# Classical Music's Ten Dirtiest Secrets



## doctorGwiz (Sep 25, 2011)

I was on classicstoday.com and came across an article written by the site's founder David Hurwitz. I was wondering what others thought of his list. I know Schumann's orchestration has come up before in other threads on this site. I definitely wouldn't agree with all that he says. Regarding Mozart's music I can understand that some of it sounds the same, but I think that Mozart was a versatile, multifaceted composer who mastered (or generated masterpieces) in a variety of types of music (the piano concerto, the symphony, sacred music, opera, chamber music). Perhaps within a type, for example judging the symphonies many of them sound alike. I do find myself agreeing with some of what he's saying in his essay. Again, what do others think?

CLASSICAL MUSIC'S TEN DIRTIEST SECRETS

Considering how culturally valuable and self-evidently important classical music is supposed to be, its proponents are a surprisingly defensive group. At performing arts organizations, press departments fret that the slightest negative comment about an artist might attract public notice. What little marketing that takes place with respect to recordings always assumes that the latest issue is necessarily “the best,” or at all events of earth-shattering importance. Classical music, we are assured, is really “good for us” intellectually, spiritually, and even physically, the aural equivalent of cod liver oil.

This knee-jerk habit of affecting a “beauty pageant smile” at all costs even affects criticism. Sure, we don’t always like the performance or recording in question, but that’s only because the music is so incredibly great that either (a) it’s almost impossible to play perfectly, or (b) the performer in question has no business even attempting it. And then there are those many occasions where we try to make the best possible case for music which is—to put it delicately—of less then first rank and therefore unknown for very good reason.

So I’ve been thinking: What on earth are we all afraid of? That the public may decide that Vivaldi really did write the same concerto 600 times? And what if they do? After all, so few people listen to classical music regularly that the cultural spin doctors are obviously doing a terrible job in making a case for the cause. No one believes the “it’s all marvelous” line anyway, particularly when what matters is not how good the stuff is in some objective or absolute sense, but whether the consumer likes it enough to want to pay to listen to it.

Indeed, it may very well be that if the industry encouraged listeners to exercise their right of choice, rather than inviting them to become true believers and worship at the holy shrine, they might in fact do just that and thus listen more frequently and with greater enthusiasm. This, it seems to me, would be healthy thing, because it should be obvious by now that beating people over the head with the cultural significance and sublime wonderfulness of it all isn’t working, nor is the related “guilt trip” approach that seeks support for the performing arts by shaming people into spending money on them.

I propose a radical new idea: Tell the truth! Stop insisting that the classics consist of an unbroken chain of perfect masterpieces of equal worth, and let people compare, judge, and even (gasp!) dislike some of them. After all, huge crowds go to the movies every week and nine times out of ten hate what they see. But they still go back, time after time. This must be, at least in part, because they feel comfortable about that fact that they are free to like or dislike the film, as they chose. The lesson here is clear: the exercise of choice enhances, rather than diminishes, the general attraction of the medium.

The problem with classical music is that people too often feel that it’s a “take it or leave it” proposition. So they leave it, and who can blame them? As a public service, therefore, I propose to close this editorial by revealing ten of classical music’s dirtiest secrets, the kind of facts that you’ll find critics and writers vigorously denying in program note booklets, articles, and reviews. But admit it folks, deep down we all know the truth, don’t we? Judge for yourself:

1. Mozart really does all sound the same.

2. Beethoven’s Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.

3. Wagner’s operas are much better with cuts.

4. No one cares about the first three movements of Berlioz’ Symphonie fantastique.

5. Schoenberg’s music never sounds more attractive, no matter how many times you listen to it.

6. Schumann’s orchestration definitely needs improvement.

7. Bruckner couldn’t write a symphonic allegro to save his life.

8. Liszt is trash.

9. The so-called “happy” ending of Shostakovich’s Fifth is perfectly sincere.

10. It’s a good thing that “only” about 200 Bach cantatas survive.

David Hurwitz


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

This article must be, without a doubt, saturated with sarcasm. Well, either that, or this Hurwitz character is a complete moron.

