# On the relationship between music and literature and status of classical music today



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Some people say that "high culture" is dying and giving place to popular culture and generally shorter and simpler works of art.

I think it's not true - it's true just of some forms of art, regardless of the length (in case of temporal arts) of given works of art.

Most notably, I would say, there is a significant crisis today in two arts: classical music and poetry.

On the other hand, other traditional high arts, such as literature and theater are still thriving. Still a large number of people read and write high quality literary fiction, and literary awards are still well known and popular and widely recognized, such as Nobel and Pulitzer award. Also still a lot of people go to theaters regularly and watch high quality plays. Furthermore, there is a new 20th century art form - the cinema, which has also produced some timeless classics which can certainly be included in the category of high art.

It's simply not true that temporal works of art need to be of short duration or simple to be appreciated in today's society. Movies and plays often last more than 2 hours and people are still happy to see them. Books can take several days to read, and people are still reading them.

Yet, it seems like very few people today care about classical music and poetry.

On the other hand when you unite text (lyircs), which traditionally belongs to poetry category, with music, you get songs, and songs are the basis of popular music, and popular music in its countless forms is extremely popular. And it's perfectly fine.









This diagram shows the relationship of music and poetry, and it seems that the region where they overlap is still thriving today, but where they are isolated, they both seem to be in crisis.

Now, as I said popular music is OK.

But there are some troubling trends IMO, such as:

- decline of classical music
- decline of poetry
- artificial separateness and disunity between classical and popular music, and also between poetry and popular music lyrics
- academic and scholarly disdain towards popular music, both as a form of music, and as a form of poetry

But the times, they are a-changin'

I was really happy when I learned that Bob Dylan was awarded Nobel Prize in literature.
To me it signaled that academic and literary establishment is finally willing to seriously consider popular music singers-songwriters as relevant and as a part of real literature and poetry.
Because they are. I am not speaking of trite pop songs that get forgotten by the next summer. I am speaking about this part of popular music that takes itself seriously, a part that influenced whole generations and big social movements, and that produced quality songs that will be remembered.
There are countless singers-songwriters who are way more than just entertainers and yet the academy didn't recognize them as real poets until recently. Think of Leonard Cohen, or Fabrizio de Andre. They are probably more relevant than many other poets who just wrote poetry and who are highly regarded by academia, yet without much social impact.

There is also this trend of music scholarship not paying enough attention to popular music. There is however a separate discipline, and it's rock criticism that has developed its own standards, its own aesthetics and has its own recognized classics. It itself is often quite elitist and takes itself very seriously.

So having in mind that popular music is thriving and that it also has its own serious critics, scholars etc, the lack of traditional academic attention towards it, is NOT REALLY HURTING POPULAR MUSIC. It can thrive without it.

But it's hurting classical music and poetry. It's hurting them by alienating them from wider mainstream culture and separating them into some sort of ivory tower that remains inaccessible and irrelevant to everyone except the small number of initiates.

Such attitude sends message to people "Classical music (and poetry) is different, it's not for you... it's not your type of art, it's for US... you need to UNDERSTAND it, and you don't"

This is a very dangerous attitude, and more importantly, it's factually wrong.
You don't need to understand music theory to appreciate classical music. Every idiot can truly enjoy and appreciate classical music, because the language of music is universal. If you have healthy ears and relatively functional brain, you can appreciate it.

But this misconception that academy contributes to, by keeping classical music separate and by its disregard towards popular music (which today is in fact the mainstream music), has become extremely common. So common that it has become a part of popular culture and common understanding.
Here's an example. Some lyrics from a popular Serbian song "Electric music" by Bajaga go like this:

"I like the sound of engines and when tires screech, while classical (music) is loved by those who understand it"

So, it not only shows that classical music is considered to be reserved only for those who understand it, but he also takes pride in not understanding it and being a simple man who likes the sound of engine instead. As if enjoying classical music is kind of fake, dishonest or pretentious.

But as I said, it's totally untrue. Every idiot can love and appreciate classical music, you don't need to be a genius or musically educated for it. The main reason why majority of people don't listen to it is because of fear, intimidation, misconceptions and its status as elitist, old-fashioned and simply uncool. It has much more to do with social factors than with genuine dislike of classical music.

And it's classical music establishment's and acadamia's fault.

So what's the solution?

I think the solution is to have ALL MUSIC UNITED. Free interaction, collaboration and competition between all genres, with classical being just one of them, and not a totally separate category.
Because current separation between classical and popular music is totally classist and artificial and has more to do with music's position on brow-o-meter than with its real characteristics.

Classical music must find ways to become mainstream again and a common experience of the contemporary middle class (which usually influences other classes too).

And I think it can do it just if it tries to mingle among the other genres without keeping itself separate and isolated. I don't say it has to compromise its standards, no... it should still keep them as high as always, it should just change its attitude.

I think the same would be desirable to happen in the world of literature.
To have ALL LITERATURE UNITED and ALL POETRY UNITED.

I am especially troubled by distinction between literary fiction and genre fiction.
It is, too, just a product of class division and marketing, more than anything else.

In the 19th century, attitudes when it comes to arts were much healthier in my opinion.
The concepts of "classical music" and "literary fiction" with their today's meaning did not exist. The audience for both music and literature was much smaller and consisted mainly of middle and higher classes. (which is not good though). But it allowed this small audience to freely enjoy arts unburdened by lowbrow vs. highbrow considerations. Classical music was just music. It was normal. It didn't have any special status, it was just regular music. And its normalcy, regularity and wide acceptance was the thing that made it popular and that allowed it to thrive. If it was confined in small elitist circles like today, it would probably die much earlier and it would produce far less masterpieces.

The same for "literary fiction". It didn't exist. _War and piece_ wasn't written as a highbrow piece of literary fiction. It was just a regular historical novel. Anna Karenina was just a regular romance novel. Yes, its target audience was middle and upper classes, but not because they have any special refined understanding, but for the simple fact that only they happened to be literate at that time. So it was just a normal literature. And whoever learned to read and write in this period wasn't afraid or intimidated by approaching such works, as they were considered normal. Mainstream.

When lower social classes gained the ability to read and write and to consume music, the previous mainstream audience needed to distance itself from those newcomers and hence we got concepts of "classical music" and "literary fiction". But, by doing so, it also took away all of its cultural legacy with itself, made it unpopular with masses, and slowly but surely, though unintentionally, made itself much smaller, isolated and irrelevant.

Meanwhile huge economic progress occurred and previous low classes became today's middle class. But as the old middle class retreated, so did their culture, and the new mainstream became based on popular music and genre fiction. And it's most detrimental to the new mainstream, that is to 90% of people, because they voluntarily deprive themselves of access to traditions of previous high culture traditions even though they are perfectly capable of understanding it and appreciating it. But the class consciousness and "cool" factor and other social factors contribute to this alienation.

By reuniting all music and all literature, everyone would benefit.

Music and literature would become both more meaningful, more relevant and more fun.
Social inequality, (which is huge problem already) would decrease.

Perfectly intelligent bright young people from working class backgrounds wouldn't limit themselves just to Stephen King while avoiding Dostoevsky (because it must be so hard and boring, which is of course untrue), and those with higher class backgrounds wouldn't avoid Stephen King like pest, because it must be so stupid and formulaic.

By the way, if the audience was more united... ALL WRITERS AND ALL MUSICIANS would strive more to create works that are both fun, engaging and meaningful.

Right now it's not the case.

If you're a genre writer and you try to explore serious topics you encounter eyebrows raised and your publishing house might reject your work.

If you're a classical composer and your work seems a bit too fun or lighthearted, again, you encounter eyebrows raised and harsh criticism from everyone.

In conclusion. People are not idiots. Class differences do not automatically translate to differences in intellectual capabilities or abilities for appreciating art. All art should be for the people and relevant.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

You say that classical music became disunited from other genres because of social factors rather than genuine dislike of classical music. You think that everyone would benefit if classical music become mainstream again.

