# What is the purpose of classical music today?



## cellogrl (Apr 4, 2014)

I'm a young musician (not yet an adult) so I'm sure my ideas are half-baked in a way and probably not correct, but I've been thinking about this for awhile. I feel like classical music, while it is amazing and genius, only appeals to a very small audience which is dying. Classical music isn't like visual art or writing where you are creating something new and putting yourself directly into the product. Unless you are a composer or improvising. Other kinds of music have a distinct stamp on their time period and generation. Bob Dylan for Vietnam, Lady Gaga for LGBT rights, ect. Classical music has never been able to have a large impact on one modern generation. I absolutlely LOVE classical music, but I am confused on how to make it more enjoyable and in-reach for a larger audience. Should we be putting more effort into modern music, and not neglecting the old music but not obsessing over it as much? How should a young musician make a living when the audience is shrinking? Any Ideas would be appreciated.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

cellogrl said:


> Should we be putting more effort into modern music, and not neglecting the old music but not obsessing over it as much?


I definitely think we should be putting more effort into modern classical music


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

cellogrl said:


> Classical music has never been able to have a large impact on one modern generation.


I'm not sure what you consider modern but since you mention Vietnam, I'll assume you're including the post war baby boomers. Let me assure you classical music had a very large impact on the 50's, 60's and even 70s generations because of Hollywood (mostly via Stanley Kubrick) and also progressive rock via bands that used classical or were influenced by classical, luring many of us to explore the real deal in more depth.

I can't believe we (the baby boomers) were unique in that. There was just as much pop garbage on the radio than as there is now. Surely there is something important going on now that is not exactly mainstream but nonetheless important and cool, whether it be gaming music, classical streaming playlists, more movie soundtracks or whatever, that will do the same for the contemporary generations as Kubrick and Emerson, Lake and Palmer did for the baby boomers. I have faith in the tenacity of art.

Also, if the audience is truly shrinking, so I think would the competition be shrinking.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It's not the music, it's the people. Modern classical is already very beautiful. It's not more widespread because the populous would rather listen to Miley Cirus instead. Why would anyone want to twist Classical music to fit those standards? It simply wouldn't be what it is anymore. As smug as this sounds - they need to change, not the music. Because there are already quite a few who cherish it as it is... and it's not about trying to fit some social-number similar to being proud of how many friends you can attain on Facebook.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

cellogrl said:


> I'm a young musician (not yet an adult) so I'm sure my ideas are half-baked in a way and probably not correct, but I've been thinking about this for awhile. I feel like classical music, while it is amazing and genius, only appeals to a very small audience which is dying. Classical music isn't like visual art or writing where you are creating something new and putting yourself directly into the product. Unless you are a composer or improvising. Other kinds of music have a distinct stamp on their time period and generation. Bob Dylan for Vietnam, Lady Gaga for LGBT rights, ect. Classical music has never been able to have a large impact on one modern generation. I absolutlely LOVE classical music, but I am confused on how to make it more enjoyable and in-reach for a larger audience. *Should we be putting more effort into modern music, and not neglecting the old music but not obsessing over it as much? *How should a young musician make a living when the audience is shrinking? Any Ideas would be appreciated.


I think so, yes. :tiphat:


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

I recommend you look at what people like David Lang or Missy Mazzoli are doing...

I don't think there is anything wrong, irrelevant, or unmarketable about continuing the classical music tradition; we need to blow-up the cultural elitism/assumptions that seem to embedded within in order to move forward.

Hence Mazzoli; hence Lang. Punk rock classical. Relevant classical.

Not that all classical needs to be "New York" or "punk" but I love a different cultural vein moving classical forward.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Modern and contemporary classical music (1890 to the most presently composed) should be every bit as much a part of a young musician's repertoire as is the older Romantic, classical and Baroque music.

There is plenty of contemporary classical music which is tonal, conservative, atonal, avant-garde and all styles in between which is currently being written, performed, well-received, recorded and in general circulation. 

