above speaks volumes for itself to about anyone who can read; for a number of people, this list, anything like, is a palpable final nail in the coffin putting the question of _popular = good (let alone great.)_ to rest.

Classic FM's list is a popularity chart; it is also like a doctor's chart which dramatically shows the patients still need extensive and continued treatment for what ails them :tiphat:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Allow me to express my frothing disgust at the fact that people who aren't me don't like exactly the same things as me.


You should perhaps offer them some medication.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> You should perhaps offer them some medication.


Naw, nothing fatal, and whether it is 'high taste' or 'low taste,' I don't advocate a global community of "Stepford Spouse music listeners." _That would be beyond boring -- it would likely be fatal to any kind of music being vital._


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Ralph Vaughan Williams's The Lark Ascending has been voted Britain's favourite piece of classical music in a poll of more than 100,000 people.
> 
> The composition - written in its earliest form exactly a century ago - toppled Rachmaninov's Piano Concerto No 2, which had reigned for three years in the annual Classic FM Hall Of Fame list.
> 
> ...


Where's Brian Ferneyhough!? He's like the Bieber of the UK! Tee-he.


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Perhaps it's universal, but I don't read other languages. But I've always been amused, from reading The Gramephone etc., how parochial UK classical fans are. Maybe it's British music programmers, but the numbers of English works on the list is astonishing. I doubt a U.S. list would include nearly as much Copland/Bernstein/Gershwin/Glass/MacDowell/etc.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Yes, the good ole very well-written and, as already pointed out in ArtMusic's recent poll (Popular = Great?) very pretty Ascending Bird, sitting prettily in the top 20 easy listening chestnuts, _and look! The Vaughan Williams is but a stone's throw distance away from those other profoundly great pieces by Uematsu, Jenkins, and Soule_
> 
> The Lark Ascending sitting on this list so near those three others named above speaks volumes for itself to about anyone who can read; for a number of people, this list, anything like, is a palpable final nail in the coffin putting the question of _popular = good (let alone great.)_ to rest.
> 
> Classic FM's list is a popularity chart; it is also like a doctor's chart which dramatically shows the patients still need extensive and continued treatment for what ails them :tiphat:





PetrB said:


> Naw, nothing fatal, and whether it is 'high taste' or 'low taste,' I don't advocate a global community of "Stepford Spouse music listeners." _That would be beyond boring -- it would likely be fatal to any kind of music being vital._


At first I thought these two posts directly contradict each other, as in the first one your pure scorn for many people's taste shines like the sun, while the second professes to appreciate a diversity of taste. I started to point out that contradiction, but then I read more carefully, and realized that they could make sense together if what makes music "vital" and not "beyond boring" for you is the fact that (you believe) most people's tastes are inferior to yours. And after reflection, that interpretation of your posts seems probably correct to me, whether it is what you intended or not.

Note that I don't blame you for this scorn; you're allowed! It's not a violation of anyone's rights or anything. None of us, and certainly not people who enjoy _The Lark Ascending_ that much, have any right to be respected. And I think it's ok to be honest about it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Not one of my favorite pieces occurs on that list. Either the 10,000 are daft or I am.

Where's Persichetti's Piano Sonata #10 or Ive's Concord Sonata?


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2014)

GGluek said:


> Perhaps it's universal, but I don't read other languages. But I've always been amused, from reading The Gramephone etc., how parochial *some *UK classical fans *can be*. Maybe it's British music programmers, but the numbers of English works on the list is astonishing. I doubt a U.S. list would include nearly as much Copland/Bernstein/Gershwin/Glass/MacDowell/etc.


Fixed that for you. Don't include me in your sweeping generalisation about UK classical music fans!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GGluek said:


> Perhaps it's universal, but I don't read other languages. But I've always been amused, from reading The Gramephone etc., how parochial UK classical fans are. Maybe it's British music programmers, but the numbers of English works on the list is astonishing. I doubt a U.S. list would include nearly as much Copland/Bernstein/Gershwin/Glass/MacDowell/etc.


The U.S. has so few of their own, that the number of outlander composers in our list of usual suspects is wide. I would be interested to see if a similar list from France or Germany would be _as_ parochial in tastes and home-boy loyalties as these British lists so often seem to be. I wouldn't be surprised if a similar list from Norway would have a lop-sided showing of Grieg, for example.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

He's correct. Not so much Copland/Bernstein/Gershwin/Glass/MacDowell as Copland/Bernstein/Gershwin/Schuman/Ives.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> At first I thought these two posts directly contradict each other, as in the first one your pure scorn for many people's taste shines like the sun, while the second professes to appreciate a diversity of taste. I started to point out that contradiction, but then I read more carefully, and realized that they could make sense together if what makes music "vital" and not "beyond boring" for you is the fact that (you believe) most people's tastes are inferior to yours. And after reflection, that interpretation of your posts seems probably correct to me, whether it is what you intended or not.
> 
> Note that I don't blame you for this scorn; you're allowed! It's not a violation of anyone's rights or anything. None of us, and certainly not people who enjoy _The Lark Ascending_ that much, have any right to be respected. And I think it's ok to be honest about it.


"Note that I don't blame you for this scorn; you're allowed!"
... as clearly, you are too allowed to scorn. At least, by your reckoning, we seem to share a similar joy in a similar sport.

But the scorn sent in my general direction, especially on TC, _is such high class_ scorn that any recipient of it would feel _honored_ that anyone would deign to take the time to single them out, i.e. that his lordship would at all bother to condescend to bestow such gracious attention is a manifestation of such aristocratic benevolence, us peasants are hugely impressed


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2014)

I love the Elder Scrolls soundtracks....good to know Classic FM has given me the go-ahead to refer to them as "classical music"


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Where's Persichetti's Piano Sonata #10?


I'm sure that was #21.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Yes, the good ole very well-written and, as already pointed out in ArtMusic's recent poll (Popular = Great?) very pretty Ascending Bird, sitting prettily in the top 20 easy listening chestnuts, _and look! The Vaughan Williams is but a stone's throw distance away from those other profoundly great pieces by Uematsu, Jenkins, and Soule_
> 
> The Lark Ascending sitting on this list so near those three others named above speaks volumes for itself to about anyone who can read; for a number of people, this list, anything like, is a palpable final nail in the coffin putting the question of _popular = good (let alone great.)_ to rest.


Since you misrepresented it twice in the same post, I thought someone should point out that:

*correlated ≠ =*


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

I am quite surprised to find Allegri and his Miserere in the 9th position...


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

GGluek said:


> Perhaps it's universal, but I don't read other languages. But I've always been amused, from reading The Gramephone etc., how parochial UK classical fans are. Maybe it's British music programmers, but the numbers of English works on the list is astonishing. I doubt a U.S. list would include nearly as much Copland/Bernstein/Gershwin/Glass/MacDowell/etc.


Well it's quite easy really
British classical music is better, obvious when you think about it
As for the rest of Europe, just don't get me started. Just tell me one thing the Germans have ever done for classical music
I rest my case
Long live Classic fm


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Not one of my favorite pieces occurs on that list. Either the 10,000 are daft or I am.
> 
> Where's Persichetti's Piano Sonata #10 or Ive's Concord Sonata?





arcaneholocaust said:


> I'm sure that was #21.


Yes, sigh. Poor Pershichetti -- Close, but no cigar. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

EdwardBast said:


> Since you misrepresented it twice in the same post, I thought someone should point out that:
> 
> *correlated ≠ =*


I did not mean "correlated." I meant that in that sort of pops classical list, many a participant or reader may actually think popular automatically = good, and if it is good, and on the list, that = great.

BTW, not all laptops have the extra diacritical marks or equation symbols. Some very small ones have barely any. I'm sure some could not / would not live without.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

GioCar said:


> I am quite surprised to find Allegri and his Miserere in the 9th position...


Yeah, it has really slipped down in the polls since ca. 1630 a.c.e. when it held the number one slot _for years._


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Yes, sigh. Poor Pershichetti -- Close, but no cigar. Always a bridesmaid, never a bride.


Mock if you wish, but someday, he will get his due.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

GioCar said:


> I am quite surprised to find Allegri and his Miserere in the 9th position...


I suspect a lot of people looked at that and thought, "Yeah, I like fast music!" They must have ignored the "miserable" part though.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> "Note that I don't blame you for this scorn; you're allowed!"
> ... as clearly, you are too allowed to scorn. At least, by your reckoning, we seem to share a similar joy in a similar sport.
> 
> But the scorn sent in my general direction, especially on TC, _is such high class_ scorn that any recipient of it would feel _honored_ that anyone would deign to take the time to single them out, i.e. that his lordship would at all bother to condescend to bestow such gracious attention is a manifestation of such aristocratic benevolence, us peasants are hugely impressed


I found the sarcasm!

But don't let my personal opinion obscure the fact that you're rendering a really important service. People who like Vaughan Williams that much need to be put in their place. They need to know that their pleasures and preferences are less legitimate in one way or another. I personally wouldn't want to live in a world where they could hold an opinion like that without getting a little bit of shade on the internet. Same with people who like Whitacre, J. Strauss II, Uematsu.... Let that list roll on!

