# Classical music - cool?!



## classichick

Does anyone find that people automatically stereotype you when you say you are into classical music? It really annoys me when people think it's 'uncool' or whatever! I went to this amazing thing event a few months ago which was like a late night concert thing in London where you could take your drinks in, sit on the stage and stuff...think it was called Night Shift or something..anyway I definitely think there need to be more events like that so we can shake off the old and boring stereotype that classical music seems to have!


----------



## opus67

Hi, classichick. Welcome to TC, the coolest place for (one of) the coolest music.


----------



## Manuel

opus67 said:


> Hi, classicchick. Welcome to TC, the coolest place for (one of) the coolest music.


Cool.


----------



## Manuel

classichick said:


> Does anyone find that people automatically stereotype you when you say you are into classical music? It really annoys me when people think it's 'uncool' or whatever!


And they will never fail to mention the fact that being quiet and mellow it's the perfect music for relaxation.

I say... Lets give them some Schnittke.

Sleep this, suckers.


----------



## Manuel

I just found this, looking for Schnittke in Youtube (here comes the mellow stuff):

Olga Goija plays Bach's Chaconne in viola.






Watching now: I can't tell yet if she has intonation problems, or if the dark sound of the instrument is confusing me.


----------



## ChamberNut

Whether or not other people think Classical Music is cool or not, it doesn't really matter.

Classical Music is cool for those who have given it a chance and those who've discovered it's wonders.  

Welcome to TC, classichick!


----------



## Krummhorn

Hi classichick - Welcome to Talk Classical. 

I too experience the 'deer in the headlights' stare from people when I mention that I prefer classical music. Then I mention that the Pachelbel Canon in D is classical, and they say "oh yah ... that is classical - I've heard that tune before!". We seem to be making great strides in bringing classical music to the forefront of everyday life. It is, imho, the basis for all other music that has been created since time began.

Kh


----------



## cl34

Yeah I know what you mean I'm studying languages at UCL and I reckon about 80% of my lecture group wouldn't go to a classical concert just because they think it isn't cool..I don't really care what other people think of me liking it but it's a shame we can't get more people coming to concerts as the atmosphere is so much better when it's a sell out than when half full! What's that late night concert thing it sounds awesome!


----------



## classichick

hello everyone thanks so much for the warm welcome! I agree with you ChamberNut I guess it doesn't really matter what other people think..I just joined KCL which has an amazing music department but when you are new at uni and people ask you what music you are into and then they just judge you straight away...it gets annoying!  
Cl34 - I agree it is a shame we can't get more people into the concert halls (although the best ones are always sold out!) 
yeah the Night Shift thing was really cool, I'll see if I can find out more about it and see if they are doing any more!


----------



## opus67

Krummhorn said:


> "oh yah ... that is classical - I've heard that tune before!"


Don't you mean "oh yah ... that is classical - I've heard that *song* before!" ?


----------



## Krummhorn

opus67 said:


> Don't you mean "oh yah ... that is classical - I've heard that *song* before!" ?


Hi Opus67,

LOL ... yes, I've heard it  that way, too - I'll usually admonish them in a tactful way 

Kh


----------



## classichick

> What's that late night concert thing it sounds awesome!


hey, I found the website it's http://www.oae.co.uk/thenightshift


----------



## Manuel

Krummhorn said:


> Hi Opus67,
> 
> LOL ... yes, I've heard it  that way, too - I'll usually admonish them in a tactful way
> 
> Kh


I don't. 
Watch fools in action


----------



## Handel

The stupidiest "insult" againt classical musical is that's "gay"....Didn't know that violins have an affair with viola... lol.


----------



## Lark Ascending

If "cool music" is defined as the repetitive toneless drivel I hear pumping forth from cars on a daily basis, I'll stick to classical, thank you.


----------



## Manuel

You are welcome.


----------



## hawk

In our house one might expect to hear (m)any type's of music, from rock (yes Fall Out Boy) to Tuvan throat singing, Celtic, Fula, Mandinka, Gamelan, Soul, Reggae...
My daughter's have particular songs that demand their attention when heard. They will stop what they are doing and turn up the music and sing or dance or "rock-out" to it. These are collectively known as the Jam's.

