# Hollywood and classical music



## LuvRavel (Jun 23, 2009)

In the old days there were films like "they shall have music" featuring Jascha Heifetz, the young people were shown to be very inclined to classical music and they viewed Heifetz kind of like their idol.

The good old days.....

Recently I heard about a movie called "the school of rock"..... are they serious? I can already imagine what the movie is about: the students in the school were formally taught conservatively in their music class, probably the focus is on classical music. Then a messy, brashy kinda guy took over the music class and taught them rock instead. The kids would've have portrayed as if they are "liberated" from the boring old music and stepping into the world of non-gay music and "coolness". 

Playing classical music is now somewhat similar to being a science geek as opposed to playing rock music/being the football captain. Not that theres anything wrong with geeks-everyone wants to be smart, who wants to be the dumb bulky football captain?

Why must Hollywood reinforce such sterotype? Thanks to them, the youth of american are more distant to classical music/decency/non-gangster culture than ever.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

As far as the whole population is concerned, classical music will always be a minority sport. The world today wants instantly gratifying experiences, which classical music rarely offers to a person just getting into it.

For a lot of people, the self-destructive lifestyle of popular artists is a liberation from the social norm they abide by. I wonder how they would feel with the knowledge that classical composers took insane amounts of drugs, they might just warm to classical music a bit more with that information.

Mind you, in the end it's what you enjoy that counts. Plus, we will never be able to impose our tastes onto a population that has already been conditioned to like MTV crap so why bother?

With regards to Hollywood, it has not supressed the use of symphonic score in movies which I'm thankful for. It's ironic that as concert-halls diminish, movie composers flourish. Everyone needs their orchestral sounds from somewhere!


----------



## PartisanRanger (Oct 19, 2008)

LuvRavel said:


> Recently I heard about a movie called "the school of rock"..... are they serious? I can already imagine what the movie is about: the students in the school were formally taught conservatively in their music class, probably the focus is on classical music. Then a messy, brashy kinda guy took over the music class and taught them rock instead. The kids would've have portrayed as if they are "liberated" from the boring old music and stepping into the world of non-gay music and "coolness".


It would probably help if you'd actually seen the movie.


----------



## mueske (Jan 14, 2009)

PartisanRanger said:


> It would probably help if you'd actually seen the movie.


Why? It's from Hollywood, it's not a drama, so it must suck. That is a universal truth.


----------



## Tapkaara (Apr 18, 2006)

I think Hollywood is hardly to blame for a lack of appreciation of classical music. Eglarian makes a good point that, in fact, Hollywood could be helping by turning on all sort of people onto orchestral scores...that is to say, movie soundtracks. Film scores are pretty popular, all things considered, to some sort of a service is being done for the cause, in one way or another.

I do not think movies like School of Rock (I have not seen it) have any underlying agenda to tell the public that clasical equals bad and rock equals good. It is, no doubt, just a mindless comedy and should not be taken seriously as an agenda-driven film.

Anyway, classical music has been a "pleasure of the elite" for a long time, and will continue to be seen that way with or without Hollywood.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

PartisanRanger said:


> It would probably help if you'd actually seen the movie.


Altough his plot isn't exactly that, the plot is of the same level and intent.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> Film scores are pretty popular, all things considered, to some sort of a service is being done for the cause, in one way or another.


Occasionally, they're very good, too.

On the other hand, it doesn't take anything other than money to put together a Hollywood orchestra and bang out a couple of generic pieces. It's often bland program music more concerned with reinforcing a cinematic expectation or vignette than making any structural sense. The exceptions are sometimes excellent, of course.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> Mind you, in the end it's what you enjoy that counts. Plus, we will never be able to impose our tastes onto a population that has already been conditioned to like MTV crap so why bother?


Since it can enrich one's life so much I don't understand why there aren't more hours spend in school on teaching kids about music. Not even necessarily on learning to play an instrument, but just learning to appreciate music and making them familiar with everything that's out there. It shouldn't be done in a "you kids only listen to crap and we're going to teach you about what's really valuable" sort of way though. That would only **** them off and you would lose their interest right away. There could even be some lessons and discussions on the history of the popular genres to help draw them in. But by the time they leave school kids should know the difference between, say, baroque and romantic music - a symphony and a string quartet. They should know about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner AND Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, the Beatles and the Stones for that matter so that they can make an educated choice for themselves what to listen to. That's not imposing anything on anyone - it's only educating them.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

That's a good idea jhar26, and in a perfect world I'd see it happening.

