# The Future of Classical Music



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Recent discussions and arguments have convinced me to begin this thread. To be fair, I'm guilty of some of the things I'll criticize here, if I keep my train of thought. There have been numerous threads started since I joined talking about tonal vs. atonal, modern vs. old, vanguard vs. old guard, and many others. They usually all go down the same road and end with the same types of comments from the same people. Recently there was a thread about Classical Music exhausting itself. Once again, the exact same discussions ensued. This is the way I see it. I have a high school diploma. I did not attend Juilliard. I do not have an advanced degree in musical theory. I do not read music. I played the piano for one year, around the age of 7. I do not come from an overly musical background. I do not have friends who listen to classical music. My wife hates classical music. I live in a town where a google search for fine dining includes Subway in its top 10 results. I have to drive three hours to attend a quality concert. I devour everything I possibly can. I've spent over $1000 dollars in the last year on classical music. I'm not finished spending. I truly love this music. I truly love sharing with like minded people. I love talking about it. I love listening to it. I enjoy sharing private messages with the likes of PetrB, Mahlerian, and Huilunsoittaja, and asking them for recommendations on music they are well versed in. I appreciate that they have all been extremely helpful and supportive of my endeavors. I respect that fact that Kevin Pearson saw I was attending his local symphony and went well out of his way to make sure I was well prepared. I love the fact that I'm passing this beautiful music down to my sons. I love that they ask me to play certain pieces. I love that my 4 year old asks me to play Beethoven's 6th every time we get in the car. *I AM THE FUTURE OF CLASSICAL MUSIC. MY SONS ARE THE FUTURE OF CLASSICAL MUSIC*. It is people like me who who MUST be reached to ensure this lovely music survives and thrives. It's people with no background. No experience. No training. People who discover this music on their own. Come to a point in their life where it's right for them. There are others on this site like me. Younger people who listened to rock, rap, or country music. Who found something in classical music they love. They come here and make outlandish statements like "Beethoven perfected the symphony" (I said this when i first joined) or "4'33" is not music" (I said this days ago and stand by it). Yet, how do we respond to these newcomers? How do we receive them? Do we encourage? Do we correct with compassion? Do we condescend? Do we use our intellect and experience to insult and belittle? How willing will people be to join a club where they feel they aren't welcome? How can they teach if they never learn? How will this beautiful music survive if the common man is not only reached, but made to feel welcome? I'm sorry this was so long and it may not generate any conversation at all. Feel free to delete it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

An excellent topic. Let me start in a mild and non-controversial way.

What we here call "classical music" can't be saved because it is dead. It has been dead for some time. Yes, we can wander the museum and look at the pretty pictures, but we're enjoying the works of dead people. As a living, thriving endeavor, classical music is cold and still. Rigor mortis has long since set in.

Compare the top 50 works of the 1700s or the 1800s with the 1900s. Compare the top twenty works of the first half of the 1900s with those of the second half. Notice a pattern here? How many works can you name that have made any impact at all* in the past thirty or forty years? The labels are dumping their catalogs at prices that suggest an impending asteroid strike. The action, as they say, is elsewhere.

If I am stating the case too strongly, then...beat me, revile me, make me write bad checks. As they say. :tiphat:

*Among normal people, I mean. We here, of course, are a different group.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

I originally came from a rock n' roll background. Played the guitar, still do, yada-yada. But I began to seriously crave something a little more intellectually refined and emotionally restrained/controlled. Started with Debussy and Ravel... went to Mozart and Beethoven, and now I'm pretty much everywhere. I can't say I'm worried about the future of Classical Music. It can't be forced, as it must be sought after through a sort love and adoration. Otherwise it becomes banal like most things in pop-culture. To me, pop-culture is more dead than Classical. They might be making more movements, but it's so disingenuous that they might as well be dead. Many classical interpreters, composers, and listeners still have this level of integrity that's so vibrant and vital to what 'life' really is. 

I'm enjoying it immensely now, and I've only heard a minescule fraction of whats out there... And there's this sweet corner of the web were I can relate my adoration to others with a similar passion. Like I said, I'm not worried. It will most likely go at some point in time, as everything will. But it's still pulsating now, so enjoy this little gift of life. 

:tiphat:


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

I've been seriously and avidly listening to and collecting classical music since the early 1970's and in all those decades there has never been anything remotely like the variety and quantity of great music available in great performances with great sound quality as there is currently in 2014. From my own personal perspective, we're living in the golden age for learning about and listening to classical music in all its various incarnations. The idea of discovering a fascinating new composer I'd never heard of before and in less than 15 minutes having a CD full of amazing new music to listen to would have been almost inconceivable 15 years ago.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

scratchgolf said:


> Recent discussions and arguments have convinced me to begin this thread. To be fair, I'm guilty of some of the things I'll criticize here, if I keep my train of thought. There have been numerous threads started since I joined talking about tonal vs. atonal, modern vs. old, vanguard vs. old guard, and many others. They usually all go down the same road and end with the same types of comments from the same people. Recently there was a thread about Classical Music exhausting itself. Once again, the exact same discussions ensued. This is the way I see it. I have a high school diploma. I did not attend Juilliard. I do not have an advanced degree in musical theory. I do not read music. I played the piano for one year, around the age of 7. I do not come from an overly musical background. I do not have friends who listen to classical music. My wife hates classical music. I live in a town where a google search for fine dining includes Subway in its top 10 results. I have to drive three hours to attend a quality concert. I devour everything I possibly can. I've spent over $1000 dollars in the last year on classical music. I'm not finished spending. I truly love this music. I truly love sharing with like minded people. I love talking about it. I love listening to it. I enjoy sharing private messages with the likes of PetrB, Mahlerian, and Huilunsoittaja, and asking them for recommendations on music they are well versed in. I appreciate that they have all been extremely helpful and supportive of my endeavors. I respect that fact that Kevin Pearson saw I was attending his local symphony and went well out of his way to make sure I was well prepared. I love the fact that I'm passing this beautiful music down to my sons. I love that they ask me to play certain pieces. I love that my 4 year old asks me to play Beethoven's 6th every time we get in the car. *I AM THE FUTURE OF CLASSICAL MUSIC. MY SONS ARE THE FUTURE OF CLASSICAL MUSIC*. It is people like me who who MUST be reached to ensure this lovely music survives and thrives. It's people with no background. No experience. No training. People who discover this music on their own. Come to a point in their life where it's right for them. There are others on this site like me. Younger people who listened to rock, rap, or country music. Who found something in classical music they love. They come here and make outlandish statements like "Beethoven perfected the symphony" (I said this when i first joined) or "4'33" is not music" (I said this days ago and stand by it). Yet, how do we respond to these newcomers? How do we receive them? Do we encourage? Do we correct with compassion? Do we condescend? Do we use our intellect and experience to insult and belittle? How willing will people be to join a club where they feel they aren't welcome? How can they teach if they never learn? How will this beautiful music survive if the common man is not only reached, but made to feel welcome? I'm sorry this was so long and it may not generate any conversation at all. Feel free to delete it.


This is a _Terrific_ Post, Sir.

I think the answer is simple. Often enough, in real life, people very much in the same place you were at the beginning of your quest would, face to face and in person, quite readily (without _any_ fear of embarrassment) plainly state _"I am a n00b. I'd appreciate some info, directing and recommendations."_

If more n00bs would do the same (how can one truly tell if someone is a n00b from a simple text entry on any fora?) then I am certain many of the more experienced members would cut them at least a little slack. Mind, the n00b might get the same blast for those sweeping and naive generalizations, but the tone of that same blast is easily tempered _if the other respondents know the OP is a n00b._

I'm afraid the rampant PC fashion of being egalitarian takes its toll, and is partly in the air and at fault in clouding these situations of n00bs entering the scene. Too, thinking one must 'show off' a little (you did not, others do, and are quite full of themselves just because -- what -- it is a _classical_ music forum, only compounds the same dynamic, i.e. now, what you feel about something seems to be for many enough to qualify as 'expert' in whatever the subject is.

"New to classical music" might be the best quote to choose _and display as a motto on any posts for those new to the scene._ There is no shame in it, and I repeat, what kind of responses that person then gets are, I think (and hope), easily and readily modified by those who are more versed. But hey, I am an optimist: I think most people are innately kind, and that they are also happy to inform and 'educate' anyone who asks. While almost none of them are educators <g> most are quite ready to adapt to help the neophyte classical listener along.

Again -- terrific post

P.s. "I live in a town where a google search for fine dining includes Subway in its top 10 results." My commiserations. (But dude, pardon me while I double over with laughter, because that is hysterically funny.)


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Classical Music is Alive and Well*

In my world classical music is alive and well.

I just came home from performing a concert with my community orchestra that was sold out. We played all types of music including a 20th century work by Malcolm Arnold. Here is a link to a poster about the concert: http://www.talkclassical.com/12183-cool-concerts-future-11.html#post652647

The concert was a great success and I nailed all of the bassoon solos in the _Rumania 
Rhapsody_.

My oldest son, who is in his mid thirties, is discovery classical music just like the many fine young people above.