Reports that classical music is dying have been grossly exaggerated  What is dying, or whom, are a senior generation of concert goers whose taste, by contemporary standards, is extremely conservative -- but, they are dying out, and as they go, concert halls and music organizations are now coming to grips with programming, at least intermittently, other repertoire which has more 'relevancy' to the younger generation of concert-goers.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

My view is that Modern music is one thing, the ideologies attached to it is another. The latter should be jettisoned, they have proved to fail. I think that whenever I read someone on this forum telling another to "open your ears" to modern music. It is patronising and implies that the speaker is superior to the person being spoken to. This kind of thinking has tarnished the cause of recent or more recent musics. What we need is bridge builders, not those who belittle people who are antagonistic to new/newer music. We all have our limitations, don't we?

Many listeners are in the middle, if they are guided in a friendly manner into the extremely varied world of new music, we can actually get traction on this. One way is to stop patronising and reach out to the majority in the middle - those who can be converted (even though I think the term is limited due to its religious overtones, but it will do).

So, we need a spokesperson for new music. I think Simon Rattle and Michael Tilson Thomas have put much effort into this, so too Zubin Mehta but they are older generation. Same with Pierre Boulez, although he was an exponent of that radical arm of Modernism earlier on. There are the likes of Gustavo Dudamel and Alan Gilbert, but I don't know what they are doing with new or newer music now? I am not sure who can qualify or become the face of new music, or just an exponent of classical in general that people can recognise as a kind of ambassador. Leonard Bernstein was a bit like that in the past, so too Mehta and Boulez in their younger days, they did their share for new music (I mean in terms of conducting it). Of earlier generations, Stokowski stands out.

There's the need for champions and spokespersons, but that's only the beginning. Its not easy. Maybe we have to accept that music changed at some point, it moved from having wider appeal to a more limited appeal. Given that Western classical is a tradition that reaches back hundreds of years, its finite just like anything else. Or maybe it just changes and adapts? Whether for the better or worse is ultimately a matter of what a person knows about music now, and what conclusions one draws from such knowledge. I don't see a need to be doctrinnaire about what we class as 'real' classical music and borderline or crossover classical. I just go with what I enjoy, or have potential to do so with some effort big or small. The buck stops with the individual listener but he or she can get help from others.

Financially classical isn't in the best of situations today, in terms of live music definitely, I think that's a very big question mark. If the mainstream is in trouble then its less travelled tributaries will also be affected.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sid James said:


> My view is that Modern music is one thing, the ideologies attached to it is another. The latter should be jettisoned, they have proved to fail.


It seems to me that the finest music generally has ideologies "attached" to it. The religious music of the Renaissance, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, the Romantics -- all have their ideologies. All these ideologies, ultimately, fail and are replaced. Some are still in the process.


----------



## lostid (Aug 13, 2012)

Classical music takes time and patience, and most folks don't have either. 

But once you are into it, it can be highly addictive.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

KenOC said:


> It seems to me that the finest music generally has ideologies "attached" to it. The religious music of the Renaissance, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, the Romantics -- all have their ideologies. All these ideologies, ultimately, fail and are replaced. Some are still in the process.


Yes, or I'd add adapted. Of course, the older music needs a boost as well. In terms of highlighting its connections with the newer stuff, and going back to the beginnings too. I am not saying we throw the baby out with the bathwater, a phrase I've used often here.

One such way is becoming more common, I have talked about this before. If there is a new or newer piece performed as part of a concert consisting of older works, the musician in charge can talk about it briefly. One way is demonstrating what are the main ideas/themes/fragments that go through the work. I've seen this done with Berg and Shostakovich, for example. That's the kind of guidance or scaffolding I'm thinking of. I've even heard one musician doing this round off his spiel saying to the audience that he acknowledges they are waiting for the older piece at the end of the concert, but he hoped that they would in the meantime enjoy the newer piece.

With premieres, having the composer speak before his or her work is heard for the first time - or after since it's their first time hearing it too - is a bonus.

If I am optimistic - which isn't always, or in every respect - about the future of the more recent classical music, I believe that with positive techniques and role models like this we can turn the situation around, or at least have potential of doing so. What we have now is a situation where we aren't clear on many things, and the big one is to get people into this music in the first place. So, since most classical listeners know their old repertoire to some degree, let's build on it. Let's get them in the gate, not push them away at the gate. That's the simplest way I can put it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> It seems to me that the finest music generally has ideologies "attached" to it. The religious music of the Renaissance, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, the Romantics -- all have their ideologies. All these ideologies, ultimately, fail and are replaced. Some are still in the process.