I'm not convinced that classical music, as we now understand the term, was ever more than a minority interest. Other forms of music, like jazz and rock, became vastly popular as peoples' incomes rose and they could afford the cost of acquiring recorded material. This audience didn't switch from classical, but developed out of a spontaneous liking for that kind of music. This development was so large that it just left classical music even further behind.

Even if it was agreed that it would be a good thing if classical music could become more mainstream, you don't propose any solutions other than possibly changing attitudes in some way that you do not pursue. I don't see how on earth that could be done, or why we should be bothered to do so when most people seem quite content with the status quo.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

classical music will never become mainstream. Most people are perfectly happy with listening to this and need nothing more. Just look at how many people watched the video and how many people watch classical music videos


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Genoveva said:


> I'm not convinced that classical music, as we now understand the term, was ever more than a minority interest.


I think it was rather normal part of life for higher classes in 19th century. It was just the question of class. If you belonged to bourgeois classes or aristocracy it was perfectly normal and expected for you to listen to MUSIC, I say music and not classical music, because at that time classical was default in these circles so, there's no need to use the qualifier "classical".

Mozart was quite a popular dude in Vienna in his time. It wasn't the same type of mainstream as "Despacito" is today, but among those who do listen to music it was a normal and expected choice.

It could be argued that it was a minority interest in whole society, but it's just because most of the society was illiterate and couldn't afford to go to concerts etc... But it was a majority interest among the general MUSIC audience. Which was small but no that small.

Today, on the other hand, classical music, and especially contemporary classical music is extremely minority interest, even in the highest social classes.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Also in Italy, opera was very popular even in rural regions, it's part of their national tradition.
It was normal for peasants to sing operatic arias by Verdi, for example.


----------



## Jacck (Dec 24, 2017)

ZJovici, but then people had no entertainment options except for church and theater/music/reading. Now we have TV, movies, cinema, internet, youtube, facebook, virtual reality and all this is competing with the older forms of entertainment for time.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Very interesting post, Zjovicic!

I agree, I think that in some ways modern classical music has ghettoised itself, become a gnostic manual of sorts, exclusive, and its meanings hidden away from the plebs. As you say, it's written for those who understand it. Or - it seems to be. I went to a PC in Dublin a few years ago, some Irish composer, the music was interesting but incredibly dense and technical, it was in 10/16 time, the instruments all clashing and colliding, the sound recogniseable to the cognoscenti, but distant to the likes of me.

That's always been the way, however, and it doesn't mean it was terrible - it could well be recognised in 100 years as a simple piece of formulaic light music, a classic of its type, a work of genius. And such disconnects have happened previously in music, where the shock of the new (to borrow a phrase) soon wears off, and the new becomes familiar and old hat, well beloved and accepted as a typical work of that composer's great genius. The work is locked in a battle against time itself, waiting for people to catch up.

Also, this complexity could be a reaction to other forces at work, where music in general is becoming fragmented, or more categorised, maybe: "pop music" has about a billion sub-divisions, with new ones springing up each new day.

But.

This seems a common experience for me, when I hear modern works. It's like hearing the clatterings and bangings of a closed shop. There are exceptions, however. Arvo Part. Phillip Glass. And remember, Phillip Glass has collaborated with pop stars, such as Paul Simon. We do get crossover works sometimes.

I hate to be resident bore who brings Mozart into everything, but it was mentioned in another thread where he wrote to his father of his desire to compose music that the average lay person would enjoy, without knowing why, and the connoisseurs would be scratching their head and studying it. Think of The Magic Flute, a vaudevillian piece that fulfills this brief perfectly. Low art, high art. Great composers used to write dance music, then complex groundbreaking symphonies. It was all part of the same working life. What happened?

Romanticism, followed by other movements, which set the composer at a remove from society, somewhat, and left them to their own devices, an exclusive club of seers, clairvoyants, geniuses. Arthur Rimbaud's poet's manifesto springs to mind:



> *"A poet makes himself a visionary through a long, boundless, and systematized disorganization of all the senses. All forms of love, of suffering, of madness; he searches himself, he exhausts within himself all poisons, and preserves their quintessences. Unspeakable torment, where he will need the greatest faith, a superhuman strength, where he becomes before all men the great invalid, the great criminal, the great accursed--and the Supreme Scientist! For he attains the unknown! Because he has cultivated his soul, already rich, more than anyone! He attains the unknown, and if, demented, he finally loses the understanding of his visions, he will at least have seen them! So what if he is destroyed in his ecstatic flight through things unheard of, unnameable: other horrible workers will come; they will begin at the horizons where the first one has fallen!"*


It's wonderful stuff: it's visionary, graphic, heroic and dangerous. It could also be called other things, which aren't complimentary. Self-aggrandizing, egoistic, pompous, elitist. It brings to mind the exchange between Laurence Olivier and Dustin Hoffman, while they were filming The Marathon Man, and Hoffman had starved himself for 3 days, stayed awake all the while, unwashed and outdoors in the rain, to achieve the effect he required for his next scene. Olivier asked him, "why don't you just try acting, dear boy?"

At some point, the art and the artist became something different to the rest of us (which they always were, let's face it), but sense of this, and our treatment of them, also changed, until they became almost inhumans, or superhumans, or - in the words of Rimbaud - "he becomes before all men the great invalid, the great criminal, the great accursed--and the Supreme Scientist! For he attains the unknown! Because he has cultivated his soul, already rich, more than anyone! He attains the unknown..."


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Jacck said:


> ZJovici, but then people had no entertainment options except for church and theater/music/reading. Now we have TV, movies, cinema, internet, youtube, facebook, virtual reality and all this is competing with the older forms of entertainment for time.


True, but it's still quite a big question why some old form of art survived and continue to thrive, like narrative fiction, novels, theater, while some declined like poetry and classical music.

When it comes to poetry I think it declined because it got substituted by quality popular music, mainly singers-songwriters who continued to write high quality, relevant, socially and politically critical, yet accessible poetry (Dylan etc), with added benefit of musical accompaniment, which is quite natural for poetry. While pure poets became increasingly hermetical and inaccessible. Modern poems are often more like puzzles rather than spontaneous artistic and creative expressions.

When it comes to classical music, I think there are two main reasons:

1) too elitist and rigid attitude of classical music establishment
2) often, the lack of vocal component in music, focus on instrumental music (and for many music fans lyrics are as important as music, sometimes even more important, especially when it comes to songs with serious, socially or politically critical lyrics), and when there is vocal component, then such vocals are rather harsh and hard to sing to non-professionals.
People want to be able to sing their music. If they can't they lose interest.

So I think classical music should adapt to advent of microphones and sound recording technologies and stop insisting on such schooled vocals, because much more natural vocals that are encountered in popular music can also be equally expressive and artistic, but the average Joe can still be able to sing it, at least half-decently.

So what should classical music try to do. If it is, indeed superior, as some think, for talented classical musicians it shouldn't be that hard to produce high quality vocal music that could surpass masterpieces such as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band, which is both artistic, yet, entirely singable by average person.

Of course that's just one option.

I am sure instrumental classical music could also easily compete for attention with, for example progressive rock, only if it wanted to.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

A very significant difference between today and all past eras is the fact that billions now have access to every form of art through small devices they can hold in their hands, anywhere, anytime. And another difference is the fact that the accumulated and constantly accumulating library of every sort of art, old and new, is enormous beyond any past comparison. We are experiencing a simultaneous period of fragmentation of audience combined with a massive increase in the total audience. And, unless some profound and probably nasty shift in global structure occurs, things will remain as they are.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Fantastic post! I particularly appreciated the acknowledgement of a relationship between class (and other forms of social status) and genres of art/entertainment.

Classical music and "high arts" shot themselves in the foot - they were used by 19th century people as a class marker, as various levels bourgeois people aspired to ape higher levels of bourgeois people, who were aspiring to ape old aristocracies. It led to huge neo-baroque palaces being built in Rhode Island, and it also eventually led to the proletariat declaring artistic independence via popular arts such as rock and roll. Much of their appeal was precisely their rejection of traditional social hierarchies: "Roll over Beethoven and tell Tchaikovsky the news."