It is discouraging to me that there are some here who live in a bubble were they think this wonderful music is dying.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

If you think classical music is dead, come to East Asia.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2014)

I'm quite sure that classical music will not die out any time soon. Classical music is a meme which is transmitted amongst humans. For better or worse the human host has grown so extensive and bored that even if only a small fraction of people listen, classical music will thrive.

Cultures occasionally purge themselves of diversity, and if the next convulsion that comes along includes intolerance toward classical music then I suppose there could be some threat of extinction. But given that classical music is at least partially anchored in the christian church, it is arguably more likely to be on the purging side. Musical fundamentalism, anyone?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

science said:


> If you think classical music is dead, come to East Asia.


It appears to me that most of the classical music is dead crowd is American.

One does not need experience as a performer to appreciate and understand classical music but it also appears that most of the classical music is dead crowd have no experience singing in a chorus or playing an instrument in an orchestra or band. There only experience with music is listening to recordings and reading negative articles in the New Your Times or the Frost Bite Falls Free Press. They never mention the positive articles.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

KenOC said:


> An excellent topic. Let me start in a mild and non-controversial way.
> 
> What we here call "classical music" can't be saved because it is dead. It has been dead for some time. Yes, we can wander the museum and look at the pretty pictures, but we're enjoying the works of dead people. As a living, thriving endeavor, classical music is cold and still. Rigor mortis has long since set in.
> 
> ...


I don't know if I agree, but as a Wagnerian I find the impending sense of doom in this comment to be very seductive. Keep them coming!


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> I don't know if I agree, but as a Wagnerian I find the impending sense of doom in this comment to be very seductive. Keep them coming!


No more for now. It's useless...useless... Let's cross that bridge into the flames and accept that the world is being remade by others, in a far different way. Our time is done.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2014)

On a more personal note, my 7-year-old boy hears a ton of classical music around the house - far more than any other type of music. I have no idea what impact that will have on his developing musical tastes. I know he likes Legos and Minecraft and soccer and his bicycle, etc, but I have no idea if he likes Beethoven or not. Maybe I'm afraid to ask. Or maybe I enjoy the act of letting go implicit in not imposing my tastes upon him.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Really*

Really.

Classical music is dying because the musical aesthetics of people today is different than is was a hundred years ago?

Give me a break.


----------



## Il_Penseroso (Nov 20, 2010)

What we know as 'The Classical Music' is not dead, but facing its, well let's call, critical time due the change of lifestyle... that's true... but 'The Future of the Classical Music' let's don't worry about it and take Starvinsky's wise comment:

_...it would be a great mistake to regard me as an adherent of Zukuriftsmusik [the music of the future]. Nothing could be more ridiculous. I live neither in the past nor in the future. I am in the present. I cannot know what tomorrow will bring forth. I can know only what the truth is for me today. That is what I am called upon to serve, and I serve it in all lucidity. (His Autobiography)_


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I don't read the OP as focusing on classical music dying but rather on how experienced members of TC interact with those who are less experienced, naive, ignorant, or even critical of some classical music subjects. It's easy to be ignorant whether one is new to classical music or not. Many have opinions not shared by others. Sometimes those opinions differ strongly with the wisdom of experts. That's OK. Actually, of course it's OK. The question is how to respond to statements, opinions, or questions that are wrong, naive, critical of things we love, or even potentially trolling.



scratchgolf said:


> Do we encourage? Do we correct with compassion? Do we condescend? Do we use our intellect and experience to insult and belittle? How willing will people be to join a club where they feel they aren't welcome?


Encouragement is wonderful. Correcting with compassion and engagement can work quite well. Condescending, insulting, chiding, and belittling are problematic for three reasons. First, those responses can result in infractions. Second, they make others (including those who don't participate in the thread but simply read it) feel less welcome and less likely to participate. Third, they can actually cause the person making the original statement to hold onto their views more strongly rather than move them towards the "correct", less naive, or less ignorant view.

The last reason is fascinating. Research has found that when people have an emotional attachment towards a particular belief (say atonal music is crap or climate change is a conspiracy) attacking that view or even just stating facts that contradict their thinking can be counterproductive. Intelligent people will likely hold onto their view _more_ strongly. Apparently the best way to modify their views is to engage in a positive manner. Show empathy and understanding and then suggest alternatives. The human mind is an amazing thing.

So maybe more engagement, understanding, and positive interactions would lift TC and make it even more enjoyable, more welcoming, and more educational. That's my view.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BPS said:


> Classical music is a meme which is transmitted amongst humans.


zOMG, now classical music _is a meme._

Land o' Goshen! What ever _will_ they think of next?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Condescending, insulting, attacking, and belittling are problematic for three reasons. First, those responses can result in infractions. Second, they make others (including those who don't participate in the thread but simply read it) feel less welcome and less likely to participate. Third, they can actually cause the person making the original statement to hold onto their views more strongly rather than move them towards the "correct", less naive, or less ignorant view.
> 
> The last reason is fascinating. Research has found that when people have an emotional attachment towards a particular belief (say atonal music is crap or climate change is a conspiracy) attacking that view or even just stating facts that contradict their thinking can be counterproductive. Intelligent people will likely hold onto their view _more_ strongly. Apparently the best way to modify their views is to engage in a positive manner. Show empathy and understanding and then suggest alternatives. The human mind is an amazing thing.
> 
> So maybe more engagement, understanding, and positive interactions would lift TC and make it even more enjoyable, more welcoming, and more educational. That's my view.


Let me add a fourth thing as regards the attacking sort of responses, which is that AFAIC the most vociferous supporters of a position, the "true believers" if you like, are sometimes their own worst enemies. You know the situation - someone posts a view that you absolutely can't agree with, then someone on the other side, the side you agree with, responds in such a negative fashion that you can't in good conscience support them either. Try being a voice of moderation and you find yourself getting shouted at too. So I find that sometimes my enthusiasm for supporting a view is weakened by its staunchest advocates.

mmbls, you say "show empathy and understanding", which is absolutely the right thing to do, but frankly I think a poster who's got a history of not showing empathy is probably just simply not an empathic person, and it's too much to expect them to change.
Better, perhaps, to encourage those who tend not to respond to new members (I should include myself here) to get more involved.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2014)

I don't know where the future of classical music lies, as I'm not in any way knowledgeable about what the current trends are, so could hardly comment on where they might go.

The continued _appreciation _of classical music into the future, on the other hand, depends, as the OP ably describes, on sharing our enthusiasms (rather than our lack-of-enthusiasms) with our peers and passing them on to our children. I'm optimistic that the music itself offers every reason to secure its longevity, even if the future is an uncertain place.


----------



## Guest (Jun 1, 2014)

scratchgolf said:


> Recent discussions and arguments have convinced me to begin this thread. To be fair, I'm guilty of some of the things I'll criticize here, if I keep my train of thought. There have been numerous threads started since I joined talking about tonal vs. atonal, modern vs. old, vanguard vs. old guard, and many others. They usually all go down the same road and end with the same types of comments from the same people.





Nereffid said:


> Let me add a fourth thing as regards the attacking sort of responses, which is that AFAIC the most vociferous supporters of a position, the "true believers" if you like, are sometimes their own worst enemies. You know the situation - someone posts a view that you absolutely can't agree with, then someone on the other side, the side you agree with, responds in such a negative fashion that you can't in good conscience support them either. Try being a voice of moderation and you find yourself getting shouted at too.


I recognise the truths in both of these posts, and, as the first was written by the OP, I feel justified in making some observations on them that are more to do with the future of internet discussion than the future of classical music.

The most difficult thing to deal with in an internet forum, IMO, is the fact that there is an audience. Discussions are sometimes held between only two posters who might think that, as they are the only two writers, no-one else is paying any attention. It can sometimes lead to the presumption that the discussions are 'owned' only by those who are holding them, that others shouldn't interrupt, join in, take sides...And yet, the very nature of the Forum means that, whatever the presumed etiquette, anyone can post at any time in any thread they wish. However, more problematic than a lack of awareness of audience, is the opposite: an acute awareness of audience. As I write these words, I am conscious of the people I am addressing, some of whom are specific in my mind, such as scratchgolf and nereffid, but most of whom are just 'the forum'. What this means is that I must take into account the fact that I'm not having a chat with just two, but with a larger unknown number of members. That means, I think, that I have a responsibility to both parts of my audience. Why is this problematic? It means, as the two posters I've quoted have indicated, that the approval and disapproval of others can become of disproportionate importance when "sides" are taken, or members are witness to a stand-off. What will he post next? How will she reply? Shall I join in? Should I show my support, or my disapproval, and if so, how gung-ho should I be?

It can be quite an entertainment, if you're not on the receiving end of the disapproval, isn't it?

I don't think that acute awareness of audience is my problem alone.


----------



## Aecio (Jul 27, 2012)

I will not say that classical music is dead, but I feel it is at a crossroad. 
I don't want to offend anybody but my feeling is that even the most interesting composers post Second World War II (Ligeti, Messiaen, Feldmann...) are less interesting than what we had on the half century before 1945 (Debussy, Bartok, Prokofiev...). 
I think also that atonal music has had its day and that the future is to integrate some non western musical traditions into classical music. I' m thinking more specifically of East Asian, Indian, or Arabic musical traditions. Someone like Takemitsu should be for a kind of prophet of the new classical music to come, since he has perfectly integrated all the classical western music tradition and he arrives to mix it with his eastern roots to create something that sounds very different. I will like to say, "Go east, young musician". There are 100 million kids learning to play violin and piano in Asia and I'm sure there are quite a few composers waiting for us among them !