What can you do?

Some people look at a great painting or hear a great piece of music and the first and maybe dominant thing on their minds is a combination of ideologies and things of sociopolitical significance; others look at a great painting and see 'art,' or listen to a great piece and hear excitement and beauty.

Eyes and Ears Of The Beholder, and all that


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Some people look at a great painting or hear a great piece of music and the first and maybe dominant thing on their minds is a combination of ideologies and things of sociopolitical significance; others look at a great painting and see 'art,' or listen to a great piece and hear excitement and beauty.


If you believe you perceive *any* art other than through the filters of your own values and preconceptions, then you are indeed a very special person, or else mistaken.


----------



## Haydn man (Jan 25, 2014)

My wife and I returned to concert going again this year after a 25 year gap, the audience seemed to have the same age demographic now it did 25 years ago. So unless they have all been in cryogenic stasis they must have replaced the audience of the past. I think this audience may be receptive to more contemporary classical music then is assumed. 
Firstly, the same arguments were being had about concert programming 25 years ago so it's not new
Secondly, classical web sites such as this have introduced me to new music I would otherwise have missed and so broadened my horizons
Thirdly, if I am going to a concert now with a work I am not familiar then I can be listening to it within minutes using Spotify or YouTube etc.
It seems to me that a major issue with classical music is the commercial problem of making money from new recordings to sustain orchestras and that severely limits choice of works
Don't have any easy solutions for this but you have to grow your audience so use the web to champion newer works get musicians and conductors to explain and discuss concert programming on their website.
If the artists don't champion their art then the risk is it dies.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

PetrB said:


> Reports that classical music is dying have been grossly exaggerated  What is dying, or whom, are a senior generation of concert goers whose taste, by contemporary standards, is extremely conservative -- but, they are dying out, and as they go, concert halls and music organizations are now coming to grips with programming, at least intermittently, other repertoire which has more 'relevancy' to the younger generation of concert-goers.


I've often heard the notion that today's concert audience is an older generation with conservative tastes, and that we need change to bring in younger listeners. Was this the case 20 years ago? 40 years ago? 60 years ago? Unless this present group started attending concerts en mass 40-50 years ago when they were relatively young, I assume the present situation has been a constant for the past 40-50 years or more. If so, it seems that classical concerts have always (for 40 years or more) been mostly attended by an older generation with both money and interest, and we should expect that when the current older generation dies, a new older generation will take their place. Unless something significant changes, the concert audience will continue for the foreseeable future to be old and conservative.

If the past 60 years or so has looked essentially the same as the present, is there really a need to make changes? I'm not suggesting that contemporary music should not be performed. I'm just wondering if the present situation has existed relatively unchanged for many years, why would orchestras look to change? I know that some have had problems with funding, but is that a truly new phenomenon?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> If you believe you perceive *any* art other than through the filters of your own values and preconceptions, then you are indeed a very special person, or else mistaken.


Yes, Ken. That is I'm sure profound, i.e. everyone is within the context of their own context.

However, I'm sure you know what I meant, and I'm really not interested in biting virtual semantic bait attached to a virtual semantic hook and line.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

How do we measure the "relevance" of any given work of art? So Lady Gaga and Katy Perry have a larger audience than David Lang or Osvaldo Golijov... thus they are more "relevant"? The Monkees had a larger audience than Dylan or the Rolling Stones... what does that prove. Relevance? To whom?

There is plenty of contemporary classical music which is tonal, conservative, atonal, avant-garde and all styles in between which is currently being written, performed, well-received, recorded and in general circulation.

I suspect that a good deal of the reluctance by many to explore contemporary "classical" music is due to the above-mentioned ideologies and the militant attitudes of some who would have you believe that they "own" and define "true" contemporary music... as well as to those who continually raise the spectre of an ugly, inaccessible contemporary classical music.