The Grosse Fuge, by the way, is a ****ing beautiful masterpiece. How dare this no-good son of a ***** criticize a massive fugue like that? Actually, he's not even criticizing it. He's insulting it by using the word "ugly" in the most childish manner that is possible.


----------



## jalex (Aug 21, 2011)

HerlockSholmes said:


> This article must be, without a doubt, saturated with sarcasm.


Don't worry, it is. This guy has a reputation for that sort of thing. Also he's written a book on Mozart.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

Just so you know, we already have a thread about this: http://www.talkclassical.com/10935-classical-musics-ten-dirtiest.html


----------



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

He's like 'Q' in Star Trek - capable of good things but resorting to taking the **** seems to be the only thing that can alleviate his low boredom threshold. I believe he referred to Roger Norrington as a 'tiresome quack' - totally unfair but not without a certain amount of comic value.


----------



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

Oops - it looks like I said something similar on the original thread - and I can't even remember saying it!


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

doctorGwiz said:


> 1. Mozart really does all sound the same.
> 
> 2. Beethoven's Grosse Fuge is just plain ugly.
> 
> ...


Sounds like he wrote it to generate web hits to his site?? Hmmm...


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Here's a somewhat more nasty one.

http://www.swanfungus.com/2009/06/the-top-ten-worst-classical-composers-of-all-time.html


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Yeah. I dunno. People who own websites want to have hits for their sites especially commercal ones.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

The first movement of Symphonie Fantastique is actually incredible in my opinion.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

More like Classical Music's Ten Most Perpetuated Myths.


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

The first point about Mozart really is ignorant. But there's a lot to be said for 2, 3, 6, 7, 10


----------



## Roberto (Jul 17, 2010)

I did wonder about the Bach - but 200 is surely enough cantatas!


----------



## Toddlertoddy (Sep 17, 2011)

> 6. Schumann's orchestration definitely needs improvement.


I believe you meant Chopin.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

This list by Hurwitz may just be tongue-in-cheek. If not, they're just plain dumb .


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

no one like the second movement of moonlight.

well i actually do.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

If I had to study the cantatas, I'd probably say that 200 was more than enough.


----------



## Jaws (Jun 4, 2011)

I actually think that for the majority of people who wouldn't normally listen to classical music this is probably how it sounds to them. 

My big hate at the moment are the instrumental teachers in the UK who have decided that classical musical instruments are better for children to learn than those that they actually want to play.

One person even suggested that by not having youth orchestras we would be losing our orchestral heritage? Before about 1960 most children came from families that couldn't afford to have instrument lessons. ~What changed in the 1960s was the introduction of free instrument lessons in schools. So much for the youth orchestra heritage.

A classical instrument society that I have just left because I didn't agree with how the committee were running it had a comment in the society magazine that said not enough young people who play certain classical instruments were going to music college to study them....... The inference was that the society had to help these young people to see the error of their ways...

I have just been watching the best of non classical music on the TV for our the Royal Jubilee, and so many people have been given fantastic entertainment listening to it. I am a trained classical musician, however the point of all types of music is to entertain, and if classical music doesn't entertain you, then who is to say that it should? I have enjoyed the concert on the TV very much, and the top musicians in the country have taken part.

If we had let who I now refer to as "The Classical Music Mafia" take over in the 60s in the UK we would not have had some world class groups and solo performers. 

Some people like classical music, some people don't. Some people may think that all classical music sounds the same. Fine, their choice, I am not going to try to tell them anthing different. I like listening to all kinds of music. My choice. I have just got very fed up recently with people trying to tell me that classical music is the best thing to listen to and that only classical instruments are worth learning to play.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Jaws said:


> My big hate at the moment are the instrumental teachers in the UK who have decided that classical musical instruments are better for children to learn than those that they actually want to play.