Well imagine my surprise when I was listening to WBACH (radio) and a song I had been waiting to hear came on. It was Bach's Brandenburg Concerto No.1 in F Menuet. I got so excited and without thinking blurted out " Hey!! This is the "Jam" I've been waiting to hear.  Turn it up!!!
I am so new to this music and what continues to amaze me is the depth that it reaches into me! For some this may be uncomfortable. Feeling open and vulnerable and out of control because of it is not for everyone.

Yes this music is "way cool" !!!!!


----------



## Manuel

hawk said:


> I am so new to this music and what continues to amaze me is *the depth that it reaches into me*! For some this may be uncomfortable. Feeling open and vulnerable and out of control because of it is not for everyone.


I like that idea very much. The music can really get into people. However, I must confess I felt a bit like a weirdo last friday, while walking home back from university. With my headphones on I suddenly noticed I was shaking my head heavily (heavy metal like) to the finale of Berlioz' *Harold in Italy*. I was inmensely enjoying the brass interventions, with an astonished old lady that happened to pass by me as the only espectator. (And if you ask... No, I didn't have to make her disappear, arranging it to look as an accident. I realized I can freak out sometimes and having audience to it doesn't scare me anymore)


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I think that I would need to question anyone's assertion that classical music is not "cool" by asking them what exactly defines "cool". Is "cool" defined as not having your own opinions but rather by needing to follow whatever the crowd finds momentarily seductive? That sounds rather "high-schoolish" to me and not "cool" as I would wish to be defined. Personally I'm likely to be far more interested in someone who has an artistic love/obsession that does not fit the mold of the status-quo... someone who prefers Renaissance poetry to "Harry Potter" or opera to the Billboard charts. being yourself... being a unique individual is far more "cool" than simply rushing to fit in with everybody else. To this... I would also add that as Lark Ascending suggested, "If "cool music" is defined as the repetitive toneless drivel I hear pumping forth from cars on a daily basis, I'll stick to classical, thank you." I want originality and depth of thought from my art and the repetition of three chords and steady and never-changing beat just doesn't do it for long. Perhaps having a brain is "cool".


----------



## Manuel

> I want originality and depth of thought from my art and the repetition of three chords and steady and never-changing beat just doesn't do it for long.


You didn't say something important: the repeated three chords are always G major based.
And there's no counteropoint at all.



> Perhaps having a brain is "cool"


The massive trend goes on the exact opposite direction. And nothing affects more your _coolness factor_ than having a brain, using it and mostly... being proud of that.


----------



## beethoven_fan92

*Classical Music Rocks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

I agree TOTALLY !!!!!!!!!  some people should really get another life!!:angry: 
they have never ever listened PROPERLY at how wonderful classical music REALLY is!!!!
a person couldnt SERIOUSLY listen to for example Beethovens "Eroica" and say its boring and only for pompous old people...:angry: 
Classical music will HOPEFULLY end up fashionable in some time...or????what?? 
From me, a REALLY frustrated teenager!!!!!!!!!
I SAY, AGAIN: CLASSICAL MUSIC ROCKS!!!


----------



## Hexameron

beethoven_fan92 said:


> Classical music will HOPEFULLY end up fashionable in some time...or????what??


I'm more of a pessimist when it comes to the future of art music; I believe it's over... just as we'll never have another Renaissance art movement. I don't believe art music will ever be fashionable, at least the way it used to be. I also don't think "classical music" as an artform will progress or reach the apex it once had.

Music as expression, compositional innovation and craft, and real *head* music is no longer valued by the general public and music culture. They want music to dance to or tap their foot to. The dominance of simple "songs" is also a culprit because expression is confined to the lyrics themselves, not the musical delivery; and instrumental accompaniment serves no purpose in communicating the text. When I see the return of madrigal-like wordpainting, then I might be confident art music has a chance to replant itself and start over, but the state of music now (commercials, film, and dance music) is too disheartening.