I don't know what country you come from, but in Britain, educating a child is a futile pirsuit. In fact the very idea of anything being remotely connected with education would put them off it forever. There are the acceptions of course, but the majority of kids are simply lost causes.

This is why classical music is a minority sport, you have to _learn_ about periods, styles and ensambles in order to fully appreciate it. And we all know (at least we all do in Britain) that anything that takes effort isn't worth doing.

I love the idea though, I'd join your lesson!


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> Since it can enrich one's life so much I don't understand why there aren't more hours spend in school on teaching kids about music. Not even necessarily on learning to play an instrument, but just learning to appreciate music and making them familiar with everything that's out there. It shouldn't be done in a "you kids only listen to crap and we're going to teach you about what's really valuable" sort of way though. That would only **** them off and you would lose their interest right away. There could even be some lessons and discussions on the history of the popular genres to help draw them in. But by the time they leave school kids should know the difference between, say, baroque and romantic music - a symphony and a string quartet. They should know about Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner AND Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, the Beatles and the Stones for that matter so that they can make an educated choice for themselves what to listen to. That's not imposing anything on anyone - it's only educating them.


Requisite, college-level humanities courses already attempt this to some extent, with minimal success. This is in part because of the nature of mass society, liberal academia, and the 'need' for imposed, capitalist time constraints on education. You can't play an excerpt from Handel's _Messiah_ next to a swingin' number by Duke Ellington without discussing what each is in essence, or you're going to wind up with bored students thumbing through textbook pages to memorize italicized words. Dumb students will roll their eyes and smart ones will recognize the arbitrariness of including these seemingly unrelated styles of music over the nearly infinite number of others that have been performed throughout the thousands of years that humans have existed on Earth. We should be realistic and acknowledge that not everyone can be included in a 500-page book, but we aren't, so we don't. No wonder pluralism fails miserably and everyone is so unhappy.


----------



## PartisanRanger (Oct 19, 2008)

Rasa said:


> Altough his plot isn't exactly that, the plot is of the same level and intent.


I've seen the movie, and it doesn't really make any significant commentary on classical music.



mueske said:


> Why? It's from Hollywood, it's not a drama, so it must suck. That is a universal truth.


Ridiculous statement aside, I enjoyed the movie.



jhar said:


> Since it can enrich one's life so much I don't understand why there aren't more hours spend in school on teaching kids about music.


I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that kids should spend more time in school learning about music at the expense of subjects with more practical utility. As enriching as music can be, it's still essentially a hobby. I see no reason why music should be given precedence over any number of pleasurable pursuits.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

PartisanRanger said:


> As enriching as music can be, it's still essentially a hobby.


Before lifestyle politics intervened in the name of individualism, music was a cultural extension of the group's physical and metaphysical ethos. There was a time not too long before modernist thought when art had not yet been abstracted as separate from religion or, indeed, way of life. Now, everyone's confused both by quantity and surrogate choice, so they stagnate, becoming unmovable from their position that music is just a way to "pass the time".

Hobbies are a by-product of docility and idle luxury.


----------



## Mirror Image (Apr 20, 2009)

LuvRavel said:


> In the old days there were films like "they shall have music" featuring Jascha Heifetz, the young people were shown to be very inclined to classical music and they viewed Heifetz kind of like their idol.
> 
> The good old days.....
> 
> ...


I like your screen name and avatar.  That's about all I have to say.


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

LuvRavel said:


> Playing classical music is now somewhat similar to being a science geek as opposed to playing rock music/being the football captain. Not that theres anything wrong with geeks-everyone wants to be smart, who wants to be the dumb bulky football captain?.


But these are just high school roles- in real life, the dumb guy who's a great football player gets the same respect as the skinny guy who plays the cello.

And really, Elgarian? MTV crap? Classical music enthusiasts find that their emotions are wrung by classical music; MTV enthusiasts find that their emotions are wrung by MTV. If music is able to change a person, and MTV-ers aren't changed by classical music, then it's great that they've (or we, actually- I like MTV) found something that can transform them.


----------



## Dedrater (Mar 2, 2009)

BuddhaBandit said:


> And really, Elgarian? MTV crap? Classical music enthusiasts find that their emotions are wrung by classical music; MTV enthusiasts find that their emotions are wrung by MTV. If music is able to change a person, and MTV-ers aren't changed by classical music, then it's great that they've (or we, actually- I like MTV) found something that can transform them.


Personal experience is not a valid determinant when it comes to this kind of arbitrary preference. It's easy to spout rhetoric about the wonders of art and how it can 'change' people, but until you get more specific -- scan your brain, write a dissertation, abstract the feelings from the music that seem worth something -- it doesn't mean anything.