As you suggest, there is a great wealth and variety of marvelous contemporary music ('classical" and otherwise) to be explored. Some of it I like... some of it I don't. I suspect others will find the same to be true.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

cellogrl said:


> I'm a young musician (not yet an adult) so I'm sure my ideas are half-baked in a way and probably not correct, but I've been thinking about this for awhile. I feel like classical music, while it is amazing and genius, only appeals to a very small audience which is dying. Classical music isn't like visual art or writing where you are creating something new and putting yourself directly into the product. Unless you are a composer or improvising. Other kinds of music have a distinct stamp on their time period and generation. Bob Dylan for Vietnam, Lady Gaga for LGBT rights, ect. Classical music has never been able to have a large impact on one modern generation. I absolutlely LOVE classical music, but I am confused on how to make it more enjoyable and in-reach for a larger audience. Should we be putting more effort into modern music, and not neglecting the old music but not obsessing over it as much? How should a young musician make a living when the audience is shrinking? Any Ideas would be appreciated.


cellogri, As a teacher, I struggle everday to figure how to make younger people catch fire with the material I teach. It usually works if you let your own love of what you love ignite the fire in others. I don't teach music, but I do talk to my students about music, and they are eager to hear about different developments. My sense is that they instinctively prefer what is new. It doesn't have to be a new composition. It can be a new release of older music, or a new performance style. (I've gotten some intrigued with "historically informed performances" of Bach and Vivaldi). The majority of people may not ever take to classical music. But if you do no more than share with friends what you enjoy and why you enjoy it, your enthusiasm will maybe ignite something in them. I had begun exploring classical music before I went off to college, but my college roommate was a very talented string player and was very knowledgable about new currents in classical music. He got me to listen to all manner of avant-garde stuff. His enthusiasm was infectious. All sort of serious music is struggling nowaday -- not just classical, but jazz, even rock -- and for a complex set of reasons. Nothing changes things better than word-of-mouth. Talk to your friends about what in the music you play engages you, why it does, what artists you admire. Not everyone will catch on, but enough will. All the best.


----------



## Selby (Nov 17, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> How do we measure the "relevance" of any given work of art? So Lady Gaga and Katy Perry have a larger audience than David Lang or Osvaldo Golijov... thus they are more "relevant"? The Monkees had a larger audience than Dylan or the Rolling Stones... what does that prove. Relevance? To whom?
> 
> There is plenty of contemporary classical music which is tonal, conservative, atonal, avant-garde and all styles in between which is currently being written, performed, well-received, recorded and in general circulation.
> 
> ...


If I could nominate a "best post" this would be in consideration. Well said.


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

Oooh, I like this topic!

I'll give my $0.02 and say that the problem isn't the music, it's the context. Classical music isn't boring, dead, or dying. _The concert hall_ is boring, dead, and dying. I think the number one thing we could do to get more people enjoying classical music is to get it out of the concert hall and into spaces that are actually used by everyday people.

It's not a coincidence that the one form of orchestral music that 100% of everyone in the entire world likes (footnote 1) is movie soundtracks.

Footnote 1: Hey, you. Yes, you, the guy who was about to reply with a sneered, "Well _I_ don't." You don't because you're not included in the 100% of everyone in the entire world. So don't bother.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

peterb said:


> Oooh, I like this topic!
> 
> I'll give my $0.02 and say that the problem isn't the music, it's the context. Classical music isn't boring, dead, or dying. _The concert hall_ is boring, dead, and dying. I think the number one thing we could do to get more people enjoying classical music is to get it out of the concert hall and into spaces that are actually used by everyday people.


What is it you find boring about concert halls? They are functional spaces designed for their acoustic qualities. If the acoustics are good and the music is good I am not bored. What else are you looking for exactly?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

There really is nothing to compare with a live, spur of the moment spontaneous concert; may not be studio-condition note perfect, but who cares? Just the sound of a full symphony orchestra in say, Carnegie Hall. There's nothing like it!!


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> What is it you find boring about concert halls? They are functional spaces designed for their acoustic qualities. If the acoustics are good and the music is good I am not bored. What else are you looking for exactly?


