# Is classical mature?



## jdk (Sep 5, 2012)

May seem like an odd question, but do you think it takes someone who enjoys listening to any form of classical music has a real appreciation towards music no matter what other non-classical music they listen to? Or in other words you can say the maturity of your appreciation towards music.


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2012)

I'd find it hard to draw any hard and fast conclusions. I know people who don't listen to music, to people who listen to only classical, only rock, a mixture of all sorts...I think it would be a mistake to assume that music appreciation has some kind of progression.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Plus there are pop/rock/jazz/hip-hop/folk compositions that are more complex than some classical compositions. Its not like classical is this higher level, not inherently. There is the advantage of having composers and musicians who are literate in music and understanding of the theory, but there are plenty who can't read music or never studied the theory who write music just as beautifully, and play it just as beautifully. I think it is best for a serious listener to be very well-rounded, listening to diverse musics. Classical is extremely diverse in itself, if you take the entire canon of that tradition, but even with all that diversity, from plain chant to Cage, there's still vastly different musical worlds that deserve to be explored.


----------



## WavesOfParadox (Aug 5, 2012)

Am I right to say that modern classical has no harmonic restrictions to define it as a genre, whereas many others do?


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

WavesOfParadox said:


> Am I right to say that modern classical has no harmonic restrictions to define it as a genre, whereas many others do?


Well most music isn't defined in a genre by the harmonic restrictions it adheres (or doesn't adhere) to. Genre is usually the form, instrumentation, and purpose of a piece.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I hope not. I'd like to think of it as music with great melodies. I'd like to avoid that negative stereotype as that is a turnoff for me.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Maturity comes with age and experience. It isn't something you get from the cds on your shelf.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Maturity comes with age and experience. It isn't something you get from the cds on your shelf.


There's a fine line between maturity and snobby though. Obviously, I prefer to avoid both terms as they are close together. I guess there is a negative connotation on both sides of the coin. As immature is bad as well.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

bigshot said:


> *Maturity comes with age and experience.* It isn't something you get from the cds on your shelf.


And suffering, too, apparently...


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Many things come with age, but I speak as a young person with a maturity many years behind my age, who likes exclusively classical music and makes lots of generalisations. I haven't suffered much either, naturally.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> There's a fine line between maturity and snobby though.


The difference between them is maturity is being discerning for the right reasons, and snobbishness is being discerning for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ramako said:


> Many things come with age, but I speak as a young person with a maturity many years behind my age, who likes exclusively classical music and makes lots of generalisations. I haven't suffered much either, naturally.


 I'm _undecided_ on the generalization issue (Sid's thread is no help at all), but I'm pretty sure that suffering is overrated. I've had the time and opportunity to suffer some, and suspect that it hasn't done a thing for me.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

I believe that, to fully comprehend Classical Music, one has to reach a certain level of maturity in certain fields of knowledge, experience and research in Art. Casual listening cannot work for Classical genres, while it is the opposite for any other category of music. The fact that there may be some "more complex" compositions in pop/rock/jazz/hip-hop/folk (which are they? Do we have any scores of them?) does not mean that this "compositions" are more demanding for the listener.
Definitely, to appreciate -to the highest possible level- Chamber Music, it took me years of progressive knowledge, experience and dedication to this very demanding both for performers as well as listeners genre.

Principe


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

jdk said:


> Do you think it takes someone who enjoys listening to any form of classical music has a real appreciation towards music no matter what other non-classical music they listen to?


If you're used to listening to classical , you're familiar with paying attention to details, structure, and performance styles. This "maturity," if you will, can be transferred to other genres to heighten your ability to discern what is good and what isn't within that genre and to enhance your appreciation of what you're being confronted with.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Hilltroll72 said:


> I'm _undecided_ on the generalization issue (Sid's thread is no help at all), but I'm pretty sure that suffering is overrated. I've had the time and opportunity to suffer some, and suspect that it hasn't done a thing for me.