Let's enjoy our Bach and Beethoven... I don't think the world will ever produce music like theirs again.


----------



## Lisztfreak

Hexameron said:


> The dominance of simple "songs" is also a culprit because expression is confined to the lyrics themselves, not the musical delivery; and instrumental accompaniment serves no purpose in communicating the text.


That's why people sometimes ask: ''What kind of music's that?! It has no words!''

Well, then, if words are the only problem, try a nice oratorio!!!  (Asses...)

The problem is in the exertions one has to make to penetrate a classical work. People don't want to listen to music to which they have to give attention. They want the music to state immediately what it 'wishes' to state. 
And the second problem is, as I said on another thread, sensitivity. Some are not endowed enough with this virtue in an artistical sense. Or, even more like, they are not aware they have it.


----------



## Oneiros

An interesting post.



Hexameron said:


> I'm more of a pessimist when it comes to the future of art music; I believe it's over... just as we'll never have another Renaissance art movement. I don't believe art music will ever be fashionable, at least the way it used to be. I also don't think "classical music" as an artform will progress or reach the apex it once had.


I would question the assumption that music has ever progressed or reached an apex. If you approach classical music with certain values in mind, then you might find such developments, as the music conforms more to those values. But from a broader perspective, all that happens in art history is change - changing values, function, aesthetic ideas, etc. If some of these changes appeal more to us than others, this does not necessarily imply that they are better or worse - only that they conform more to our ideas of what "art" should be.



Hexameron said:


> Music as expression, compositional innovation and craft, and real *head* music is no longer valued by the general public and music culture. They want music to dance to or tap their foot to.


Do you believe that this is a new phenomenon? If so, please show some evidence of their being widespread appreciation for classical music in the past. AFAIK this has never been the case, but I may be wrong.



Hexameron said:


> When I see the return of madrigal-like wordpainting, then I might be confident art music has a chance to replant itself and start over...


Eh, being that Monteverdi is the best-known madrigalist, I'm assuming that you're referring to his works? Keep in mind that his innovative approach to word-painting was largely a reaction to the rule-laden contrapuntal style of Palestrina. Without this context for such a development, different results would have occurred. I say this, because our contemporary musical environment, in my view, is far from being rule-laden and lacking in freedom. It's almost exactly the opposite - anything goes.



Hexameron said:


> Let's enjoy our Bach and Beethoven... I don't think the world will ever produce music like theirs again.


Certainly not - what they had to do has been done, and there is no point in having it done again. In Beethoven's time the world may have needed a 'giant' of classical music. Our time (and into the future) may need something different.

And then there's the assumption that we would be able to immediately recognise a musician of superior ability if he or she came along. Remember that Bach wasn't always seen as one of the greats - in his own day, he was seen as the master of a certain type of music (the learned and dense contrapuntal style) and even criticised for lacking melodious expression. In the future, the unpopular Schoenberg may be understood more widely as a genius alongside the three B's - who knows.

This is not intended as a critical attack, btw.


----------



## Manuel

> Well, then, if words are the only problem, try a nice oratorio!!! (Asses...)


Speaking of oratorios... I just got _Granville Bantock_'s three hour *Omar Khayyam *. Any ideas of this work?


----------



## Hexameron

Oneiros said:


> I would question the assumption that music has ever progressed or reached an apex. If you approach classical music with certain values in mind, then you might find such developments, as the music conforms more to those values. But from a broader perspective, all that happens in art history is change - changing values, function, aesthetic ideas, etc. If some of these changes appeal more to us than others, this does not necessarily imply that they are better or worse - only that they conform more to our ideas of what "art" should be.


You're right that change is an essential and inevitable factor in the course of art/music history. And there is no reason to suggest Beethoven's symphonies are better than Haydn's because they were written for different purposes. I never said one kind of music was "better" but when I refer to progress, I am indeed referring to the progress made in art music, not music. I'm not considering Latin American corridos or cancions, or African-American worksongs and Indian drum music. I'm not talking about English ballads, Asian music, or even anything written before 1400, the craft of Vitry's and Machaut's isorhythm excepted.

