# What do people want from music?



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm speaking of the broader CM public, especially the ones that are moved to attend concerts. What will put their behinds in those seats and their dollars in the till?

There's been a lot of talk about what they *should* want, which doesn't seem very useful. So what is it that they *do* want? Certainly today's orchestras can supply it. Can today's composers? Should they even bother? What do you think?


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Oh, I want emotion, and entertainment, and melody, and I'm tired from work, then, I want tonal, and I don't want to think, and I want to be sedated, and I want music that speaks to me, and I'm paying for that, and I have my rights, you know?, and my rights are more important than yours, composer, and I want entertainment, and I'm tired from work, and I'm paying you, and you have no rights, composer, and I want tonal, and I'm paying you, then, composer, you have to compose the tonal music I like, and entertain me, because I think I own you.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

aleazk said:


> ...and I want tonal, and I'm paying you, then, composer, you have to compose the tonal music I like, and entertain me, because I think I own you.


Really? We're all free to make our choices, and nobody owns anybody. Composers are absolutely free to write what they like. Listeners are absolutely free to listen to what they like. Or not. Would you change this?


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

It has to make them 'feel' some immediately discernible emotion, and they don't like 'scary' music like Schoenberg.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Really? We're all free to make our choices, and nobody owns anybody. Composers are absolutely free to write what they like. Listeners are absolutely free to listen to what they like. Or not. Would you change this?


He is speaking ironically.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I'm speaking of the broader CM public, especially the ones that are moved to attend concerts. What will put their behinds in those seats and their dollars in the till?
> 
> There's been a lot of talk about what they *should* want, which doesn't seem very useful. So what is it that they *do* want? Certainly today's orchestras can supply it. Can today's composers? Should they even bother? What do you think?


I have no answers to your quetions Ken. I think Adorno maybe has. I only say that 'coz I'm re(reading) his essay _On the Fetish-Character in Music and the Regression of Listening_, which in part talks about the commodification of music. When I work out what he's trying to tell us I'll get back to you. Don't you be waiting for me though...


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Jobis said:


> He is speaking ironically.


Well, to be honest, I do want emotions, and I'm also tired from work. But that's all.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Music that makes them feel good. Thrilling.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Oh, I want emotion, and entertainment, and melody, and I'm tired from work, then, I want tonal, and I don't want to think, and I want to be sedated, and I want music that speaks to me, and I'm paying for that, and I have my rights, you know?, and my rights are more important than yours, composer, and I want entertainment, and I'm tired from work, and I'm paying you, and you have no rights, composer, and I want tonal, and I'm paying you, then, composer, you have to compose the tonal music I like, and entertain me, because I think I own you.


Catchy! -- you repeated an easily perceived motif enough times I think they'll be humming it on the way out of the hall.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I think some of those audience members seem to think composers, more like the flat out commercial composers of film scores and video games, can write in a myriad of styles. I think there is some misconceived notion the composer who makes the sort of music many a more conservative audience member will not like, or buy a seat to hear, can simply shift what they write to more readily gain an audience.

I don't think many classical composers can do that, and I don't think they should be expected to, either. This topic is a constantly recurring one, which will continually come up because it is and has been always an issue for some.

At some not far past date the average audience had more than a little trouble with Ravel, Stravinsky, Debussy, Mahler, (within a very recent past I've heard each called "dissonant, weird, atonal,") These are names of composers who now for many seem pretty tame, i.e. it is mainstream music which many regularly and readily enjoy. I recall that during the late 1950's - 60's, when as a teenager, I rushed to hear Prokofiev's Scythian Suite performed because its being programmed was such a rarity. Now, forty years on, it is routinely programmed, and the general audiences aren't ruffled or repelled by it, but simply enjoy it. (Yet, within the last year or two, I read a comment where someone called Prokofiev "an atonal composer." 

Most classical composers find a way of writing, which is not only what interests them, but is pretty much truly the only way they can write, or at least convincingly. There is not nearly as much flexibility as some may imagine that a composer can come up with, i.e. some other vocabulary style or form to accommodate an audience who does not readily consume what that composer already makes. The composer is somewhat stuck with that, and so is the audience: the audience, I believe strongly, have more latitude in accepting or rejecting that music than the composer has in accepting "what he can do."

What I find appalling - or at least seriously vulgar or philistine -- is the "my bucks count as king vote" mentality where the concertgoer believes they have a right to demand that each of the usual three pieces on a standard symphonic program be within the easier reaches of their particular listening habits, or that they should have an even more direct "vote" (beyond consuming or avoiding) in directing what kind of work, and vocabulary, a composer might use.

