# Cause and Effect: Why Classical?



## Azathoth (Feb 28, 2007)

My title looks so special. 

I've been giving this a lot of thought.

I'm a bit of an armchair anthropologist, and a music geek, so naturally I was wondering what cultural effect music has. Not on a culture necessarily, but on the people within it. In my teenaged social circle, music is what really defines you. The punk kids go over there, the rap kids go over there, the pop kids go over there, techno kids go and spaz out somewhere else, and the classical music kid hides under the table, cranks up the Sibelius and cries...anyway.

The general association with classical music -that I know of- is of the highbrow intellectual. Get your robe on, a snifter -whatever that is- of brandy and put on some Bach. Putting on, say, a record by the Beatles or Ramones would be seen as wildly incongruos.

So, why classical? How much of an impact does that stereotype, that classification, have on us?

Do we listen to it because we're smart? Or do we listen to it because it makes us seem smart? Would we still be as drawn to Tchaikovsky as much if everyone were listening to him? Give that some honest thought.

Assuming you weren't raised in a classical music family. Would Beethoven's pull been quite as strong if everyone on the street had the Ninth Symphony blasting from their headphones? Would rap have had more appeal? Jazz? Techno? Pop? Rock? Metal? Ska?

This is really incoherent but half past midnight seems to be the only time I can get on the computer.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2007)

You ask, *Azathoth*, wheher classical music is a minority interest because it is bound to be like that since, if a much bigger percentage of people were to like it, it would lose its value to others who would then find something else to listen to instead.

I don't buy this self-stabilising, fixed market share idea. This is because I believe tastes in music are more absolute than relative, in the sense that people will be guided by what they genuinely like rather than what they perceive other people like. Classical music has a small following because, on the whole, people don't care for it, not because there is some kind of pre-ordained limit on its market share. The reason why people don't care for it is because (i) their knowledge about music is highly limited, and (ii) because there is a plentiful supply of other, much simpler forms to appreciate. Their knowledge is limited partly because of poor education, and partly because there are so many other competing opportunities for social enjoyment (sports, clubs & pubs, PC gaming, TV etc).

I'm a multi-interested music fan, happy to listen to anything except Rap. I can see examples of brilliance in many genres.

However, classical music has had far more brilliance applied to it. I do not believe that only one or two classical composers are worth listening to. I tended to think that way when I was much younger, but I grew grew out of it in my mid-20's. The height of human ingenuity is not so great that only a tiny number of composers have produced works of outstanding excellence. In history there has never been just one or two really outstanding miltary commander, artist, scientist, philosopher, musician or whatever. Knowledge is cumulative and progress has mainly proceeded mainly on the basis of the big "spikes" in advancement: Monteverdi, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner etc. If anyone, for example, thinks that Bach or Mozart or Beethoven is the last word in music, let them listen to some of the glorious passages in Wagner: Tristan, or Entry of the Gods into Valhalla, or to some of the most beautifully crafted symphonic structure in Brahms symphonies, to name but a tiny few examples.

These are my quick thoughts for an early Sunday morning while istening to some classical rock guitar with Jimi Hendrix. I joke: it's currently Shostakovich's Cello Sonata.


----------



## HorizontalCaveman (Jun 10, 2007)

Why classical? As opposed to the other absurdly horrible, infantile, abhorrent noise that pervades contemporary culture? That's like asking why I breathe oxygen instead of cyanide gas. 

Society is rotting like a maggot infested corpse, and most modern music contributed to its death. 

I just recently discovered and began listening to classical music in earnest, so I don't pretend to be a connoisseur, but it is just about the only form of music I enjoy listening to, although I don't mind certain classic rock bands/songs.

Modern music, namely "rap" and the various forms of abominable, whimpering, sophomoric "rock" disgust me. I am forced to listen to these every day, at school, on television, in movies, on the radio, blaring obnoxiously from cars, etcetera, etcetera, and I am sick of it. "Rap" in particular has had a pronounced and extraordinarily adverse affect on culture, especially on youth, in my experience. 

Like most of today's teenagers, this music exemplifies all the things I hate about humans, and has no redeeming aspects. It is moronic, uninteresting, unpleasant to hear, expresses views and ideals that I detest, and incites only stupidity and pretension.

Of course, it fits this generation like a glove. I don't want to sound pompous, but it seems to me like this generation is deplorable. People of my age group (I'm 17) are, in general, stupid, selfish, avaricious, and have an undeserved sense of self-entitlement.

I have a tendency to rant late at night, sorry. Anyway, that's my view at the moment.


----------



## Guest (Jun 10, 2007)

I think that classical music is not so easy to listen to. Of course, the most accessible composer is Mozart but, as a matter of fact, young people are not quite openly ashamed of telling their friends they enjoy it - for it seems most conventional.

More sophisticated composers are appreciated after much exertion. And I agree with Mango when she says that their knowledge is limited partly because of poor education.

Besides, if you compare music with literature, you would find the same phenomenon. Voltaire said that 80% of people don’t read anything, and 80% of the other read novels. Can I say that 80% of people don’t listen any music, and 80% of the other listen pop, rock and R n’ B?

From then on, we are privileged persons.


PS :
1° I don’t intend to offend the readers of novels, as I read novels myself;
2° does anybody knows a web site that corrects the mistakes of language?


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Azathoth said:


> ...and the classical music kid hides under the table, cranks up the Sibelius and cries...


ROFL.

Let me know what table you're at, I'll join you.