I'm really talking about the music of Beethoven, the entire 19th century and the first half of the 20th. After Beethoven, I think most people could agree that art music reached an apex. The compositional craft, structure, innovative touches, sonorities, profound grasp on expression, and consistent quality of output puts the "art" in art music. The quality of Beethoven might not have been duplicated, but the entire Romantic period imitates his emphasis on expression. Here for the first time, expression at the cost of anything else became the ideal in music. And expression is what I think is losing value and power in the late 20th century. Do you think a song expressing lost love without a drum beat, bass rhythm, or artificial use of chords would be popular today? Will musicians explore new forms (besides the ubiquitous "songs") or bring instrumental music back to the foreground? I ask these questions with doubt, not hope.



> Do you believe that this is a new phenomenon? If so, please show some evidence of their being widespread appreciation for classical music in the past. AFAIK this has never been the case, but I may be wrong.


Yes, music has always been connected and conducive to dancing. Again, I should have clarified that I'm talking about art music. There are so many examples to point to about this kind of music having widespread appreciation. I'll point to the entire Renaissance period as a time when dance music not only existed alongside, but became less favorable next to the madrigals, chansons, and villancicos of the period. Here is the most prominent social singing and performing for the purpose of entertainment. But when I compare its musical attributes, text, and structure to modern day songs... I'm not afraid to say today's songs are lacking.

English virginal music is another example of "classical music" being an integral part of society. Virtually every young woman was taught to play these diverse keyboard genres. Some of them are simple preludes and others are highly complex, with a whole system of variation technique, methods of improvising and embellishing figures that today's popular musicians are not really exploring anymore.

Beyond the Renaissance, though, I think it's safe to say that European audiences in the 17th and 19th century reflect the "widespread appreciation" of "classical music". Look at the number of operas written in the 17th century. The huge demand for piano salon music in the 19th century can also be cited and all of the symphonies and concerti indicate a far greater interest in concert music, new and old.

Art music has not always been supported and favored by the public, but it has always (before the 20th century) appealed to the public. Vivaldi, Haydn, Beethoven, and Liszt wrote music that any layman could enjoy but that connoisseurs could also appreciate. The 20th century modernism movement changed things and I worry the "public" cannot be won back.



> Eh, being that Monteverdi is the best-known madrigalist, I'm assuming that you're referring to his works? Keep in mind that his innovative approach to word-painting was largely a reaction to the rule-laden contrapuntal style of Palestrina. Without this context for such a development, different results would have occurred. I say this, because our contemporary musical environment, in my view, is far from being rule-laden and lacking in freedom. It's almost exactly the opposite - anything goes.


I'm thinking of Gesualdo, Rore, and other early madrigalists who knew how to both adhere to public taste and present striking innovations that aid in the expression of music. Varied textures, strong contrasts between diatonicism and chromaticism, unconventional cadences, and ornaments: are these kinds of musical resources valued in non-art music today?



> Certainly not - what they had to do has been done, and there is no point in having it done again. In Beethoven's time the world may have needed a 'giant' of classical music. Our time (and into the future) may need something different.


As much as I would like it to happen, I'm not asking for someone to return and write music like Bach. However, I think tracing the great composers of the music eras has shown that innovations and breakthroughs in art music is on the wane if not already dead. How can we compare the music dramas of Wagner to the prepared piano and silent pieces of John Cage?

And what can possibly come about in art music now? I've heard plenty of contemporary art music and I'm not sure composers are interested in cultivating new ideas. But even if they are, the lack of public need and support for them does not look promising for its survival.

I guess I should have headed my post with a disclaimer: I am a pessimist.


----------



## Oneiros

Hexameron said:


> You're right that change is...