So as long as there is an orthodoxy of taste to defend, keep fighting the good fight, my brother. Heck, if nothing else, I know this is probably not a priority of yours, but just for me personally, you let me know what I'm supposed to think, so that I can dutifully surrender my judgement to my betters. I really do appreciate that, and don't let anything that seems to stand between us obscure that appreciation.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Amazing how sarcasm shines through a computer screen.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I found the sarcasm!
> 
> But don't let my personal opinion obscure the fact that you're rendering a really important service. People who like Vaughan Williams that much need to be put in their place. They need to know that their pleasures and preferences are less legitimate in one way or another. I personally wouldn't want to live in a world where they could hold an opinion like that without getting a little bit of shade on the internet. Same with people who like Whitacre, J. Strauss II, Uematsu.... Let that list roll on!
> 
> So as long as there is an orthodoxy of taste to defend, keep fighting the good fight, my brother. Heck, if nothing else, I know this is probably not a priority of yours, but just for me personally, you let me know what I'm supposed to think, so that I can dutifully surrender my judgement to my betters. I really do appreciate that, and don't let anything that seems to stand between us obscure that appreciation.


Well thank the gods there are self-appointed defenders of the weak of mind who mistake one guy's opinion as a personal judgement of their personal taste. Where would the hapless listeners who love what they love be without such policing?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> Amazing how sarcasm shines through a computer screen.


I hope you weren't referring to my post!

Why does no one consider that I might sincerely believe these things?


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

An interesting coincidence that not one hour before KenOC started this thread, I chose The Lark Ascending as the music I want to listen to as I kick the bucket. It's a lovely tune, quiet, serene and it's about ascending, something or someone ascending. 

I didn't chose it because it is my favourite. It's a lovely tune to croak to.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Well thank the gods there are self-appointed defenders of the weak of mind who mistake one guy's opinion as a personal judgement of their personal taste. Where would the hapless listeners who love what they love be without such policing?


Policing personal taste and judging people for it?

Like this?



PetrB said:


> Yes, the good ole very well-written and, as already pointed out in ArtMusic's recent poll (Popular = Great?) very pretty Ascending Bird, sitting prettily in the top 20 easy listening chestnuts, _and look! The Vaughan Williams is but a stone's throw distance away from those other profoundly great pieces by Uematsu, Jenkins, and Soule_
> 
> The Lark Ascending sitting on this list so near those three others named above speaks volumes for itself to about anyone who can read; for a number of people, this list, anything like, is a palpable final nail in the coffin putting the question of _popular = good (let alone great.)_ to rest.
> 
> Classic FM's list is a popularity chart; it is also like a doctor's chart which dramatically shows the patients still need extensive and continued treatment for what ails them :tiphat:


What is most important here is not that we know some reason that some work of music is better (or "greater") than another, but that we know what attitudes we're supposed to have!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> An interesting coincidence that not one hour before KenOC started this thread, I chose The Lark Ascending as the music I want to listen to as I kick the bucket. It's a lovely tune, quiet, serene and it's about ascending, something or someone ascending.
> 
> I didn't chose it because it is my favourite. It's a lovely tune to croak to.


"...a lovely tune to croak to."


----------



## mirepoix (Feb 1, 2014)

Classic FM = Daily Mail readers = afraid of their own shadow.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mirepoix said:


> Classic FM = Daily Mail readers = afraid of their own shadow.


I'm innocent of the meaning of this, being unfamiliar with the culture of the Daily Mail and of Classic FM. Anyway, the list strikes me as rather fearless actually. I personally would be afraid to vote for anything other than one of Beethoven's most famous symphonies in the top spot. Maybe Bach, maybe Wagner, maybe even Stravinsky, but not Vaughan Williams - not even in the top ten, let alone number one. They cannot all have failed to be aware of how we would judge their votes. So to me, a vote like that, let alone tens of thousands of them, reflects some _serious_ fortitude.

And of course, bad taste. But with such bad taste so bravely asserted, I have at least to respect the courage!


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

science said:


> Anyway, the list strikes me as rather fearless actually.


I think the issue is, even within a niche interest, there are separate audiences. While here it might be a faux pas to regard Karl Jenkins _Requiem_ worthy of mention, there it might be Ligeti's _Requiem_ that people baulk at. I think that the Romantics are the core of Classic FM's programming rather than the whole of classical music, Uematsu and Soule are just a continuation of that rather than forays into Boulezian 12-tone. Also the radio station is populist, they play what people ask for such as Soule, so people hear Soule, so people request more Soule, thus Soule becomes classical by virtue of it being on Classic FM. I'm not sure it is fearless, it is simply a self-inflating bubble.

The internet voting factor can't be dismissed either of course where anyone with a computer gets to vote, as often as they want, you don't even have to be a listener of the station.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

quack said:


> I think the issue is, even within a niche interest, there are separate audiences. While here it might be a faux pas to regard Karl Jenkins _Requiem_ worthy of mention, there it might be Ligeti's _Requiem_ that people baulk at. I think that the Romantics are the core of Classic FM's programming rather than the whole of classical music, Uematsu and Soule are just a continuation of that rather than forays into Boulezian 12-tone. Also the radio station is populist, they play what people ask for such as Soule, so people hear Soule, so people request more Soule, thus Soule becomes classical by virtue of it being on Classic FM. I'm not sure it is fearless, it is simply a self-inflating bubble.
> 
> The internet voting factor can't be dismissed either of course where anyone with a computer gets to vote, as often as they want, you don't even have to be a listener of the station.


That's some good insight. The fringe repeat-voting factor must be it. I can't imagine any other explanation, actually. I've never met people who would proudly advocate Jenkins and reject Ligeti, at least not without betraying some embarrassment.

I was also thinking that maybe the set-up of the voting could've had some effect. Maybe a jillion people had _The Lark Ascending_ in their top 20 or so, so that it was the most common work at that level, and could take first place without many people actually voting for it as their top choice. That would make a lot of sense to me, as an explanation at least. I'd still like to know why so many people put it that far up on their list.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

This is interesting, from Classic FM's site:



> This year's chart also revealed a huge rise in popularity in orchestral music used in video games, with eight entries in the top 300 including two in the top 20. Since Classic FM started playing video game soundtracks regularly last year, the station has attracted a significant number of new, younger listeners. In the last year alone, the number of 15 to 24 year olds listening to Classic FM each week has grown by 27 per cent.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> That's some good insight. The fringe repeat-voting factor must be it. I can't imagine any other explanation, actually. I've never met people who would proudly advocate Jenkins and reject Ligeti, at least not without betraying some embarrassment.
> 
> I was also thinking that maybe the set-up of the voting could've had some effect. Maybe a jillion people had _The Lark Ascending_ in their top 20 or so, so that it was the most common work at that level, and could take first place without many people actually voting for it as their top choice. That would make a lot of sense to me, as an explanation at least. I'd still like to know why so many people put it that far up on their list.


I think you're just missing the basic point, which is that the regular audience for Classic FM is of the "I like a bit of classical music, it's nice" sort, who's not aware of Ligeti (unless you point out that he did that weird music in that weird space movie). As quack says, different audiences.

To many Classic FM listeners, Karl Jenkins is most certainly a classical composer, and they may be surprised to be told otherwise. They might also be surprised to learn that, outside of the Classic FM Hall of Fame, Nigel Hess's Piano concerto (#182) isn't more highly regarded than Mozart's 20th and 23rd, Schumann's, Ravel's, or Brahms's 1st.

In fact, if you look at the way the Hall of Fame has changed since its inception in 1996, you can trace the gradual drift away from what might reasonably be called "safe classical" to something that's overall less "classical" than a TC member would accept.


----------



## Rhythm (Nov 2, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> This is interesting, from Classic FM's site:


Three paragraphs down from that ^ Classic FM quote.


> Vaughan Williams' rise to the top of the chart may have been helped in part by its inclusion in one of this year's most high-profile soap story lines: the music served as a poignant soundtrack to the moment character Hayley Cropper (played by Julie Hesmondhalgh) ended her struggle with cancer by mixing a lethal cocktail of medicine.


That part of the story apparently created quite a stirring of feelings among the listeners who voted and helped lift the piece to the top, I would speculate.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

science said:


> I've never met people who would proudly advocate Jenkins and reject Ligeti, at least not without betraying some embarrassment.


Well I doubt anyone in Classic FM land is outright rejecting Ligeti, they are more likely to have never heard it in the romantic/neo-romantic bubble they comfortably keep to. It definitely would be rather jarring if it popped up between their usual fair. I think a lot of people use the station as pleasant background, complete with mellifluously burbling announcers, no 1812 Overture most of the time either unless it is to wake you up in time for the adverts.

_The Lark Ascending_ is so high because it is played about 5 times a day I think. It always struck me as very "nice" music, always a pleasant listen but I barely remember it once heard. You could, I suppose, dislike it for blandness but I think it is more a work you can't get worked up about, whereas even Beethoven's 9th gets called the greatest classical work by some or his worst symphony by others.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Rhythm said:


> Three paragraphs down from that ^ Classic FM quote. That part of the story apparently created quite a stirring of feelings among the listeners who voted and helped lift the piece to the top, I would speculate.


I saw that, but I dunno.
Lark was #2 for 3 years, and it was #1 for 4 consecutive years before that, so I don't think anyone would have been surprised to see it at the top again, death scene or not.


----------



## DrKilroy (Sep 29, 2012)

Finally RVW got the attention he deserves. 