To paraphrase and rephrase what everybody else has been saying: Classical Music has always been an elitist phenomenon. Whether supported by royalty, clergy or wealthy benefactors, its roots are in the minority upper-class, whether intellectual or material, and to some degree it will _always_ stay there. And to be honest, I think that's healthy.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

I hesitated to contribute here, because I'm not sure that what I'd add would be worthy of the topic. _What a great topic!_ (That, and there has to be a special place in my heart for a place where the Big A and someone named Alnitak can share thoughts [meeting "as the night winds meet beyond Arcturus' pale," as Ezra Pound would say].) Carrying on in the dialectical tradition, I'd ask, "is our appreciation of Classical Music an expression of our intellect, or is it a reflection of our aesthetic?" I realize that, for all of us, there's considerable overlap between the two, but overlap doesn't equate to identity. Can we "know through feeling," in the words of my beloved Wagner? It's a question that suffuses all of Art, not just music.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2007)

My conception is pretty more simple (I am not a philosopher, ain’t I?).

As for me, there are two kinds of music: the music of the spheres and the galactic music.
You asked me : "is our appreciation of Classical Music an expression of our intellect, or is it a reflection of our aesthetic?"

Hmm…I’d answer that aesthetic is to music that vector spaces are to euclidean spaces, in the same way that the galactic music is Transcendental to the spheres one. The intellect is only a vector of transparency.


----------



## robert newman (Oct 4, 2006)

Kurkikohtaus said:


> ROFL.
> 
> Let me know what table you're at, I'll join you.
> 
> ...


----------



## zlya (Apr 9, 2007)

I think perhaps there is a marked difference in my attitude towards this subject as I am writing at 8:30 in the morning. I see no nakedness in classical music, and frankly the galactic music vs. music of the spheres issue strikes me as a tad extreme. I listen to Classical music because it's good music, which I can appreciate on an emotional, physical, and intellectual level. I don't really care if other people listen to it or not, as long as the performances keep coming.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*Warning! Rant alert*

My first full-blown _rant_. [It was bound to happen sooner or later.]

It's been noted that the stereotype for the Classical Music aficionado revolves around erudition and intellect (to the point of intellectual snobbery). Our exposure to the genre has either been the result of fortuitous education, overcoming compromised education, or simply having an environment free from active hostility to Classical Music, and letting nature take its course (for some of us). Although I agree with a summation that Classical Music is "elitist in the best sense," in the words of Mr. N, there are some of us who make our way out of the imprisonment in the cave, to reference Plato's famous metaphor.

To review, when I posited the "intellect vs. aesthetic" duality in my earlier post, I was attempting to drive the discussion towards the following point: although no one can argue with Classical Music's ability for cognitive enagagement, I submit that it can engage emotions at the profoundest levels, as well. In spite of this truth, the perception that Classical is appreciated by the dispassionately rational remains- and remains with sufficient pervasiveness as to affect our own self-perceptions. Consider, when non-Classical fans discover your interest in Classical Music, do they consider it a reflection of your educational status, or could they possibly contemplate the chance that it's emblematic of one's emotional depth or heightened sensitivities?

Here are two "pop-culture" renderings of the Classical Music fan. One is Alex from _A Clockwork Orange_. Another is Charles Emerson Winchester of the _M.A.S.H._ TV show.

It is a peculiar pathology of our time that rationality and emotional capacities are considered opposite ends of some two-dimensional scale where if you have more of one, you perforce have less of the other. In this manner, some of the pop-culture consumers such as those hinted at by Horizontal earlier can claim to be "following [their] heart," with no more evidence of this than their mental disconnect. Furthermore, those people whose shallow feelings are exceeded only by their shallower thoughts can delude themselves into saying that feelings matter more to them. What some call "feelings" can be better classified as hedonistic pursuits, with all of the transience involved in such pursuits.

So, I'm saying that there are aspects of emotional profundity, the kind that stay with you for a lifetime, that can lead a person to understanding and help guide us towards what Abraham Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature." AND, if you know where to look, you can find more than a few of them in Classical Music, as well as all of the Fine Arts. That's _my_ point.


----------



## Lisztfreak (Jan 4, 2007)

The main reason, I think, why some people enjoy and understand classical music and some do not, is the level of *sensitivity*.

1. We who listen to classical music require *less external stimulus *to feel the same intensity of emotional or aesthetic experience, that is, we are more sensitive for those things.

2. We might be generally more sensitive, or just considering art.

3. We might be more *persistent *in exploring art. A pop or rock listener searches for quick and intensive, loud and extreme kind of musical stimulation. They are not as calm and, to use the word, stubborn at trying to make something of the music, it's meaning.

4. We consider music *not* *primarily **as fun *and pastime. We understand the world around us and unravel the world inside us, all through this medium.

5. Many people who listen to classical are, by tests, *introverted*. Are you too? Extroverts are more oriented to the outside world, and they may find classical music boring, hard to enjoy or simply not worth attention.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Thanks for waking this topic up again, Lisztfreak. I agree with most of what you say, but I would like to use your comments as a spring-board in making a tangential point:

While I agree with you in saying that we (classical music lovers) use music to explore the world around us and within us, are more persistant in exploring art... etc. etc. etc... I believe that this is something that has evolved over time in relation to classical music, and is something that has been tremendously accelerated through the growth of the recording industry for the past 50 years - _It is therefore a rather new phenomenon and not necessarily directly related to the essence of Classical Music in the context in which most of our favourite works were composed._ (it took a while, but that was the point I was trying to make).

Before the growth of the recording industry and full-time orchestras with 12 - 40 concerts subscription seasons, I believe classical music was indeed a very much more of a spectacular and sensationalist experience than it may be seen today, albeit for a small slice of the intellectual elite. Composers wrote their works in a context where they would be played once for an audience that would be hearing it for the first time, not for an audience who would study the work and experience it again and again through various (recorded) performances. Therefore to some degree, composers were at the very least _aware_ of the _instant impact_ (and possibly of the instant sensual gratification) that their work does or doesn't carry... and at the very most, they catered to this impact directly.

To make my main point again, this idea of _introversion_ and intensity of the emotional/aesthetic experience (I am knowingly paraphrasing Lisztfreak here...) that we associate with classical music and the classical music listener is something quite new. This is not a criticism of Lisztfreak's views nor is it a criticism of the Classical Music listener or industry as a whole...