Although social dynamics have certainly changed over the past century, we still have the kind of social dynamics that cause the artistic dichotomy of high/low art. I don't know if that's going to change: if it were possible, I'd bet that we (humanity) will destroy ourselves before we get over this. I'd add that it is recursive: people who "appreciate" poetry look down on people who don't; among them, people who don't appreciate Kilmer's _Trees_ look down on people who do; among them, people who look down on Kilmer's _Trees_ for the right reasons look down on people who look down on it for the wrong reasons; ... and so on! Apparently forever! Of course every level of the snob hierarchy has its own competing snob-strategies and each of them have their own reverse-snobberies.

I'm pretty sure we can see that this is true in the case of classical music as well, as well in pop musics (jazz snobs, rock snobs, and so on).

Anyway - that's all fun, but another very interesting (and interestingly related!) point in the OP was about the transgression of artistic genres. IMO, that has become the defining trait of the arts - especially music - of our time (post-1968 or so). I'd add that the central opposition that drives most of our era's characteristic artistic creativity is between the search for ever more "authentic" folk art and the constant incorporation of folk art techniques into deliberately and flamboyantly alien contexts.

In a sense, modernist artists did this too, but their values were significantly different. They incorporated "primitive" elements into their progressive (i.e. "avant-garde" or "cutting edge" or "radically innovative" or whatever) arts because their main intention was to interrogate concepts of progress. Excepting the remaining modernists among us (who have in fact become, despite themselves, as reactionary in their own way as the most stubborn neo-romantics), we no longer find questions about the definition or nature of progress very compelling.

Everyone reading this post is, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, either an entrenched or an aspiring member of the global elite, and - like all people who have ever lived in any era or culture - we have chosen, with various degrees of awareness, our tastes in line with the status we hold or aspire to.

And what the high arts of our time tell us about ourselves is not only that the elite (cultural, economic, political) people of our various post-colonial cultures are eager to express appreciation of each others' cultures, but that we are eager to demonstrate the synergistic compatibility of our cultures. Like all previous cultural-status-strategies (from the invention of art until now), this is primarily a domestic strategy: in our case, we intend to show our superiority to the narrow-minded people whose pleasures and interests are limited to their own culture's arts and entertainments. But it is also, of course, a foreign policy whose goal is to cultivate cross-cultural alliances. Unlike our colonialist great-great-grandparents, we no longer destroy other cultures' rulers: we seduce them and work with them toward shared goals. This appears to be successful: the elites of various cultures (i.e., to take a very convenient but atypically ethereal example, the Bush and Saud families) are increasingly able to work together to increase each others' wealth and power over their own populations. To the extent that any of us participate in their success, the tastes we've chosen will have served their purpose!


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

I don't expect ever to see a double feature conmsisting of a Marvel Comics film and one by Ingmar Bergman; nor (necessisarily) someone flippimg from a poem by Frost to one by Ezra Pound; nor following a Stephen King read with Ulysses. Art doesn't intentionally segregate itself, but different artists are comfortable doing different things, and audiences are comfortable with what they are comfortable with. (PS: I've always thought that rap was less music than poetry-with-a-beat -- so poetry isn't dead. It's just that one end of the spectrum has changed form.)


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

ZJovicic said:


> So I think classical music should adapt to advent of microphones and sound recording technologies and stop insisting on such schooled vocals, because much more natural vocals that are encountered in popular music can also be equally expressive and artistic, but the average Joe can still be able to sing it, at least half-decently.
> 
> So what should classical music try to do. If it is, indeed superior, as some think, for talented classical musicians it shouldn't be that hard to produce high quality vocal music that could surpass masterpieces such as Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart Club Band, which is both artistic, yet, entirely singable by average person.


What immediately came to mind for me on reading this is David Lang's 5-song cycle _Death Speaks_...






... and the "Speech" movement from Julia Wolfe's _Anthracite Fields_...






In Lang's program note for _Death Speaks_ he says, referring to the original performers of the work:
"Art songs have been moving out of classical music in the last many years - indie rock seems to be the place where Schubert's sensibilities now lie, a better match for direct storytelling and intimate emotionality.
I started thinking that many of the most interesting musicians in that scene made the same journey themselves, beginning as classical musicians and drifting over to indie rock when they bumped up against the limits of where classical music was most comfortable. What would it be like to put together an ensemble of successful indie composer-performers and invite them back into classical music, the world from which they sprang?"


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> I think it was rather normal part of life for higher classes in 19th century. It was just the question of class. If you belonged to bourgeois classes or aristocracy it was perfectly normal and expected for you to listen to MUSIC, I say music and not classical music, because at that time classical was default in these circles so, there's no need to use the qualifier "classical".
> 
> Mozart was quite a popular dude in Vienna in his time. It wasn't the same type of mainstream as "Despacito" is today, but among those who do listen to music it was a normal and expected choice.
> 
> ...


I noted that "_I'm not convinced that classical music, as we now understand the term, was ever more than a minority interest"_

I don't doubt that listening to classical music was a normal part of life for many in the higher classes in the 19th C. It doesn't mean that is was de rigeur though. There were other pastimes that some of them may have preferred, like card playing, photography, shooting the odd deer or grouse or whatever.

I have no data on 19th C music audiences but I suspect that listening to classical music across the entire population in the 19th C was a minority leisure activity due to the sizes of the various social classes. The working classes obviously vastly outnumbered the higher classes, and the income levels of the former were unlikely to permit large sums being spent on attending concerts and the like.

The working classes also worked extremely long hours and I would guess that many folk were probably too clapped out at the end of their day to spend much of it listening to music. Besides, it also depends on exactly what is meant by "listening to music". I don't doubt that some lower class households may have had access to a piano or some other instrument, and a member may have played tunes now and then, but it's hardly equivalent to listening to classical music in the manner as we now understood it, i.e. whole length works by named composers.

Therefore I remain sceptical that the percentage of the total population who listened to classical music was bigger in the 19th C than it is now. As far as I'm concerned, it's a matter of case unproven.

This apart, I don't see any advantage in trying to change the ratio of the population listening to classical vi-a-vis non-classical. For a start, I don't know how you propose that it might be achieved, as you've given no clue. Of course, children should be given the opportunity to learn about classical music but after that it's up to them to decide what they like and dislike. It would be horrendous to contemplate some "Nanny" state dictating what percentage of time people in later life should spend listening to particular types of music.

Even to suggest that the percentage who should listen to classical music should be increased as it will be of benefit to them and others is very elitist in itself. In fact, the more I think about this whole matter, the sheer arrogance of it all is almost unbelievable.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

Genoveva said:


> I noted that "_
> 
> This apart, I don't see any advantage in trying to change the ratio of the population listening to classical vi-a-vis non-classical. For a start, I don't know how you propose that it might be achieved, as you've given no clue. Of course, children should be given the opportunity to learn about classical music but after that it's up to them to decide what they like and dislike. It would be horrendous to contemplate some "Nanny" state dictating what percentage of time people in later life should spend listening to particular types of music.
> 
> Even to suggest that the percentage who should listen to classical music should be increased as it will be of benefit to them and others is very elitist in itself. In fact, the more I think about this whole matter, the sheer arrogance of it all is almost unbelievable. _


_

I am not saying that everyone should listen to classical music or that we should aim for some high percents. I am also not saying that classical music is superior.

All I am saying is that classical music is marginalized and ghettoized today and its supposedly higher status paradoxically renders it even lower status in comparison to indie rock, for example. Because indie rock while it tries to be artistic it also tries to be relevant and to connect to audience, and is therefore seen as more honest form of art in comparison to classical music that is secluding itself.

So, it's not about rising percentages, it's about allowing classical music to be appreciated just like any other genre without unjustified resistance and friction from people.

If I sent a friend of mine a rock song to listen to, he probably would. If I sent him even the short and accessible classical work, he would probably show resistance and maybe not even give it a chance, not because he dislikes it, but because he would have preconceptions like "you're a snob", "you're showing of", "I don't understand this", or "this is boring"...