There was a thread here, rapidly closed, the OP also very quickly banned, where this newly joined TC member came to TC just to rant about Henri Dutilleux's Cello Concerto _Tout un monde lointain_ which had been one of three pieces on the Seattle Symphony subscription program.

He proclaimed he was _*outraged*_ that he was _*subjected to having to listen to such music*_, felt _*cheated* out of one-third of the money he had paid for the seat_, and said that if that organization continued to program any thing like that they would lose his custom. _*Hrumph -- and So, There!*_

Well, dude, two outta three ain't bad, and you can sit one out (he knew he was in for recent 20th century music with the Dutilleux on the program.) Clearly, Dutilleux, with whom many a more conservative listener has no problem whatsoever (or at least that holds for that 'cello concerto) was not ready to compromise his writing style for any listener like that.

I say if your orchestra programs it, and it is not on some specialized contemporary music series, that the audience should just take it and deal with it, Two out of three really ain't bad on any given night, about the most any concertgoer should realistically expect, and any one and all really ought to feel they got their money's worth.

I don't either think those composers who do write in a more accessible style have compromised themselves, but are also writing "how they can write:" By chance, happenstance, they have an easier time getting their works done.

No, it is not useful to talk about or think you can force an audience to what those more keen on the newer music think the audience "should want." Less than useful, it is pretty silly to expect, that agenda to be fully accepted. _*Is it any more useful, at all, to discuss what audiences think composers "should compose?"*_ I also think not, it is just another agenda, with as many flaws of logic as to why it should be more attended to than another agenda.

I do think that interpreting Beethoven, Mozart, etc. as being of the people, populist composers who were conscious of their audience and writing directly to and for that audience, is a very great misconception as to how any successful composer of the past, whose music is still being played, thought about or went about what they wrote.

Beethoven was the one who grumbled -- I believe about one of his string quartets -- that he did not care if it was understood or played now, that he was writing for people fifty years in the future - _*which was more than a completely accurate assessment.*_ Populist, thinking of "what concert goers want," at least for that piece, and many others he composed, I think not. _*It is more than a little ironic that music lovers who now readily consume that "advanced" Beethoven piece could be the same ones who have your question on their minds about the present state of music.*_

To assume that a practical free market supply and demand model can be applied to any of the fine arts is fallacious - it does not take into account the fact that almost all of the works, popular and otherwise, were commissioned and that those who commissioned the works were not expecting any of their money back in return if a work was "commercially" successful. Mattel did not commission the Barbie Doll, and then let the designer reap the royalties. They planned that item to sell, and were looking for every penny of their initial investment returned, plus all profits. _It is also the Barbie Doll, not art._

So I have no answer to this question, but this question does and will linger and recur. I have no suggestions to offer other than don't expect all artists to be willing or able to accommodate "the audience" any more than it seems some of the audience are not at all willing or able to accommodate the artist, at least at any time soon.


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

To support "the arts", and to be seen doing so.

How's that for cynical?


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

Wow, coming inadvertently after the post it came after makes it seem even more cynical than I intended. Sorry, PetrB


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

PetrB said:


> I have no answer to this question.


I don't think it's a question worth trying to answer. I don't think it's a question worth asking.

None of them, actually. Let's look at the questions posed in the OP.

What do people want from music?

Well, even if one defines "people" to mean "the broader CM public" (which is a very narrow portion of the category "people"), your category is still hopelessly broad. In a meditation on greatness in music, Berlioz notes that of any four people occupying the same box at a concert, one will be bored, one incensed, one enraptured, and one indifferent. So even if you narrow "people" down to "four classical listeners," you still won't get any agreement.

What will put their behinds in those seats and their dollars in the till?

This is a rather odd question, since the "their" has just been defined as "the ones that are moved to attend concerts." Indeed, what will get the people who attend concerts to attend concerts?

Interlude:


KenOC said:


> There's been a lot of talk about what they *should* want, which doesn't seem very useful.


I agree. That is, if this thing actually existed, it would not be a very useful thing. But does it? I have seen a lot of people over the years claiming that there's been a lot of this kind of talk. But I have seen very little, if any, of this kind of talk.

So what is it that they *do* want?

Already covered. "They" does not exist as a homogenous category. "They" is made up of a lot of individuals, with a correspondingly wide variety of wants. Certainly marketing techniques can identify percentages of agreement. But then what? You cater to one sub-group and the other sub-groups will protest.