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

KenOC said:


> ...we're enjoying the works of dead people. As a living, thriving endeavor, classical music is cold and still. Rigor mortis has long since set in.


I am now officially a senior citizen. I have been going to classical music concerts on my own since middle school.

Other than one concert where the Concertgebouw orchestra was on tour and that entire program given over to Mahler's Symphony No. 7, and the other exception of the several operas I've gone to, _the vast majority of concerts (easily 90% +) I've ever attended -- from my childhood through to the present - had / have on the program at least one work by a living composer._

I live in the U.S. You live in the U.S. Your statement sounds to me like it is from a being living in a parallel universe ~ (or perhaps it is just geography


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

MacLeod said:


> The most difficult thing to deal with in an internet forum, IMO, is the fact that there is an audience. Discussions are sometimes held between only two posters who might think that, as they are the only two writers, no-one else is paying any attention. It can sometimes lead to the presumption that the discussions are 'owned' only by those who are holding them, that others shouldn't interrupt, join in, take sides...And yet, the very nature of the Forum means that, whatever the presumed etiquette, anyone can post at any time in any thread they wish. However, more problematic than a lack of awareness of audience, is the opposite: an acute awareness of audience. As I write these words, I am conscious of the people I am addressing, some of whom are specific in my mind, such as scratchgolf and nereffid, but most of whom are just 'the forum'. What this means is that I must take into account the fact that I'm not having a chat with just two, but with a larger unknown number of members. That means, I think, that I have a responsibility to both parts of my audience. Why is this problematic? It means, as the two posters I've quoted have indicated, that the approval and disapproval of others can become of disproportionate importance when "sides" are taken, or members are witness to a stand-off. What will he post next? How will she reply? Shall I join in? Should I show my support, or my disapproval, and if so, how gung-ho should I be?


Isn't that the beauty of it? It's a war of "likes". You know the old saying? "Those who can, do. Those who cannot click the 'like' button". Sides have been chosen. The end is near. I cannot like your post because we're the red checkers and you're the black checkers (<--Not a racial comment in any sense. I respect and support black checkers as well as red and the occasional white).

I've often found myself reading a debate here and liking someone's comment, only to like the response to it, even as both posts were on opposite sides of the argument. And THAT is the beauty of it. Two intelligent people, having a go, and using tact and respect. What's not to like? I do enjoy watching the trends of who likes what comments or who "refuses" to like comments out of principal.

Back to the music. I realize that classical music continues. I realize that the arts continue. It's the exposure I'm referring to. Many of us grew up with classical music in commercials, Disney and MGM cartoons, and popular culture. We were absorbing and learning before we knew. My children's generation is absorbing Kanye West having simulated sex on a motorcycle. Hip hop in every cereal commercial. Do you know why my 4 year old loves the William Tell Overture? Because he NEVER heard it before. How many of us reached the age of 4 without hearing it? What I'm referring to in the OP deals more with sales, support, financing, and passing along of this music, all while continuing and creating it.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

scratchgolf said:


> Isn't that the beauty of it? It's a war of "likes". You know the old saying? "Those who can, do. Those who cannot click the 'like' button". Sides have been chosen. The end is near. I cannot like your post because we're the red checkers and you're the black checkers (<--Not a racial comment in any sense. I respect and support black checkers as well as red and the occasional white).
> 
> I've often found myself reading a debate here and liking someone's comment, only to like the response to it, even as both posts were on opposite sides of the argument. And THAT is the beauty of it. Two intelligent people, having a go, and using tact and respect. What's not to like? I do enjoy watching the trends of who likes what comments or who "refuses" to like comments out of principal.
> 
> *Back to the music. I realize that classical music continues. I realize that the arts continue. It's the exposure I'm referring to. Many of us grew up with classical music in commercials, Disney and MGM cartoons, and popular culture. We were absorbing and learning before we knew. My children's generation is absorbing Kanye West having simulated sex on a motorcycle. Hip hop in every cereal commercial. Do you know why my 4 year old loves the William Tell Overture? Because he NEVER heard it before. How many of us reached the age of 4 without hearing it? What I'm referring to in the OP deals more with sales, support, financing, and passing along of this music, all while continuing and creating it*.


Such a loaded question, but a good one. Society is moving with so much momentum the way it is that the Classical community would be hard-pressed to make any real difference in it's appeal. The best bet is to start at your own home. Let your enjoyment be reasonably visible, and make thoughtful suggestions here and there if you see someone is a little open. Talk about it with those who also share the love, as us here. When newcomers engage... say welcome, brother.

What else is there really to do?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Dealing with...*



mmsbls said:


> Research has found that when people have an emotional attachment towards a particular belief (say atonal music is crap or climate change is a conspiracy) attacking that view or even just stating facts that contradict their thinking can be counterproductive. Intelligent people will likely hold onto their view _more_ strongly. Apparently the best way to modify their views is to engage in a positive manner. Show empathy and understanding and then suggest alternatives. The human mind is an amazing thing.
> 
> So maybe more engagement, understanding, and positive interactions would lift TC and make it even more enjoyable, more welcoming, and more educational. That's my view.


I have also read research that has said the same thing.

Those who thing classical music is dead are extremely intelligent. It would take a lot of work and it would be extremely difficult to convince them otherwise. It is possible.

My problem is that they are a lot smarter that I am.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

scratchgolf said:


> Recent discussions and arguments have convinced me to begin this thread. To be fair, I'm guilty of some of the things I'll criticize here, if I keep my train of thought. There have been numerous threads started since I joined talking about tonal vs. atonal, modern vs. old, vanguard vs. old guard, and many others. They usually all go down the same road and end with the same types of comments from the same people. Recently there was a thread about Classical Music exhausting itself. Once again, the exact same discussions ensued. This is the way I see it. I have a high school diploma. I did not attend Juilliard. I do not have an advanced degree in musical theory. I do not read music. I played the piano for one year, around the age of 7. I do not come from an overly musical background. I do not have friends who listen to classical music. My wife hates classical music. I live in a town where a google search for fine dining includes Subway in its top 10 results. I have to drive three hours to attend a quality concert. I devour everything I possibly can. I've spent over $1000 dollars in the last year on classical music. I'm not finished spending. I truly love this music. I truly love sharing with like minded people. I love talking about it. I love listening to it. I enjoy sharing private messages with the likes of PetrB, Mahlerian, and Huilunsoittaja, and asking them for recommendations on music they are well versed in. I appreciate that they have all been extremely helpful and supportive of my endeavors. I respect that fact that Kevin Pearson saw I was attending his local symphony and went well out of his way to make sure I was well prepared. I love the fact that I'm passing this beautiful music down to my sons. I love that they ask me to play certain pieces. I love that my 4 year old asks me to play Beethoven's 6th every time we get in the car. *I AM THE FUTURE OF CLASSICAL MUSIC. MY SONS ARE THE FUTURE OF CLASSICAL MUSIC*. It is people like me who who MUST be reached to ensure this lovely music survives and thrives. It's people with no background. No experience. No training. People who discover this music on their own. Come to a point in their life where it's right for them. There are others on this site like me. Younger people who listened to rock, rap, or country music. Who found something in classical music they love. They come here and make outlandish statements like "Beethoven perfected the symphony" (I said this when i first joined) or "4'33" is not music" (I said this days ago and stand by it). Yet, how do we respond to these newcomers? How do we receive them? Do we encourage? Do we correct with compassion? Do we condescend? Do we use our intellect and experience to insult and belittle? How willing will people be to join a club where they feel they aren't welcome? How can they teach if they never learn? How will this beautiful music survive if the common man is not only reached, but made to feel welcome? I'm sorry this was so long and it may not generate any conversation at all. Feel free to delete it.


Scratch, I just want to thank you for your post. It is wonderfully eloquent and names crucial matters. I do hope we can all find our way to a discourse that is more encouraging, more welcoming.


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

What an excellent post. You are correct SCRATCHGOLF, you are the future of classical music, and good on you to be exposing your son to the music. I don't think classical music will "die" in our life time, if it ever dies at all. However the diminishment of it's popularity is inarguable. 40 years ago classical music accounted for almost 20% of all record sales. 25 years ago it was down to 12%, 10 years ago it was down around 2%. Not sure what the current stat is, but somewhere I heard it's just below 2%. It will level off and plateau (if it hasn't already). 

There may be pockets of growth here and there occasionally, but overall, it has now become a niche. I think a few people here have confused the ease of acquiring massive catalogs of classical music nowadays (almost entirely because of technology) with the "popularity" of this genre. It is a small victory whenever a new convert forms, and because of those instances, it will stick around for quite a while. 

There is a magazine out there strictly for those who make doilies as a hobby. I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'd bet big money that classical music has more of a following. If there is a magazine for doilies, that tells me there are enough people out there to support such an activity. So for now, I think classical music is safe, albeit wobbly, especially here in the USA - a culturally illiterate society (you're Subway rest. comment cracked me up! LOL). 