Drinks and conversation with other concert-goers, for my own part--whether before or after the event. For that reason I tend to prefer going to out-of-the-way clubs, community concerts, and even after-hours concerts at small commercial outlets like bookstores. I go to concert halls too, but I favor more intimate settings--even if the acoustics (or, in some cases, the playing) aren't up to the same standard.

*p.s.* Many of my most pleasurable concert experiences have been for contemporary music (or relatively unknown music from other periods), since they tend to draw unusual people from the woodwork.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peterb said:


> Oooh, I like this topic!
> 
> I'll give my $0.02 and say that the problem isn't the music, it's the context. Classical music isn't boring, dead, or dying. _The concert hall_ is boring, dead, and dying. I think the number one thing we could do to get more people enjoying classical music is to get it out of the concert hall and into spaces that are actually used by everyday people.
> 
> ...


Trouble is, most people aren't going to want to listen to music in the dark, and a lot of people do not want "extraneous visuals" presented with the music they do go out to hear. They want to watch the players performing the stuff 

Movie scores are written _to accompany_ the film: many of those scores are quite listenable on their own. Few of them take one premise and work it for ten to thirty minutes -- listening to a film score, or a even a recording with slightly expanded or lengthened segments is still far short of the listening span needed to follow most classical works

The film score is a different beast and genre. Once in a blue moon a successful suite is made for concert performance.

But, a movie, with music an important _but incidental part of the whole_, is not just listening attentively to music, and that is what concerts _are_ about.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I have some "sonically improved" live Toscanini Beethoven performances and they still sound like they were recorded in a telephone booth.

Can one even begin to imagine what Beethoven's 7th Symphony must have sounded like when conducted in Carnegie Hall by Toscanini with the NY Philharmonic? Wouldn't you have put up with the program rustlers and arm rest hustlers just to be there and hear that sound in full glory by one of the all-time greats?


----------



## peterb (Mar 7, 2014)

See, I find the concert-hall to embody the _opposite_ of the word "spontaneous". I also question the assumption that most concert halls are acoustically superior; yes, we can all think of examples that are, and we can all think of examples of concert halls with atrocious acoustics which are, nevertheless, used for classical performances. Because they have seats to pack people into.

Maybe I'm just too used to jazz performances, but I largely agree with blancrocher: smaller, more intimate, less formal spaces are (all things being equal) better for most kinds of music, period. Are there exceptions? Sure. But not every classical performance is a full orchestra, nor should they be.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

You can only listen to "one" music at a time. And in this sense, the classical music is much better than anything else out there, if not the best. And I betcha it's the best!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

peterb said:


> See, I find the concert-hall to embody the _opposite_ of the word "spontaneous". I also question the assumption that most concert halls are acoustically superior; yes, we can all think of examples that are, and we can all think of examples of concert halls with atrocious acoustics which are, nevertheless, used for classical performances. Because they have seats to pack people into.
> 
> Maybe I'm just too used to jazz performances, but I largely agree with blancrocher: smaller, more intimate, less formal spaces are (all things being equal) better for most kinds of music, period. Are there exceptions? Sure. But not every classical performance is a full orchestra, nor should they be.


Where do you get that concert halls are not used by everyday people?

Where would you suggest that is an acoustically appropriate space for an ensemble of 80 - 120 musicians, sometimes playing tutti and FF? There have been rare instances where a town's concert hall was one that did hold only around 400-500 people.
By current average concert hall size, that is cutting the audience numbers by easily two thirds, meaning the musicians would have to take that percentage of pay reduction to keep the ticket prices the same, or the audiences would have to play that much more.

You say you are more used to jazz performances. I wonder if any of those you attended were not amplified and instead depended entirely upon the acoustic of the room... ? Because 'that is classical,' purely acoustic, no amplification -- it is very much a part of what makes the sound as it does sound.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

The purpose of classical music today is to keep me entertained.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

senza sordino said:


> The purpose of classical music today is to keep me entertained.


Yep, simple. And simplicity is always the key!


----------



## lostid (Aug 13, 2012)

Personally for me, classical music is a part of my life forever, not separable anymore. It does the mental massage everyday and enrich my soul and body. It gives me the mental strength when needed (like listening to Brahms' piano concertos) and makes me relaxed and stay calm. It's also a great emotional companion.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2014)

I got slightly dyslexic just now and read two thread titles on top of one another. 