And The Lark Ascending is a great work. Not perhaps the best piece in the world, nor even the best of RVW's output, but I still like it more than any Beethoven symphony. :tiphat: 


Best regards, Dr


----------



## Guest (Apr 23, 2014)

I'm not sure why so much opprobrium is being heaped on the poll, and on RVW in particular. There seems to be enough of the "real" stuff that might figure on a TCers top twenty (if we accept the general high regard for the works of Beethoven and Mozart).

I like a bit of controversy now and again, and can contribute to it myself sometimes, but the lack of extended discussions about actual pieces of music that we enjoy is becoming increasingly depressing.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> This is interesting, from Classic FM's site:





> This year's chart also revealed a huge rise in popularity in orchestral music used in video games, with eight entries in the top 300 including two in the top 20. Since Classic FM started playing video game soundtracks regularly last year, the station has attracted a significant number of new, younger listeners. In the last year alone, the number of 15 to 24 year olds listening to Classic FM each week has grown by 27 per cent.


Wow. A 27% increase in one year is astounding. On TC we've talked a lot about how to increase classical music listenership and how to get younger listeners. It seems that Classic FM has found one way that appears to work.

It would be interesting to see what the new listeners think of the more standard repertoire. What drew the new listeners to Classic FM (i.e. was video game music the primary draw)? Do they like the standard repertoire as much/more/less than the video game music? Do they listen to the standard repertoire significantly more than before?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Rhythm said:


> Three paragraphs down from that ^ Classic FM quote. That part of the story apparently created quite a stirring of feelings among the listeners who voted and helped lift the piece to the top, I would speculate.


Inclusion in a film score, or popular (and weekly repeated) television program certainly boosts some pieces into that general listener pool where prior, that same listener base was unaware of the piece.

The bumping of the Vaughan Williams after just such an inclusion in the U.K. is similar to the bump up Barber's Adagio for strings got from its being in a high-rated film, Oliver Stone's _Platoon_ (1986). The same piece had been used in other films before and after Stone's film, but _Platoon_ hit a wide and populist audience, so the exposure there boosted the Barber piece enough to place it on any "Classic FM" type top pops list.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adagio_for_Strings#Film_and_TV_soundtracks

Note too, the clever ambiguity of the name of the station: implicitly classical without actually naming it avoids "that socially intimidating label" of _classical music_ (at least for those who believe it to be intimidating.) So it is just Classic FM, and that usage of "classic" allows for other genres of music without anyone being able to argue about genre or get upset they are not getting what was named on the tin.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I think you're just missing the basic point, which is that the regular audience for Classic FM is of the "I like a bit of classical music, it's nice" sort, who's not aware of Ligeti (unless you point out that he did that weird music in that weird space movie). As quack says, different audiences.
> 
> To many Classic FM listeners, Karl Jenkins is most certainly a classical composer, and they may be surprised to be told otherwise. They might also be surprised to learn that, outside of the Classic FM Hall of Fame, Nigel Hess's Piano concerto (#182) isn't more highly regarded than Mozart's 20th and 23rd, Schumann's, Ravel's, or Brahms's 1st.
> 
> In fact, if you look at the way the Hall of Fame has changed since its inception in 1996, you can trace the gradual drift away from what might reasonably be called "safe classical" to something that's overall less "classical" than a TC member would accept.


Are there really so many of those people out there? I don't think I know any of them. Of course I never lived in England/Britain, so I don't know the audience or voters for this station, and that might be a part of it. In the places I've lived people either don't like classical music, or they know it well enough to know what they're supposed to vote for. Also, I don't think anyone I've ever known has been a listener to classical music on the radio, and I cannot understand why anyone would listen that way. All of this means that whoever these voters are, I have no experience of them and find their existence difficult to conceive.


----------



## shangoyal (Sep 22, 2013)

No Bach in the top 20. Britain could have done better.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2014)

PetrB said:


> Note too, the clever ambiguity of the name of the station: implicitly classical without actually naming it avoids "that socially intimidating label" of _classical music_ (at least for those who believe it to be intimidating.) So it is just Classic FM, and that usage of "classic" allows for other genres of music without anyone being able to argue about genre or get upset they are not getting what was named on the tin.


No such ambiguity. Visit the Classic FM website. Listen to the station itself, there's no doubting what it aims to do: offer the most popular of "classical" (a term which not even you, PetrB can claim to have defined for all) and modern orchestral. You may lament that this includes film and video game music, but you cannot reasonably argue that it's therefore trying to pretend that it's not really a classical music station.




shangoyal said:


> No Bach in the top 20. Britain could have done better.


Had your disappointment been directed at an individual (me, for example, as Bach would not appear in my top 20) you would rightly have received a strong rebuttal from the owner of the alleged lapse of taste.

Just because 'Britain' can't post a rebuttal doesn't make your comment against an entire nation any more acceptable.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> Also, I don't think anyone I've ever known has been a listener to classical music on the radio, and I cannot understand why anyone would listen that way. All of this means that whoever these voters are, I have no experience of them and find their existence difficult to conceive.


My classical station has just finished playing Prokofiev's 5th in the old Slatkin recording that I quite enjoy. Sometimes it's nice to kick back and let somebody else do the programming. In fact, we do that every time we go to a concert.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> Are there really so many of those people out there? I don't think I know any of them. Of course I never lived in England/Britain, so I don't know the audience or voters for this station, and that might be a part of it. In the places I've lived people either don't like classical music, or they know it well enough to know what they're supposed to vote for. Also, I don't think anyone I've ever known has been a listener to classical music on the radio, and I cannot understand why anyone would listen that way. All of this means that whoever these voters are, I have no experience of them and find their existence difficult to conceive.


This is Classic FM's weekday schedule, from its web site:


> 6am - 9am: More Music Breakfast
> Wake up to Tim Lihoreau every weekday morning from 6am-9am. Ask Tim to dedicate a piece of music to you to ease the stress of the school run, hear from his 'Great Composer' and enjoy some of your favourite pieces of classical music.
> 
> 9am -10am: The Hall of Fame Hour
> ...


Apologies if I've made anyone physically ill by posting this, but there it is... It may not be what you or I want in a radio station, or what we want from classical music, but it's what a lot of people like.


----------



## Guest (Apr 24, 2014)

If people really want to know what they actually play, as opposed to baulking at the way it is presented, they could look at the play lists. Here's an example...

http://www.classicfm.com/radio/playlist/2014/april/23/more-music-breakfast/

There may be a few pieces to take exception to, but most, surely, are acceptable - unless you dislike Beethoven, Bach, Shostakovich, Albinoni...?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> If people really want to know what they actually play, as opposed to baulking at the way it is presented, they could look at the play lists. Here's an example...
> 
> http://www.classicfm.com/radio/playlist/2014/april/23/more-music-breakfast/
> 
> There may be a few pieces to take exception to, but most, surely, are acceptable - unless you dislike Beethoven, Bach, Shostakovich, Albinoni...?


But there was one thing there by Einaudi. You know how WE feel about that, right?

And nothing by Lachenmann. You know how WE feel about that, right?

This kind of snobbiness, expressed in one way or another (whether it's looking down on this or on that or the other thing, something is going to get it), is inherent in the classical music culture. It's a feature, not a bug, and I don't believe there's anything you (or I or anyone) can do about it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> If people really want to know what they actually play, as opposed to baulking at the way it is presented, they could look at the play lists. Here's an example...
> 
> http://www.classicfm.com/radio/playlist/2014/april/23/more-music-breakfast/
> 
> There may be a few pieces to take exception to, but most, surely, are acceptable - unless you dislike Beethoven, Bach, Shostakovich, Albinoni...?


Thanks for the list, though! There were a few things there I hadn't heard of, so I appreciate it greatly.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Just to clarify: I'm not criticising Classic FM here, just pointing out how it wants its audience to see it, and what the audience is looking for.

It's a good point, MacLeod: "unless you dislike Beethoven, Bach, Shostakovich, Albinoni...?", which is the fascinating thing about Classic FM for me. I look at the music piece by piece and I think "yeah, this is (mostly) good stuff all right", but then I take a step back and see the bigger picture.
Take Shostakovich, for instance. The Classic FM web site has information on about 170 composers, and if you click through to the page telling you about Shostakovich's music you can learn about: The Unforgettable Year 1919, The Gadfly, Symphony no.5, Piano concerto no.2, and the Jazz Suites. If you're the sort of person who likes to sneer, then it's really easy to sneer at this rather odd sample of his work. And you can look at the list of composers and see who's not on it, and have a big sneer at that too.
I don't like to sneer, myself, or criticise others' tastes, but it is frustrating to see something you love ("classical music" as a whole, not specifically Shostakovich, though him too!) so _misrepresented_ in this depiction of it as merely something nice and pleasant. But still, this frustration is tempered by the fact that, well, at least people are listening to classical music that they might not otherwise hear, and there'll be a few for whom Classic FM is just the first step of a long journey. So this conflict between the two feelings of "it's actually pretty good" and "it could be much more" is a fascinating one for me, and one I like to pick at, probably more than is really necessary!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Stations that are significantly funded by the public wallet should be playing works that are generally well known and accepted by the CM listeners. These are the tax payers paying / help fund the station. Of course, adding spice to it with the odd Lachemann piece or Xenakis sound once a blue moon shouldn't matter terribly.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Stations that are significantly funded by the public wallet should be playing works that are generally well known and accepted by the CM listeners. These are the tax payers paying / help fund the station. Of course, adding spice to it with the odd Lachemann piece or Xenakis sound once a blue moon shouldn't matter terribly.