All that classical music needs is that it becomes normalized and demarginalized. It doesn't have to be the most popular genre. But it should be a genre that can be listened to by normal people without the rest of society rising eyebrows and asking questions, and wondering why.

Right now if you say you listen to classical music you're considered weird, a freak... in dating it's more a turn off than turn on._


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2018)

There's enough sweeping generalisations and unsupported assertions here to create a thread which threatens the combined length of the 4'33", Callas, Wagner and atonalism threads


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

So, to sum up... I think the classical music doesn't have a problem with low popularity. It has a problem of reputation. Right now it's almost socially unacceptable to listen to classical music except in certain small circles.

Without such problem of reputation it could reach its natural numbers/ percentages, which are, I believe much higher than current actual numbers, but it still wouldn't make classical the most popular genre, not even close to it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

dogen said:


> There's enough sweeping generalisations and unsupported assertions here to create a thread which threatens the combined length of the 4'33", Callas, Wagner and atonalism threads


My generalizations were mopping, not sweeping, and my assertions float, needing no additional support.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

ok...what you guys are missing is this: every time there has been a change in the medium of performance, there has been a change in the public perception of music. 

As a musician and artist, if this isn't clear to you then you are missing the point

I play "Classical" music. I specialize in playing music from the late 18th, early 19th century. In that time, you had "public" music and "private" music. You had music written for the concert stage, and you have music written for the parlor. so even in the Vienna of 1815, you had music for the concert stage and music for people to play in more friendly informal settings. this doesn't even get into folk music, which was also alive and well, just not written down.

in our day and age, I remember playing pop music in night clubs when I was a kid. When I was a teenager, any live band sounded better than the best stereo turntable and vinyl record set up you could find. When CDs came out, that changed. All of a sudden people wanted bands that were "tight" and hit sharp "breaks". The era of sloppy blues playing like Jimmy Page was over and the sound of the 80s was tighter and crisper because what people were listening to at home was clearer and had no noise

now people listen to music downloaded from some service. they are used to what they want when they want it. They want music to dance. These days the public doesn't have the patience for real music. They are not looking for beauty, they are looking for catharsis

basically, we have committed cultricide. Our culture was bought up, repackaged, and sold back to us by Disney and Turner Broadcasting. We have created a "public" that has no attention span, no understanding of the art of music, and no desire to learn. And these are the morons that you think will listen to actual music???

this debate has gone on among musicians for most of the last 100 years. The upshot has been that either you write crap that people like or you write music. Your choice.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> And these are the morons that you think will listen to actual music???


If they have enough of attention span to watch a full length feature film, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to listen to a full length symphony. (which is usually much shorter than film)

And I don't see that film is in crisis... maybe it is, but not in such a profound crisis like classical music.

If you watch indie movies and "serious" films in general, classics, etc... you're admired by your friends, they want to ask you for film recommendations and they respect your knowledge about such a subject. Everyone is still fascinated by Tarkovsky, Kubrick or Fellini. People have no resistance to watching such stuff. (Fascinated not in sense that they actually watch it, but in sense that they want to watch and find it interesting, profound, fascinating and even badass)

But if you mention that you listen to classical to your friends, you risk being ridiculed or considered a snob or whatever.

When you mention classical music, people can have associations like Vienna Boys Choir and make jokes about it... and nobody, on the other hand makes jokes about Kubrick or Kurosawa.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> If they have enough of attention span to watch a full length feature film, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to listen to a full length symphony. (which is usually much shorter than film)
> 
> And I don't see that film is in crisis... maybe it is, but not in such a profound crisis like classical music.
> 
> ...


Watching a movie adds the visual element which makes a huge difference. The more varied the input, the more attentive people become. I certainly enjoy opera on DVD more than on CD. Symphonic concerts, not so much.

Film IS in crisis: look at the crap coming from Hollywood nowadays. It's either superhero garbage, remakes, or vulgar and tasteless. Great, moving, profound films are scarce - from small, "artsy" outfits.

Yes, some people think I'm weird that I listen to classical and I don't care anymore; not that I ever much did. Snob? Yes, that's been applied too and I can't do much about it. That's one thing I despise about TV and movies: quite often when there is some upperclass, rich person who is snobbish, how best to make the point: have them listen to classical, like Frasier Crane.

It does irritate me that music appreciation doesn't go both ways. Friends, relatives, co-workers never hear me complain about the music played in bars, restaurants, sporting events - it's just the current musical climate. Yet, if they are in my home or car and I have classical on, I often get comments like "you like that ******? Put something good on! What the hell is that noise?" It's music for grown ups.

A book that really influenced me is called The Twilight of American Culture by Morris Berman. For people who appreciate higher quality art - in literature, music, theater, whatever - it's depressing, and yet offers hope: the monastic option. We become the torch bearers to carry the light through the dark era and ideally, if there are enough of us, then society comes back into the light, we'll be there to show the path. But damn, I'm getting old!


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

thank you, mbhaub for pointing that out.

listen guys, I actually play music and have played professionally for nearly 40 years. I deal with the role of my art in our society all the time. So if you don't play yourself, then don't be so quick to tell me I'm wrong. For you this is an intellectual discussion but for me this is about survival. 

so what I'm saying is that I look at this problem as an artist, not a fan. None of this discussion addresses the basic issue that your general public is too stupid to appreciate real music, and that is not getting any better.

so like I said, you either play stuff people like, or you play real music. Its your choice.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

I see the word "snob" being bandied about. Sign me up! Musically, I'm an illiterate dunce, but culturally, I'm a snob, and proud of it. It's okay to be a snob, once you have something to be snobbish about. When people try lump it all in together and act as if there's little difference between Beethoven and beetroot, Mozart and mozzarella cheese, Chopin and chopped liver, I kinda bristle. I love different kinds of music, and different types of culture, but to think they're all the same is usually a grave sin committed by those who also dismiss classical music as "music for snobs", even though it's supposedly no different or better than pop music.

Jazz, on the other hand...well, I'm a snob against that too! :lol:


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> So, to sum up... I think the classical music doesn't have a problem with low popularity. It has a problem of reputation. Right now it's almost socially unacceptable to listen to classical music except in certain small circles.
> 
> Without such problem of reputation it could reach its natural numbers/ percentages, which are, I believe much higher than current actual numbers, but it still wouldn't make classical the most popular genre, not even close to it.



I am afraid that the more you try to clarify what you mean the more confusing it becomes for me.

I don't accept the generalisation you make in your first paragraph about classical music having a problem of low reputation. I've not come across many people who I care to worry about who have that opinion. On the contrary, I find that it has a good reputation. I guess we must move in different circles.

Nor do I see how you can simultaneously argue that classical music does have a problem over its repuation but doesn't have a problem of popularity, as I thought your main point was that it is not as popular as it ought to be due to its (alleged) poor reputation. It seems like a very inconsistent and weird position to me.

I repeat my view that the popularity and reputation of classical music is what it is, and that's simply a reflection of the tastes and preferences of a large number of people. I happen to think that classical music is very much alive and well, and am quite happy with the situation as exists. I dread to think what damage a bunch of "do-gooders" might achieve if they had their way in terms of changing things around to suit their own idealised view of what's right and proper in this particular sphere of the arts.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I think classical music is probably on better footing than jazz these days. I say that because I have a jazz trio and a classical duo, and with the classical act it is pretty easy to find work...the jazz trio not so much.

when you enjoy something that is out of the mainstream, this is how it goes. you can't cry about why it is that nobody likes what you like. They just don't. I've gotten used to it. The classical music audience is still out there. Why anyone would want to try and draw the young crowd in just for the sake of numbers is beyond me.


----------



## ZJovicic (Feb 26, 2017)

> your main point was that it is not as popular as it ought to be due to its (alleged) poor reputation


Yes, this is my point. I think if there weren't some prejudices and misconceptions much larger number of people would be open to trying classical music. Some would find they like it, some wouldn't, but larger number of people would at least give it a chance.

Regarding do-gooders I agree that any such undertaking can become questionable and problematic, especially if it's forced, or if it brings with itself value judgements, or whatever.