... but one negative aspect has paralleled the development of what I'm describing, and that is the general inability of the wider public to accept new music, heard for the first time in performance. The serialist school and the crap that they produced for the better part of the 20th Century has a lot to do with the public's turning away from new music, but on the other hand, in that process, we have lost the ability to _listen to_ and _digest_ new music at first hearing on a regular basis, and that is a shame. It's a shame because that is the seed of our tradition... we should never forget that Brahms, Berlioz, Tchaikovskij and Debussy were all writing _new music, all of the time._


----------



## Oneiros (Aug 28, 2006)

Excellent thread here - the vitality with which teenage philosophers discuss aesthetics never ceases to amaze me.  (no offense to thread participants over the age of 20)

Alright, it seems I've lost the ability to take this thread seriously. Carry on in peace, fellow music lovers.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

phatic said:


> ...the vitality with which teenage philosophers discuss aesthetics never ceases to amaze me.


Two cliches for our reflection...

"Out of the mouths of babes off-times comes wisdom."

"The child is father to the man."

And, as Dennis DeYoung would say to his stadium-sized audiences "We're GONNA carry on!"


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

phatic said:


> Alright, it seems I've lost the ability to take this thread seriously.


*Phatic*, you're going to have to be a lot more specific in your criticism of the ideas presented in this thread for me to take _you_ seriously. Care to elaborate and indoctrinate us into how aesthetics should be properly discussed?


----------



## Oneiros (Aug 28, 2006)

Kurkikohtaus said:


> *Phatic*, you're going to have to be a lot more specific in your criticism of the ideas presented in this thread for me to take _you_ seriously. Care to elaborate and indoctrinate us into how aesthetics should be properly discussed?


Accompanied by an opium pipe. 

Sorry. Sometimes philosophy "gives me the giggles".


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Kurkikohtaus said:


> *Phatic*, you're going to have to be a lot more specific in your criticism of the ideas presented in this thread for me to take _you_ seriously.


Too big an ask, it would seem.


Kurkikohtaus said:


> ... we have lost the ability to _listen to_ and _digest_ new music on first hearing on a regular basis...


This is an interesting "tangential point," as you say. Prior to the advent of recorded music, I suppose nothing could engage a serious listener's necessity to focus on every second of a live performance quite so much as the realization that it might be several years before one would have the chance of hearing many such works again.


----------



## Oneiros (Aug 28, 2006)

Ok.

I agree with you Mr. Chi_town/Philly, that classical music can affect us on a profound emotional level (and the best music does - Bach, Beethoven, etc). The subtle ambiguities of this music allow exploration of quite complex and evolved feelings, a far cry from the sentiment of your average pop song. Also some of the best classical music (in my view) is religious music, as the refined purity of sound and depth of expression can express spirituality very well. Exploring the role of world music in the spiritual life of different peoples really opens one's mind to an aspect of music which we in the west seem to have lost - music as insight into the nature of existence and life's meaning, and as communication with the divine - and so on.

Personally I don't really value the intellectual side of classical music, but perhaps that's because its gotten so out of proportion these days (to me, university level music theory is about as musical as mathematical formulas). The problem is that it doesn't give one an insight into what the music _means_, unless you're either content with mathematics or creative enough to find something valuable in there. Call me a fool, but music theory plain baffles me. 

As for the comments on introversion. It's nothing new - Beethoven's contemporaries spoke a lot about how when listening to his music one was drawn into an inner world of private experience. I think this depends on the composer, his personality and musical intentions. I find Beethoven the most interesting composer in this regard - one can feel the inner conflicts coming out in his music: "Now he takes the majestic flight of the eagle; then he creeps along grotesque paths. After penetrating the soul with a sweet melancholy he soon tears it to pieces with a mass of barbaric chords."

Regarding contemporary music, I don't think its our fault that the music is difficult - many composers went out of their way to make their music unapproachable to the public. This was because, in the 20th century, 'pandering to the masses' was seen as lacking in artistic merit, so the best way to become respected artistically was to write 'difficult' music. Genius was seen as being far beyond the public's level of comprehension and ahead of its time (the idea is taken from Beethoven's late music, and Bach, among others). Hopefully it's a fading viewpoint, this Romantic myth of the isolated genius artist, off in his own world of divine inspiration, completely divorced from public life.

Just a few thoughts.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

phatic said:


> Personally I don't really value the intellectual side of classical music ... (to me, university level music theory is about as musical as mathematical formulas). The problem is that it doesn't give one an insight into what the music _means_, unless you're either content with mathematics or creative enough to find something valuable in there.


Let me first qualify my rebuff by saying that I think one _needn't_ understand music theory to fully appreciate the depth, complexity and above all else beauty of a work of classical music.

Now, that said...

Composition is an extremely technical art, and the composition process (i.e. of a symphony) is not necessarily akin to the creative processes that it takes to improvize a fantasitc jazz solo. Composers didn't just "hear the music" and "write it down as they heard it". This is a highly simplified view popularized by films like "Amadeus", and perhaps even by composers themselves, who when discussing their works sometimes prefer to overstress the "Inspiration" and understate the technical toil, possibly to gain favour with their audiences.

But the simple truth is that all that "Theory Stuff" (formal studies in harmony and counterpoint) isn't something that professors through the ages invented after studying the works of Beethoven and Brahms. These theories and the ingenious ways in which the great composers were able to apply them are the Very Stuff that those beautiful, inspired sounds are made of.

I can site countless very specific examples of where _Theory_ creates the _Music_, but I will leave that for further discussion, if necessary.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Thank you for your post, *Phatic*... I have to think back a while for the last time I was as happy to be proven wrong.


Kurkikohtaus said:


> Let me first qualify my rebuff by saying that I think one _needn't_ understand music theory to fully appreciate the depth, complexity and above all else beauty of a work of classical music.