On the subject of supporting/attacking n00bs, well that's the internet for ya. Most attacking comments are done by those who wouldn't DREAM of speaking like that to a stranger face to face. The level of "courage" is quite heightened but the security of a computer screen. I've been/am a member of a few internet communities. As internet communities go, this one is rather civilized, at least more so than any other one I've been on.

One needs a thick skin in life in order to thrive, I think often that goes for virtual skin as well. I love getting into passionate discussions/debates with people (much more face to face) but only when it comes from a place of civility and mutual respect. When it's over, you toast each other, laugh, and carry on. Unfortunately emotions get the better of a growing segment of society and people take things so personally.

Keep buying, keep listening, and keep your windows down and the volume up when doing so. You just may reach another potential convert. Great thread!

V


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

...doesn't China have something like 50 million children learning a classical instrument? Here's a couple of videos I posted not long ago. How old do the people in the crowd look in this video of the Berlin Philharmonic in Taiwan? 




This is a TV series in France. It's in its 8th season. It started out with the host addressing a small group of children but these days he's filling large venues. It's in french but you don't need to understand the language to work out what's going on (music is universal, after all).
http://www.medici.tv/#!/la-musique-classique-expliquee-aux-enfants

My point is that I'm not seeing a lot of evidence to suggest that it is suffering. If anything, it seems stronger than ever at the youth level. I'm not suggesting that all of those french kids will go on to be musicians - only that they've been subjected to some simple music theory and with a little understanding, may gain an appreciation for the music.
Something must be working. Paris alone, has over a dozen full-time orchestras. There's not enough old folk to sustain that many. :lol:


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Aecio said:


> I think also that atonal music has had its day and that the future is to integrate some non western musical traditions into classical music. I' m thinking more specifically of East Asian, Indian, or Arabic musical traditions. Someone like Takemitsu should be for a kind of prophet of the new classical music to come, since he has perfectly integrated all the classical western music tradition and he arrives to mix it with his eastern roots to create something that sounds very different.


Takemitsu started out thinking of himself primarily as an international composer, and only opened up to his heritage after John Cage helped him to see it in a non-nationalist light. You have to remember that he was a teenager during Japan's worst time of jingoism and colonialism, and it was for these reasons that he regarded anything Japanese with suspicion. His writings show one who has a deep and catholic interest in Western culture and literature (Joyce, The Bible, film, pop music).

Even then, his explicitly "Japanese" pieces, using traditional instruments or inspired by their sound, are actually quite few and far between.

I'd also like to comment that Takemitsu's music _is_ atonal by any definition I've ever encountered. It's far less diatonically rooted than even pre-1950s Messiaen, and has very little connection to common practice. Remember, also, that it was Yasushi Akutagawa who said that Western tonality doesn't mesh with Eastern traditions.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

In reply to the main thread topic:

I try to remember my audience when I write, and adjust accordingly. I want to try to be inviting to newcomers, no matter what their level of experience is, and meet them where they are, so to speak. But, of course, there are many who approach this site to get involved in an already ongoing conversation, and I tend to respond to them as a part of that conversation like any other person involved, which might come off as harsh or uninviting.

It's always good to hear that new people are coming to know classical music, and I was once as ignorant as anybody (and more than many!). Be aware of what you do know and be aware of what you don't know. Be aware of where you can help and where you can't.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Aecio said:


> I will not say that classical music is dead, but I feel it is at a crossroad.
> I don't want to offend anybody but my feeling is that even the most interesting composers post Second World War II (Ligeti, Messiaen, Feldmann...) are less interesting than what we had on the half century before 1945 (Debussy, Bartok, Prokofiev...).
> I think also that atonal music has had its day and that the future is to integrate some non western musical traditions into classical music. I' m thinking more specifically of East Asian, Indian, or Arabic musical traditions. Someone like Takemitsu should be for a kind of prophet of the new classical music to come, since he has perfectly integrated all the classical western music tradition and he arrives to mix it with his eastern roots to create something that sounds very different. I will like to say, "Go east, young musician". There are 100 million kids learning to play violin and piano in Asia and I'm sure there are quite a few composers waiting for us among them !


Then, I would say, you are not really listening... :

Boulez and Asian tradition: 




Ligeti and African music:


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> In reply to the main thread topic:
> 
> I try to remember my audience when I write, and adjust accordingly. I want to try to be inviting to newcomers, no matter what their level of experience is, and meet them where they are, so to speak. But, of course, there are many who approach this site to get involved in an already ongoing conversation, and I tend to respond to them as a part of that conversation like any other person involved, which might come off as harsh or uninviting.
> 
> It's always good to hear that new people are coming to know classical music, and I was once as ignorant as anybody (and more than many!). Be aware of what you do know and be aware of what you don't know. Be aware of where you can help and where you can't.


I agree fully and have never mistaken your occasional assertiveness for anything besides passion. There are many subjects where I am as informed as you are musically and would respond in a similar fashion. I often warn my older son (12) of the dangers of speaking definitively on a subject he understands very little of. I correct him much like you have numerous times here. There's a huge difference between a newcomer stating they don't get something vs. condemning something. Subsequently, there's a huge difference in your approach vs. the approach others take. People tend to lash out when they feel something they love is being attacked. Others lash out when they feel they've been publicly ridiculed. When these two people come together, and there have been multiple instances of this recently, then the true nature of healthy discussion and debate is lost.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I just wanted to clarify something from my post #15. I changed the word "attacking" to "chiding". I do not want to give the impression that opposing a viewpoint is wrong, harmful, negative, or in any way not appropriate. My point really is that attacking a person is different than attacking an idea or opinion. A person having an opinion is OK (we all have many - some opinions better than others). The opinion itself could be wrong, but the person herself cannot be.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Classical music is dead? What?

Talk about naïve statements. Or substitute "totally erroneous" for "naïve" if you will.

In the past 50 years I have amassed an extensively varied collection of classical music recordings. Believe it or not, these recordings involved living artist musicians, sometimes hundreds of them (!!!) gathered in groups to play the stuff. And not just familiar fare, but relatively obscure composers are represented in the collection.

But the amazing thing is - right now, today, at this very moment, I can turn to an internet site, say YouTube, and access nearly everything available in my collection at the click of a mouse button. If this is death, I think I'll enjoy the grave.

I'm sure somebody contended, after hearing the Beethoven First Symphony (with that strident opening chord!), that classical music (the music of Mozart) was dead. I'm sure someone said it when Beethoven died. Apparently Brahms didn't get the memo. And later on, when Mahler wrote the devastating final movement of his Ninth Symphony, with that so familiar European classical music motif brought to the very brink of annihilation, someone asserted that it marked the end of classical music … especially if they happened to hear what that fellow named Schoenberg was up to. But apparently a lot of folks haven't gotten the memo. Webern and Berg didn't, nor did Stravinsky whose "Rite of Spring" just celebrated a centenary with hundreds of orchestra performances the world over and several huge CD box sets dedicated exclusively to the one work. (I purchased two of these! What? Did I have to rob a tomb to get them?) And wasn't it the "Rite" that folks back in 1913 rioted about? I'll bet a number of those protesters heard this piece as signaling the (-- I'll bet you've anticipated me here already) "death of classical music". Ah!

Meanwhile, Stravinsky was latching onto the concepts of Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg … those other guys who didn't get the memo either.

Strange … but it seems that the symphony I visit most regularly features a "composer in residence". What's that you say? Well, it's certainly not a dead guy. In fact, it's often a rather young person, male or female, who is currently writing (Gasp again, if you must!) "classical" music.

Hey … maybe the music is changing. It always does. Art is always in flux. Music is art. Bach doesn't sound like Palestrina, Mozart doesn't sound like Bach, Beethoven doesn't sound like Mozart, Wagner doesn't sound like Beethoven, Schoenberg doesn't sound like Wagner, Peter Maxwell Davies, John Adams, Einojuhani Rautavaara, Nancy Van de Vate, and Athena Adamopoulos (to name five very much still alive composers) don't sound like Schoenberg …

Sure, financial troubles affect orchestras. People have access to a lot of alternatives to "classical" music. And the contemporary situation might appear different to an objective observer than would the times of Bach, Mozart, Brahms, or Schoenberg … but so does everything change. How do you make telephone calls today? How do you shop? Where do you eat? How do you access information? Get your mail? Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven didn't do it that way! Yes, Virginia … things change.