Classic FM is a commercial station.

BBC Radio 3, the UK's other national classical station, is taxpayer-funded. You might call it more "regular classical" than Classic FM. They don't play Einaudi but I'm not sure how much Lachenmann they play either. They have about one-third the market share of Classic FM.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Nereffid said:


> Classic FM is a commercial station.
> 
> BBC Radio 3, the UK's other national classical station, is taxpayer-funded. You might call it more "regular classical" than Classic FM. They don't play Einaudi but I'm not sure how much Lachenmann they play either. They have about one-third the market share of Classic FM.


I see. Thanks. Who the hell is is Einaudi? Any relation to the car maker Audi?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

This is probably Ludovico Einaudi's best-known piece, "Le Onde":






For me, at least, the word "Einaudi" is convenient shorthand for "music they play on Classic FM (and similar stations) that some people call classical music and others call crossover and others call pop".


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Einaudi really does make me want to chew rocks. His music is so sweetly banal, epically inconsequential, dribblingly vapid and many other awkward put downs. That said, l recently listened to Lavinia Meijer's CD Passaggio, harp interpretations of his works and l quite liked it.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I thought Elgar is more popular than RVW. Anyway several of RVW works are more emotional than similar of Sibelius, Tchaikovsky and Dvorak.

Funny note: Once someone said to me over internet how he hates Horn and Elgar Marshes!


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

From The Guardian:

The Lark Ascending is a safe Classic FM favourite - don't we want a challenge?
Nice article.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> But there was one thing there by Einaudi. You know how WE feel about that, right?
> 
> And nothing by Lachenmann. You know how WE feel about that, right?
> 
> This kind of snobbiness, expressed in one way or another (whether it's looking down on this or on that or the other thing, something is going to get it), is inherent in the classical music culture. It's a feature, not a bug, and I don't believe there's anything you (or I or anyone) can do about it.


Perhaps, but isn't it clear that the exact same snobbery is built into Classic FM itself? Here are the great composers, here are the great works, selected by our listeners, who consist of your wonderful selves.

Their website prints "The world's greatest music" under their banner, for crying out loud!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Perhaps, but isn't it clear that the exact same snobbery is built into Classic FM itself? Here are the great composers, here are the great works, selected by our listeners, who consist of your wonderful selves.
> 
> Their website prints "The world's greatest music" under their banner, for crying out loud!


I wouldn't call it the same sort of snobbery: it's praising one's own tastes but without explicitly belittling others'.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> I wouldn't call it the same sort of snobbery: it's praising one's own tastes but without explicitly belittling others'.


If I am reading the discussion right, according to science, any assertion of quality is an implicit power play for social standing. If Classic FM declares that the type of music it plays is "the world's greatest" (my local classical station makes no such claim), then clearly this means that everything else is inferior. Every other culture's music, every other tradition of music, all inferior to the Classic FM computer-generated playlist. That's not snobbish?

My tastes do not align with Classical FM's "short excerpts of safe, mostly familiar music" philosophy. I don't see a point in putting down their listenership, though (I know a few friends of mine on this site who enjoy it just fine). They want to listen to the things they enjoy, and I don't mind that at all. I think the selection in their annual top 300 is bizarre, but I'm not their target audience.

If I criticize music, that is not the same in my mind as criticizing someone who enjoys it. Most people I've known have tastes that disagree with my own, and I don't think badly of them for it. They have a different perspective from mine. Something that strikes me as a flaw may be overlooked or seen as a merit by another. I believe that there is such a thing as quality in art, in craftsmanship, and the idea that it is entirely a matter of opinion strikes me as bizarre and incomprehensible. Just because it is difficult to identify the criteria we use does not mean that our selections are arbitrary. Although I am sure our biases and socio-cultural backgrounds influence our perceptions of art (and our relative access to varying cultural traditions of art), I disagree that our perceptions are entirely dependent on socio-cultural factors, and believe that there are, more or less universally, things that are seen as merits in art, and other things that are seen as defects. The confusion comes about because these are seen differently and in different things by different people.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

But by that token _any_ statement of the form "X is the greatest" is snobbery, and I don't think people generally extend the definition of snobbery like that. In snobbery there has to be a clear indication of dislike of something else too.

"Classic FM's playlist is the world's greatest music" is not the same claim as "Classic FM's playlist is the world's greatest music, and other music is rubbish". You may infer the second claim, but the dislike isn't inherent in the first claim. Whereas science's post made reference to both liking one music and explicitly disliking another.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> If Classic FM declares that the type of music it plays is "the world's greatest" (my local classical station makes no such claim), then clearly this means that everything else is inferior.


Actually, it only _clearly_ means that your local classical station is worse at self-promotion.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> "Classic FM's playlist is the world's greatest music" is not the same claim as "Classic FM's playlist is the world's greatest music, and other music is rubbish". You may infer the second claim, but the dislike isn't inherent in the first claim. Whereas science's post made reference to both liking one music and explicitly disliking another.


I wasn't saying that it implied that everything else was necessarily bad, but greatest, being a superlative, implies that everything else is lesser.

And unless I'm not mistaken, no one here claimed that Classic FM should be playing Lachenmann or even that they shouldn't play Einaudi. No one expects them to play Lachenmann either. I rarely expect my local classical station to play Stravinsky, which they only do once in a long while. So science's post was in fact linking the disparagement of Einaudi with the approval of Lachenmann, whereas I'm not sure any such connection exists (there are plenty of people who dislike both, I am sure, and maybe even a few who enjoy both).

There are certainly some snobbish comments on the above linked article, though:



Guardian Comment said:


> Isn't Classic FM for people who like the dozen or so pieces of classical music they're familiar with from TV adverts, not for people who like classical music?





Guardian Comment said:


> The Classic FM audience doesn't want to be challenged. It wants bland background music, so that is what it gets.





Guardian Comment said:


> I have nothing against Williams (the Tallis theme is on my playlist) but please.......Lark Ascending? A boring piece of trivia without even the compensation of a strong melody or musical complexity. It reminds me of those who place the Bruch violin concerto over that of Mendelssohn. I wonder if we belong to the same species.


Has there been anything to match that sort of vitriol _directed toward the listeners of Classic FM_ on this thread?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

TBH I think science's comment re Einaudi/Lachenmann was at a tangent to the specific discussion of Classic FM anyway, and a distraction from the more important questions that haven't yet been addressed, such as, what does the Classic FM audience have against chamber music?


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

quack said:


> Einaudi really does make me want to chew rocks. His music is so sweetly banal, epically inconsequential, dribblingly vapid and many other awkward put downs.


Truly awful indeed. It lacks any sort of qualities that could make it good in either the "classical" way, or in the more atmospheric/ambient kind of way. It completely fails in either category. So, what is it? New Age? Even that is generally better.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Einaudi isn't that bad. I've enjoyed a few of his pieces. Let's not be ridiculous here.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I liked this exchange in the Guardian's 'Comment is free' for sheer rudeness and intolerance: (I have slightly edited this to avoid giving offence)



> CiF poster #1
> I don't know about Classic FM but I wonder what makes Radio 3 staff think that people want to listen to all sorts of repetitve electronic chirps, rattles and squeaks at bedtime?





> CiF poster #2
> I think you'll find that the reason R3 plays "all sorts of repetitve electronic chirps, rattles and squeaks at bedtime" is that most people are boring b***ards who don't want to hear anything out of the ordinary


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> If I criticize music, that is not the same in my mind as criticizing someone who enjoys it.


To be fair to you, I've picked this up from your posts. This is a matter of tone, it is under your control, and you present yourself well in this respect. Not everyone else does!

I want to respond to the rest of your post in another post, because to me this is by far the most important point, and I want it to stand alone to be noticeable/memorable.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> No such ambiguity. Visit the Classic FM website. Listen to the station itself, there's no doubting what it aims to do: offer the most popular of "classical" and modern orchestral. You may lament that this includes film and video game music, but you cannot reasonably argue that it's therefore trying to pretend that it's not really a classical music station.


"Modern Orchestral," a nicely vague phrase which can include the. lighter contemporary film and video scores, is not just the fare of the more popular classical FM stations.

One of the world's arguably best 'classical' FM stations, _*WFMT.com*_ has regularly once-weekly or once monthly slots for folk, jazz, film music, etc.... the vast majority of their programming still 'classical.'

But knowing businesses, there was no casual choice of "Classic FM" vs. having instead named it "Classical FM," you can bet your bippy, wife and kids on that one


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> ...it is frustrating to see something you love ("classical music" as a whole...) so _misrepresented_ in this depiction of it as *merely something nice and pleasant*.


*Bravo!*.

I would only have added in with your, "something nice and pleasant," "something nice and _easy_ and pleasant.

Underlying that approach is this subtext: "WE think _you think_ classical music is socially intimidating, and that it is only for the upper classes and intellectuals."

_COBNUTS!_ It often treats music, with programming like 'allegro' -- i.e. nothing but short single movements of baroque works in the a.m. slot as a general 'start your day with this music,' like accompaniment for an exercise class, as medicine or a fan. Some listeners do use music like medicine (alter or enhance a mood) or a fan (a pleasant not much thought about breeze in the room) and that is alright... but when a classical radio station has enough of that kind of programming, and a general verbal pitch in the same zone, I wonder truly if it is servicing either the music or the public well.