True... any more than not knowing the difference between an Elizabethan and a Petrarchan Sonnet is a barrier to appreciation of Shakespeare's efforts in that genre.

It seems that the ground has shifted a little bit, away from the aesthetics of _appreciation_ towards the aesthetics of _creation_. That more rigor is attached to the latter isn't subject to dispute. I want to make clear that I admire the accomplishment involved in comprehensive knowledge of Music Theory. (My wife, for instance, is a "natural" at it.) I think we can agree that we need not have patience for the attitude of "you don't know Theory, so you're not qualified to have conversations about these recondite matters" pap that you sometimes get in other circles.

Still (to modify Phatic's point a little bit), I remain convinced that too many overvalue the intellectual side of Classical Music.


----------



## Kurkikohtaus (Oct 22, 2006)

Your last statement is right on the money, *Chi-Town*, and if *Phatic* agrees with the paraphrase then I can agree with him on that. It is perhaps this precise _over-valuation_ (is that a word?) that led to the serialist movement that alienated broader audiences from new music completely, and whose negative effects are perhaps still felt today 40 some years after its demise.


----------



## Oneiros (Aug 28, 2006)

Yes I fully agree.

Regarding composition process, I understand your point Kurk. I guess my main objection isn't to theory itself, but rather the way that it is taught and / or used. Sitting in an exam room in complete silence, analysing chord progressions, I often wonder: How does this help me understand what the music means? The way that its taught (at university level) almost forces one to treat it as a non-musical discipline, like mathematics. I wonder if it helps performers when they are playing that music?


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Why Classical?

Because it's full of good tunes, and the alternatives are too boring to develop meaningfull attachments to.


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

Perhaps there are different, even better ways to master theory, but that hard spade-work seems to get results in a short space of time. The way I pick it up, asking my wife from time to time, "How did he do that?" pretty much guarantees that I will go to my grave with a grasp of only a tiny smidgeon of the full academic view of our music. That's fine by me.
But why classical? Perhaps it's the rewards of real listening, engaging the attention and various faculties rather than being satisfied with the surface sheen of some other musics. The total focus on an elegantly crafted work of art (*not *just classical music) brings a satisfaction that's largely unknown to the TV generations, and probably to previous ones too.


----------



## dfhwze (Oct 17, 2007)

HorizontalCaveman said:


> ...
> I just recently discovered and began listening to classical music in earnest, so I don't pretend to be a connoisseur, but ...


it seems you're not a connoisseur in modern music either (prove me wrong if you're offended), 
you generalize modern music to rap, and rap to the commercial gangstah rap you see on tv.
try to make a difference between 'most modern music' and 'the most listened or popular modern music'.

it's nice to see you exploring music from the past, but nothing keeps you from exploring contemporary music too. start with looking beyond your television screen.
i'm absolutely positive there are heaps of songs you'd like.

ps: defaitism doesn't suit that much people

greetings


----------



## SamGuss (Apr 14, 2008)

For as long as I can remember, I've always enjoyed music in almost all of it's forms and genres. Different kinds of music affect me different ways and even styles within a particular genre affect me differently. I work in marketing and sales and it's been my experience that I am not alone in this. Want to boost morale during a sales meeting? Put on some popular dance music, turn up the volume get eveyrone on their feet and clap along to the music. Results? Usually positive - there are always those who are not affected or simply fake it. The majority though gets "pumped up" - and therefor get more positive and a "joo can do it" attitude.

Likewise, want to kill a room of telemarketers so they won't call you? Put on that "elevator music" or jazz. ZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzzz within minutes if not seconds. Same applies to country music in most cases (again not all). At my place of employment I have no fewer than one third of my employees who can carry on a conversation about classical music at my level and above. Granted, thats not saying much. But we all agree - at work we don't want to listen to classical music. Put on that toe tapping background beat stuff - whether rock, soul, "modern" country, etc.

I am a reflective guy and my time to and from work are the most formulative of my mind frame - for being who and what I need to be at work and likewise back at home. Oftentimes not one and the same. While I listen to various music all day and turthfully enjoy it, my mind tends to wander wherever that music is taking me. Examples, if I am listening to pop 80's rock I tend to day dream of my days back in the clubs and school. Heavy metal, gives me a chip on the shoulder. Country and classic rock both tend to send me to specific memory blocks. For someone who needs to be in control, sometimes this "lead by the music" is nice, other times a little frustrating. The times to and from work though I started to listen to contempary christian music. Not because I'm overly religious, but it did help me focus my mind on things that were important. It added to my worship and so I was able to kill a couple birds with one type of music.

Then I hit classical music. Wow. For the first time I can remember in a long, long time, I have this pleasant ability to either direct my mind where I want it to go period, without interference form music at least or - and this is better yet - focus on the music itself and be entertained and encompassed by it and not have stray thoughts as much (can you tell I'm a tad A.D.D. yet?).

I still listen to other forms of music. At work, I slip the occassional classic or jazz CD in when I am doing setup work and few if anyone is around. Otherwise it's whatever generates the best mood in my employees (meaning usually it's going to be pop 20, classic rock, soul or *sighs* rap - least we keep it PG) that particular night. I listened to heavy metal on the plane ride home this morning - why? I needed the energy and heavy metal - while it can put that chip on my shoulder, can also simple energize me when I am tired and not in the mood for a nap.

I guess what I am trying to share about all of this in relation to the subject here, is that for me at least - it has nothing to do with intelligence or aesthetics but rather a balancing of my own emotional and mental objectives that I need (or someitmes want) to go through on a daily basis. Can I say classical music is making my life better? Actually, yes I can  and to me thats what is important - or should I say becoming more and more important to me about classical music in the first place.

I believe that if given an opportunity in the right setting - and/or the willingness to explore classical for a short while, most people would come to enjoy it. Because of it's so many forms and styles in itself, there is something for everybody. And in the end, there's always the 3 SW's. 