Conversely, I'm not privy to terms like 'Classical' in the first place, because they imply that Brahms, Bach, Glass, Satie, and Haydn are more similar to one another than Satie is to Harold Budd. _In what way_ does the music change the person? After determining this, we can apply context and take the next step toward enriching our lives.


----------



## BuddhaBandit (Dec 31, 2007)

Dedrater said:


> scan your brain, write a dissertation, abstract the feelings from the music that seem worth something -- it doesn't mean anything.


That's not the point. As Joseph Cambell said, people should "follow their bliss". I understand that "change" is a vague word, but it was meant to convey that MTV enthusiasts and metalheads and people who just don't listen to music are no different then classical music fans. It's just a different type of bliss. This seems, of course, like an obvious point, but much of the recent fighting on the board seems to revolve around this concept.



Dedrater said:


> Conversely, I'm not privy to terms like 'Classical' in the first place, because they imply that Brahms, Bach, Glass, Satie, and Haydn are more similar to one another than Satie is to Harold Budd.


Nobody on the board thinks that "classical music" is a good term. In fact, it's not even a correct term- "Western Art Music" is far more appropriate. It's just a useful shorthand.


----------



## Conservationist (Apr 5, 2007)

LuvRavel said:


> Why must Hollywood reinforce such sterotype?


Class revenge.


----------



## JoeGreen (Nov 17, 2008)

I liked the movie. And as I recall they weren't learnign any form of music before they learned "rock".

well anyways, what's new from Hollywood.


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical (Mar 15, 2008)

I have sometimes seen this, but I also see in other times the ones who listen to classical music are rebels (Clockwood Orange) or an average-looking joe, who happens to be smart. But if anything, Hollywood glorifies classical music. Classical is the form of music that dominates the film's music score, including in "School of Rock."


----------



## LuvRavel (Jun 23, 2009)

BuddhaBandit said:


> But these are just high school roles- in real life, the dumb guy who's a great football player gets the same respect as the skinny guy who plays the cello.
> 
> And really, Elgarian? MTV crap? Classical music enthusiasts find that their emotions are wrung by classical music; MTV enthusiasts find that their emotions are wrung by MTV. If music is able to change a person, and MTV-ers aren't changed by classical music, then it's great that they've (or we, actually- I like MTV) found something that can transform them.


EXACTLY!! What I said was only sterotype which is far from the reality of american schools. But that's the point, why is Holly wood so keen on reinforcing that sterotype?? Seriously, in almost all of the american movies about teenagers and high school, the school environment is always portrayed like this......

That's why i didnt want to come to USA for high school but went to NZ instead(my parents were gonna go to USA at start), because after seeing those movies, i decided i DON'T wanna be rejected and treated like a freak if i get good marks in academics and plays instrument, which of course, is not the case in reality at all.......


----------



## LuvRavel (Jun 23, 2009)

Tapkaara said:


> I think Hollywood is hardly to blame for a lack of appreciation of classical music. Eglarian makes a good point that, in fact, Hollywood could be helping by turning on all sort of people onto orchestral scores...that is to say, movie soundtracks. Film scores are pretty popular, all things considered, to some sort of a service is being done for the cause, in one way or another.
> 
> I do not think movies like School of Rock (I have not seen it) have any underlying agenda to tell the public that clasical equals bad and rock equals good. It is, no doubt, just a mindless comedy and should not be taken seriously as an agenda-driven film.
> 
> Anyway, classical music has been a "pleasure of the elite" for a long time, and will continue to be seen that way with or without Hollywood.


Yes, sure, the movie is just a mindless comedy, and the slightly more intelligent will understand it as such. And yes, the image of classical music being pleasure of the elite will continue with or without Hollywood.

BUT 
Have you given any thoughts as to what gave rise to these notions in the first place? In the old days, classical music was not only for the elite, people of almost all classes enjoyed it. Obviously because "classical music" has no meaning at the time, it was just music. It's the mass media, although a very gradual process, but it's they that have been marginalising classical music from being "the music" in the old days to it's present state. Slowly but surely, the dominance of classical music is eroded aways by them without anyone ever noticing it.

Thus a negative feed back loop is created: as the exposure of classical music is decreased, less people will know about it so the public demand for it also decrease, which in turn reduces the classical music exposure again because theres less demand.

Therefore, my point is that although many asserts that the media is only playing the music that the public wants to hear, so seldom classical music, BUT, it's actually the mass media that has started the whole process of marginalising classical music in the first place.


----------