A quote from our TC colleague, Aleazk:
"Real classical music enthusiasts listen to it because it is the most complex musical form and so it provides the intellectual stimulation and challenge these enthusiasts are looking for (and not because they are pretentious, they simply need the stimulation; call it mental food.)"

Ergo, I find the Classic FM approach, _as much as I believe it is serving an 'O.K.' purpose and functioning kinda / sorta well enough_, a form of condescension toward 'the average man' which is completely uncalled for, i.e. counter-productive to inviting anyone in to the banquet. It presumes the unknown listeners have limited taste and limited intelligence, more than I would ever dare presume of anyone I would hope to address when it comes to classical music.

In an era when working class people and college students on that 'starving student' budget routinely have a financial investment in recorded music in one or more formats and reproducing playing equipment, all at a total greater investment than the sum I invested in electric keyboard and midi gear fifteen or twenty years ago, then truly, whatever antique social pretensions around "high culture" are long ago dead.

The approach that any of this music, or investigating it, calls for coddling what is assumed to be 'the peoples' fears of not being intellectually or socially up to the task are over. Any approaches which are still in the mode of Classic FM, or some of those introduction to classical music courses, need a vast overhaul. When I watch a BBC proms orchestral broadcast, the commentary prior the performance is genial, not condescending, and still hits a mark where any 'laymen' will understand what is being said... i.e. many cuts above the tone of address (and programming) than some of these popular classical FM formats.

Where there is any condescension at all, it implies there is a "higher echelon" which needs to make it simple in order to communicate with the simple-minded peasants. It is rude, and it stinks.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Perhaps, but isn't it clear that the exact same snobbery is built into Classic FM itself? Here are the great composers, here are the great works, selected by our listeners, who consist of your wonderful selves.
> 
> Their website prints "The world's greatest music" under their banner, for crying out loud!


Probably so. It's inherent in classical music, but to be fair to us it's inherent in a lot of other music as well. Since music is so strong a part of many people's identities (that might even be why we evolved musical behavior), and people tend to think they're better than other people - especially that their sort of people (however identified) is better than other sorts of people - this kind of thing tends to become a part of the culture of a lot of music.



Mahlerian said:


> If I am reading the discussion right, according to science, any assertion of quality is an implicit power play for social standing. If Classic FM declares that the type of music it plays is "the world's greatest" (my local classical station makes no such claim), then clearly this means that everything else is inferior. Every other culture's music, every other tradition of music, all inferior to the Classic FM computer-generated playlist. That's not snobbish?
> 
> My tastes do not align with Classical FM's "short excerpts of safe, mostly familiar music" philosophy. I don't see a point in putting down their listenership, though (I know a few friends of mine on this site who enjoy it just fine). They want to listen to the things they enjoy, and I don't mind that at all. I think the selection in their annual top 300 is bizarre, but I'm not their target audience.
> 
> If I criticize music, that is not the same in my mind as criticizing someone who enjoys it. Most people I've known have tastes that disagree with my own, and I don't think badly of them for it. They have a different perspective from mine. Something that strikes me as a flaw may be overlooked or seen as a merit by another. I believe that there is such a thing as quality in art, in craftsmanship, and the idea that it is entirely a matter of opinion strikes me as bizarre and incomprehensible. Just because it is difficult to identify the criteria we use does not mean that our selections are arbitrary. Although I am sure our biases and socio-cultural backgrounds influence our perceptions of art (and our relative access to varying cultural traditions of art), I disagree that our perceptions are entirely dependent on socio-cultural factors, and believe that there are, more or less universally, things that are seen as merits in art, and other things that are seen as defects. The confusion comes about because these are seen differently and in different things by different people.


As I said in my short response to you, you do a wonderful job of controlling your tone. I don't remember ever having sensed any condescension from you toward anyone.

But a glance around the board will show that you are fairly exceptional in that regard - or at the very least, that not everyone is like you. There are even a few members who seem constitutionally unable to respect people who have certain preferences. Generally this stays somewhat subtle because the mods won't let it get too explicit, but we are all highly literate people here and we know how to imply and infer. (People are amazingly inventive when it comes to rhetoric.)

I want to clarify the point about social standing. You've got it right as you've expressed it, but maybe I need to make clear that (at least in the USA for the past 30 years or so, and, if I perceive it correctly, in South Korea today) it isn't necessarily about actual social class in a simple or literal sense. It is about a less formal sort of superiority - for example, "You like that music because you're intellectually lazy; I like this music because I'm a true intellectual." Something like that won't usually be said explicitly on a moderated site, we'll have to use some circumlocution, but the point will be made. Being "intellectually lazy" or "a true intellectual" isn't a matter of simple social class, but it is a claim to be personally superior to people with different tastes, and we can easily see that being made by some of us in this thread with regard to Classic FM's listeners. That is not exactly the same "snobbism" that existed in, say, the 19th century, but it's similar enough that most of the same words can be used to describe it accurately.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Ergo, I find the Classic FM approach, _as much as I believe it is serving an 'O.K.' purpose and functioning kinda / sorta well enough_, a form of condescension toward 'the average man' which is completely uncalled for, i.e. counter-productive to inviting anyone in to the banquet. It presumes the unknown listeners have limited taste and limited intelligence, more than I would ever dare presume of anyone I would hope to address when it comes to classical music.


I realize that for many of us at TC Classic FM is likely not our programming choice, but I assume there are many people who love their playlists. Why is Classic FM's approach condescension? The station is presumably relatively popular so many classical listeners must truly like the music they play. We may believe those listeners are not musically adventurous or inquisitive, but what does Classic FM's music have to do with taste or intelligence. It's just music that lots of people like. What's wrong with that?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mmsbls said:


> I realize that for many of us at TC Classic FM is likely not our programming choice, but I assume there are many people who love their playlists. Why is Classic FM's approach condescension? The station is presumably relatively popular so many classical listeners must truly like the music they play. We may believe those listeners are not musically adventurous or inquisitive, but what does Classic FM's music have to do with taste or intelligence. It's just music that lots of people like. What's wrong with that?


Nothing, though it could be truly advertised and promoted as more of a collective blog than anything with a hint of educating or informing the listener.

Of course, truthfully, I find nothing newsworthy or of any real interest in these collectively 'what is popular' lists. (What is generally popular, with some shifts as to piece, remains glacially slow, what changes is perhaps the particular pieces, the range, 'of a type.' There are no surprises there for me, no information of any value.) Ergo, I wonder why anyone would think to post them on a classical music forum -- while I know fully, 'that is me.'


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Nothing, though it could be truly advertised and promoted as more of a collective blog than anything with a hint of educating or informing the listener.


Does this mean that the station plays the kind of music that's liked by people who like that sort of music? Surprise and astonishment!

The urge to self-improvement is, sadly, weak among most people.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Does this mean that the station plays the kind of music that's liked by people who like that sort of music? Surprise and astonishment!
> 
> The urge to self-improvement is, sadly, weak among most people.


It is the posturing of the station's PR which annoys; what people like is what people like, and 'the people' are not promoting anything, falsely or otherwise... they're just 'saying what they like.'


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> If I am reading the discussion right, according to science, any assertion of quality is an implicit power play for social standing. If Classic FM declares that the type of music it plays is "the world's greatest" (my local classical station makes no such claim), then clearly this means that everything else is inferior. Every other culture's music, every other tradition of music, all inferior to the Classic FM computer-generated playlist. That's not snobbish?


I see your point, but it doesn't 'feel' like snobbery. I don't like the style of promotion, but as I'm not the target audience, I don't expect it to appeal to me.



Mahlerian said:


> My tastes do not align with Classical FM's "short excerpts of safe, mostly familiar music" philosophy. I don't see a point in putting down their listenership, though (I know a few friends of mine on this site who enjoy it just fine). They want to listen to the things they enjoy, and I don't mind that at all. I think the selection in their annual top 300 is bizarre, but I'm not their target audience.


I'm reminded of Reader's Digest and their presentation of "smooth classics" of literature, where you get something nicely bound...but it's been abridged! What's at issue is not the choice of music itself, but the way it is chosen, the spirit in which it seems to have been chosen, the way it is presented by the DJ and the way it is marketed by the station.

I get all that...but why should classical music be exempt from what I might regard as marketing mistreatment? Think of any marketable commodity - washing powder, cars, cigarettes, mobile phones etc etc etc - and the ad-men get to work on appealing to our inner superiority either by telling us how smart we are, or by telling us how stupid is the other guy, or both. Here is a classical music station that does all that, and how you respond will depend on the sensitivity of your internal "snobometer".

And yet although I don't like the marketing, I don't think I have the right to reject the station as a whole when I know that there are people out there who like to listen to it. To do so is to join in the superiority of the ad men.

Surely better to ignore it, to not play?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> *Bravo!*.
> 
> I would only have added in with your, "something nice and pleasant," "something nice and _easy_ and pleasant.
> 
> ...


One caveat I'd have with what you say (overall, I agree with you) is that the programmer-listener relationship isn't a one-way street. This year's Hall of Fame has by my reckoning close to 50 (of 300) entries that fall into the category I loosely call "Classic FM music" - movie and game soundtracks and the Einaudi/Jenkins "crossover" stuff. The first Hall of Fame, back in 1996 (the station started up in 1992) had zero. Yes, presumably what the listeners like is partly determined by what the programmers choose for them to hear, but the popularity of "Classic FM music" on the Hall of Fame seems out of proportion with the amount played on the station.
So I'm not sure how much "condescension" is actually required; I think there's an element of deliberate self-limitation by listeners. Not a good thing from your or my point of view, of course, but then again we're not trying to make money from classical-music radio!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> It presumes the unknown listeners have limited taste and limited intelligence, more than I would ever dare presume of anyone I would hope to address when it comes to classical music.