My apologies for bringing up an old thread that had died, but it's late and I came across it and got me to thinking about my thoughts on the matter.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

A fair amount of classical music requires extensive familiarity to enjoy. Familiarity is a form of education. Classical music (along with some Jazz) is the more complex music and it does require more of a [certain] education.

I don't mean for a classical performer or composer as they undoubtedly require a higher education than most other genres, I mean for the listener. One can listen to a Beatle song (for example) and easily and quickly understand it, but to listen to a Mahler, Wagner etc. piece would be very hard for the average person on the first go. It requires time to understand (not details) of classical music, and what you are getting in this time is an education of sorts.



> Do we listen to it because we're smart?


Most certainly some do.



> Would Beethoven's pull been quite as strong if everyone on the street had the Ninth Symphony blasting from their headphones? Would rap have had more appeal? Jazz? Techno? Pop? Rock? Metal? Ska?


Classical Music wouldn't be arround if it were like that.
e.g. If everyone listened, then (like rock) people would create amature bands to try and recreate said pieces. This would eventually lead to much simpler less professional music and would cease being classical music. The complexity of classical music requires it to be a minority.

Jazz is the only possible option apart from classical as it is the only (in the list you provided) that has such complexity to rival classical music.


----------



## cathcacr (May 14, 2008)

*Speaking personally*

While you can google up articles on studies that try and correlate music preference with personality (and there may be validity to these studies) that say that preference for classical is associated with more introversion and interest in complexity as well as aesthetic experience, my own answer runs along these lines:

Larger-scale form, narrative and development is of interest to me, regardless of genre. In rock, a 10-minute piece of music will, other things being equal, be of more interest to me than a 4-minute one. Also, my greatest interest since getting into classical about 3 years ago has been the larger-scale structure of exposition, i.e., symphonic form, as distinct from chamber or solo music. I love symphonies. It may not just be the orchestral "timbre," but just the number and variety of instruments brought to the harmonics. Also, I happen to find many more examples of pieces that invite considerably greater aesthetic engagement in classical than I do in rock/pop. This is not to say that there aren't exceptional cases in the rock/pop world that are of personal importance.

Also, I tend to be drawn more towards music that doesn't feel the need to keep your tempo for you by loudly pumping out a back-beat (or front-beat, if you will). The striking of beats in music tends to irritate me, and sometimes incredibly so.

I'm also not big on the vocal aspects of music, and find it just a bit odd that so much rock/pop feels some urgent need to put words into songs rather than let the music speak for itself.

I can see myself in the not too distant future becoming more interested in jazz, which may require me overlooking the "sparseness" of the small ensembles that are often used in recordings there. But if I get to where I don't mind sparseness, the whole world of classical chamber music might be my next focus.

And yes, I am usually classified as far on the end of the introversion/extroversion scale, highly analytical and critically-minded.


----------



## Rachovsky (Jan 5, 2008)

I notice that this topic is quite old, but I really like it. I haven't read all posts so I'll reply to the thread creator. You asked if we listen to Classical music because it makes us feel smart and personally I can almost agree with you on that. I also like to listen to it though because I am smart, so its a mixture of the two. The stereotypical belief in my area that I live would most likely be called if someone unintelligent knew I listened to classical music would be 'queer' or something along those lines. It's the word the ******** resort to when they see someone doing something that they think is stupid, which really disgusts me. I live in the must uncultured, retarded area of the world and I cant say that one person (excluding all those little band members) in my school appreciates classical music. It's either death metal, country, pop, or rap. I too am 17 and commiserate for those are in a similar situation as myself, lol.

One of the other reasons I love classical music so much is that the actual music is just scratching the surface. To be able to understand the work, you have to know what was going on with the composer during that period of his live. It there is text to the piece, you generally have to look it up (even when it's in English for me) to understand what the composer was saying at the time. If I didn't read the english translation of Mahler's 2nd, I wouldn't have been thinking of Jesus' resurrection and I doubt anyone else would had he not included the text. This is sort of peripheral to the actual topic of the thread, but I'm bored..

Azathoth, you make a good point when you ask if everyone listened to classical music, would we still listen to it? I probably wouldn't listen to it as much as I do today, TBH. I completely agree with what you're asking. If everyone listened to this genre of music I have came to love, no, I would never listen to it like I do today.

Thanks for enlightening me.


----------



## anon2k2 (Dec 18, 2007)

I listen to what I like. Most of the time I like music that is a bit complicated and has more going on than just the surface melody and an overly repetitive harmony based on I-IV-V.

It is for the same reason that I choose to read the books I do, and don't very often read the latest murder-mystery novel to hit the shelves.

But, that isn't to say that I never listen to pop, country, jazz, rap, or pretty much any other genre at some time. Nor do I only read Faulkner, Joyce, or Steinbeck.

I overtly shun any notion of snobbishness because I want others to find joy in the things I like, and I want them to feel welcome to explore the areas in which I find so much wonder.


----------



## Carolus (May 15, 2008)

Just to add my $0,02 worth to this very interesting thread... I totally agree that people listening to classical music are also deeper thinkers and more sensitive overall. However, a few years ago when I still cared to listen to "mainstream" crap, I discovered that certain catchy passages of either techno or hip hop (yes, that "awful" thing) can easily be tranformed into catchy "classical" passages if played on "classical" instruments like violins. At least it is easy when you try to imagine that in your head. Nonetheless, I soon came to realize that the classical provides more depth and complexity than "shallow" genres, especially pop, and the "catchy" phrase which constitutes a whole tune in a pop song would only be one of many elements in the vast richness of a classical piece. Also, I tend to think of classical, jazz and ethnic as "healthier" in that they use sounds that an actual physical object could make, instead of any artificial noise whose effects on the body and mind might be rather erratic. And just to add a bit of perspective - "our" classical is not the ONLY classical there is - there are also things like non-western classical (like Indian or oriental), not hundreds but thousands of years old, and they also seem to be comparably complex and to refer to the deeper parts of the mind and the heart. For instance, I love the complex sound of sitar, definitely more complex and "advanced" than a classical guitar, as well as the sound of tabla and shehnai.