Regarding status of classical music in contemporary society, I'd be happy if it could have the same level of relevance and acceptance in society as say, indie rock.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> Yes, this is my point. I think if there weren't some prejudices and misconceptions much larger number of people would be open to trying classical music. Some would find they like it, some wouldn't, but larger number of people would at least give it a chance.
> 
> Regarding status of classical music in contemporary society, I'd be happy if it could have the same level of relevance and acceptance in society as say, indie rock.


but indie rock is not a side-show. Its pretty popular. I'm not sure I'd like that. Then I'd have to play sonatas in dive-bars until 3am like the rock and roll bands do. :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Kieran said:


> I see the word "snob" being bandied about. Sign me up! Musically, I'm an illiterate dunce, but culturally, I'm a snob, and proud of it. It's okay to be a snob, once you have something to be snobbish about. When people try lump it all in together and act as if there's little difference between Beethoven and beetroot, Mozart and mozzarella cheese, Chopin and chopped liver, I kinda bristle. I love different kinds of music, and different types of culture, but to think they're all the same is usually a grave sin committed by those who also dismiss classical music as "music for snobs", even though it's supposedly no different or better than pop music.
> 
> Jazz, on the other hand...well, I'm a snob against that too! :lol:


I don't mind calling you a snob, but only if you admit that I'm a bigger snob.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

science said:


> I don't mind calling you a snob, but only if you admit that I'm a bigger snob.


I'd say, "you're a worse snob", just so's you don't get cocky about it...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Kieran said:


> I'd say, "you're a worse snob", just so's you don't get cocky about it...


This sounds suspiciously like reverse snobbery to me.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

dogen said:


> There's enough sweeping generalisations and unsupported assertions here to create a thread which threatens the combined length of the 4'33", Callas, Wagner and atonalism threads


Yes, and here's a few more...

I agree with those who have said that what we now call classical music was probably always a minority pastime, funded and indulged by the bourgeoisie. Note that I don't intend that as a value judgement. Larger numbers shared the experience of music through, for example, folk music. I don't mean the 'finger in the ear and nasal whining' folk of the 1960s onwards; I mean the genuine stuff that Sharp, Grainger and others captured early in the 20th century, songs that were shared and sung in the fields and pubs. I am just old enough to have caught the tail-end of that tradition, in rural pubs in Kent and Sussex, England, at the beginning of the 1970s. Those pubs didn't have a 'folk night'. People simply turned up for a beer or three with friends and somewhere along the way someone would sing, another would produce a fiddle, and so on. It was a dying tradition, as a group of us found when we tried to get a song going in a pub in totally-up-itself Chichester one evening and were chucked out!

Where was I....? Oh yes, poetry. I don't agree with the OP that this form of verbal music is dying out. At least in the UK, it is undergoing a bit of a resurgence, with increased numbers of public readings and published anthologies. Someone a few posts back mentioned rap as a form of poetry. That's a fair categorisation, I think. Certainly, most rap fails to constitute music to my ears, but the structured, rhythmical use of language to deliver an idea or impression covers rap as much as conventional poetry.

Different forms of cultural invention will always ebb and flow and will probably always tend to have different audiences. The most important thing for the future of classical music is to avoid giving the impression of being specialist or exclusive, some kind of intellectual game only for those who know the rules. With music, as with poetry, anyone can play.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

science said:


> This sounds suspiciously like reverse snobbery to me.


It's inverse snobbery. Hmm. I thought you might have known that one. Don't worry about it, _you _can call it reverse snobbery...


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

At the RCM junior dept on saturday - many of those talented young pianists, string players etc listen to their Ipods/mp3 players and guess what they were listening to? 

Not classical music. Pop pop pop.

why?


they have to learn their classical instruments but they choose pop over classical for enjoyment - and we're in the worst pop era!


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

As I posted before, the presence in billions of hands of devices that allow people to sample music and art from everywhere and every era at any time has resulted in an unprecedented period of _laissez faire_ in the experiencing, the consumption, of music and art. This, plus the enormous growth of populations and of kinds and sorts of arts, has resulted in a sort of state of nature wherein every art, every genre, seeks and finds its own audience, niche, aficionados--and these find one another relative to the overall abundance/popularity of that genre. Other than the example of the controlling of access to the Internet as being practiced by authoritarian regimes around the world, but pursued on a truly gargantuan scale in some dystopian future (perhaps closer than we think), this is the way it is and is going to be--the New Stasis.


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

Dear ZJovicic, 

I think you worry too much, things are just fine the way they are.

I think most people on both "sides" of the spectrum are very happy with that strict separation you're talking about. Or maybe it's things like "night of the proms" that you want? Because I'm afraid that's what you're getting, an awful mixture. 

I've been on both sides, meaning that I was passionate and serious about popular music for most of my life until I got bored by it some 10 years ago. Now I'm passionate about classical music and popular music has lost it's importance for me. That doesn't mean that I think popular music has no artistic value on it's own, it's just not for me any more. When I was passionate about popular music I always found the attempts of both "worlds" merging together very poor and resulted in no artistic value at all. Now that I'm on the "other" side, I feel exactly the same. 

Stephen King, Lady Gaga, Franz Kafka, Beethoven....all have their value but they will lose their value if you throw them on the same pile.

Sometimes I think Lang-Lang is doing a good job too by trying to bring classical music into popular culture but mostly I think "no man, what you're doing isn't doing any good to either sides"

And there's absolutely nothing wrong about reading Stephen King or Listening to lady Gaga your whole life if that get's you going. And you should give the "masses" some credit (and worry less in that perspective). If "they" get tired of their popular music, they're perfectly capable of broaden their horizons and give that Beethoven guy a chance if they're up for it. 

Don't mix the two together please!!


----------



## Razumovskymas (Sep 20, 2016)

ZJovicic said:


> Right now if you say you listen to classical music you're considered weird, a freak... in dating it's more a turn off than turn on.


Oh, I thought your motivations where of a nobler kind, but a dating problem is at it's origins!!


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

The following is an account of the way the BBC has tried to popularise classical music via its main classical music outlet, Radio 3. I have tried to show the risks and dangers of a dumbing down approach towards popularising and catching a bigger audience for some its classical music programmes.

Until 1992 in the UK, the only radio station that broadcast classical music was the BBC's "Radio 3". It didn't just focus on classical music, as there were occasional programmes on jazz and "world music", as well as various non-musical "high brow" programmes. As people may be aware, the BBC is a "public corporation" that operates under a charter, and is funded partly by licence fees charged to all UK residents who use its services. It does not rely on any commercial advertising.

In 1992 there was a newcomer to the classical musical scene in the UK. It was "Classic FM", which was a commercial broadcaster. Quite soon it became quite a popular alternative to Radio 3. I think it fair to say that it probably expanded the entire classical music radio audience base, although I don't have data to support this. The style of CFM's classical music programmes was very different to the way Radio 3 did things. CFM concentrated a great deal on the most popular pieces of classical music, and very often would present only parts of entire works that were likely to be of greatest appeal to its audiences. Not all CFM programmes were like that, but only the most popular classical music material seemed to be used for its peak period schedules.

Radio 3 was very slow to react to this competition and more or less continued its programming style in the same old fashion for several years. However, bit by bit Radio 3 changed progressively the style of its main peak time programmes (its morning programmes) to become more and more like the offerings from CFM. There was a further big lurch in the direction of the CFM style last Autumn. Throughout the entire morning schedules, Radio 3 now seldom plays anything much longer than about 10 to 15 minutes maximum, with a lot of chat in between pieces. Whilst this is long enough to accommodate some entire works, the choice has become narrowly focused on the most popular works. Anything longer than 10-15 minutes is rare and typically involves presenting only one movement of a much longer work. In the previous regime, they would always play the whole work, sometimes up to about an hour in legth.

