# Strongest nations in classical = weakest in modern music



## bassClef (Oct 29, 2006)

Something weird seems to have happened in the national gene pool over the last few centuries. You would have thought that the nations strongest in musical ability and influence in the classical eras would have brought something of that musical flair through the generations to the modern day. But the reverse seems to be the case. Just google "Austrian rock pop bands" and you'll see what I mean - google assumes you meant Australian. Similar story with Germany, Italy, Russia etc - hardly full of Lennon/McCartney type song-writing or performing talent. Britain and America are almost exclusively paving the way these days. Why do you think this is?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

First, before some other guy beats me to it, there is not necessarily a dichotomy between Classical Music and Modern Music. I'm guessing that the concept you wish to convey can be worded more precisely as Classical Music vs. Commercially-oriented Popular Music.

On the commercial front, the beast with the biggest appetite is the Anglophone world. This puts non-Anglophone countries at something of a disadvantage in terms of memorable hits. It seems that Scandanavian artists have had the best successes at shucking their native language and recording their mass-marketed music with English-language lyrics. Perhaps these nations more consistently teach English as a second-language rather than another Continental tongue. I don't know... but I suspect that's the case.

Hey, when I saw the title of the thread, I thought "Austria" right away, too. However, at least Austria had Falco, an artist I've heard of. If the Czech Republic or Hungary have had anyone of similar commercial stature, I sure don't know about 'em. [But then again, I'm not very hip.]

From my perspective, lands that'll have this gap between memorable Classical Music and widespread-successful pop music will be countries: a) that have an impact in Classical Music greatly disproportionate to their size, b) for whom English will not be a common second-language, and c) whose own language will not be a common second one even for Anglophones (e.g.: not French, Spanish, or German, for instance).

To avoid misunderstandings, please note that my observations concerning pop music have involved their likelihood of *commercial* success, and are in no way intended to be a judgement on the _quality_ of the works involved.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

I agree with Chi Town. If you consider the populations of the main market-place for music, Europe and North America, the majority of people (potential artists and potential consumers) are English-speakers.

Recently I've been wondering the same with respect to films. I have never seen a film from Austria. And the number of German-language films I've seen can be counted on 2 hands. My French friends seem to prefer English-language films to their own. But you have to wonder, would the Fifth Element be a worse film if Luc Besson made it in French?

I wonder if money makes all the difference to art? Is it any wonder that the Renaissance was focused around Milan and Venice when they were at the height of their affluence?


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Well... you shouldn't discard the fact that about 50-60% of the major "modern-classical" composers have come from the US. The US has probably been the leading center for musical experimentation and neo-classical works in the 20th century AS WELL AS the leading pop music center, purely because of how powerful a nation it is. To name a few, we've got George Gershwin, Charles Ives, Aaron Copland, Milton Babbitt, Samuel Barber, Philip Glass, Brian Eno, Henry Cowell, George Crumb, John Cage, Terry Riley, Leonard Bernstein. 

My point is that the US has really been dominating everything in cultural advancement over the last 100 years, not just pop music.


----------



## bassClef (Oct 29, 2006)

Maybe there is a wealth of untapped musical talent in Austria, who knows? There are some very good Czech musicians which aren't known outside the Czech Republic, that much I know - their pop charts are full of europop type rubbish though.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> Well... you shouldn't discard the fact that about 50-60% of the major "modern-classical" composers have come from the US. The US has probably been the leading center for musical experimentation and neo-classical works in the 20th century AS WELL AS the leading pop music center, purely because of how powerful a nation it is. To name a few, we've got George Gershwin, Charles Ives, Aaron Copland, Milton Babbitt, Samuel Barber, Philip Glass, _Brian Eno_, Henry Cowell, George Crumb, John Cage, Terry Riley, Leonard Bernstein.
> 
> My point is that the US has really been dominating everything in cultural advancement over the last 100 years, not just pop music.


Eno is English.

I agree that America has been the dominant cultural force of recent years (or good and bad) with sprinklings of other nations at one time or another.i.e. the British Invasion in the 60's and to a lesser degree the Krautrock bands of the 70's. It's like a form of cultural Imperialism America is exporting around the world.

It may have more to do with economic power than anything else. These days English speaking countries have a lot wealth and it will be easier for homegrown British and American artists to appeal to a domestic market than import foreigners and 'Anglicise' them. I can think of a few non Anglo-American bands that had decent success. Tatu, Cheeky Girls, the girls who did that Ketchup song, loads of German and French trance crap and that **** who made the Crazy Frog songs was some kind of Scandinavian. What do all these bands have in common. Yes, they are all awful.

To be frank though, the popularity of music really doesn't interest me and the quality of music seems to be free of man-made national bounadaries.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

Ignis Fatuus said:


> These days English speaking countries have a lot wealth and it will be easier for homegrown British and American artists to appeal to a domestic market than import foreigners and 'Anglicise' them.


I think the question is not a lack of importation to the anglophone world, it's more about the export from it. Why do Austrians listen to English-language music? Is it because there are few good Austrian musicians, or are there other reasons?