If there are people out there who, while knowing about the music you advocate, actually prefer the music Classic FM plays, aren't you saying those people have "limited taste and limited intelligence?" I can't find any other way to understand your POV. You say that the radio station is being condescending for playing this but I'll guess that Classic FM strives to find out what its audience wants and strives to give it to them.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2014)

PetrB said:


> [T]he Classic FM approach [is] a form of condescension toward 'the average man' which is completely uncalled for, i.e. counter-productive to inviting anyone in to the banquet. It presumes the unknown listeners have limited taste and limited intelligence...
> 
> Where there is any condescension at all, it implies there is a "higher echelon" which needs to make it simple in order to communicate with the simple-minded peasants. It is rude, and it stinks.


Funny thing about condescension. If it's Classic FM's brand of it, then it's fine, and has to be defended against any criticisms of it, which are almost always going to be labeled as "condescending."

Funny. If condescension is bad, then it's bad. It's not just bad when I do it but OK if Classic FM does it. If it's bad, it's bad. If it's OK, it's OK. It can't be both.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Funny thing about condescension. If it's Classic FM's brand of it, then it's fine, and has to be defended against any criticisms of it, which are almost always going to be labeled as "condescending."
> 
> Funny. If condescension is bad, then it's bad. It's not just bad when I do it but OK if Classic FM does it. If it's bad, it's bad. If it's OK, it's OK. It can't be both.


I can't see that ClassicFM is being condescending. They're a private company; they want to give their listeners what their listeners want. Even if there's some kind of ninja sneaky condescension there, the obvious straightforward condescension is coming from we who know what their listeners OUGHT to want.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2014)

some guy said:


> Funny thing about condescension. If it's Classic FM's brand of it, then it's fine, and has to be defended against any criticisms of it, which are almost always going to be labeled as "condescending."
> 
> Funny. If condescension is bad, then it's bad. It's not just bad when I do it but OK if Classic FM does it. If it's bad, it's bad. If it's OK, it's OK. It can't be both.


That's true. It can't be both. But that depends on its seeming like condescension by the person being condescended to, doesn't it? However, linking this to my point about the subtler strategies of ad men, if they are being condescending to anyone, irrespective of who is on the receiving end, we are all demeaned by such advertising, aren't we?


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

I can honestly say that I _never_ listen to Classic FM, as I just can't stand those adverts mixed-in continually with the kind of choices that are listed as 'favourites' But it's a commercial enterprise & they pump-out the music that they think their listeners love in order to attract the advertisers, I imagine. 
Although I personally don't listen, I do know of a couple of folks who derive relaxation/pleasure from the music played & have been introduced to music that they didn't appreciate before but have since come to love...so that's OK.
We don't have to listen but if the end-result is a harmless-enough pleasure and an increase in music appreciation, its 'live and let-live' for me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

JCarmel said:


> I can honestly say that I _never_ listen to Classic FM, as I just can't stand those adverts mixed-in continually with the kind of choices that are listed as 'favourites' But it's a commercial enterprise & they pump-out the music that they think their listeners love in order to attract the advertisers, I imagine.
> Although I personally don't listen, I do know of a couple of folks who derive relaxation/pleasure from the music played & have been introduced to music that they didn't appreciate before but have since come to love...so that's OK.
> We don't have to listen but if the end-result is a harmless-enough pleasure and an increase in music appreciation, its 'live and let-live' for me.


Amen, brother. Preach that true word.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> ... that depends on its seeming like condescension by the person being condescended to, doesn't it?


Condescension can only pass by unnoticed if the dynamic occurs between two people... 
_I.e. -- if there is no other audience or witness_


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2014)

Near as I can tell, the condescension thing is simply a way to avoid discussion. Instead of talking about the things that are said, one makes accusations about the person or persons doing the saying. It's an old ploy (as witness the Latin phrases describing it), so it's probably not going to go away any time soon.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Near as I can tell, the condescension thing is simply a way to avoid discussion. Instead of talking about the things that are said, one makes accusations about the person or persons doing the saying. It's an old ploy (as witness the Latin phrases describing it), so it's probably not going to go away any time soon.


So you and PetrB (and maybe others but it's not necessary to make a list) have agreed that the people whose tastes are reflected in this list either

a) are ignorant about better music, to which the radio station would introduce them if it had more respect for them; or,

b) have limited taste and limited intelligence.

And it's improper, you now explain, to respond that this accusation is condescending. Fine, whatever. I'm sure it's a flattering view of people who actually deserve to be characterized much less graciously.

How are these people supposed to respond to these accusations? I guess they're supposed to surrender the point, admit their inferiority, and then either start liking the same music you do or just accept that their inferior status is permanent. I know that's more straightforward than you'd put it, but that's what it comes to. Whether it's condescending or not, or whatever it is, this kind of approach to other people's tastes _disgusts_ me.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

I think the real dilemma behind all of this discussion has to do simply with what is the meaning of art for you.

It's a commodity or it's the most sacred mean of expression for the intellect and the spirit?

Classic FM promotes an image of art as a commodity and I can perfectly understand why this may bother to someone like PetrB, a career pianist and music lover. Imagine your most beloved thing in the world being banalized in that way. It's not about telling others what they "ought" to listen, it's a clash of worldviews. And, evidently, if we have different worldviews, then a mutual understanding is almost impossible.

In my case, I share the worldview about art as the most sacred mean of expression for the intellect and the spirit and I find Classic FM's treatment of classical music something akin to the most noxious elements of modern capitalism and marketing. I prefer those things to stay away from art.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

aleazk said:


> I think the real dilemma behind all of this discussion has to do simply with what is the meaning of art for you.
> 
> It's a commodity or it's the most sacred mean of expression for the intellect and the spirit?
> 
> ...


Where can I find this spiritual and intellectual music untainted by capitalism and marketing?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> Where can I find this spiritual and intellectual music untainted by capitalism and marketing?


I'll sell it to you for fifty dollars.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I'll sell it to you for fifty dollars.


Not until I see a picture of an attractive person enjoying it!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

science said:


> Probably so. It's inherent in classical music, but to be fair to us it's inherent in a lot of other music as well. Since music is so strong a part of many people's identities (that might even be why we evolved musical behavior), and people tend to think they're better than other people - especially that their sort of people (however identified) is better than other sorts of people - this kind of thing tends to become a part of the culture of a lot of music.


It may be inherent in much of the culture surrounding classical music (orchestra halls built like monuments, deification of major figures, general presentation designed by record companies), but not necessarily in the music itself.

It seems that any tradition that continues on for long enough attracts people that want to attract attention to the perceived superiority of what that tradition used to be, rather than what it or other traditions are at present (you can see the same thing in the classic rock mentality and jazz, just with a compressed timescale).



science said:


> As I said in my short response to you, you do a wonderful job of controlling your tone. I don't remember ever having sensed any condescension from you toward anyone.
> 
> But a glance around the board will show that you are fairly exceptional in that regard - or at the very least, that not everyone is like you. There are even a few members who seem constitutionally unable to respect people who have certain preferences. Generally this stays somewhat subtle because the mods won't let it get too explicit, but we are all highly literate people here and we know how to imply and infer. (People are amazingly inventive when it comes to rhetoric.)


One thing that needs to be remembered is that online forums are not a statistically representative sample. The people involved voluntarily sign up because they wish to discuss this or that issue, or because they simply want to share. I would imagine that people in general are less strongly opinionated than what you see on online forums for a given area. On top of that, they're generally more reserved about expressing themselves, too.

Some people, on forums and in real life, are open to discussion, and some others are not. The latter may simply want to state their opinion and be done with it. One thing I've discovered is that it's not always clear from the way people say things which type of person they are at the moment. I hesitate to infer too much about a poster's motives, when I'm talking to a person I've never met in real life and don't really know very well at all.

I'll admit, I part ways with a lot of people whenever the phrase "I can't understand how anyone can enjoy" comes up. Even if I _don't_ understand how anyone could enjoy it, maybe I'm just not seeing something; I'm sure I could understand if I talked with them about it.



science said:


> I want to clarify the point about social standing. You've got it right as you've expressed it, but maybe I need to make clear that (at least in the USA for the past 30 years or so, and, if I perceive it correctly, in South Korea today) it isn't necessarily about actual social class in a simple or literal sense. It is about a less formal sort of superiority - for example, "You like that music because you're intellectually lazy; I like this music because I'm a true intellectual." Something like that won't usually be said explicitly on a moderated site, we'll have to use some circumlocution, but the point will be made. Being "intellectually lazy" or "a true intellectual" isn't a matter of simple social class, but it is a claim to be personally superior to people with different tastes, and we can easily see that being made by some of us in this thread with regard to Classic FM's listeners. That is not exactly the same "snobbism" that existed in, say, the 19th century, but it's similar enough that most of the same words can be used to describe it accurately.


I understand your distinction, and I don't want to imply that this is not the case, either subconsciously or consciously, in many cases. Classical music has been associated with many things that people find desirable, from refinement to moral superiority, and people want to latch on to those associations. In some less general cases, specific areas of the music may be associated with intellectual achievement or a longing for a lost and better world.