"What is the purpose of Sibelius' symphonies?"

Oh boy, here we go.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Fun and Money*

I have not read all of the above so someone may have already mentioned this.

I am an amateur musician. For me it is about having fun.

My youngest son is a professional. For him it is economics. See: http://www.talkclassical.com/31317-rant-horrible-music-composers-2.html#post632229


----------



## bobsgrock (Jul 4, 2013)

Classical music is art in the broadest sense but also in the strictest sense. I once heard Leonard Bernstein describe this type of music as 'exact music,' a term he felt was better attributed since it distinguishes this type of music from all others. There is no other genre of music in which performances some 200 or even 300 years later are played so closely to what the composer originally intended (Of course, certain traits are different such as types of instruments, acoustics, various tempos, etc). However, this contributes in large part to what I think is the ultimate, if indirect, purpose of "classical" music: it is a kind of time capsule. It reveals to us a certain section of societies existing before us and contributes to our understanding of how they lived, thought and viewed the world. Of course it entertains, enthralls, enlightens, energizes and moves us emotionally. Yet, if it can do this to any number of audiences and musicians today as well as the millions who heard it before us, there must be some kind of universal truth and unique spirit to it. I believe it is the most human of musical genres, covering the full spectrum of the human experience. I pity those who haven't experienced its unlimited riches yet either out of resistance or ignorance. That's partly why I have to keep listening; I want to be a disciple for the cause of spreading this music to the unreached souls of the world.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2014)

What is the purpose of classical music today?
The same purpose(s) as always: for your enjoyment and for those who wish to listen to you. Given the history of music and the wide range of genres and exponents, you ought to be able to find something you enjoy producing: what does it matter whether it is similar to what has gone before, or whether it is "classical" or not?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Blancrocher said:


> Drinks and conversation with other concert-goers, for my own part--whether before or after the event. For that reason I tend to prefer going to out-of-the-way clubs, community concerts, and even after-hours concerts at small commercial outlets like bookstores. I go to concert halls too, but I favor more intimate settings--even if the acoustics (or, in some cases, the playing) aren't up to the same standard.
> 
> *p.s.* Many of my most pleasurable concert experiences have been for contemporary music (or relatively unknown music from other periods), since they tend to draw unusual people from the woodwork.


You seem to be talking about performances by small to moderate sized ensembles, right? Certainly makes sense in that context. The logistics get a bit more complicated if one is listening to a full orchestra. And I imagine it is really hard to sneak a contrabassoon into a flash mob performance.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

EdwardBast said:


> You seem to be talking about performances by small to moderate sized ensembles, right? Certainly makes sense in that context. The logistics get a bit more complicated if one is listening to a full orchestra. And I imagine it is really hard to sneak a contrabassoon into a flash mob performance.


It's true that bookstores have let me down when it comes to their meager offerings of symphonic repertoire.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> The purpose of classical music today is to keep me entertained.


Yea! ... and _yay!_


----------



## jtbell (Oct 4, 2012)

PetrB said:


> Modern and contemporary classical music (1890 to the most presently composed)


How can we call music that is 120+ years old "modern and contemporary"??


----------



## Guest (Apr 8, 2014)

jtbell said:


> How can we call music that is 120+ years old "modern and contemporary"??


Through a misuse (as purists would see it) of the terms. "Modern" referring to the modernist (and post-modernist periods) from 1880ish to 1950ish. "Contemporary" referring to 'now'.

I prefer to use the term 'contemporary' to mean, "with the time", as in "Serialism is contemporary with the 1920s". Using 'contemporary' as a synonym for 'modern' means the language loses a useful word.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

jtbell said:


> How can we call music that is 120+ years old "modern and contemporary"??


It's a title of an era and form. We're not in vocabulary class.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Sid James said:


> My view is that Modern music is one thing, the ideologies attached to it is another. The latter should be jettisoned, they have proved to fail. I think that whenever I read someone on this forum telling another to "open your ears" to modern music. It is patronising and implies that the speaker is superior to the person being spoken to. This kind of thinking has tarnished the cause of recent or more recent musics. What we need is bridge builders, not those who belittle people who are antagonistic to new/newer music. We all have our limitations, don't we?