> I can think of a few non Anglo-American bands that had decent success. Tatu, Cheeky Girls, the girls who did that Ketchup song, loads of German and French trance crap and that **** who made the Crazy Frog songs was some kind of Scandinavian.


Yes, but you could balance this list with Noir Desir, Yann Tiersen, not to mention various "world music" artists, Tinariwen spring to mind.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Ignis Fatuus said:


> I think the question is not a lack of importation to the anglophone world, it's more about the export from it. Why do Austrians listen to English-language music? Is it because there are few good Austrian musicians, or are there other reasons?


I would say that this is likely due to how important it is in non-English-speaking countries to educate all their students in English from a young age so that they are fluent before their twenties. Sure, a second language is compulsory in UK schools, but the level of French (for example) teaching doesn't come anywhere remotely near the level of English teaching apparent in so many other countries. In doing this, such people have a completely new culture open to them, and they can more freely explore music in another language. If people in native English countries weren't so apathetic about learning foreign languages, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a bigger market for non-English music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

This is the opinion on the subject by Australian musicologist *Andrew Ford*, writing in his book _Illegal Harmonies_. After talking about the impact made on C20th classical music by Berio, Xenakis, Ligeti, Lutoslawski & Penderecki, he goes on to say:



> ...The fact that most of the really invigorating developments in European music of the early 1960s came from an Italian, a Greek, a Hungarian and two Poles is significant, and the significance is that they were not Austrian, German or French. The classical tradition, insofar as a tradition existed any more, had emigrated from the major European metropolises. It had taken firm root, now, not only in the rest of Europe and the United States, but in most of the rest of the world...(p.164).


----------



## Aramis (Mar 1, 2009)

No nation is obviously worse than United States or UK. You just have to get real konwledge about it's music market. IMHO it's all about fashion, not quality. In XVIIIth century people belived that italian operas are better than german operas. Why? Because this is how it was? No, because few great italians made italian opera fashionable, so the other italian opera composers, not as good as them, could get famous. Same thing happens today. There is a lot of good modern/popular music all around the world, but american and british music is much more fashionable, so musicians from those countries can reach fame and pupularity easily, even if they are not very talented.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

So if assume that America's influence is declining where do we think the next hotspots might be?


----------



## jurianbai (Nov 23, 2008)

You must count in the Cantonese pop or any chinese commercial song, if using above method. the billion of people surely make up the biggest marketing crowd. any chinese uncle/auntie will at least knew who is Andy Lau but not sure if they knew the Beatles.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

Bands like Amon Duul, Can and Neu! more than established Germany's relevance in 20th Century pop culture and sewed the seeds for electronica and alternative rock in the English speaking countries.

Admittedly, I have never heard any Austrian popular music, but I'd like to reserve my judgement before I hear any of it.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

bassClef said:


> Something weird seems to have happened in the national gene pool over the last few centuries. You would have thought that the nations strongest in musical ability and influence in the classical eras would have brought something of that musical flair through the generations to the modern day. But the reverse seems to be the case. Just google "Austrian rock pop bands" and you'll see what I mean - google assumes you meant Australian. Similar story with Germany, Italy, Russia etc - hardly full of Lennon/McCartney type song-writing or performing talent. Britain and America are almost exclusively paving the way these days. Why do you think this is?


Gene pool? lol. I don't think that's the way to look at it at all. It's not like every German, Italian or Russian had the capability to compose classical music. Some impressive innovative individual(s) appeared and then created a group of followers and therefore a tradition. Other places may have had other traditions which have again grown through the historical circumstances of a talented individual(s) and the appropriate *economic and political circumstances* to foster that. Also somewhere like Vienna was the capital of a large empire back in the late 18th century and composers from all over went there including many Czech composers.

Britain and America paving the way  these days??? Really? They will be influential because of the importance of the English language in world linguistics now (through the political and economic dominance of Britain in the past and now of America). These days I don't like that much popular music from the West in general and prefer the far east, in particular Thai music.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Andre said:


> This is the opinion on the subject by Australian musicologist *Andrew Ford*, writing in his book _Illegal Harmonies_. After talking about the impact made on C20th classical music by Berio, Xenakis, Ligeti, Lutoslawski & Penderecki, he goes on to say:


Classical music has indeed become global as I have said quite a few times around here.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus (Nov 25, 2008)

starry said:


> Classical music has indeed become global as I have said quite a few times around here.


I agree with you in one sense and disagree in another. I'd say about 1 or 2% of my country's population listen to 'current classical' music. It's not even national, let alone international.

It's kind of like saying Esperanto is an international language. True, it has a speakers in pretty much every country, but it's a bit much to say its spoken globally.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Ignis Fatuus said:


> I agree with you in one sense and disagree in another. I'd say about 1 or 2% of my country's population listen to 'current classical' music. It's not even national, let alone international.
> 
> It's kind of like saying Esperanto is an international language. True, it has a speakers in pretty much every country, but it's a bit much to say its spoken globally.


I really mean about composers rather than listeners. Of course it's a minority occupation among listeners.


----------