----------



## R-F (Feb 12, 2008)

This post won't be anywhere near as fancy as anyone else's! 

Firstly, while there obviously is a distinct corrolation between smartness and a love of classical music, I know plenty of people who are pretty normal teenagers, with average intelligence, that appreciate classical music.

I have one friend who _is_ hardworking and friendly, but she's also pretty streetwise and not particularly intelligent to be blunt. Nevertheless, she's a great fan of classical music (as well as many other forms of music). To quote her words,
"I wish people would just give classical music a chance."

When I listen to Classical Music I don't stop to think,
"Oh what a clever way the composer used the warm cellos to compliment the rich tone of that mezzo-soprano's voice." I think that if a piece of music is great then you shouldn't have to stop and think about what the music is doing, your emotions should be able tell you that. 
When I listen to Classical Music I just let it wash over me, I relax and I unwind. One of the greatest assets of Classical Music is that you can enjoy it without having to think.


----------



## Mad Ludwig (May 17, 2008)

I have been listening to good music for about seventy of my eighty-one years. My first rembered experience was an aria from "the Messiah", heard on an old wind up Victrola I doubt very much that it impresed itself upon me by any appeal to intellect, it just struck me as something that gave me a great deal of pleasure. Since the record was one of only a few I played it constantly until the rest of the family urged me, in the most earnest way, to cease and desist. As time went on and I grew I never lost the feelings of pleasure as I heard new music either over the radio or records. When I began to buy records I had to choose between the superficial pop music of the day and weightier stuff. The latter won, as it still does and I gave up long ago wondering why it has such appeal. Suffice to say that it gives me pleasure, it never tires, and because I can't imagine not wanting to listen to it over other music. Indeed, I would say I can't help myself in loving it. I could care less if anyone has an opinon as to why I crave Mozart? Why not Mozart? 
In the simplest terms I'd have to say that I can't help loving it. Threre is no choice in the matter.


----------



## Guest (May 21, 2008)

Getting back to *elitist*
I am not sure if you mean it is music of and for the elite.
Classical is not elitist music. Some may like to think that* they *are elite because they like it, but, remember where the roots of Classical lie, The people that go to concerts are in the main, grey haired and *very ordinary *most of them also like other types of music, Rock, Jazz, Folk etc etc.
Sure their musical taste may be more concentrated than the average but the term *elitist* is usually applied in a derogatory fashion by those that do not like it.


----------



## Mad Ludwig (May 17, 2008)

As a old man I have thought about this many times and to me there seems to be no answer. If I had been raised in a different way than I was would I have ever found music?
Again I don't know. I do know that my life would have been much less enriched, much less exposed to the profound and much less complete. 
My love affair with music began at about seven or eight and to this day I have no idea why it means as much as it does. I know that it would be impossible to "not" love music, to not savor the experience of sound itself. I don't like to use the term "classical music", I prefer "serious music" since listening and participating in music is a rather serious affair, at least is to me, I think I am drawn to it for the same reason one is drawn to reading books; the urge to grow, to widen horizons, to learn. 
At 81 I still can grow, still can learn and serious music takes me to other places, other times, it changes me into more of what I think I should be. To not know music would be a terrible burden I think. I feel sorry for those who don't know it.


----------



## islandersbob (May 30, 2008)

cathcacr said:


> Larger-scale form, narrative and development is of interest to me, regardless of genre. In rock, a 10-minute piece of music will, other things being equal, be of more interest to me than a 4-minute one. Also, my greatest interest since getting into classical about 3 years ago has been the larger-scale structure of exposition, i.e., symphonic form, as distinct from chamber or solo music. I love symphonies. It may not just be the orchestral "timbre," but just the number and variety of instruments brought to the harmonics. Also, I happen to find many more examples of pieces that invite considerably greater aesthetic engagement in classical than I do in rock/pop. This is not to say that there aren't exceptional cases in the rock/pop world that are of personal importance.
> 
> I'm also not big on the vocal aspects of music, and find it just a bit odd that so much rock/pop feels some urgent need to put words into songs rather than let the music speak for itself.
> 
> And yes, I am usually classified as far on the end of the introversion/extroversion scale, highly analytical and critically-minded.


Wow, someone like me



Carolus said:


> Just to add my $0,02 worth to this very interesting thread... I totally agree that people listening to classical music are also deeper thinkers and more sensitive overall. However, a few years ago when I still cared to listen to "mainstream" crap, I discovered that certain catchy passages of either techno or hip hop (yes, that "awful" thing) can easily be tranformed into catchy "classical" passages if played on "classical" instruments like violins. At least it is easy when you try to imagine that in your head. Nonetheless, I soon came to realize that the classical provides more depth and complexity than "shallow" genres, especially pop, and the "catchy" phrase which constitutes a whole tune in a pop song would only be one of many elements in the vast richness of a classical piece. Also, I tend to think of classical, jazz and ethnic as "healthier" in that they use sounds that an actual physical object could make, instead of any artificial noise whose effects on the body and mind might be rather erratic. And just to add a bit of perspective - "our" classical is not the ONLY classical there is - there are also things like non-western classical (like Indian or oriental), not hundreds but thousands of years old, and they also seem to be comparably complex and to refer to the deeper parts of the mind and the heart. For instance, I love the complex sound of sitar, definitely more complex and "advanced" than a classical guitar, as well as the sound of tabla and shehnai.


excently said. I would like to add a couple points though. WE LIVE IN AMERICA (or western Europe, seeing as I'm new, I've noticed a few posters arn't from the USA), the bastion of CAPITALISM. Pop music is tendy because it is catchy and sells. What's on TV comercials? at the movies? who's on countless magazine at the supermarket?everywhere there is a product to be hawked? yep, you guessed it modern "pop" and it's "stars"

Look at American Idol, people tune-in in droves to listen to crappy 2nd rate performances of "hit" rock songs. Why, because the songs are catchy and they know them almost by heart WITHOUT investing countless hours trying to digest them!
How many classical tunes do you find yourself huming after listening to them for the very first time? I've FINALLY learned to like (and really appreciate) Mahler's first (my first real dive into a romantic symphony), after what I'd say was 10 or more complete listen throughs (50 some minutes a pop too). Let me tell you, that's a lot of time, altough well spent time I'd say.