Instruments such as... ? Every school I know offers guitar lessons, so I don't know what you are talking about. If you mean the drums, I'm pretty sure that there has to be some kind of structured learning otherwise the 'teaching' becomes 'messing about on'. I don't think you can adequately learn music without music theory and that applies to all instruments, 'classical' or not. Maybe people should stop learning how to play the flute or the bassoon, or maybe not. It is just human nature to pass on what we know to future generations. As for me, I believe that learning an instrument helps develop a child's self-discipline and that being part of a school orchestra is as useful a social and confidence tool as being part of a sports team. My old school may have used 'classical' instruments, but you can have a lot of fun playing things like 'In The Mood' by Glenn Millar. Maybe a relic of another kind, but I think systematically removing classical instruments from schools because they are outmoded ignores the way those instruments are percieved culturally. Whether it is a stupid idea or not, learning the piano or the violin has the sheen of respecable academicism that is deem acceptable for a school, similar to the use of the quadratic equation, Shakespeare or the van der graaf generator.

As far as 'not enough people going to music college' goes, that is a fair comment for a society that would probobly see promotion of classical instuments as one of its main goals. I don't think there is any point that a specialist interest group would ever say that, actually, there was a surplus of musicians and people should stop learning. Not that I agree with the mentality of trying to preserve things forever in the face of progress, just that it seems damn obvious that they would take such a position.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

doctorGwiz said:


> I propose a radical new idea: Tell the truth! Stop insisting that the classics consist of an unbroken chain of perfect masterpieces of equal worth, and let people compare, judge, and even (gasp!) dislike some of them.


This is a perfect illustration of somone creating a straw man just so he can knock it down. Who are these people who insist that the classics are etc etc? Mind you, if, by the "classics", he means a subset of all classical music, then maybe these works are so named "classic" because they _are _perfect masterpieces. In which case, I hope Hurwitz's foot has recovered from the gunshot wound.

As for his ten "secrets", most of them are just his opinion to which he is as entitled as the next person is to theirs, but no more. They do not gain credibility simply because he claims they originate outside himself. However 6 and 7 contain grains of truth, surely. 9 _may _be entirely true for all we know.


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

This article proves how pointless people's opinions are.


----------



## Jaws (Jun 4, 2011)

crmoorhead said:


> Instruments such as... ? Every school I know offers guitar lessons, so I don't know what you are talking about. If you mean the drums, I'm pretty sure that there has to be some kind of structured learning otherwise the 'teaching' becomes 'messing about on'. I don't think you can adequately learn music without music theory and that applies to all instruments, 'classical' or not. Maybe people should stop learning how to play the flute or the bassoon, or maybe not. It is just human nature to pass on what we know to future generations. As for me, I believe that learning an instrument helps develop a child's self-discipline and that being part of a school orchestra is as useful a social and confidence tool as being part of a sports team. My old school may have used 'classical' instruments, but you can have a lot of fun playing things like 'In The Mood' by Glenn Millar. Maybe a relic of another kind, but I think systematically removing classical instruments from schools because they are outmoded ignores the way those instruments are percieved culturally. Whether it is a stupid idea or not, learning the piano or the violin has the sheen of respecable academicism that is deem acceptable for a school, similar to the use of the quadratic equation, Shakespeare or the van der graaf generator.
> 
> As far as 'not enough people going to music college' goes, that is a fair comment for a society that would probobly see promotion of classical instuments as one of its main goals. I don't think there is any point that a specialist interest group would ever say that, actually, there was a surplus of musicians and people should stop learning. Not that I agree with the mentality of trying to preserve things forever in the face of progress, just that it seems damn obvious that they would take such a position.


I agree that playing a musical instrument in school is a very good idea. What I don't agree with is that children should be encouraged to play traditional classical instruments if they don't want to. If someone wants to play ukulele, bass guitar, keyboard, accordian, concertina or drum kit and are keen on having lessons then they ought to be able to. What I am continually hearing is that children should be "encouraged" to play flute, clarinet , oboe, horn, violin etc. As someone who was "encouraged" to play an instrument that I didn't want I am appalled by this attitude. Playing in school groups is to be encouraged. However the groups don't have to be an orchestra. There are so many different kinds of music to be enjoyed by all, I get really annoyed by adults who seem to think that they know better than the children which instruments the children should be playing.