Certainly today's orchestras can supply it. Can today's composers? Should they even bother?

Well, PetrB has already taken the measure of this. I'll only add that the language "even bother" really poisons the well. Poisons it well. Beware before you drink!

What do you think?

This thread seems to be yet another "orchestras in crisis" thread. Many orchestras do seem to be having a hard time paying their bills, it's true. If you take, however, a marketing approach to the situation, then your solution will be a marketing solution. I.e., the art qua art will suffer. Art only seems to thrive if there's no agenda, or rather, if its agendas are purely its own and not someone else's.

You may have noticed already that marketing is not about giving people what they want, anyway. It's about creating a desire for what you're trying to sell. Hey! Maybe that IS the answer!! Create a desire for new music....


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Whilst I'm still battling with Adorno and issues involving the fetish-character of music and regressive listening, maybe what the orchestras could do to get bums on seats is to develop this idea a bit more:





Quote from the link:
_The Moonlight sonata by Beethoven in *a 60 minutes rendition* from a very rare LP recording *featuring piano and orchestra* with a *repetition of the 1-st movement for more than 10 times*. This version of the Piano sonata No.14 is the only one known to be accompanied by a symphony orchestra with *a more soothing and deep sound* of this true master piece by Ludwig van Beethoven.

Enjoy and relax while listening to this really long and calming version of the Moonlight Sonata, *which can be used for various occasions* like romantic date at home, homework, relaxing, stress relief and even for a musical ambience when there are guests and doing other useful things as well_. [End of quote]

PS: Please don't shoot the messenger!


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I'm speaking of the broader CM public, especially the ones that are moved to attend concerts. What will put their behinds in those seats and their dollars in the till?
> 
> There's been a lot of talk about what they *should* want, which doesn't seem very useful. So what is it that they *do* want? Certainly today's orchestras can supply it. Can today's composers? Should they even bother? What do you think?


Simple. People do NOT want rubbish music. There's plenty of that around.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Simple. People do NOT want rubbish music. There's plenty of that around.


"Rubbish music" is only "rubbish" to the ears of the listener. Not all music pleases everyone and that's a fact. You making a statement like that implies that there is plenty of music that you personally think is rubbish. It's not as simple as not programming music that you don't like, that is very egocentric and arrogant and is disrespectful to other opinions and musicians and composers who like, write and perform the music you think is "rubbish." There is simply no such thing as "rubbish music" in an objective sense that should never be programmed. All music that exists should be performed every now and then and there will always be people who like it and people who dislike it. Just live with it, you can't always get your way.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> Simple. People do NOT want rubbish music. There's plenty of that around.


Quite agree. I do not accept rubbish music, which is why I'll be attending a good chunk of concerts at this French city's annual contemporary music festival (see link hereafter) featuring non-rubbish composers such as Georges *Aperghis*, George *Benjamin* (that's another name for CoAg to check out), Pierre Boulez (rumour has it he will be present if not too ill...), Elliott *Carter* (rumour has it he _won't_ be attending...), James *Dillon* (CoAg !!...), Henri *Dutilleux*, Georg Friedrich *Haas*, 'Johnny' *Harvey*, _concrètist_ Pierre *Henry*, Michael *Jarrel*, André *Jolivet*, 'George' *Ligeti* ... the list goes on. Anyway, click on the link hereafter to check out the full programme of the 49 non-rubbish composers. And here's the thing: these are for the most part full-house concerts. Got my tickets for free from an insider source, nah!

http://www.festivalmusica.org/ (click on "télécharger le programme complet en pdf".)


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> "Rubbish music" is only "rubbish" to the ears of the listener. Not all music pleases everyone and that's a fact. You making a statement like that implies that there is plenty of music that you personally think is rubbish. It's not as simple as not programming music that you don't like, that is very egocentric and arrogant and is disrespectful to other opinions and musicians and composers who like, write and perform the music you think is "rubbish." There is simply no such thing as "rubbish music" in an objective sense that should never be programmed. All music that exists should be performed every now and then and there will always be people who like it and people who dislike it. Just live with it, you can't always get your way.


As a composer, you got to accept that there WILL ALWAYS BE listeners who do not like your music, as much as there are listeners who DO LIKE YOUR MUSIC. You are simply choosing to accept and welcome those who do, and block off those who don't as being arrogant and insulting etc. It's perfectly simple human nature on all levels and explainable.