Unfortunately, we'll never know how we would do without it, because it's unavoidable.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Manxfeeder said:


> If you're used to listening to classical , you're familiar with paying attention to details, structure, and performance styles. This "maturity," if you will, can be transferred to other genres to heighten your ability to discern what is good and what isn't within that genre and to enhance your appreciation of what you're being confronted with.


Kinda a pretentious way of looking at it. _Some_ classical listeners pay attention to details, mostly those who are more academically inclined, but that doesn't have much to do with the music itself rather than the attitude listeners take to it. I had an ear for detail prior to really getting into classical music, and yes, classical listening has expanded what I listen for, but it is mostly through study and careful listening of ALL music that I have developed my abilities to discern things in the music. If there was this huge academic culture built around rock music, or jazz, it would be the other way around, don't you think?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The way the original post is worded, I have no idea what you're talking about?


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

No it's immature. Who is this hotshot newcomer called "classical music"?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh, no, another thread for those who think they are superior to others.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

There is a huge academic culture built up around jazz. It killed it dead.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

aleazk said:


> Oh, no, another thread for those who think they are superior to others.


Thank goodness we have a humble and pleasant guy like yourself to balance it out


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

bigshot said:


> There is a huge academic culture built up around jazz. It killed it dead.


Only if you listen to the wrong people.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

I find the idea that listening to classical makes you a superior/smarter/better human being to be a tired notion that's been cropping up too much lately. 

Not all classical music is complex. There are plenty of easy melodies in classical music. Sure, it sometimes takes more "work" to like the more complex classical music, but I don't think someone doing that work is inherently more mature than, god forbid, someone who dares to crank up Rise Against. Especially since....get this!!!.....ONE person is capable of listening to and enjoying both.

Listen because you like it. Listen to one composer or listen to one million. Focus soley on classical or explore every genre the planet has ever had to offer. But don't make music a pissing contest. We all love classical music to one degree or another people. Which is wonderful. But it doesn't make us any better or worse than someone who chooses to post at talkrock or talkalternative.com


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

starthrower said:


> The way the original post is worded, I have no idea what you're talking about?


I agree, its hard for me to get what is the exact gist or focus of the question.

But with regards to whether one needs to be mature to enjoy classical music, I'd say no, not really. But I have gotten more and more out of it as the years went by. Its like anything, its an investment of your time, effort, money and so on. The more you put in, the more you get out of it.

Compared to the younger members of this forum, when I was their age, I had little exposure to a lot of the music they're now listening to. So that's another thing, its about interest and aptitude for certain things.

Mature minded or mature in years don't necessarily go together. But audiences for classical concerts are generally around the 50 mark or older. In some cases, much older.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Sonata said:


> I find the idea that listening to classical makes you a superior/smarter/better human being to be a tired notion that's been cropping up too much lately.
> 
> Not all classical music is complex. There are plenty of easy melodies in classical music. Sure, it sometimes takes more "work" to like the more complex classical music, but I don't think someone doing that work is inherently more mature than, god forbid, someone who dares to crank up Rise Against. Especially since....get this!!!.....ONE person is capable of listening to and enjoying both.
> 
> Listen because you like it. Listen to one composer or listen to one million. Focus soley on classical or explore every genre the planet has ever had to offer. But don't make music a pissing contest. We all love classical music to one degree or another people. Which is wonderful. But it doesn't make us any better or worse than someone who chooses to post at talkrock or talkalternative.com


Great post. The same goes with aging. You might have more experience but that doesn't make you better either.


----------



## Sonata (Aug 7, 2010)

1) The OP did not ask if you needed to be mature to "Fully comprehend" classical music. He asked if you needed to be mature to ENJOY it.

2) Just because it took you years to come to appreciate classical, it does not mean it took others that time. Strauss waltzes are considered classical, are they difficult to enjoy? Play the first movement of Beethoven's moonlight sonata.....does this require years of dedicated music academia to appreciate? Do you need deep understanding of structural development to understand the anguish in Gorecki's symphony of sorrowful songs?



principe said:


> I believe that, to fully comprehend Classical Music, one has to reach a certain level of maturity in certain fields of knowledge, experience and research in Art. Casual listening cannot work for Classical genres, while it is the opposite for any other category of music. The fact that there may be some "more complex" compositions in pop/rock/jazz/hip-hop/folk (which are they? Do we have any scores of them?) does not mean that this "compositions" are more demanding for the listener.
> Definitely, to appreciate -to the highest possible level- Chamber Music, it took me years of progressive knowledge, experience and dedication to this very demanding both for performers as well as listeners genre.
> 
> Principe


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Maturity is good for cheese and port and not much else.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> There is a huge academic culture built up around jazz. It killed it dead.