These developments in the way Radio 3 presents its am schedules have caused a lot of grievance amongst some its older-established listeners who far preferred the earlier systems. All the complaints, a very long list of them from many listeners, are well documented on a specilaised music forum that handles only Radio 3 schedules. To be fair, I would guess that some listeners prefer the new style, although I lack any data to say which group is the larger. As an occasional listener for several years now, I dislike the way Radio 3 has changed because I used to like listening to recorded versions of one its am programmes. I used to find them very informative and covered a fairly decent range of classical music. But I'm afraid thats' not the case any more, as it's now mainly excessive amounts of silly presenter chat, quizzes, personal dedications, listener feedback on what's just been played, plugs for later programmes, and all manner of other detritus.

In short, the BBC's efforts to make classical music more popular by way of keeping up with the competition provided by CFM have not been to my liking. I have no data but would guess that its response to CFM in respect of these programmes may have alienated as many people who used to be listeners of its broadcasts as it has created "new" listeners it may have created, or rather poached from CFM. I must stress, however, that although I don't like the way the BBC has changed its style in respect of its am programmes on Radio 3, it is still a wonderful resource for listening to classical music in other ways, e.g. its coverage of many live concerts, and the annual Proms etc.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

For those ranting about the quality of the Arts going down, there is a certain postmodern mentality to blame. The idea there is no truth, all is in the eyes of the beholder, especially interpretation. 

I'm a big fan of poetry as well as music. The prose now sucks. It used to be free of meter and rhyme to express more candidly, but still had to be decently constructed. Now, it's just find describe an image, and it could mean anything the subatomic, or the universe. The media, including critics, have more control over Art than the Artist.


----------



## PlaySalieri (Jun 3, 2012)

Genoveva said:


> The following is an account of the way the BBC has tried to popularise classical music via its main classical music outlet, Radio 3. I have tried to show the risks and dangers of a dumbing down approach towards popularising and catching a bigger audience for some its classical music programmes.
> 
> Until 1992 in the UK, the only radio station that broadcast classical music was the BBC's "Radio 3". It didn't just focus on classical music, as there were occasional programmes on jazz and "world music", as well as various non-musical "high brow" programmes. As people may be aware, the BBC is a "public corporation" that operates under a charter, and is funded partly by licence fees charged to all UK residents who use its services. It does not rely on any commercial advertising.
> 
> ...


I never really liked CFM style - plus the advertising is a pain - esp give that there are umpteen continental classical music stations that have no ads at all.
I am proud to declare that my 16 y/o son has no time for pop, listens only to classical - and when we are in the car on way home from school - I allow him to control the radio. He always goes to CFM first - stays if any interesting piece is on - which is quite often - otherwise he will try R3 - but oddly - at 4 in the afternoon when we come home there always seems to be a choral piece - maybe just bad luck - and he switches quickly back to CFM as he prefers orch music and that is the mainstay of CFM so it suits him.
I havent noticed R3 changing that much - I caught a full length Eroica a few weeks back (live rec)


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> As I posted before, the presence in billions of hands of devices that allow people to sample music and art from everywhere and every era at any time has resulted in an unprecedented period of _laissez faire_ in the experiencing, the consumption, of music and art. This, plus the enormous growth of populations and of kinds and sorts of arts, has resulted in a sort of state of nature wherein every art, every genre, seeks and finds its own audience, niche, aficionados--and these find one another relative to the overall abundance/popularity of that genre. Other than the example of the controlling of access to the Internet as being practiced by authoritarian regimes around the world, but pursued on a truly gargantuan scale in some dystopian future (perhaps closer than we think), this is the way it is and is going to be--the New Stasis.


thank you. this is what I am talking about when I said "when the medium of performance changes, so does the public conception of music

chances are that if you actually like classical music, you probably do not consume music the same way the kids do

and how people experience music is at the very heart of the matter


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

stomanek said:


> I never really liked CFM style - plus the advertising is a pain - esp give that there are umpteen continental classical music stations that have no ads at all.
> I am proud to declare that my 16 y/o son has no time for pop, listens only to classical - and when we are in the car on way home from school - I allow him to control the radio. He always goes to CFM first - stays if any interesting piece is on - which is quite often - otherwise he will try R3 - but oddly - at 4 in the afternoon when we come home there always seems to be a choral piece - maybe just bad luck - and he switches quickly back to CFM as he prefers orch music and that is the mainstay of CFM so it suits him.
> *I havent noticed R3 changing that much - I caught a full length Eroica a few weeks back (live rec)*


I'm referring Radio 3's am flagship morning programmes that run from 6.30-12 am. There's "Breakfast" that runs from 6.30 to 9am. It's followed by "Essential Classics" from 9-12.

The first of these programmes to get the dumbing down treatment was "Breakfast". It happened slowly over several years, but became very bad about 2 years ago. Until that time, I used to listen to part of that programme but it's now so ghastly that it spoils the rest of the day just thinking about, so I packed up.

"Essential Classics" wasn't too bad but it too got the dumbing down treatment last Autum, when they had a change of presenters and content. Out went Rob Cowan and Carol Walker, who were pretty good, and in came a couple of chatterboxes whose main talent seems to be provide a ton of verbiage and say nothing of any real interest. As a result, the music content has been squeezed severely, and what you get is now mainly a playlist of popular classical music, all presented in bite-sized chunks, presumably so as not to tax the attention spans of the new found audience, if any, who may like classical music served up in this simplistic way. Call me a snob but I don't bother listening to any of it any more.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

ZJovicic said:


> Right now if you say you listen to classical music you're considered weird, a freak... *in dating it's more a turn off than turn on.*


May I suggest you try soft-peddling on the classical music interest to start with, and only once you've made some progress you might try a joint listen to something not too demanding from your classical CD collection.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

There is a very important distinction between classical music and popular music. Unless we're talking about light classics or "Pops" music; symphony, concerti, opera and so forth require some effort, patience and mindful listening. This is not to say that I don't enjoy popular music because I do...sometimes. 

Even so, if I were to play one of my favorite popular songs such as "Suzanne" by Leonard Cohen or "Every Grain of Sand" by Bob Dylan or "Both Sides Now" sung by Judy Collins or "Ghost Riders in the Sky" sung by Lorne Greene, most likely 2 or 3 plays in a row will leave me feeling as though I've had enough. 

With classical music, it's just the opposite. As to my favorite classical works: the Beethoven symphonies, Tchaikovsky symphonies, Barber's "Knoxville: Summer of 1915", Britten's "Serenade for Tenor, Horn and Strings", Wagner's "Siegfried Idyll", Mahler's "Das Lied Von Der Erde", Rimsky's "Russian Easter", Rachmaninoff's "Vespers/All Night Vigil", the church music and songs of Orlando Gibbons...I could listen to any and all of those works over and over again and always find the same joy (or more joy) in every subsequent hearing. 

I don't know about anyone else, but it didn't come easy for me. I started out basically with light classics (the 1812, Barber of Seville Overture etc.) and was perplexed or even completely mystified by even some of the above mentioned works that are now my favorites. I remember hearing "Siegfried Idyll" as a teenager and wondering why it mattered. I wanted Wagner to blow the roof off as with "Ride of the Valkyries" or "Miestersinger Overture" or "Tannhauser Overture", but I heard nothing that thrilled me, until years later when I finally realized the soft yet passionate tones in "Siegfried Idyll". 

Today's world where everyone is glued to a cell phone is one of very short attention spans. The reasons why movies of a 2 hour length survive is because they make sure that there's an explosion, or an F word, or a woman taking her clothes off about every 45 seconds. If you watch old movies, even old movies that were billed as "action" movies, you'd be surprised how much dialogue there is, character development, scenery, setting and so forth...even in the old John Wayne Westerns. 

Moreover, if you compare the mob movies, Godfather I and Godfather II (early 1970s) to Goodfellas and Casino (mid-1990s), you see how and why the Godfather movies remain "classic". Despite the violence in the Godfather movies, there's also huge portions of dialogue, character development, the story of a family; as opposed to Goodfellas and Casino where it's a bunch of F words, and the time-line is compressed by way of song-driven montage sequences and character narration, holding your hand, like an MTV video. 

I'm going off topic. 

What I think the world needs today is the philosophy of the much maligned, controversial and eccentric John Cage. Would it ever be possible to just sit and LISTEN for about 4 minutes and 33 seconds? 