What I am saying is that it doesn't make sense to me to say that that accounts for the entirety of people's reactions.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> Not until I see a picture of an attractive person enjoying it!


I think this should do the trick.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I think this should do the trick.
> 
> View attachment 40403


I'm in. I will PM you my wife's credit card number.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

science said:


> I'm in. I will PM you my wife's credit card number.


I love pugs! What's the name of your's?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

science said:


> Where can I find this spiritual and intellectual music untainted by capitalism and marketing?


I never said "untainted" by capitalism. I said akin to the most _noxious_ elements of modern capitalism and marketing.

At least for me, it's evident the kind of things that can emerge when you combine these elements with art: are you familair with a guy called Justin Bieber?

I have nothing against Justin Bieber and his fans. But I'm against the industry and the marketing ideas that made this guy a billionaire. And those are precisely the ideas that Classic FM wants to implement in classical music.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

aleazk said:


> I never said "untainted" by capitalism. I said akin to the most _noxious_ elements of modern capitalism and marketing.
> 
> At least for me, it's evident the kind of things that can emerge when you combine these elements with art: are you familair with a guy called Justin Bieber?
> 
> I have nothing against Justin Bieber and his fans. But I'm against the industry and the marketing ideas that made this guy a billionaire. And those are precisely the ideas that Classic FM wants to implement in classical music.


I'd recommend this article from The New Yorker that was doing the rounds awhile back to anyone who hasn't seen it:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/26/120326fa_fact_seabrook?currentPage=all

Even if one can tell just from turning on the radio the kind of group-think that goes into most of the top-40 pop songs, it's another thing to read the grim, unseemly details.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

aleazk said:


> I never said "untainted" by capitalism. I said akin to the most _noxious_ elements of modern capitalism and marketing.
> 
> At least for me, it's evident the kind of things that can emerge when you combine these elements with art: are you familair with a guy called Justin Bieber?
> 
> I have nothing against Justin Bieber and his fans. But I'm against the industry and the marketing ideas that made this guy a billionaire. And those are precisely the ideas that Classic FM wants to implement in classical music.


Ok, to be honest, I have no idea what we're talking about here. I'm a pretty big fan of capitalism most of the time, and one reason is that it provides me with so much great music. I'm not thinking of Justin Bieber, to whose music I've never listened and over which I therefore cannot manage to work up any froth. But all this Agricola, Zelenka, Beethoven, Lachenmann stuff, that's capitalism at work for me, and if one side-effect of it all is that pre-teen girls get to be silly about a handsome teenage singer dude, I can let that slide right off my waterproof back. I can even let slide a radio station that plays some classical music of which I do not enthusiastically approve.

So that's where I stand on this. But that's really just more of my live-and-let-live attitude. Those poor fools who voted on the Classic FM poll, whether in blissful ignorance or in brave defiance of how we their superiors would perceive them, aren't forcing me to listen to their station or their music. It doesn't hurt me at all. I hope they _love_ the stuff they listen to, whether I would or not.

I don't know whether they're falling for some clever marketer's manipulation any more than I am, maybe they are, maybe I'm the bigger sucker, but _I don't care_ as long as CPO and Chandos and Kairos and Tzadik and even Hyperion and even Nonesuch and even ECM and even I dare declare even DG and Sony keep churning out the stuff I want to explore. Really, I notice that all that is pretty expertly branded and marketed and I'm sure there are some sweetheart deals with various reviewers and I'm falling for all kinds of stuff that just ruins the world of high art, but when I push play, all that goes away.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I think it more than a little unfortunate the OP is phrased in a way similar to those news headlines about nothing newsworthy nonetheless calculated to invoke interest or provoke ("all about getting those ratings")

_Unlike the wording of the OP, there is no "Message" about a top 40 mentality popularity list other than it is a top 40 most popular list, that list with a strongish tang of parochial flavoring due to a particular geographic / national voter base _

After too much exposure to this paper-thin 'news,' the OP begins to ring in the ear a bit like the phrase, "Message in a bottle." LOL.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I think it more than a little unfortunate the OP is phrased in a way similar to those news headlines about nothing newsworthy nonetheless calculated to invoke interest or provoke ("all about getting those ratings")
> 
> _Unlike the wording of the OP, there is no "Message" about a top 40 mentality popularity list other than it is a top 40 most popular list, that list with a strongish tang of parochial flavoring due to a particular geographic / national voter base _
> 
> After too much exposure to this paper-thin 'news,' the OP begins to ring in the ear a bit like the phrase, "Message in a bottle." LOL.


And also, if that's actually the music they actually like, and not just because they're ignorant of Lachenmann and Ligeti but because that is actually the actual music that they actually like, they have limited intelligence and limited taste.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2014)

science said:


> So you and PetrB (and maybe others but it's not necessary to make a list) have agreed that the people whose tastes are reflected in this list either
> 
> a) are ignorant about better music, to which the radio station would introduce them if it had more respect for them; or,
> 
> ...


It is perhaps one small indication of how wrong you've got my point that this is exactly what disgusts me, too.

But then, the point is what continues to be ignored in the relentless flow of ad homs and ad populums.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> It may be inherent in much of the culture surrounding classical music (orchestra halls built like monuments, deification of major figures, general presentation designed by record companies), but not necessarily in the music itself.
> 
> It seems that any tradition that continues on for long enough attracts people that want to attract attention to the perceived superiority of what that tradition used to be, rather than what it or other traditions are at present (you can see the same thing in the classic rock mentality and jazz, just with a compressed timescale).
> 
> ...


This post is full of great points; I read it several times with appreciation each time.

It's true that in actual real life, I've never had an unpleasant conversation about classical music. If anyone has the attitudes I see expressed here, they evidently keep it to themselves in person.

I know I do. A few months ago a woman told me that she used to think Stravinsky's _Petrushka_ was hard to listen to, until a recent performance that she enjoyed. I was thinking something like, "_Petrushka_? Hard to listen to?" But I wouldn't even have expressed it that way online, and I definitely didn't do that in real life. I was all positive, like, "I'm glad you liked it."

Maybe we would all be so much different in person that my wife could mention that she wanted to see the Vienna New Year's concert without getting even one extremely subtle bit of rudeness in reply. That, I admit, is hard for me to imagine, because I've seen us smash so many rhetorical pickaxes of condescension into each other's skulls here. I really wouldn't want to meet a lot of the people here, because I fear I'd end up charged with assault. Aside from the people I get along with online, I just cannot imagine us being polite to each other in real life.

I hope I didn't seem to be accounting, to trying to account, for the entirety of people's reactions [to, I believe you meant, the poll specifically as well as general reactions to other people's differing tastes]. And a thing I think I should say is that I might have seemed to attribute some disingenuousness to people's reactions to the poll, and I definitely wasn't. All our cleverness can sometimes be exercised in the service of our deeply held beliefs, which are forged in a crucible too deep, too dark, and often too hot for anyone to analyze thoroughly. I think we've understood each other.

And thank all the gods that none of this is in the music itself. I'm actually listening to Beethoven's Fifth right now, and my enjoyment of it is undiminished by the fact that so many people here would roll their eyes and say, "Not _that_ again!" It's. Just. Good. Music. I'm sometimes surprised that people haven't managed to make me like any music less, but so far they haven't.

Anyway, what I appreciate most is the tone of our conversation. You've got some good points, some gently challenging to mine, and stimulated me to clarify some points I've made. It's been as dignified as the old Beethoven ladies think classical music should be.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> It is perhaps one small indication of how wrong you've got my point that this is exactly what disgusts me, too.
> 
> But then, the point is what continues to be ignored in the relentless flow of ad homs and ad populums.


Those ad homs were directed explicitly and repeatedly toward the voters in this poll, and if you disagree with any of them, let alone are bothered by them, then your otherwise very effective power of expression has failed you.

But that's not what happened, of course. That _wouldn't_ happen. It's not like this is our first conversation here. You've repeatedly and ceaselessly expressed scorn towards people for not listening to the music that you advocate; even when they listen, you've express scorn for them not listening in the _way_ you think they should listen to it. So I cannot pretend to be surprised that you did not actually object to any ad homs directed at Classic FM listeners, nor to anything else _except the questioning of those attitudes to the voters_.

If anything actually insulting in this thread has actually been directed at you (which would surprise me), it hasn't been of the sort of direct violence as "limited intelligence and limited taste," nor even of the indirect "they don't know what's good for them" sort.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

science said:


> I'm a pretty big fan of capitalism most of the time, and one reason is that it provides me with so much great music...But all this Agricola, Zelenka, Beethoven, Lachenmann stuff, that's capitalism at work for me


Agree on that. Again, I never said anything against capitalism as a system in general. I only made comments against extreme marketing strategies and extreme mercantilization of art. What you call the "side effects". I think they are a tumor in capitalism, not a side effect...



science said:


> I can even let slide a radio station that plays some classical music of which I do not enthusiastically approve.


Again, it's not about the music or the people on that radio station, it's about the view the radio station promotes about art.



science said:


> It doesn't hurt me at all.