Yes! That's exactly the way I feel about "religious" music! I'm glad to see that Sid James recognizes that music, all music, has "universal" elements which transcend ideologies.



KenOC said:


> It seems to me that the finest music generally has ideologies "attached" to it. The *religious music *of the Renaissance, Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, the Romantics -- all have their ideologies. All these ideologies, ultimately, fail and are replaced. Some are still in the process.


I agree with KenOC as well! If I'm listening to a Bach cantata, or Gregorian chant, it doesn't matter if the specific ideology or text 'attached' to it is Christian or not; I can get the full 'sacred' effect from it, whether I subscribe to that dogma or not. What a wonderful, multi-cultural world we live in!


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Can't wait for the post-contemporary era to begin!

No, no, only kidding - what do I care?


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Serge said:


> Can't wait for the post-contemporary era to begin!


Alas--it always seems to be just beyond me, no matter how much time passes.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

The purpose has been the same for years like entertainment,money making,help one to relax & so on.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

jtbell said:


> How can we call music that is 120+ years old "modern and contemporary"??


lame word choices by musicologists. 
Modern is the named period for music from 1890 - 1975. 
Contemporary is the named period from 1975 - present.

Eventually, I'm sure much later, those eras will be given some other name, thought about in retrospect.

All of these era names are a bit arbitrary, the earlier ones named in the late 1800's, well after the fact.

Bach and his contemporaries had no idea they were living in "the Baroque Era," no one from the "Classical Era" was aware they were living in that era, etc. Each in their own times were living in their modern / contemporary world 

"Romantic," as applied to that designated era of music has so little to do with what we now think of that word meaning that it often causes tremendous confusion and misunderstanding.

It is all somewhat arbitrary, and to puzzle much over their literal meaning is to knock your head against a brick wall.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Well, it used to be 'the only game in town,' in that it represented the ideology of the existing power structure, which was always an elite: the Church, or royalty, or the state. Shostakovich got quite nervous when his music was found to be in opposition to the best interests of the power structure.

Now that capitalism (under the guise of 'democracy'...ha ha) is the dominant power, the most important music is that music which reinforces corporate interests. This is not "classical" music, unless it's used in beef commercials.

What is "classical" music's purpose today? Not what it used to be. In contemporary terms, the most theoretical advances will be in academic settings. It's a 'status' music that is supported by token grants and foundations, as prestige for corporate and capitalist entities. As such, it is really not equipped to compete in the capitalist marketplace with popular music.


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford (Feb 8, 2014)

Keep classical Music alive!!! It's been here for hundreds of years!!!
too many people exchange cheap, garbage music for stuff that has significance, like classical music!
Music has a soothing control, and it is good for the brain!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

.....and it's entertaining and keeps menaces like me off the streets!!!!


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It's just so damn invigorating. When I want to destroy myself I'll go back to Black Metal.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> Well, it used to be 'the only game in town,' in that it represented the ideology of the existing power structure, which was always an elite: the Church, or royalty, or the state.


You forgot the middle class, already the main audience by Haydn's later years, and the increasing democratization of music up to the present. Most of the music industry today is dedicated to meeting the musical needs of a very broad public indeed, which is kind of a hard thing for fans of CM to swallow. Evils of capitalism? Music has been a capitalist game for over 200 years.

The dream of the architects of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was that music would serve the underclasses. Capitalism has succeeded where communism failed.


----------



## Levanda (Feb 3, 2014)

KenOC Just a thoughts Daily Daily readers middle class most of don't have a clue about good music as such classical music. Is pretending class.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> It's just so damn invigorating. When I want to destroy myself I'll go back to Black Metal.


Black Metal puts me to sleep. The genre must have something against using 'too many notes'. It's like Phillip Glass music with raspy vocals all over it.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Black Metal puts me to sleep. The genre must have something against using 'too many notes'. It's like Phillip Glass music with raspy vocals all over it.


They're not afraid to use one note guitar-chugs for entire songs. It can get absurdly awful, but some are kind of cool.


----------