Everywhere I go I see people plugged into ear-buds, head-phones, eyes glued to the cell phone; bored with the sights and sounds all around them. 

The modern brain has become accustomed to constant stimulation and as long as that continues, it will become more and difficult for classical music to reach people. 

There's a connection between classical music, the natural world and mindfulness.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

I don't worry about the state of classical music and its future, or any music for that matter. It is what it is. Why not simply cherish what we have, which is a lot! So many treasures and masterpieces from the past that stand the test of time. It is all here to stay and as long as there are humans around, at least some of them will be able to appreciate it. 
In fact, I bet music, classical music included, will eventually survive mankind itself in some form, perhaps to be discovered later by another intelligent lifeform. A comforting thought.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

Jacck said:


> ZJovici, but then people had no entertainment options except for church and theater/music/reading. Now we have TV, movies, cinema, internet, youtube, facebook, virtual reality and all this is competing with the older forms of entertainment for time.


Case in point: My grandfather was a first generation Italian-American, baptized Roman Catholic but lived his life more-or-less agnostic. He said that he used to like to attend a Methodist Church, an old New England, Yankee Protestant church...he said he just wanted to go to hear the MUSIC!

With no stereos, I-pods, I-tunes and very few radios or radio stations to with which to listen, my grandfather had few options but to enjoy REAL people making REAL music and not electronic reproductions of music that you might give about 10 seconds of your time to before you decide to move on to some other song.

What we're losing in our high speed world of technology is the ability to hear the natural world: to REAL voices and REAL music, not electronic reproductions.


----------



## Boston Charlie (Dec 6, 2017)

DeepR said:


> I don't worry about the state of classical music and its future, or any music for that matter. It is what it is. Why not simply cherish what we have, which is a lot! So many treasures and masterpieces from the past that stand the test of time. It is all here to stay and as long as there are humans around, at least some of them will be able to appreciate it.
> In fact, I bet music, classical music included, will eventually survive mankind itself in some form, perhaps to be discovered later by another intelligent lifeform. A comforting thought.


When we think about it, we have more opportunities for classical music enjoyment than all the royalty that lived during the 19th century, even if some king had the means to have his own private orchestra at his service, they still wouldn't have been able to play all we have to enjoy through modern technology. As in all cases, technology is always good and bad for mankind.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

Charlie, about 30 years ago I was playing with a French Canadian jazz piano player who was an old fellow and I was a young guitar picker. Derrick and I were on break, and he was commenting on all the commotion in the club while we were playing. He said when he was my age, people didn't talk over music when someone was playing. You never heard music back then unless someone was playing, so it was a big deal.

this is what I've been going on about when I keep saying that changes in the medium of performance change the public's conception of music.

we're not going to get those old days back just like we aren't going to get back our dead grandparents. It was a time in the past when music was compelling to the average person in a way that it just isn't in this day


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Now that culture is a gigantic global smorgasbord and every kind of art has its niche audience, the opportunities for cultural snobbery are limitless. Everyone can find someone or something to look down on. Enjoy it while the planet lasts.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2018)

Woodduck said:


> Now that culture is a gigantic global smorgasbord and every kind of art has its niche audience, the opportunities for cultural snobbery are limitless. Everyone can find someone or something to look down on. Enjoy it while the planet lasts.


No time for Der Ring des Nibelungen then


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2018)

I feel the need to wave a flag for Radio 3. I don't hear endless chatter, it doesn't seem like Classic FM to me and over the course of its programmes one hears a great variety of music (in varying forms - concerts, live in the studio, CDs). I can't compare it to many years ago but I very much enjoy listening to it, whether it's a three minute piece or a whole symphony, whether it's Hildegard of Bingen or it's Henry Threadgill.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

dogen said:


> No time for Der Ring des Nibelungen then


I'm in no hurry.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Woodduck said:


> Now that culture is a gigantic global smorgasbord and every kind of art has its niche audience, the opportunities for cultural snobbery are limitless. Everyone can find someone or something to look down on. Enjoy it while the planet lasts.


I am reminded of the character of Mrs. Williams, the mother of Jack Aubrey's wife Sophie in the Aubrey/Maturin novels. When she learns that Maturin, rather than being a strange, possibly foreign little man of little account, actually owns a castle in Spain, she is suddenly struck with doubt as to whether having a castle in Spain was a good thing or a bad thing. Similarly, the hyperabundance now of accessibility to myriad novel genres of music and art acts to weaken opportunities for snobbery, in that so many now will have no clue as to whether this or that genre is or ought to be a good thing or a bad thing. The case of cante flamenco provides an example: during much of the 19th and 20th centuries, flamenco was regarded by many Spaniards of breeding and refinement to be trash music, enjoyed only by Gypsies and low status people in the barrios and dives of Andalusia. Many still feel this way, though flamenco has now been recognized as a cultural treasure and heritage by both the national and Andalusian governments. If we do not know from our peers whether a particular art or music is a good thing or a bad thing--and they don't know either; never even heard of it--then the opportunities for snobbery are reduced.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Getting into a piece of classical music and or a work of "high" literature takes work but the rewards are big. Once you know a fair bit it becomes easier, I think partly because you "know the language" and partly because you have a learned response (you can get a big reward from giving it some time and effort). Also, like learning a language, if you start young you will find it easier. Class is involved in that upper classes have co-opted high art as part of their superiority and because much classical music is expensive to put on and therefore to attend (I'm not sure where poetry fits with that). 

Soviet Russia treated high art as belonging to all and did a lot to ensure that the (previously) lower orders could have access (financial and intellectual) to it. Even today you can see a ballet or an opera for nearly nothing in many ex-Soviet states and the audience is from all walks of life. But high art is still declining in these countries as the young find that they can get their "art hit" quickly, and without effort, from popular culture. But new composers and writers were compelled to produce highly accessible and populist work. Few managed to produce stuff that was also truly worthwhile as "high art".

Meanwhile, there has been a growth in the idea that no particular genre is "superior" to another - this message is even taught in British primary schools - so that kids learn that high art is not worth the effort and that the Spice Girls are as good as Mozart. And, then, it is not a good idea to be seen as identifying with something that is old fashioned or boring or that has been chosen to confer superiority. I remember as a child hiding my enjoyment of classical music from my friends. I picked it up because our lower middle class house was always filled with music and by the age of 11 I was devouring huge quantities of it. But I knew my friends would not understand. Luckily this was at a time when there was a real flowering of progressive rock music - not high art but often relevant, genuine (not manufactured) and exciting - so there was lots of music I could share with friends as well. 

But what about contemporary music and literature? I feel that new "classical music" and "serious novels" (and, I thought, poetry) is reaching larger audiences than ever before. I think whole styles are developing to satisfy this audience. I do wonder whether a lot of new classical music and many highly praised (Booker winners etc) new novels will last (pass the test of time) and I suspect they won't. Meanwhile, the even more "serious" music and literature is still reaching a specialist audience and some of it (it may be impossible to know which) will go on to become established classics. The audiences for these are small but are not very class based. I am not despondent about the future - there has never been a time when so much great music and literature is so available and accessible - but do feel that we should not look where the big audiences are if we want to find genuine "new high art".

Sorry, just rambling observations and prejudices. I could not manage anything coherent on such a big issue.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

dogen said:


> I feel the need to wave a flag for Radio 3. I don't hear endless chatter, it doesn't seem like Classic FM to me and over the course of its programmes one hears a great variety of music (in varying forms - concerts, live in the studio, CDs). I can't compare it to many years ago but I very much enjoy listening to it, whether it's a three minute piece or a whole symphony, whether it's Hildegard of Bingen or it's Henry Threadgill.


My point was that Radio 3's morning "playlist" programmes have changed a lot in character and presentation style since the arrival of CFM in 1992. If you are unable to compare the current Radio 3 with what it used to be like then you won't know what I'm talking about. Further, I stated that, although I don't like the way the BBC has changed its style in respect of its am programmes on Radio 3, I still consider to be a very good source of classical music in other ways.