And so will "classical" music. But music will survive, just as other art forms will survive. (I've heard lamentations for years about the "death of theatre", yet I turn on the TV and see hundreds of new TV shows - theatre in practice - available at any given moment!) Music remains a core feature of the very soul of the human experience, and as long as humans have ears and can hear, they will seek sound experiences that enrich those souls. So has it been since our dawning as a species. (You've all heard, I'm sure, of the 40,000-year-old bone flute. -- http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090624-bone-flute-oldest-instrument.html ) And where there is music, there will be those who strive to excel - to pursue that which is beautiful, to perform the most difficult pieces, to composer ever new and challenging pieces, to create new beauties - and it is this very extreme that for most of us marks the arena of "classical" music. There has always been popular music. (Today, much Medieval popular music - because it has survived!? - is considered "classical" and is performed generally by our most talented musicians.) And there will always be popular music. But has anyone else noticed that so often our pop music icons - when they are true musicians and not corporate money-making machines - retain a deep respect for "classical" music, artists, and composers. How many charting rock hits feature licks from the classics? How many jazz musicians learned their technique in schools such as Julliard, Eastman, Curtis, Indiana and, yes, even Berklee, where "the classics" live rich and vital lives? How many jazz albums feature improvisations on "classical" models? (Jazz pianist Jacques Loussier, to name one familiar example, has made a career out of the so called "classics".) Classical music, Virginia, is not dead, and remains as far away from death as does our human species.

And if one does take a look around the world (as "science" so tersely implies in a post above), one witnesses the richness of that life. (Have you heard of the Kinshasa Project in the Congo? Of the Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela? Have you listened to Christopher O'Riley's "From the Top" program on NPR? - Hell, have you visited an elementary school student music recital in recent years!?)

I can only wonder - why do such nay-sayers (those who speak of "the death of classical music") hang around at a classical music forum? Surely there are a plenty of cemeteries where such ones might dig up more instrumental things to do.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SONNET CLV said:


> Classical music is dead? What?
> ... .... *I can only wonder - why do such nay-sayers (those who speak of "the death of classical music") hang around at a classical music forum?* Surely there are a plenty of cemeteries where such ones might dig up more instrumental things to do.


The entirety of your comment is simply terrific. Thank you so much, 
and... _Amen to all that!_


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I think true classical music ended pretty much around a decade or so after WWII (about say around the death of composers like Prokofiev, Vaughan-Williams), and thereafter only with very, very few composers of any seriousness left - such as Shostakovich, Stravinsky who lived into the 1970s. Essentially other music took over classical music and the new school "composers" were into novelty, sounds, technical concepts of music & sounds, more than anything else. Classical music broke into these fringe groups with all sorts of ridiculous terms to describe them (e.g. post-postmodernism). Majority of these pieces to even limited listeners like us might well invite one or two listenings (and some pusedo-intellectulisation of the notes/sounds) but limited re-listens are rarely ever taken seriously.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I think true classical music ended pretty much around a decade or so after WWII.


Matching up ever so nicely with the line drawn of what a lot of people seem to be able to hear without putting any more effort into their listening... so very convenient, I think... 
of course, that is your opinion, no more an immutable truth than my opinion or the opinion of others.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Dead composers and audiences made up primarily of senior citizens? _I don't think so _

Lowlands festival, 2013.

Living composer, young professional performers, young audience, full house.
Steve Reich ~ Music for Eighteen Musicians, an attentive and rapt audience standing for near one hour 'just listening' to classical music.

This piece, a masterpiece, imo, sounds as fresh and vital to me now as it did when it was first premiered in 1976, thirty-eight years ago. It has remained popular and I have a hunch it will be a popular classical staple for a very long time to come.






P.s. I bet a number of those young people in that audience also listen to HIP performances of Baroque, Beethoven, etc.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Dead composers and audiences made up primarily of senior citizens? _I don't think so _
> 
> Lowlands festival, 2013.
> 
> ...


They enjoyed the music, good for them. Who doesn't want a fun night out at a concert with lights, stage, camera, cool performers and great marketing potential? (But just a minor point though, classcial music that ain't).


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> I think true classical music ended pretty much around a decade or so after WWII (about say around the death of composers like Prokofiev, Vaughan-Williams), and thereafter only with very, very few composers of any seriousness left - such as Shostakovich, Stravinsky who lived into the 1970s. Essentially other music took over classical music and the new school "composers" were into novelty, sounds, technical concepts of music & sounds, more than anything else. Classical music broke into these fringe groups with all sorts of ridiculous terms to describe them (e.g. post-postmodernism). Majority of these pieces to even limited listeners like us might well invite one or two listenings (and some pusedo-intellectulisation of the notes/sounds) but limited re-listens are rarely ever taken seriously.


I have a question for you Artmusic. Exactly which composers do you think comprise the current classical music scene at the moment?

You know Stockhausen, Cage and Xenakis have been dead for a few years now right? Serialism is still used but it's not the ever-present thing it might have been in the 60s. Who are these composers that are only interested in novelty sounds and technical concepts? I wouldn't think that was meant to describe John Adams, Peteris Vasks, David Lang, Arvo Part, Nico Muhly, Julia Wolfe, Jennifer Higdon or Louis Andriessen, was it?

Maybe you're referring to Brain Ferneyhough? Though the new-complexity movement isn't that big. It has some presence, but definitely not the only, or the biggest, trend in music these days.

Who are these composers you're talking about? I think you're kinda stuck in the 60s man. You need to get hip and jiggy with it.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

dupe; consolidated above, post #37


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> (But just a minor point though, classcial music that ain't).


It really can not be helped if you fail to recognize much classical music after the 1950's-60's as classical music. It can not be helped, either, if you simply refuse to recognize it as classical music.

You're bucking a huge majority of composers, musicians, performers, audience members, and listeners worldwide in projecting that definition of yours outward from your very personal viewpoint, a viewpoint held, I add, by a tiny minority, most of them not musicians.

It is like expecting the entire world to accept a completely different meaning of a word widely agreed upon and found in most dictionaries as having the same meaning simply because you don't agree with the world-wide view and all those dictionary definitions.

I mean, you're welcome to the viewpoint, it seems to agree with your personal opinion and helps you reconcile a sort of rationale which helps you defend your personal tastes vs. the reality going on all about you, but I can't really see what good it does


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

violadude said:


> I wouldn't think that was meant to describe John Adams, Peteris Vasks, David Lang, Arvo Part, Nico Muhly, Julia Wolfe, Jennifer Higdon or Louis Andriessen, was it?


These are composers who mostly want the safety net of tonality without realising why music has progressed beyond it, not exactly the faces of _new_ music. Ligeti was way ahead of them and he's dead; nor did he represent the avant garde or 'outsider music'.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Is it worth mentioning that a healthy portion of this forum is under 25.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Majority of these pieces to even limited listeners like us might well invite one or two listenings (and some pusedo-intellectulisation of the notes/sounds) but limited re-listens are rarely ever taken seriously.


Pseudo intellectualization (or indeed, any kind of intellectualization at all) is completely unnecessary, unless, of course, you have the desire to explain why masters such as Boulez, Ligeti, and Messiaen didn't actually write classical music at all.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Jobis said:


> These are composers who mostly want the safety net of tonality without realising why music has progressed beyond it, not exactly the faces of _new_ music. Ligeti was way ahead of them and he's dead; nor did he represent the avant garde or 'outsider music'.


It is important to read violadude's list in the context of the broader discussion. He's challenging ArtMusic's claims that the contemporary scene is irremedially avant-garde. The composers in that listing have, in the main, chosen a more accessible harmonic vocabulary (though some push things in other dimensions of their compositions). But that list helpfully defuses inaccurate generalizations. The avant-garde in the contemporary scene is just that: avant, one stream among many.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> Is it worth mentioning that a healthy portion of this forum is under 25.


No  ............................................


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

Alypius said:


> It is important to read violadude's list in the context of the broader discussion. He's challenging ArtMusic's claims that the contemporary scene is irremedially avant-garde. The composers in that listing have, in the main, chosen a more accessible harmonic vocabulary (though some push things in other dimensions of their compositions). But that list helpfully defuses inaccurate generalizations. The avant-garde in the contemporary scene is just that: avant, one stream among many.


True, I suppose my point is that you can only really soft-pedal contemporary classical music so much until you hit a wall that is atonality, and will not be able to comprehend it without the big picture.


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

Scratchgolf, you raise an interesting and valid point. Many non-musicians of my generation that I know who love classical music discovered it by watching Amadeus as children and were entranced by Symphony No. 25. It's not even Mozart's greatest work, but it was catchy and mesmerizing and enough to get people started. The best way to get large quantities of Americans to stumble onto classical music and grow their interest is through pop culture -- this isn't Asia where interest is pervasive and encouraged through intensive musicianship in youth. That said, I also believe that the concert-going experience is too dry and formal for many Americans who appreciate arts and culture. Personally, I wish the CSO staged more one-hour or 45 minute quick concerts without intermissions peppered with some friendly audience interaction with the conductor. This lowers the entry barriers to classical music and allows newcomers the chance to explore the genre without feeling trapped or even suffocated by a long, formalized process.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

IBMchicago said:


> I wish the CSO staged more one-hour or 45 minute quick concerts without intermissions peppered with some friendly audience interaction with the conductor.


The CSO did used to do this, but those were concerts for youngsters, middle school through high-school, ala 'ye olde field trip to the symphony.'

I would probably not go much or at all if I could not opt out of friendly conductor's chat or the pre-concert talk.

Your desire sounds to me like a yearning to have music presented to the general public as if they were schoolchildren. I would think that would be received as one of the more condescending PR moves, and an unfortunate one, a symphony organization could make.