If you apply the standards from one kind of music to another kind of music, you're setting yourself up for disappointment. Contemporary popular music fulfills a different function and appeals to a different kind of audience than any of the traditional musics you have mentioned. Comparing it to classical music, yes, the harmonies are uninventive, the drum beats repetitive, the performers are more superficially concerned with their image, and so on. I would argue, however, that such comparisons are meaningless, as they only reveal a personal bias, rather than the truth.

Well it looks like I was wrong about widespread appreciation of classical music in the past - I thought that audiences were much smaller than you have mentioned, being confined to the minority upper classes (except in the case of the Romantics, but from what I've read, only a small portion of those large bourgeoisie audiences could actually understand the music beyond the superficials). Be that as it may, it doesn't mean that 'art music' audiences today _should_ be as large as they once were. This assumption would only reveal a historical bias.



Hexameron said:


> I think tracing the great composers of the music eras has shown that innovations and breakthroughs in art music is on the wane if not already dead.


Again I would point out that looking through history is different from looking at the 'contemporary scene'. Today we regard Bach as a genius - in his own day this was not the case. Who can tell, then, which contemporary composers will be regarded as geniuses in 200 years time? John Cage may be placed alongside Wagner in the history books of the future.

If you choose to be pessimistic about it, I cannot argue with that. But, it seems to me that this negative idea about modern music is only a logical outcome of the endeavor to compare traditional and contemporary musics, rather than a choice _a priori_.


----------



## Oneiros

Manuel said:


> Speaking of oratorios... I just got _Granville Bantock_'s three hour *Omar Khayyam *. Any ideas of this work?


I haven't heard it, but hopefully he did a better job musically than Fitzgerald did with his literary translations.

Those Persian poets sure loved wine - a shame the Englishmen never got the chance to get drunk with them:



> [Fitzgerald] rarely drank alcohol, which one would never guess from his translations of Khayyam.


----------



## Breogan

It doesn't get much "cooler" than classical music, in my view. I'd be interested in hearing what type of music those who think it's uncool listen to.


----------



## Lute Lover

Hi there, you should check out Dorian Recordings/Sono Luminus's Face book page... Just search for Classical and it should come up. 
Their motto is' this ain't your grandma's classical music! " How cool is THAT?


----------



## DeadlyKomplexx

"Cool" don't even have a definition really lol the same people who would say that Classical ain't "cool",is prolly the people who think Soulja Boy is some kind of musical genius.

Look at me,I like Underground Rap,and Classical at the same time lol some people just simply don't have the brain needed to enjoy music like Classical.Classical music reaches inside your soul more and evokes more emotions than any music does imo.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Let's enjoy our Bach and Beethoven... I don't think the world will ever produce music like theirs again.

I certainly agree with this sentiment... but perhaps not in the pessimistic (sentimental?) manner in which it was put forth. Bach and Beethoven are certainly unique geniuses... but they are also products of their time. Whatever future geniuses music may bring will certainly not be anything like them... just as Beethoven himself is nothing like Bach.

I'm more of a pessimist when it comes to the future of art music; I believe it's over... just as we'll never have another Renaissance art movement. I don't believe art music will ever be fashionable, at least the way it used to be. I also don't think "classical music" as an artform will progress or reach the apex it once had.

First I might ask... was "classical music ever "fashionable"?... Or was it ever the music of the "masses"? Was Bach composing his fugues and cantatas for the German peasants and illiterate burghers? I certainly know for a fact that Michelangelo and Titian had no concern for the opinions of the masses. Things have certainly changed. Today the "educated" or "elite" audience is not one decided by birth but rather by personal decision. Anyone can make the choice to invest the time and effort needed to develop a deep understanding and appreciation of the often-challenging "fine arts". Or one can choose to stick with the works that easily entertain... that pander to a broader audience. Perhaps the most profound way in which the world has changed... at least in regard to art... is that the money involved in entertaining the masses now far outstrips that spent upon "fine art" or "high art"... but I don't see this as the death of art or music. There will always be those who find the more challenging... the more difficult... to be the more rewarding.