Well, you are lucky I guess. In my case, it means that I renounced to attend to the concerts of my local orchestra because all they play is: i) Romantic warhorses; ii) pop concerts. And if you can't see the connection between this fact and the attitude promoted by Classic FM then we are on different dimensions, with all due respect. I'm not asking for obscure synthesizer pieces by Milton Babbitt, or Georg F. Haas' latest piece. I'm just against that ridiculous narrow minded view, that does no good to art, science, and society in general.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

aleazk said:


> Well, you are lucky I guess. In my case, it means that I renounced to attend to the concerts of my local orchestra because all they play is: i) Romantic warhorses; ii) pop concerts. And if you can't see the connection between this fact and the attitude promoted by Classic FM then we are on different dimensions, with all due respect. I'm not asking for obscure synthesizer pieces by Milton Babbitt, or Georg F. Haas' latest piece. I'm just against that ridiculous narrow minded view, that does no good to art, science, and society in general.


No, that makes total sense. I see what you mean about the local orchestra. I don't worry much about that - in Seoul, I can hear pretty much whatever kind of music I want, and when I'm not here I'm usually around NYC, which is even better. In and around either city, I can hear a lot of the more fun stuff through universities too.

But you're right, your orchestra's options are probably affected by things like Classic FM.

I think I understand your local orchestra's POV too. I mean, the bills have to be paid or the doors are closed.

The world of live classical music seems to be getting financially tighter. I don't know, maybe that's just perception, but that's how it seems to me. It seems to me that some local orchestras are going to have to fold, and that people are going to have to go to the big cities when they want big city culture. That's all harsh both for you and your local orchestra, but things are hard all over.

I don't know what the root attitude is, what "that ridiculous narrow minded view, that does no good to art, science, and society in general" is, but I don't see where a little more tolerance and respect all around would hurt any of us.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

science said:


> r. Also, I don't think anyone I've ever known has been a listener to classical music on the radio, and I cannot understand why anyone would listen that way.


Where I live - southern Oregon, USA - there is excellent classical music radio, and many people do indeed listen to it and contribute financially to our public radio network. I listen occasionally, and do so for three reasons: 1.) The programming is diverse and I discover music I might not otherwise. 2.) I can't afford to buy large numbers of CDs, but radio is free. 3.) One can hear live concerts and operas not available on recordings. I realize that many, perhaps most, locales do not have classical music radio as good as what I'm accustomed to here, but I think many of our major cities still do. I lived in Boston, Massachusetts in the '70s, and the quantity and variety of classical music on radio was astounding by today's standards. I received a substantial musical education from it. Classical music radio - and the improvement of it - is a great public resource and is worth fighting for.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2014)

science said:


> Also, I don't think anyone I've ever known has been a listener to classical music on the radio, and I cannot understand why anyone would listen that way.


Why? I do - not often, but I do.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Why? I do - not often, but I do.


Selections that don't appeal to me, lots of talk, and commercials. (I usually hate commercials in any medium. I give the NFL $300+ every year so that I can watch football games without commercials, and it's worth it!)

The only time I've ever been a radio listener is back in the days before cars had CD players, and then only when I was in my car and didn't even have any tapes.


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2014)

science said:


> Selections that don't appeal to me, lots of talk, and commercials. (I usually hate commercials in any medium. I give the NFL $300+ every year so that I can watch football games without commercials, and it's worth it!)
> 
> The only time I've ever been a radio listener is back in the days before cars had CD players, and then only when I was in my car and didn't even have any tapes.


Those are perfectly acceptable reasons for _you _not wanting to listen to radio...but that's not quite the same as being able to conceive why anyone else _would _want to.

BBC Radio 3 isn't troubled by commercials, and its comprehensive coverage of the Proms every summer is one good reason for listening to the radio.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms

If you want to see the composers whose work will be performed...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/whats-on/2014/composers


----------



## omega (Mar 13, 2014)

1812 Ouverture before Dvorak ?
I always knew British people were strange... :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

omega said:


> 1812 Ouverture before Dvorak ?
> I always knew British people were strange... :lol:


_Puhleeze!_ Amongst other things,

"they" have been known to put wallpaper on their ceilings!

'Struth :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2014)

PetrB said:


> _Puhleeze!_ Amongst other things,
> 
> "they" have been known to put wallpaper on their ceilings!
> 
> 'Struth :tiphat:


Yes? And ?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> Selections that don't appeal to me, lots of talk, and commercials. (I usually hate commercials in any medium. I give the NFL $300+ every year so that I can watch football games without commercials, and it's worth it!)
> .


Yea, pocket lint to them. You've heard about that nonsense of college ball? How they don't want to give the players any money? When most college ball players are on the grind ~50hrs a week, and many are having trouble buying food… But the administration is making billions of dollars, while saying that it would be greedy for the players to want money because it should be for the love of the game… Bahah, chicken-**** capitalist.

Capitalism isn't all so pretty. It thrives on the greed of people.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

shangoyal said:


> No Bach in the top 20. Britain could have done better.


Maybe German music is just not 'their' thing? ;-)


----------



## maestro267 (Jul 25, 2009)

I really don't get the popularity of The Lark Ascending. And that's coming from a big RVW fan. It's boring! He wrote far better stuff that could use the popularity, like the symphonies.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

maestro267 said:


> I really don't get the popularity of The Lark Ascending. And that's coming from a big RVW fan. It's boring! He wrote far better stuff that could use the popularity, like the symphonies.


But presumably the people who voted for The Lark Ascending are not evaluating whether the music is good. They are simply asking which works they like the most. I assume they judge works based on beauty as they perceive it. A relatively high percentage of listeners view the work as remarkably beautiful. I do as well. So what you find boring, many others find very beautiful. I likely wouldn't vote it in my top 300, and it wouldn't be in my top 5 (or maybe 10) RVW works. But I understand why others find it beautiful and why they would place it so high.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> Yea, pocket lint to them. You've heard about that nonsense of college ball? How they don't want to give the players any money? When most college ball players are on the grind ~50hrs a week, and many are having trouble buying food… But the administration is making billions of dollars, while saying that it would be greedy for the players to want money because it should be for the love of the game… Bahah, chicken-**** capitalist.
> 
> Capitalism isn't all so pretty. It thrives on the greed of people.


You're right about all of that.

It's just that nothing else in history has been better for us. The world sucks so horribly bad that capitalism and its sister institutions - republican government, free press, science and technology - are the best things that have happened to us.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> You're right about all of that.
> 
> It's just that nothing else in history has been better for us. The world sucks so horribly bad that capitalism and its sister institutions - republican government, free press, science and technology - are the best things that have happened to us.


Haha, what a nightmare. At least there's still a handful of beautiful things - nature, music, clear-headed intelligent people…. It really creates quite the dynamic perspective.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, what a nightmare. At least there's still a handful of beautiful things - nature, music, clear-headed intelligent people…. It really creates quite the dynamic perspective.


Nature's nice in small doses, but I really wouldn't want to experience too much of it....


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> Nature's nice in small doses, but I really wouldn't want to experience too much of it....


I think that's part of the great delusion in that we think we're apart from nature. These bodies come from the earth, and will return to her.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> I think that's part of the great delusion in that we think we're apart from nature. These bodies come from the earth, and will return to her.


Hopefully later rather than sooner. In the meantime, therefore, I'm drinking treated water only.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

science said:


> Hopefully later rather than sooner. In the meantime, therefore, I'm drinking treated water only.


Haha, only required because we originally screwed it all up….


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, only required because we originally screwed it all up….


Well, that's a good point, but I was originally thinking of pathogens rather than pollution.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Someone mentioned on the American Symphonies thread the 'A Night in the Tropics' symphony by Gottschalk - I reckon this work would be an absolute knockout on Classic FM but it's hardly likely ever to be heard, so perhaps a major fault lies with their repetitive, unimaginative playlists rather then the actual specific gravity of what is played. 

Heart FM do a similar thing with pop music - during the day most of what they play is pop from the 80s onwards but their playlist is so annoyingly limited they should call themselves Groundhog Day FM instead.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

PetrB said:


> _Puhleeze!_ Amongst other things,
> 
> "they" have been known to put wallpaper on their ceilings!
> 
> 'Struth :tiphat:


I've stayed in French hotels where they put wallpaper on the backs of doors too .... and so what!!! :lol:


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

science said:


> Well, that's a good point, but I was originally thinking of pathogens rather than pollution.


How this thread went from a Classical FM playlist to talk of pathogens and pollution is most fascinating :lol:


----------



## Svelte Silhouette (Nov 7, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Ralph Vaughan Williams's The Lark Ascending has been voted Britain's favourite piece of classical music in a poll of more than 100,000 people. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/10778394/Lark-Ascending-tops-classical-poll.html


1. I can't believe 100,000 folk bought the album
2. Who were these folk who voted "Final Fantasy Series (soundtrack)" ahead of anything on the list thereafter incl. Beethoven's 9th and 6th
3. Who are Jenkins and Soule
4. I thought The Telegraph had a better readership


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Haut Parleur said:


> 1. I can't believe 100,000 folk bought the album
> 2. Who were these folk who voted "Final Fantasy Series (soundtrack)" ahead of anything on the list thereafter incl. Beethoven's 9th and 6th
> 3. Who are Jenkins and Soule
> 4. I thought The Telegraph had a better readership


1. They didn't necessarily do so
2. ?
3. Karl Jenkins - modern composer - L'homme armee mass - widely performed including by amateur societies - wikipedia tells more
4. really?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> I've stayed in French hotels where they put wallpaper on the backs of doors too .... and so what!!! :lol:


I've checked in with myself and have found that I could care less, either. :trp:


----------