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

PetrB, there are still corporate-sponsored CSO concerts about 1 hour in length that are meant for school children and are held on Saturdays. Obviously, this is far from what I am thinking about. I'm thinking more along the lines of, say, a 5:30pm hour long performance meant for people just getting out of work and interested in attending a brief concert. This can be very engaging and does not have to be child-like or demeaning in any way. Why do you think this idea is inherently demeaning? I once attended a 30 minute lecture at the Art Institute about impressionist art. The lecture was designed for people who did not understand impressionist art, but were eager to learn more. I found this to be very engaging and helpful, and I didn't feel demeaned or talked down to in the slightest. I'm genuinely concerned about concert going in Chicago because each time I go to the CSO, I find the average age to be alarmingly high. This can pose a real problem in terms of concert funding 10-15 years down the line. Many other symphonies from smaller Midwestern cities are facing funding issues. So, somethings gotta give.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Jobis said:


> These are composers who mostly want the safety net of tonality without realising why music has progressed beyond it, not exactly the faces of _new_ music. Ligeti was way ahead of them and he's dead; nor did he represent the avant garde or 'outsider music'.


That's not exactly true. Regardless of how you feel about their music, most of the composers I listed are quite prominent in the contemporary classical music scene. This idea you are proposing of certain styles being more evolved than other styles is a little dubious. What you're really saying when you say that Ligeti was way ahead of contemporary composers today is that you like Ligeti more. And ya know what? I would probably agree with you in many cases but the fact is the Bang on a Can post-minimalism style (for example) came AFTER Ligeti, which means it is slightly farther ahead of, and newer than, Ligeti's music purely in terms of musical progression of styles. How good you think Ligeti's music is versus the new guys isn't relevant to what I'm talking about.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

violadude said:


> That's not exactly true. Regardless of how you feel about their music, most of the composers I listed are quite prominent in the contemporary classical music scene. This idea you are proposing of certain styles being more evolved than other styles is a little dubious. What you're really saying when you say that Ligeti was way ahead of contemporary composers today is that you like Ligeti more. And ya know what? I would probably agree with you in many cases but the fact is the Bang on a Can post-minimalism style (for example) came AFTER Ligeti, which means it is slightly farther ahead of, and newer than, Ligeti's music purely in terms of musical progression of styles. How good you think Ligeti's music is versus the new guys isn't relevant to what I'm talking about.


And, in fact, Ligeti took many ideas from Steve Reich and even dedicated his Monument piece for two pianos to him!

lol, seems like I'm contradicting violadude, but no. Ligeti considered Reich the "new thing" and adapted Reich's techniques to his own music. So, both Reich and Ligeti remained "contemporary".

edit 2: now I see violadude said Bang on a Can but post-minimalism; I guess I got stuck in the 80's!, anyway, I think Reich belongs to that movement, maybe violadude can throw light to that, since I'm now confused.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

IBMchicago said:


> Many non-musicians of my generation that I know who love classical music discovered it by watching Amadeus as children and were entranced by Symphony No. 25.


Is this so?

I've been surprised how many classical music people say they enjoyed that movie; I would've expected it to be more of a joke.

I was too young to appreciate it - I get it confused with Max Headroom. I have never felt that it was something I needed to see, though.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

aleazk said:


> And, in fact, Ligeti took many ideas from Steve Reich and even dedicated his Monument piece for two pianos to him!
> 
> lol, seems like I'm contradicting violadude, but no. Ligeti considered Reich the "new thing" and adapted Reich's techniques to his own music. So, both Reich and Ligeti remained "contemporary".
> 
> edit 2: now I see violadude said Bang on a Can but post-minimalism; I guess I got stuck in the 80's!, anyway, I think Reich belongs to that movement, maybe violadude can throw light to that, since I'm now confused.


Well, Post-Minimalism seems to me like the second generation of composers influenced by Reich and Glass and those guys. I think, as a style, it is about taking the basic concept(s) of minimalism and stretching it past its raw and primitive form, finding new things to do with the idea of minimalism etc..

But I think mentioning Reich was fine in this context because he's still a living, prominent composer.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

IBMchicago said:


> PetrB, there are still corporate-sponsored CSO concerts about 1 hour in length that are meant for school children and are held on Saturdays. Obviously, this is far from what I am thinking about. I'm thinking more along the lines of, say, a 5:30pm hour long performance meant for people just getting out of work and interested in attending a brief concert. This can be very engaging and does not have to be child-like or demeaning in any way. Why do you think this idea is inherently demeaning? I once attended a 30 minute lecture at the Art Institute about impressionist art. The lecture was designed for people who did not understand impressionist art, but were eager to learn more. I found this to be very engaging and helpful, and I didn't feel demeaned or talked down to in the slightest. I'm genuinely concerned about concert going in Chicago because each time I go to the CSO, I find the average age to be alarmingly high. This can pose a real problem in terms of concert funding 10-15 years down the line. Many other symphonies from smaller Midwestern cities are facing funding issues. So, somethings gotta give.


Well then the only practical way to have what you ask for is _for the musicians to come in early the nights they play,_ adding X amount of additional repertoire and union wage hours to the expenses load -- so what would you expect to pay (vs. a ticket for a full-length concert) for not only their additional time, but the time after while they have to loiter about until they _used to show_ up just before the evening concerts?

There are more very real and critical practical problems than there are aesthetic / promo the arts accommodate the audience questions.

I earnestly wonder where the want as per your desire for the sort of program you propose comes from, i.e. years ago when the average age of the audience was younger, there were no such programs, less classes readily available for adults, no online classes, and yet the concert halls were full.

I wonder if the age demographic was younger when Boulez was director, and there were more modern / contemporary works on the regular subscription series.

At any rate, I think what you are asking for is seriously impractical, and I wonder where the 'guide me through it and hold my hand' kind of lecture became either necessary or so desired by the public before they would enter a museum or concert hall. Seriously, with so many resources online, what you propose seems really unnecessary -- while a call for it seems to be more and more common, and it denotes to me a saddening idea of people being less and less adventurous than their predecessors.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

What a lovely, optimistic thread!  This makes me very happy.

I guess the Classical Music scene seems alive and well... at least from the audience's perspective.

REPORT FROM THE FIELD: CLASSICAL MUSIC IS NOT DEAD! I REPEAT! CLASSICAL MUSIC IS NOT DEAD!
:lol:

But it is certainly changing.

Getting a job isn't like it use to be. Performing as a soloist on tour is _definitely _not how it use to be. Flutists use to tour all the time about 50 years ago, chamber concerts were popular, even among non-flutist audiences. But the competition is so fierce that the demographic has somewhat changed and has become "music for musicians" in some places: the audience is made up of musicians that wished they could be where that soloist is on stage, but come to watch because they admire and wish to learn their secrets.

I've been a total fangirl about this video, but I MUST show it as just what I called it, a "report from the field" about what's happening to classical music today, and the new horizons that we are meeting as creative artists. I present to you my university's premier orchestra: _no chairs._

(well, except for props ):

Copland: Appalachian Spring


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

WOW!!!!! I wished I had known about this. I only live about 45 minutes away in Northern Virginia.

This is one of the reasons I freak out when Americans, (and most of the "classical is dead" crowd seems to be American), bemoan the death of classical music.

I attend all sorts of performances with enthusiastic young people: George Mason University, Northern Virginia Youth Winds, some of the better HS Bands in Fairfax County. I pity the alternant universes that these sourpusses live in.

What a fine orchestra. Tears came to my eyes watching that wonderful performance. :trp:


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

violadude said:


> That's not exactly true. Regardless of how you feel about their music, most of the composers I listed are quite prominent in the contemporary classical music scene. This idea you are proposing of certain styles being more evolved than other styles is a little dubious. What you're really saying when you say that Ligeti was way ahead of contemporary composers today is that you like Ligeti more. And ya know what? I would probably agree with you in many cases but the fact is the Bang on a Can post-minimalism style (for example) came AFTER Ligeti, which means it is slightly farther ahead of, and newer than, Ligeti's music purely in terms of musical progression of styles. How good you think Ligeti's music is versus the new guys isn't relevant to what I'm talking about.


Its not exactly about who I prefer, but rather, the emancipation of dissonance (along with other innovations) taking course. Ligeti was just an example of a forward-thinking composer, whereas the minimalists strike me as rather reactionary, in a one step forward, two steps back, kind of way.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Jobis said:


> Its not exactly about who I prefer, but rather, the emancipation of dissonance (along with other innovations) taking course. Ligeti was just an example of a forward-thinking composer, whereas the minimalists strike me as rather reactionary, in a one step forward, two steps back, kind of way.


The reason I don't see it that way is because Minamilsm is not an old style being dragged up from the depths of history. It was a completely new thing when it arrived on the music scene. And even though it tends to be more triadic than the styles of music you are referencing, it hardly resembles anything close to what you would call "Common Era Harmony".