I guess that people in the North America, and possibly various other places outside the UK, may be unaware of the problem I'm talking about as they're probably more used to adverts and other junk filling up their classical music radio broadcasts. By contrast, in the UK Radio 3's primetime playlist schedules used to be mainly occupied by classical music selected from a fairly broad range, but now there is a much bigger emphasis on chat, a narrower focus on the more popular classics, and the playing of parts within whole works. In this respect it's just like CFM, i.e. pretty dreadful. The only annoyances that don't occur on R3 are commercial adverts, but there is plenty of advertising for other programmes that's almost as bad in terms of frequency of interruptions.

I don't doubt that some people may be quite happy with these changes, or unaware of them like you. Over the years, however, there has been a preponderance of negative comment about this ongoing development in R3's morning schedules from members of the forum that specialises in Radio 3 matters. [It's easily checked out.] I realise that this doesn't prove anything either way in terms of the overall impact on audience satisfaction, as the samples are small and self-selecting.

My hunch though is that the BBC's attempt to widen its audience base for classical music hasn't achieved much by these changes. It has probably alienated a large section of its former audience, and maybe only secured a few new listeners including some CFM listeners, with little overall gain. If that is the case, then attempts to popularise classical music by this kind of dumbing down process on the peak time radio airwaves probably won't work, which us why I wrote the piece earlier in the first place as a kind of reminder that it isn't as easy to popularise (or normalise) as some might folk might appear to believe.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2018)

Genoveva,
I appreciate what you are saying. I have only been listening to Radio 3 for about 4 years so I guess I haven't seen the changes that you speak about. All I have done is compared it with Classic FM and (for me) easily concluded I preferred Radio 3. If what you say is true then I can't see it ending well for R3. Trying to be CFM so that in effect there are 2 CFMs on offer....if you prefer CFM then why not plump for the real thing rather than an imitation? The Beeb isn't supposed to focus solely on audience figues, that isn't the remit. Quality should trump populism, at least when it comes to Radio 3.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Genoveva said:


> My hunch though is that the BBC's attempt to widen its audience base for classical music hasn't achieved much by these changes. It has probably alienated a large section of its former audience, and maybe only secured a few new listeners including some CFM listeners, with little overall gain. If that is the case, then attempts to popularise classical music by this kind of dumbing down process on the peak time radio airwaves probably won't work, which us why I wrote the piece earlier in the first place as a kind of reminder that it isn't as easy to popularise (or normalise) as some might folk might appear to believe.


I think that is right. Radio 3 wants to broaden its audience and thinks it can do that by dumbing down with less knowledgeable presenters and often only one movement from a work of any length. But what is wrong with a smaller (but not exactly small) audience of committed listeners? Isn't that the sort of thing the BBC is supposed to do? And, anyway, how will these changes attract people who are not terribly interested in classical music? CM may be a minority interest but that doesn't make it elitist.

I suppose the problem is that the licence fee that nearly everyone pays gives them the feeling that they have the right to criticise the stuff they don't like. And this gives successive governments a stick to threaten and beat the BBC.


----------



## Genoveva (Nov 9, 2010)

Enthusiast said:


> I think that is right. Radio 3 wants to broaden its audience and thinks it can do that by dumbing down with less knowledgeable presenters and often only one movement from a work of any length. But what is wrong with a smaller (but not exactly small) audience of committed listeners? Isn't that the sort of thing the BBC is supposed to do? And, anyway, how will these changes attract people who are not terribly interested in classical music? CM may be a minority interest but that doesn't make it elitist.
> 
> I suppose the problem is that the licence fee that nearly everyone pays gives them the feeling that they have the right to criticise the stuff they don't like. And this gives successive governments a stick to threaten and beat the BBC.


As I noted previously, all that I have said on this topic, and which you appear to agree with, is the standard gripe among the majority of commentators at the Radio 3 forum concerning the latest developments about Radio 3's prime time schedules. I did not intend any criticism about any other aspect of the BBC's Radio 3 programming, with which I am largely happy.

I did not intend this to be a tangential issue to the subject matter raised in the OP. Rather, it sprang out thinking about what kind of activities the relevant bodies in broadcasting could possibly take to broaden the appeal of classical music to a wider audience. There may be other types of activity that could be carried out by other bodies, but I wasn't concerned with any of that. I thought immediately of what the BBC seems to be trying to do with its Radio 3 prime time schedules. Then I thought well that's probably going to be a disaster, and perhaps it might be worth mentioning as an indication of the difficulties in this entire area, hence my earlier post.

Personally, I don't believe that anything further needs to be done by any public body to promote the uptake of classical music. I think it is as fine as it is ever going to be, and I am happy with the status quo. I would only add that provided schoolchildren are given a good grounding in the subject of classical music and taught about what exists, then it should be up them in later life to decide what kind of music to enjoy. Throwing any further subsidies of any kind at the promotion classical music, over and above what already exists (which I accept s probably fair and reasonable), would in my opinion most likely incur dead-weight losses, and not achieve any worthwhile results.

If the main problem for some people is narrower than the above would imply, and that they merely find difficulty in establishing cordial relations with other people who are said to regard classical music as being unfashionable, I would be inclined to sling my hook and try some other possible acquaintances where the response might be expected to be more receptive.


----------



## bz3 (Oct 15, 2015)

Enthusiast said:


> I think that is right. Radio 3 wants to broaden its audience and thinks it can do that by dumbing down with less knowledgeable presenters and often only one movement from a work of any length. But what is wrong with a smaller (but not exactly small) audience of committed listeners? Isn't that the sort of thing the BBC is supposed to do? And, anyway, how will these changes attract people who are not terribly interested in classical music? CM may be a minority interest but that doesn't make it elitist.
> 
> I suppose the problem is that the licence fee that nearly everyone pays gives them the feeling that they have the right to criticise the stuff they don't like. And this gives successive governments a stick to threaten and beat the BBC.


As a former fan of some British TV productions, I wouldn't give a red cent for their TV licenses these days. Just one Yank's opinion, though.


----------



## Beet131 (Mar 24, 2018)

Nate Miller said:


> I think classical music is probably on better footing than jazz these days. I say that because I have a jazz trio and a classical duo, and with the classical act it is pretty easy to find work...the jazz trio not so much.
> 
> when you enjoy something that is out of the mainstream, this is how it goes. you can't cry about why it is that nobody likes what you like. They just don't. I've gotten used to it. The classical music audience is still out there. *Why anyone would want to try and draw the young crowd in just for the sake of numbers is beyond me.*


*
*
So true, Nate. Here in Colorado, it was suggested that the Colorado Symphony Orchestra have a marijuana concert since pot is legal in this state. They were excited to think that this would draw in a new and youthful crowd that might not otherwise enjoy classical music. Authorities said, wait a minute, recreational pot may be legal, but you can't just smoke it or ingest it wherever you want. There are of course, laws specifying where you can legally consume it, and Boettcher Concert Hall does not qualify :lol: Scratch that idea. The CSO is indeed desperate for patrons and music lovers, but this is a rather crude way of enticing people. It is a wonderful orchestra. They sound fantastic. Even the uninitiated would love their sound and be awestruck by their professionalism. Of course, no matter what you play or how good the performance, some people will resist appreciating classical music because they are locked into what they like and know. I do wish there were a way to better inform people of concerts. I bring this up because I attended a couple of concerts of the Colorado Chamber Players whose ensemble is made up of members from the Colorado Symphony Orchestra. They have an incredible repertoire (I heard the Schubert String Quintet and the Brahms Clarinet Quintet on separate occasions as well as other concerts) and are outstanding. But each concert was attended by no more than twenty people. Tickets were only $15 - what a bargain! What a shame! How could something this good be missed by so many? After one of the concerts, I called the office of the Colorado Chamber Players saying how much I enjoyed the concert and asked if they would please send me any information on future concerts. I was told sure, and then I never heard back from them again. Obviously, this was an isolated incident, and I know the Colorado Symphony jumps on the chance to get subscribers, but cultivating classical music enthusiasts shouldn't be taken for granted. People don't know what they're missing.


----------