It is not reasonable for a society that represents classical musical instruments to encourage music college study, and never mention music study at university. One of the instruments that the society represents is oversubscribed for both amateur music making and professional players. Anyone studying this instrument at a London college in the future will leave college with a 1st degree, roughly £80,000 debt, and an extremely small chance that they will get a job playing their instrument (a playing job depends on someone retiring not how good a player anyone is.) The country is training too many musicians for the jobs available,( musicians retiring) and many students do not seem to have been provided with the information that they are extremely unlikely to get a playing job by school careers departments, and so are unable to make an informed decision as to whether to study music at music college or university.

The society that I have just left is supposed to represent all players of all ages and all levels of the particular instrument, however in practise it appears to be concentrating on getting as many young people to study at music college. Have they never heard of playing music for fun? The society has recently described wrongly one instrument as being a shortage instrument when what they really mean is that among young people it is less popular than it used to be, however among amateur players it is still oversubscribed. What has actually happened is that fewer young people are taking this instrument up than used to when there were actually too many.

Nowhere have I seen comments about how wonderful it is that more children and young people are interested in having music lessons, all I have seen is negative comments from the classical music lobby.

I can only assume that young people are being denied good quality music careers advice because the desire to preserve music college jobs is more important to some people, than the futures of young people.

It is not until recently that I realised how bad the situation regarding the classical music lobby is in the UK. 
I am quite happy for people to think that all Mozart sounds the same, they are entitled to their opinions. They do not need classical music musicians to tell them what to think. I also don't feel that people are not educated if they prefer to listen to other music and are not interested in classical music.


----------



## Bill H. (Dec 23, 2010)

jalex said:


> Don't worry, it is. This guy has a reputation for that sort of thing. Also he's written a book on Mozart.


Actually, he wrote a book on Haydn--"Music's Greatest Innovator." I know because I have a copy.

I don't agree with many of his opinions (which is all that they are), yet there's nothing wrong with having a curmudgeonly personality discussing this art form. But for the most part, he seems to stick to the subject at hand, which is music. That's a desirable contrast with someone like Donald Vroon.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Trolling is the world, or it was a blasphemous act!

Note: I have around 40 Vivaldi concertos and they're not the same.


----------



## Jaws (Jun 4, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> Trolling is the world, or it was a blasphemous act!
> 
> Note: I have around 40 Vivaldi concertos and they're not the same.


Unless you represent the public who might have decided that they do sound all the same, I think we can safely say that in your opinion the Vivaldi concertos that you have listened to, you have decided don't sound all the same. I might have a different opinion. I and the rest of the public are entitled to think that they do sound all the same if we want to. Most people don't own scores of the music that they listen to. They go on what it sounds like.

It is all a matter of opinion, and freedom of speech.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Jaws said:


> I agree that playing a musical instrument in school is a very good idea. What I don't agree with is that children should be encouraged to play traditional classical instruments if they don't want to.... There are so many different kinds of music to be enjoyed by all, I get really annoyed by adults who seem to think that they know better than the children which instruments the children should be playing.


This seems the definition of anarchy to me. There just isnt the room for free choice in schools. Instuments are (rightly) distributed according to what the school has available, how many tutors are available and the end result that the school can achieve from this in terms of what concert ensembles can be assembled. I have never encountered any problem with kids not having access to a particular intrument. Guitar lessons are available, drums and percussion are available, but the problem is that there is fierce competition for the few places that the school can provide for. Most kids starting out just would like to learn any instrument, classical or not.

Maybe it is time to say enough is enough, that classical instruments have had their time. Maybe music departments should focus more on instruments that might actually mean something to the youth of today instead of the minority conservative interest. That would be a revolution. Not something I would have anything against, but I just mean to make clear that what you are advocating calls for nothing short of that. The amount of kids that are genuinely interested in classical before studying any classical instrument in any given school could be counted on the fingers of one hand.