Uhh? Wut? I don't really see jazz being dead at all. I still see plenty of great musicians playing and writing jazz, especially in university settings.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I think it kind of confirms what I said when the best jazz comes from university settings.

Jazz used to be the music of the whole world. It was played in concert halls, movie theaters, speakeasies and street corners. It was everywhere. It was America's greatest original contribution to artistic culture. You didn't need a degree in music to appreciate it.

In the early sixties, jazz artists turned their backs on their audiences and began creating music for music critics. This provided an opportunity for jump blues to fuse with country music and create rock n roll. It bulldozed jazz flat. Jazz has never been the same again.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> I think it kind of confirms what I said when the best jazz comes from university settings.
> 
> Jazz used to be the music of the whole world. It was played in concert halls, movie theaters, speakeasies and street corners. It was everywhere. It was America's greatest original contribution to artistic culture. You didn't need a degree in music to appreciate it.
> 
> In the early sixties, jazz artists turned their backs on their audiences and began creating music for music critics. Jazz has never been the same again.


Or they just kept making music they wanted to make, and audiences turned their backs on the composers?


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

A composer without an audience is like a lover without a mate.


----------



## jdk (Sep 5, 2012)

To be honest, I was contemplating to post this topic as I wasn't sure how to word it properly. From growing up, there's always been that nerdy stereotype if you like Classical and mostly has an adult audience. I guess that's where the maturity is coming from. Hope this clears my rambling to some extent


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> A composer without an audience is like a lover without a mate.


And an audience without composers is bored. :3


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Well, that didn't happen because artists like Louis Jordan who had started out with Chick Webb's swing band made the transition to jump blues. This early R&B sound swept through Western Swing and poof! Elvis. He never had to worry about lacking an audience.

The unfortunate thing is that as great as rock n roll was, it didn't have the depth of cultural resonance and sophistication that pre-bop jazz had. It was basically just "good time music". And "good time music" was exactly what jazz no longer wanted to be- with a vengeance.

Jazz was better when it was both sophisticated AND fun.

This is actually a lesson that classical music only grudgingly acknowledges. There are factions that want to take classical music off into esoteric, conceptual directions, but the audience still wants 19th century symphonies. Why? Because romantic music is both sophisticated AND fun. If modern classical music wants to take it to the next level, it needs to consider its audience instead of thumbing its nose at it cynically.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

bigshot said:


> Well, that didn't happen because artists like Louis Jordan who had started out with Chick Webb's swing band made the transition to jump blues. This early R&B sound swept through Western Swing and poof! Elvis. He never had to worry about lacking an audience.
> 
> The unfortunate thing is that as great as rock n roll was, it didn't have the depth of cultural resonance and sophistication that pre-bop jazz had. It was basically just "good time music". And "good time music" was exactly what jazz no longer wanted to be- with a vengeance.
> 
> ...


Actually, I'm part of that audience too, and I don't only want to hear 19th century symphonies. Why? Because I have diverse tastes in music. I like 19th Century music, but I also like modern music, and plenty of other people do too. Why do you insist artists compromise their visions to cater to people with narrow tastes in music? If a listener really wants to hear more stuff like there was in the 19th Century, perhaps she can pick up a pen and start writing some herself?  It is an aesthetic I am currently trying to meld into my own, because I adore Romantic music :3

PS: I dunno about you, but there's a TON of contemporary classical music that is SUPER fun XD Seriously, some of it is so heavy and intense you could practically mosh to it, and some of it is just zany and silly and funny (on purpose too!). I find plenty of it can be entertaining.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think the debate about jazz is interesting. So I just made a thread on it, it deserves to have its own thread:
http://www.talkclassical.com/21848-has-jazz-lost-its.html#post368623


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Oh, no, another thread for those who think they are superior to others.