At the same time... the best art today will not be the same as the best art of yesterday. To simply redo what has already been done is nothing more than craft. The role of the artist is to invent a language (however debased that may seem in comparison with one's predecessors) to best convey the experience of the artist in his or her time and place. There will never be another Renaissance artist... but as a visual artist myself I would quickly argue that there have been but few artists in all of history who might have equaled Picasso, Matisse, or several other Modern artists. Perhaps there will not be another Michelangelo, Mozart, or Shakespeare any time soon... but there were no real equals in their own lifetime either. At the same time... I see nothing to stop another artist, poet, or musician in the near future... perhaps even right now... from achieving something just as blindingly overwhelming in scale, depth, and impact. Every time I read such elegies to the "death of art"... such bemoaning the fact that we have come too late... I am reminded of a quote by an ancient Egyptian author that I once came across in a book of essays by John Barth. The Egyptian moaned that he could achieve nothing to equal his predecessors because he was born too late and everything had already been done. The reality was that HE could not achieve anything to equal his predecessors... but hundreds of others of greater artistic ability would continue to add to the artistic dialog in amazingly new and profound ways.

Music as expression, compositional innovation and craft, and real *head* music is no longer valued by the general public and music culture. They want music to dance to or tap their foot to. The dominance of simple "songs" is also a culprit because expression is confined to the lyrics themselves, not the musical delivery; and instrumental accompaniment serves no purpose in communicating the text. When I see the return of madrigal-like wordpainting, then I might be confident art music has a chance to replant itself and start over, but the state of music now (commercials, film, and dance music) is too disheartening.

Again... don't confuse "fine art" with "popular art". The tastes of the masses have rarely ever led the direction of great art. At the same time... don't assume that the genius of today of tomorrow will only come in the same accepted form as that of the past. Shakespeare produced what may just be the greatest single body of literature ever... in a format denigrated as cheap entertainment for the masses. The theater of his time was not seen as being far better than television is in our time. The "novel" was a form initially mocked by poets and serious writers as mere light entertainment for women and other simple-minded readers.

Personally... I don't think any artist can possibly believe that they are a "late-comer" doomed to being a mere also-ran... merely offering up poor variations on what one's predecessors have achieved. Such a mindset is certainly assured of self-fulfillment. Art is not like science... continually reaching for further and further heights so that the average scientist of today is so much more knowledgeable than the most brilliant scientist of the 15th century. Art continually evolves and mutates... but with no guarantee that the latest direction will be better of worse than the previous. The towering figures of art come unexpectedly from where they may be least expected.


----------



## Ephemerid

Anyone who listens to ANY music because its "cool" (be it classical, rock or whatever) is missing the whole point anyway.

What matters is that the music is *good* in some respect or another and that it moves you in some way (classical, rock, jazz, folk, and even as much as I cannot stand it, hip-hop & country). I listen to all kinds of music-- and I listen to it for MYSELF, not for anyone else's impression of me.

Anyone who listens to any kind of music because it is "cool" is seriously missing the point. Music is about the music, not about the "scene" or belonging to the "right" crowd or whatever.

David Byrne in _True Stories_: "Do you like music...? Oh, I know, everybody _says _they do."

~ josh


----------



## saint ecano

Please i want somebody to attach the corronation anthem composed by G.F Handel titled Let Their Celestial Concerts All Unite to my mail box.This is the address, [email protected]


----------



## anon2k2

Music has little to do with coolness and much to do with an primal need to create organized sound (or to listen to others do so too.) I'm not particularly worried about the cool factor, just the enjoyment.


----------



## Astus

Part of what I love about classical music and its lack of "cool-ness" is that every time I listen to a classical piece, I am becoming, in my eyes, a better person, while those who dismiss/can't appreciate classical can never do this. I am beginning to understand more about history, beauty and emotion through my love of classical music and that is something they can never take away from me, no matter what is "cool" or not. In a way, I take pleasure from the knowledge that I have discovered the riches of classical music, while the majority are stuck in the boring, pointless rut of popular music.