Besides, there's nothing that says music *has* to keep getting "more atonal" as time goes on, and there's nothing that says dissonance must stay emancipated in all future styles. As long as music keeps changing, new ideas keep coming, and composers aren't directly trudging out older musical languages, I don't see it as a step back.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

violadude said:


> The reason I don't see it that way is because Minamilsm is not an old style being dragged up from the depths of history. It was a completely new thing when it arrived on the music scene. And even though it tends to be more triadic than the styles of music you are referencing, it hardly resembles anything close to what you would call "Common Era Harmony".
> 
> Besides, there's nothing that says music *has* to keep getting "more atonal" as time goes on, and there's nothing that says dissonance must stay emancipated in all future styles. As long as music keeps changing, new ideas keep coming, and composers aren't directly trudging out older musical languages, I don't see it as a step back.


You're right, after all, how often do tastes get in the way of unbiased criticism.

Besides, following my line of thinking I am a hypocrite, since I adore the neo-classical works of Stravinsky. :tiphat:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Jobis said:


> You're right, after all, how often do tastes get in the way of unbiased criticism.
> 
> Besides, following my line of thinking I am a hypocrite, since I adore the neo-classical works of Stravinsky. :tiphat: *... who later, phase 3, adopted the serial method *


Here are two works by one of those "Bang on the Can" guys

Michael Gordon:
Weather One (in a vein of 'minimalism')




and a later piece...
The Light of Dark. (2008)





I very much liked Michael Gordon's _Decasia_, imo quite stunning and beautiful. Unfortunately, the work _was_ on Youtube, but no longer.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

science said:


> if you think classical music is dead, come to east asia.


classical music will never die it has been around for 100's of years.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

mtmailey said:


> classical music will never die it has been around for 100's of years.


I hope you're correct, but never say never. The Byzantine Empire was also around for hundreds of years. Over a millennium actually.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

scratchgolf said:


> I hope you're correct, but never say never. The Byzantine Empire was also around for hundreds of years. Over a millennium actually.


Yes, but you're comparing apples to oranges, as they say. A political Empire and an artistic culture are different things. But more significantly, much of the art of the Byzantine Empire is extant (including the beautiful Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, which can still be heard on any Sunday in a Greek Catholic or Byzantine Church) and thus we have access still to the artistic culture of Byzantium. That's pretty powerful. But then art is pretty powerful.

If you think back over history, what is the one thing we cherish most about ancient cultures, and the one thing that tends to survive? It's the art, whether of ancient Egypt, of ancient Sumeria, China, India, Greece, Rome .... As the poet Shelley implies in his great "Ozymandias" sonnet, the work of the artist outlives that of the political leader.

And because today's art is so well documented by our modern technology, it is likely to last till the end of human time. In fact, it will go on well past human time if you consider that representative works were sent into space, as on the Voyager spacecrafts in the late 70's. (Music was actually sent on golden LP discs, not CDs! I hope the NASA scientists included a good turntable and cartridge. I suspect that even aliens will be annoyed by poor record playback.)


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

SONNET CLV said:


> And because today's art is so well documented by our modern technology, it is likely to last till the end of human time. In fact, it will go on well past human time if you consider that representative works were sent into space, as on the Voyager spacecrafts in the late 70's. (Music was actually sent on golden LP discs, not CDs! I hope the NASA scientists included a good turntable and cartridge. I suspect that even aliens will be annoyed by poor record playback.)


I think it was projected to be able to last a billion years in space. Bach was given most of the time, as well. Quite reasonably.

But even so - stars, galactic explosions, black holes, etc... can destroy that information rather easily.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

scratchgolf said:


> I hope you're correct, but never say never. The Byzantine Empire was also around for hundreds of years. Over a millennium actually.


Anything to do with humanity is finite.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Classical music is neither dead nor dying . It's in the process of evolving , as it has always been .
The world has changed vastly from the past , and so has classical music .
Classical music has been in existence for so much longer than pop, rock, Jazz , or other musics
which are familiar to the general public , so it's accumulated a vast repertoire ranging over many
centuries .
The so-called "canon " of classical music is merely a list of the most famous, admired and
frequently performed works .These are desevedly popular , but there is so much wonderful 
classical music which for some reason never achieved as prominent a place in the repertoire .
This is why you cannot blame the art form for relying so much on music from the past .
We don't have any Rock music from two or three hundred years ago . Or Jazz . 
One of the most persistent myths about classical is that there's a woeful lack of new
music in the present day , and that things were so much better in the past ,because "all
or most music was new music ".
This is a half truth . It's true that in the time of Haydn,Mozart & Beethoven , new works
were constantly being premiered , but the orchestra as we know it was a relatively new thing
in their day , and they hadn't had enough time for a "Canon " to emerge yet .
Every year , a wide variety of new orchestral works, operas etc still get premiered in the
present era . In fact, there is a wider variety of classical music being performed today
than ever before .
Just 50 years ago , the classical repertoire was vastly different from the present day .
Composers such as Arvo Part , Penderecki , Thomas Ades, Nico Muhly , Tan Dun, 
Osvaldo Golijov, Kaaia Sariaho , Philip Glass , John Adams , Helmut Lachenmann,
Wolfgang Rihm , Poul Ruders, Sofia Gubaidullina , Unsuk Chin , William Bolcom, Jennifer Higdon,
Brian Ferneyhough , Christopher Rouse, Tobias Picker, John Harbison, Erkki Sven Tuur , Jake Heggie, Peter Maxwell Davies and
others were either just beginning to make names for themselves, students , children
or not even born yet . But now they're being widely performed .
Even now, there are plenty of talented young people aspiring to be composers , some of them students
of some of the just mentioned contemporary composers , and some of them may become important composers of the
future .


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't think the question is whether there will be composers but whether there will be an audience. Well, during our lifetimes there will be - both for the oldies and some newbies too.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

These discussions remind me of something Conan O'Brien said a few years ago:
"Some people say print media is dying, but I don't believe it. And neither does my blacksmith."


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

I stumbled across this short but interesting article...
*Needed: A Long Look at America's Arts Financing.* http://www.musicalamerica.com/mablogs/?p=10369
It raises some interesting issues between the US and Europe.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> I stumbled across this short but interesting article...
> *Needed: A Long Look at America's Arts Financing.* http://www.musicalamerica.com/mablogs/?p=10369
> It raises some interesting issues between the US and Europe.


Most of the American population, including many of those highly educated, have a deep down mistrust of anything which smacks of being _intellectual_; they are about as deeply suspicious of any of the arts the moment those arts could be called _fine art_.

Good luck on further funding the fine arts through general taxes (or surcharge taxes on the lighter forms of entertainment), especially if the populace knows those taxes and / or surcharges will be funding those fine arts.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Most of the American population, including many of those highly educated, have a deep down mistrust of anything which smacks of being _intellectual_; they are about as deeply suspicious of any of the arts the moment those arts could be called _fine art_.
> 
> Good luck on further funding the fine arts through general taxes (or surcharge taxes on the lighter forms of entertainment), especially if the populace knows those taxes and / or surcharges will be funding those fine arts.


So benefits for freelancers would be out of the question?  http://classicalvoiceamerica.org/2014/03/02/not-just-another-french-strike/


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

scratchgolf said:


> I hope you're correct, but never say never. The Byzantine Empire was also around for hundreds of years. Over a millennium actually.


Byzantine art however -- both fine and applied -- is still with us and highly esteemed. (Ditto for art made in the eras of other long-gone governments and empires in which lived our still beloved and esteemed composers of the past.)







...






...












Later... from the same area, different politics:
_La Sublime Porte. Voix d'Istanbul_ (Jordi Savall and colleagues)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The Byzantine art example struck me immediate as an odd one. Byzantium was of course an empire and a civilization; classical music is the music of Europe, basically; that is, just one aspect of the art of Europe... so it seems like the comparison should be to some aspect of Byzantine art.

I'd guess the most active, living aspect of Byzantine art in our time is the iconography of the Orthodox churches. Not many people know it, but that is indeed a living tradition. Its greatest 20th century representative was probably Gregory Krug, who was about as innovative as the tradition allows:

View attachment 43594


(That is Seraphim of Sarov, one of the great Russian saints of the nineteenth century, sort of a Russian Francis of Assisi.)

So that's nice, but it's not actually that optimistic of a perspective to me. The visual arts of the last 600 years or so include some really amazing things, and the Byzantine tradition has not been a very active part of it. Of course all of Eastern Europe and the Middle East are the heirs of the Byzantines, and they had some influence on the Renaissance as well, but really... Byzantine art isn't anything like what it once was. If that's what we're thinking of as a good analogy for the future of classical music, that would be disappointing.

Anyway, the truth is I think we're taking the Byzantine thing a bit out of its originally intended context, but I really just wanted to share with you a bit of Gregory Krug's work. Anyone interested in religious art should check it out.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> I stumbled across this short but interesting article...
> *Needed: A Long Look at America's Arts Financing.* http://www.musicalamerica.com/mablogs/?p=10369
> It raises some interesting issues between the US and Europe.


Based on my experiences, this is a very accurate article concerning the state of the arts in the United States.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> So benefits for freelancers would be out of the question?  http://classicalvoiceamerica.org/2014/03/02/not-just-another-french-strike/


Yes, pretty much completely out of the question. Free-lancers from all sorts of trades-professions have attempted something like a union or union benefits for decades, with no real result.