How long does it take to pick up an average Brittney Spears song? Probably most are humming or singing along in the second refrain!!!! Also with pop music, what are they selling, the MUSIC or the performances/performer/personality? In must pop music, the MUSIC takes a back seat to the artist, why because the artist is who/what they can sell and make a quick buck off of.

This is something that my brother just recently pointed out to me and is actually quite unsettling. How many "great" works of art came from the later vulgar Roman empire? How does that compare to the current state of affairs in 20th/21st century America? The French Enlightment time period (continuing till WWIish) is LOADED with what we now (and people past) have considered significant pieces of art. Ancient Greece also has more than it's fair share of "classics". Early Rome also contributed it's fair share of what are considered masterpieces, be it in art, music, writing, or whatever. You can probably guess my view on the current state of the arts. It's all catchy pointless meaningless garbage that's sole purpose is to sell itself and other products!!!

Let me sorta go off topic, but I see a parallel. I'm a diehard hockey fan (duh, New York Islanders). Hockey, and the NHL in particular isn't recieved too well in the mainsteam USA. The TV rating are less than spectacular. The NHL sees this as a serious problem, and is working feveriuosly to market the game to joe average sports fans instead of die-hard hockey fans. What's happening, well, lets just say alot of die-hard feel alientated. The parallel that I see with classical music is more of a divergence. The NHL is trying desperatly to sell out to "make-it" big, while I see the genre of classical music going an entirely differnt way, the way of letting itself evolve over it's own course and be damned what critics and marketers think. Where that takes classical music no-one really knows, but it atleast, to me, seems to be following the same course that it followed from Baroque to Classical to Romantic to modern classical, something different and unique!!! Pop music it isn't and pop music it doesn't strive to be!!!


----------



## Ciel_Rouge (May 16, 2008)

I love this thread and I find it extremely pleasing that not only the music itself is so rich and full of passion but even the philosophy behind listening is also so fascinating. Let me add a few new twists and turns to this story:

1. Pop is dominant but not entirely. Advertisements and films widely use parts of classical pieces so that one could say classical music is also everywhere. The difference is, unlike with pop, they do not mention the authors and titles and do not enable the audience to find the recordings and purchase them.

2. I guess the turning point was when people switched from live events to television as the main source of entertainment. This encouraged developing a universal visual content that would sell to everyone - and thus dumbing the content down. In consequence, everything else was also dumbed down - pop music emerged along with junk food - both simple and straight to the point - and without any depth to them.

3. The dawn of the internet allowed for "de-massification" of the mass society by enabling them to pursue niche interests. I recently discovered that a lot of people who own mp3 players and have a deeper understanding for sound, also tend to reach out into the classical realm out of curiosity and discover they like it, making the classical at least one of the genres they listen to.

4. There are also certain "border" phenomena, which clearly show where the mass dumbed-down "product" ends and where true art begins. Consider Nigel Kennedy and Vanessa Mae. On one hand they draw attention to the genre which is a great way of promoting the classical and reversing the ignorance and even bad publicity still lingering in the minds of "post-mass culture" society (the general bad publicity that used to be created in the mass media is making the classical music seem "boring", "outdated" or "incomprehensible"). So in order to get into the mainstream media, both Kennedy and Mae had to sacrifice some of the non-mass qualities of the classical. Let us consider the following example:

Vanessa Mae - The Devil's Trill

Apart from a fair interpretation of the classical Tartini piece, it also features some annoying and absurd "modernising" elements like the artist exiting out of a cryo-stasis chamber  as well as the "visual selling" obsession by making her into a "sexual" object in a very conventional way, which has nothing to do with her music.

Another example is what Nigel Kennedy did to one of my favourite parts in the Four Seasons:

Nigel Kennedy, Vivaldi´s Summer - III Presto

Again - the viewer is distracted by the visual aspect - he also was made into a "sexually appealing product" by having an "updated" haircut and there were some "improvements" added - namely his strange "dance" as he performs and his sort of over-violent interpretation - again dumbing the piece down and making it more "visually apealing" and more suitable for shallow reception.

I hope this adds further depth to this discussion and inspires more posts to follow


----------



## SamGuss (Apr 14, 2008)

One of the more interesting things I have discovered so far in listening to classical music is how many people around me listen to at least some classical themselves. From friends to employees to neighbors to co-workers. All but a couple are into classical as much as I am, but they all have their niche of stuff they are familiar with and enjoy.

When I really started to analyze on what the common denominator was in these cases (after all we are talking about such a variety of people form different social, economic, ethnic, regional cultures) where there shouldn't be - or at least at firts glance.

Then I recognized it. They all had these three things in common - with those who listened to classical in comparrison had these things even more so:

1) They all listen or have a familiartiy with several genres of music, versus just one or two (bearing in mind that here in classical there are several genres as well, this makes "sense" to me that those who enjoy a variety of genres are more likely to enjoy some aspect of classical music).
2) They all consider themselves music buffs.
3) They all consider themselves audiophiles of some degree or another.

#1 is the one that sticks out the most to me. People who are willing to explore and look into different genres of music period seem to have a greater appreciation of classical. So an open-mindness about music I think is a very strong indicator of how or why someone would like classical music.