> It is not reasonable for a society that represents classical musical instruments to encourage music college study, and never mention music study at university. One of the instruments that the society represents is oversubscribed for both amateur music making and professional players. Anyone studying this instrument at a London college in the future will leave college with a 1st degree, roughly £80,000 debt, and an extremely small chance that they will get a job playing their instrument (a playing job depends on someone retiring not how good a player anyone is.) The country is training too many musicians for the jobs available,( musicians retiring) and many students do not seem to have been provided with the information that they are extremely unlikely to get a playing job by school careers departments, and so are unable to make an informed decision as to whether to study music at music college or university.


I wasn't advocating that it may or not be reasonable. I was saying that it seems obvious (to me) that it would take that position. I assume that you are not alone in your disagreement with this stance, since it seems a logical position to take with the given information. If the society doesn't encourage people, however, who should? The alternatives are being entirely neutral in the subject which, given the nature of the organisation, is impractical since they are expected to have an opinion, or actively discouraging the furthering of musical careers or even the teaching of this instrument.

I'm also confused about what you mean by 'oversubscribed' among amateur and professional players. Surely you are saying that people should do what they enjoy? How can something be oversubscribed among amateurs?

As far as the country training too many musicians goes, I can't really say who is at fault there. I think that you are incorrect in saying that careers departments don't tell students that being a professional classical musician is unlikely. This is extremely easy information to get hold of and is a fact well known to music teachers. I think that there are possibly too many because the students themselves either fail to listen to reasonable advice, do less than the bare minimum of research or are just hopeful and naive.



> The society that I have just left is supposed to represent all players of all ages and all levels of the particular instrument, however in practise it appears to be concentrating on getting as many young people to study at music college. Have they never heard of playing music for fun? The society has recently described wrongly one instrument as being a shortage instrument when what they really mean is that among young people it is less popular than it used to be, however among amateur players it is still oversubscribed. What has actually happened is that fewer young people are taking this instrument up than used to when there were actually too many.


I can't help but think that this vagueness is unnecessary. Is there something preventing you from mentioning the instrument in question or even the organisation we are talking about? I don't know what is in it for the organisation to give advice that goes against what the demonstrable trends are. To be honest, however, I think you are better out of such an organisation.



> It is not until recently that I realised how bad the situation regarding the classical music lobby is in the UK.
> I am quite happy for people to think that all Mozart sounds the same, they are entitled to their opinions. They do not need classical music musicians to tell them what to think. I also don't feel that people are not educated if they prefer to listen to other music and are not interested in classical music.


I can only agree with these statements so far. People can be very well educated and not like classical music, that is obvious. It also makes no difference whether people think that all Mozart sounds the same, just as it makes no difference whether or not people think the moon landings were a hoax. People, sometimes very intelligent people, have their own reasons. I believe that people who make such a statement are wrong, and I think my reasons are very good for that, but it would be a waste of breath to try to convince those who disagree. There is a difference, however, between providing a rational explanation and 'telling people how to think'. I think most people's impression of classical music is misinformed by stereotypes and lack of exposure.


----------



## Jaws (Jun 4, 2011)

By oversubscribed, I mean that there are too many amateur players of this instrumen, in amateur music making, so should a young person want to continue to play it after leaving school they will find it very difficult to find somewhere to play. Some wind bands have places, but most orchestras are full. It is not something that sounds good if there are a lot of people doubling one part. I have been informed by another ex player of this instrument that when they were young 40 years ago, there were too many players then and not enough places for amateur players to play. So to encourage more people to take it up in the mistaken belief that there aren't enough players just makes the situation worse.

The old rule for studying music at college was that no one ever encouraged anyone to do this. In fact it was discouraged. Anyone who was persuaded by being discouraged was deemed to not have enough interest. The ones who insisted then went on to study at college. 

Someone else I know who used to teach at a top London college commented on the number of students who didn't appear to be interested in studying their instrument to a high standard and were only interested in playing in groups, which of course meant that they didn't have any chance of getting into an professional orchestra because they didn't play well enough.

I don't think it matters if children are not interested in classical musical instruments and in fact for some instruments that is an advantage. It is much cheaper to buy ukuleles than it is to buy oboes, bassoons, horns, etc. To encourage local authorities to buy very expensive classical instruments so that they deprive some children of learning anything at all, I think is wrong.


----------