One pet hate is the recent attempt to make classical "cool" by way of the dreaded "popera" or crossover classical/pop artists. While they're ok in an only-if-there's-nothing-better-to-listen-to way, soon the pseudo-classical stylings of Il Divo, Sarah Brightman, Andreas Bochelli, etc etc, grow very tiresome! I hate it all. Argh.

Another thing to consider is, classical music was once pop music. In its time, classical was hip and mod and rad and whatever  So this is simply a new era taking over and music going through another stage of development. Tah-dah! However, people who dislike classical music must remind themselves that there is a reason that we still play/sing this music, centuries after it was written. Will doof-doof music have the same staying power as _Le Nozze di Figaro_? I ask you.


----------



## shorteybear

I have actually never had such experiences, I think those are very age-specific. What I mean by that is it would be an accurate statement for my highschool piers. Come around college time, there would only be just a few of such remarks. 
Now, its quite the opposite - "wow, u are into classical music - now thats class! thats a mark of ability to appreciate art, of sophistication, and matureness".

Furthermore, if you are cool enough to like classical music, just exceed your coolness a bit more and ignore those people!!!


----------



## hawk

Just a thought...
There is music in the world MUCH older than classical music. Music that is an active part of living cultures.
Often, in these comparisons, there is neglect in mentioning other music besides rock, rap,etc. Shona(Zimbabwe) mbira music has been played for at least 1400 years, Yolngu Yidaki has been around for 40-60 thousand years, the music of Native people from this continent for thousands and thousands of years. 
In my opinion it is important to recognize the many musics that exist.
Astus while I agree with your sentiment about the improvment one can get when listening to classical music I think this can happen too when I hear Tibetan Monks chanting, or the music of John Rainer, or Whale song, or Seku Jobarteh...


----------



## Astus

Fair point, Hawk  I just meant that, personally, I derive a particular joy and (I think) betterment from classical. I think this same effect can come from many different sources for different people, such as the excellent ones you mention! 

I just wonder, do other people get the same effect from popular or mainstream music? Has Britney Spears changed anyone's life? Lol I'm being facetious of course, but seriously, I see nothing wrong with a little musical elitism!


----------



## Ephemerid

hawk said:


> Just a thought...
> There is music in the world MUCH older than classical music. Music that is an active part of living cultures.
> Often, in these comparisons, there is neglect in mentioning other music besides rock, rap,etc. Shona(Zimbabwe) mbira music has been played for at least 1400 years, Yolngu Yidaki has been around for 40-60 thousand years, the music of Native people from this continent for thousands and thousands of years.
> In my opinion it is important to recognize the many musics that exist.
> Astus while I agree with your sentiment about the improvment one can get when listening to classical music I think this can happen too when I hear Tibetan Monks chanting, or the music of John Rainer, or Whale song, or Seku Jobarteh...


I really like your attitude Hawk. 

~josh


----------



## hawk

Well I do not know what people get from the popular music of today though one thing that comes to mind is JOY...
My daughters listen to many types of music from Gregorian Chant to Loreena Mckennit to Fall Out Boy depending on their mood at the moment. If there is some satisfaction or joy derived from it then I believe it is just as "good" as any of that stuff their dad listens to.
Personally I do not care for most of what is played on the radio, unless it is WBACH. I do not listen to it unless my daughters want to. I get pleasure and joy from the joy they get. 

I would consider myself an elitist also...I would not drink Sanka coffee if it was the last (quasi)coffee in the world!!  Seriously though I agree with you regarding our discerning(elitist) tastes in music. 
It may be that those who do not appreciate or like classical are elitist too


----------



## hawk

You know Josh I have to say I really like your attitude also. You have brought a lot to this forum in your relatively short time here.
Your knowledge of music is expansive and you share it in a manner that makes it acessible for us newcomers to classical!! Thank you!


----------



## Gladiator

Lark Ascending said:


> If "cool music" is defined as the repetitive toneless drivel I hear pumping forth from cars on a daily basis, I'll stick to classical, thank you.


LOL, yeah. I am sure when people heard say three tenors they thought it was cool.


----------