----------



## max1024 (Jul 23, 2008)

I must say i definitely agree with HorizontalCaveman. I am 17 as well and just a few months ago my friend and I went to see Joshua Bell perform with the local symphony orchestra. On the way there I realized we were breaking all stereotypes of people our age. It was a Saturday night and we were dressed up somewhat formally, listening to the local classical music station on our way to see a world famous violinist. Its the people our age who ride around in their "pimpin" Honda Civics blaring tasteless rap music where the lyrics are all about having sex, doing drugs, killing people and all sorts of other fun stuff that really make our generation look bad. There is some rap I like, mostly Youngblood Brass Band (look em up) but all their rap lyrics are mostly political statements and their harmonies and beats and stuff are pretty cool. But unfortunately it doesnt appeal to our generation because its not the same mind numbing pulsating beat laced with a heavy dose of synthesized sound that has extremely simple musical structure, if any at all. If more people from our generation would actually make some effort to engage their minds and listen to music that is actually musical, I think that society as a whole would be a much better place. And I don't think I would enjoy the fourth movement of Dvorak's 9th symphony any less just because it was popular. I listen to classical music because I enjoy it, not because I want to make a statement and be different. If more people could appreciate the emotional power of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas, I really think the world would be a much more peaceful place.


----------



## charles_arthur_bosch (Aug 18, 2008)

*why classical*

I love classical music, but I still love the Ramones, and Bob Marley, and even some hip-hop. I don't think you can stuff the fine arts into good and bad genres. There is good and bad art, but many times in life, I have discovered that when I dismiss something as bad art, I really haven't taken the time to look at it in the perspective of those who love it. I hated Mozart and Mariachi for a long time, but then I discovered that a lot of questions of taste can be broken down into what one regards as dramatic, ie melodrama or restraint. Both are perfectly valid, and an enlightened listener enjoys both Dudamel and Arvo Part.


----------



## orquesta tipica (Jan 17, 2007)

I'm one of those persons who had to discover classical music on my own, because nobody in my family listens to it, nor do I have any close relatives involved with it. So I might be a good test case for you classical scientists to examine. Why did I become a classical music listener?

Well, when I was about 12, the popular music I was _trying to like_, nevertheless did not satisfy me enough. I noticed that it wore out very quickly. The first time, it sounded okay, but the more I listened to it, the more shortcomings I found with it. I wanted something with more depth, I guess.

The classical universe seemed so impenetrable and intimidating to me at the time, but was the one thing I hadn't tried. So....

I went to the nearest store to buy my first "classical" recording, and I bought "Hooked on Classics", which I thought would be dandy since it had all sorts of compositions on it. But I absolutely hated it. They put this stupid beat to it, and even at 12 I was too smart to accept that. So on the next try, I bought a recording of Tchaikovsky's violin concerto, and that started my journey.

I guess, other than listening to the radio, one just has to experiment and trust in one's intuitions, even if they sometimes might be wrong. And one thing leads to another. Tchaikovsky was my first 'favorite' composer and I thought he must be the greatest who ever lived, but since then in 20-some years, he's no longer my favorite, now it's Beethoven or Wagner, or Mozart, or sometimes whomever I'm listening to at the moment.

And since then, I've discovered Argentine tango, Indian classical music, bossa nova, jazz, and much other music I enjoy along with European classical music. I just look for good music where I can find it.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Mad Ludwig said:


> At 81 I still can grow, still can learn and serious music takes me to other places, other times, it changes me into more of what I think I should be. To not know music would be a terrible burden I think. I feel sorry for those who don't know it.


I'm not 81, but I share this questing spirit - not just through music, but through visual art as well. In fact all the arts seem to present different kinds of opportunities for making sense of, and enriching, the baffling experience of being alive. I also think, with you, that to lack access to these things would make life more difficult, harder to cope with.

But there often seems to be some confusion between taste and morality in discussions of this sort. It may or may not be a very good thing to love Wagner, or Elgar - but I'm not at all convinced that it makes me a 'better' person. (If I had to choose between the avid Wagnerian who tries to steal my wallet, and the Britney Spears fan who doesn't, then I'll drink my pint of beer with the Britney fan, please.) On the other hand, there are certain pieces of music that seem to bring deep insights that do have a moral implication: I find it impossible to listen to Elgar's _The Spirit of England_, for instance, without feeling profound gratitude to those who have sacrificed their lives so that we can live better ones.

I suppose I have to ask, also, whether anyone else benefits from my love of music. When I'm listening to the final minutes of _Suor Angelica_, blinking away the tears, the only person who is gaining from the experience is me. So I feel very uneasy about taking some kind of moral high ground purely on the basis of what I choose to listen to.

And if I think back, say, to the age of 16, and recall when I first heard the wailing harmonica introduction of the Beatles' _Please Please Me_, and felt the hairs prickle on the back of my neck, accompanied by the overwhelming feeling of an entirely new and unforeseen musical experience, I don't think I believe that it was somehow inferior to the experience of listening to Elgar's _Introduction and Allegro for Strings_ at the same age, and realising that this evoked a musical landscape the like of which seemed infinitely desirable and strange. All I can say is that these moments of great insight seem to occur more frequently when listening to classical music than when listening to rock music, but they don't seem different in character in any definable way. The near mystical insights offered by the 'Presentation of the Rose' duet, in _Der Rosenkavalier_, for instance, are matched by insights, different, but no less profound, in Alanis Morissette's 'That I Would be Good'.

I suppose it's obvious from what I'm saying here that I listen to music for reasons that are not 'purely musical'. But maybe I don't really understand what it is to listen in a 'purely musical' way; and perhaps I don't really want to do that anyway. I think Classical music is only elitist if we want it to be - if we want to set ourselves apart in some way that enables us to think better of ourselves compared with others. But mostly I think that's an illusion, and just another of the games people play.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

It's something of a digression... (thank goodness for e-mail notification ....)
Welcome back *orquesta tipica!*


----------