You can add the little factoid that where there is state medicine for just about any and all in most of the EU, that is another thing completely -- well, nearly -- we'll see how it goes -- absent for most Americans, affordable and adequate health care usually coming only unless they are signed up, sealed and delivered, to a relatively large corporate employer. 
(It's a conspiracy :devil

_Vive_ freemarket and free enterprise, and cheap (supposedly dispensable) workers.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Wonder what will happen when all of us on TC are no longer here?

Will that be the day our wonderful music finally died?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

hpowders said:


> Wonder what will happen when all of us on TC are no longer here?
> 
> Will that be the day our wonderful music finally died?


It could be the day where a certain percentage of chat _about_ music dies, but I think that would be about it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

PetrB said:


> It could be the day where a certain percentage of chat _about_ music dies, but I think that would be about it.


We'll see.

Actually, we won't.


----------



## IBMchicago (May 16, 2012)

Couac Addict said:


> I stumbled across this short but interesting article...
> *Needed: A Long Look at America's Arts Financing.* http://www.musicalamerica.com/mablogs/?p=10369
> It raises some interesting issues between the US and Europe.


Yes, I agree this is a problem that is noticeable in my city. The only classical performer I have seen who can sell out a show in Chicago is Lang Lang, and the audience at his performances are visibly younger. Not my favorite performer, and I suppose it's nice for me personally that I can get good tickets to see Uchida or Perahia at cheaper price not long before the concert. But, it's not so good for the long term.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

scratchgolf said:


> I hope you're correct, but never say never. The Byzantine Empire was also around for hundreds of years. Over a millennium actually.


I am sure that it will live forever as of now there are not that many modern composers that are as good as the greats like Schubert,Beethoven & so forth.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Forever is such a long time. You sure?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Who Are the Real Snobs*

At times I wonder who are the real snobs in the classical music world.

If I only listened to the music that is as good as Beethoven, I would only be listening to Beethoven.

There are many outstanding contemporaries of Beethoven that have, for reasons that have always puzzled me, been forgotten.

I mentioned this elsewhere. Our orchestra just performed the _Piano Concerto Number Eight_ by Ferdinand Ries, a contemporary of Beethoven who has almost disappeared. According to Bachtrack I could not find upcoming performances of any of Ries's pieces. (Note: We are a small community orchestra so we are not listed on Bachtrack.)

We had a difficult time locating a set of parts for the orchestra. The only one who had them was a publisher in Germany. These were edited parts that were copyrighted. We had to pay $900 to rent them. We could rent the parts for the Beethoven _Emperor Concerto_ for only $85, a tenth of the cost of the Ries.

The more I played the Ries the more I liked it. It is a great piece of music. I have had more fun playing it than some of the Beethoven Concertos that I have performed.  HOW CAN HE SAY THAT? Sorry, playing the 2nd or even 1st bassoon part to a Beethoven Concerto can be boring. More fun to play a symphony.

So who is the real snob? The musical aficionado who thumbs his nose at anyone who does not match up with the great Ludwig van? Or the musical snobs with the flawed music appreciation standards who, along with Beethoven, have fun groveling with the likes of Reicha, Danzi, Carter, Persichetti and my new friend Ries. :tiphat:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

arpeggio said:


> So who is the real snob? The musical aficionado in his ivory tower thumbing his nose at anyone who does not match up with the great Ludwig van?


I don't know if "ivory tower" is a reference to universities, but if so I don't think this attitude is very common there.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

science said:


> I don't know if "ivory tower" is a reference to universities, but if so I don't think this attitude is very common there.


I am not a great writer. If you can think of a better term, I'm all ears. Let me know before the can not edit bomb is detonated.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> At times I wonder who are the real snobs in the classical music world.
> 
> If I only listened to the music that is as good as Beethoven, I would only be listening to Beethoven.
> 
> ...


Ries is quite a good composer. I have a recording of his symphonies and when I listen to them, he strikes me as a composer nearly as proficient as the "great" composers but lacks a certain undefinable "it" factor. Still great music nevertheless.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> I am not a great writer. If you can think of a better term, I'm all ears. Let me know before the can not edit bomb is detonated.


Maybe just eliminate "in his ivory tower"? Anyone who thumbs her/his nose at those lesser than Beethoven could be viewed as a snob. I like Beethoven more than almost any other composer, but there are so many wonderful composers and works that certainly do not deserve anyone's nose thumbing. In truth no composer (including those playing around composing with their computer for the first time) deserves that.

And without question Ries is one of those composers - I love his Piano Concerto No. 8 (as well as other concertos).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

arpeggio said:


> I am not a great writer. If you can think of a better term, I'm all ears. Let me know before the can not edit bomb is detonated.


I am not sure what term to replace it with. Who in your experience has attitudes like that?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Playing vs. Listening*



violadude said:


> Ries is quite a good composer. I have a recording of his symphonies and when I listen to them, he strikes me as a composer nearly as proficient as the "great" composers but lacks a certain undefinable "it" factor. Still great music nevertheless.


At first I would agree with you concerning the "it" factor. My initial reaction was that he was an OK Beethoven imitator. But after a few rehearsals I began to notice subtle differences between him and the great Ludwig van. I realize that the following statement really irritates some, but actually playing a piece of music is not the same as just listening to it.

I remember the reaction of some of the members to my experiences from my actually performing the Schubert _Unfinished_.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> At first I would agree with you concerning the "it" factor. My initial reaction was that he was an OK Beethoven imitator. But after a few rehearsals I began to notice subtle differences between him and the great Ludwig van. I realize that the following statement really irritates some, but actually playing a piece of music is not the same as just listening to it.
> 
> I remember the reaction of some of the members to my experiences from my actually performing the Schubert _Unfinished_.


Oh ya, playing pieces in an orchestra definitely gives you a new perspective on the piece. Pieces that you've performed are also much easier to remember.


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

I'm reminded of this:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

StevenOBrien said:


> I'm reminded of this:


Thank you for this... it is 
*Priceless!*

Yes, Monteverdi destroyed classical music and because of that and dispensing with both modality and counterpoint while going instead for that gol-durned tonality business, he shouldn't be considered as a western classical composer. Hrrrumph!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Thank you for this... it is
> *Priceless!*
> 
> Yes, Monteverdi destroyed classical music and because of that and dispensing with both modality and counterpoint while going instead for that gol-durned tonality business, he shouldn't be considered as a western classical composer. Hrrrumph!


Ahem, did you notice that that particular quote "On the Imperfections of Modern Music" came from someone called Artusi? Add an "m" and a "c"...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Ahem, did you notice that that particular quote "On the Imperfections of Modern Music" came from someone called Artusi? Add an "m" and a "c"...


Cleverness aside, the Artusi quote is great.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> Ahem, did you notice that that particular quote "On the Imperfections of Modern Music" came from someone called Artusi? Add an "m" and a "c"...


Ahhhh, the pseudo legitimizing and immortalization of just about anyone who makes a blog or writes a comment anywhere online. :lol:.....:lol:.....:lol:.....


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> Cleverness aside, the Artusi quote is great.


Artusi's statement is pretty good. In retrospect it is unfortunate for Artusi the comment seems to have been directed at Monteverdi!

So many of these comments read like those fab reviews of yore as compiled in Slonimsky's _Lexicon of Musical Invective,_ -- critical assaults on music since Beethoven's time. There, Slonimsky rescued from obscurity all those critics who dissed so many of the composers and their works we now consider great and 'part of the canon of classical music.'


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Artusi's statement is pretty good. In retrospect it is unfortunate for Artusi the the comment seems to have been directed at Monteverdi!


It wouldn't be nearly as great if it had been directed at a lesser figure. It is really nice that "modern" is explicit in there too.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> It wouldn't be nearly as great if it had been directed at a lesser figure. It is really nice that "modern" is explicit in there too.


Yes, LOL -- Monteverdi = new-fangled jangly horror film music noise!


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

I would be curious to see a continuation of that poster in 200 years. Alas, I probably won't be alive then.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I think the future of classical music is in serious jeopardy. The majority of serious listeners that enabled classical music to thrive in the 1940's-1980's are either gone or getting there. Younger generations are not picking up the slack. The young folks represented here on TC are only a small minority of the total of young music lovers. It seems like it's just a matter of time-say 50 years or so, down the road, when classical music will be something one can only look up in a museum.

Sorry to be so pessimistic, but it doesn't look good.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

hpowders said:


> I think the future of classical music is in serious jeopardy. The majority of serious listeners that enabled classical music to thrive in the 1940's-1980's are either gone or getting there. Younger generations are not picking up the slack. The young folks represented here on TC are only a small minority of the total of young music lovers. It seems like it's just a matter of time-say 50 years or so, down the road, when classical music will be something one can only look up in a museum.
> 
> Sorry to be so pessimistic, but it doesn't look good.


Look to Asia...

But also, even if there is only 1/3 as many of us as there were of our grandparents' generation, we're about 3 times as rich as them (with twice the leisure time) anyway. Some orchestras will probably have to close up, but they're not all going to.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

science said:


> Look to Asia...
> 
> But also, even if there is only 1/3 as many of us as there were of our grandparents' generation, we're about 3 times as rich as them (with twice the leisure time) anyway. Some orchestras will probably have to close up, but they're not all going to.


Yes. Perhaps Asia can save the day!!


----------