We are not. Classical music is


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

BurningDesire said:


> Kinda a pretentious way of looking at it. _Some_ classical listeners pay attention to details, mostly those who are more academically inclined, but that doesn't have much to do with the music itself rather than the attitude listeners take to it. I had an ear for detail prior to really getting into classical music, and yes, classical listening has expanded what I listen for, but it is mostly through study and careful listening of ALL music that I have developed my abilities to discern things in the music. If there was this huge academic culture built around rock music, or jazz, it would be the other way around, don't you think?


I didn't mean to sound pretentious; I was just reflecting on my own experience. When I was a teenager, they'd have teen dance shows where they would play a song and the teen panel would rate how good it was. The main response was usually, "I liked it. It had a good beat." And you can spend your life listening to some music just listening to the surface, and you'll still enjoy yourself.

If you come to classical music just concentrating on the surface, you'll enjoy many pieces, but you'll miss out on a lot and even find a lot of it to be boring. The same is true with all art music (as contrasted with popular music), which includes genres of rock. But my point was, if you are able to commit yourself to understanding art music, you will carry that discernment to everything else.

Aretha Franklin's _Think_ was huge in the '60s, and I heard it a ton of times back then. I downloaded it last month, and holy smokes, there's so much I missed: the dynamic interplay between Aretha and the backup singers, her spot-on phrasing and intonation (the high note on "IQ" wasn't even auto-tuned), how the texture increases with the organ, guitar, then horns. And, of course, the cowbell. It's hard to get tired of listening to something when there's so much to hear.


----------



## principe (Sep 3, 2012)

Dear Sonata, when you "fully comprehend" Classical Music, you may fully, or at least better, _enjoy_ it!
I am very and sincerely glad, if it took few moments for "others" to "appreciate classical". However, do they _appreciate_ or simply _enjoy_ it?
Strauss waltzes are a sort of "easy listening", if you follow the melodies, but a huge task if you follow the score, the structure and the orchestration of them. Strauss was a great orchestrator (just check only the harmonies on the trombones or the trumpets, or the creative and dexterous use of piccolo, among others features of his orchestration).
Beethoven's First Movement of "Moonlight" Sonata is easy to be admired by anybody, but how many can comprehend the essence of sustaining this divine melody is so hard to perform it and even to properly followed it? Or who cares for the careful, albeit brilliant harmonic progression?
Finally, dear Sonata, imagine all these people who do not know what is the _Sonata form_. They will totally miss what is actually happening in every single First Movement of almost any Classical work from mid 18 century and onwards. (Let alone the Sonata-Rondo).
Maybe, it is not maturity. Call it mere knowledge, but it is needed, at least for Classical Music.

Principe


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Manxfeeder said:


> I didn't mean to sound pretentious; I was just reflecting on my own experience. When I was a teenager, they'd have teen dance shows where they would play a song and the teen panel would rate how good it was. The main response was usually, "I liked it. It had a good beat." And you can spend your life listening to some music just listening to the surface, and you'll still enjoy yourself.
> 
> If you come to classical music just concentrating on the surface, you'll enjoy many pieces, but you'll miss out on a lot and even find a lot of it to be boring. The same is true with all art music (as contrasted with popular music), which includes genres of rock. But my point was, if you are able to commit yourself to understanding art music, you will carry that discernment to everything else.
> 
> Aretha Franklin's _Think_ was huge in the '60s, and I heard it a ton of times back then. I downloaded it last month, and holy smokes, there's so much I missed: the dynamic interplay between Aretha and the backup singers, her spot-on phrasing and intonation (the high note on "IQ" wasn't even auto-tuned), how the texture increases with the organ, guitar, then horns. And, of course, the cowbell. It's hard to get tired of listening to something when there's so much to hear.


I had experience like this too. Classical music taught me how to listen to music in general. My appreciation of some of that music increased a lot.


----------