I am not a composer but hopefully a perfomer. I accept the same - folks will like my performance and those who don't but I don't think those who think I am a weak performer any less than those who enjoy my performance.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Vesteralen said:


> Wow, coming inadvertently after the post it came after makes it seem even more cynical than I intended. Sorry, PetrB


But you are more correct than I would like things to be. There have been lengthy posts on the 'inevitablity' that classical music is tied to class issues, and social status and credibility -- a simple observation which is unfortunately true, those articles not mentioning what pathetic sheep those who act that way or perpetuate that status game are.

It exists, sadly. Dress circle, to be seen, social connections, and to be seen as supporting the arts.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Yeah, let's burn the opera houses !!! Oops, Pierre B already said that, I'm about 50 years too late.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Simple. People do NOT want rubbish music. There's plenty of that around.


Wow, I bet that was easy to say and took 0 thought, and it says nothing at all articulate and specific about music.
I guess that's one for the trash, then?

Yeah, that orchestral version of the Legend of Zelda, the Star Wars Concert Suite, that's gotta be some of the rubbish music you say people do not want.

Your Challenge, should you decide to accept it: Define "Rubbish Music," citing specific examples of repertoire which support your statement.
This tape will self destruct in five seconds.

ADD: I read your other post, yeah, people like what they like and there is really no controlling that. Just did not at all care for your more than sweeping generality -- it really says nothing, and I'm near certain you could come up with better.

I've played stuff I dd not care for -- convincingly, without conveying I thought little or nothing of it, because that is what you do as a pro. Audiences accept or reject all kinds of stuff, and it does not have to be 'modern' genre to be rejected.

There's nothing "modern" genre about Star Wars Suite or The Legend of Zelda. I resoundingly don't care for the first (slick pastiche), and think the second is truly a good example of very bad music, (poorly done very roughly cobbled together pastiche


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Yeah, let's burn the opera houses !!! Oops, Pierre B already said that, I'm about 50 years too late.


You know, any plebe could cut their cable TV costs and then be able to afford to go to the opera several times a season, if they were interested, uh, I mean that is if they were not so terribly and awfully intimidated by the upper crustiness of it all.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Wow, I bet that was easy to say and took 0 thought, and it says nothing at all articulate and specific about music.I guess that's one for the trash, then?
> 
> Yeah, that orchestral version of the Legend of Zelda, the Star Wars Concert Suite, that's gotta be some of the rubbish music you say people do not want.
> 
> ...


Mission Impossible theme? Rubbish! Far too offbeat, not even in regular 4/4 or 3/4, obviously total rubbish, anti-clerical, anti-family, lascivious, sensual, devil-inspired...


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

When one talks about 'yer regular CM concert goer, is there an equivalent for the theatre goer? Those that attend plastic-arts exhibitions/vernissages? Poetry events? Cinema? Lovers of literature? Do they too have a "wigs" _versus_ "avant gardistes" dynamic?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Mission Impossible theme? Rubbish! Far too offbeat, not even in regular 4/4 or 3/4, obviously total rubbish, anti-clerical, anti-family, lascivious, sensual, devil-inspired...


Good premise for a cantata: Lalo Schifrin, tormented in Calvinist Hell.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

Lalo Schifrin? Crazy name! Makes me think of 'Eddie' Lalo and his 'cello concerto. Total over-the-top romantic self-indulgence but... a joy to play. Not often played, the Lalo, for the fee-paying CM bums.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

talkinghead said:


> whilst i'm still battling with adorno and issues involving the fetish-character of music and regressive listening, maybe what the orchestras could do to get bums on seats is to develop this idea a bit more:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ha haaaaa haaaaaaa ..... Vulgarians!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Whilst I'm still battling with Adorno and issues involving the fetish-character of music and regressive listening, maybe what the orchestras could do to get bums on seats is to develop this idea a bit more:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's the most depressing thing I've read all week...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

To some degree it is simple economics. Not many people under 40 or so have the kind of optimism about their career or financial prospects that people under 40 had from 1945 to 1980 or so. There's the student loan mess, there's all kinds of financial and real estate bubbles that prevent us from trusting our investment to rise. I'll go as eagerly to hear Beethoven as to hear Biber or Boulez or whatever, but I'm not going to pay much more than $100 a seat under any conditions - at least not until I've got seven digits of American dollars invested in relatively secure assets. 

Now I'm going to bet that in the next 15 years things'll get a lot better for people like me as the boomers retire en masse and some better opportunities open up for us... and if we manage not to be crushed with taxes to pay the debt, then a lot of us will be much more eager to spend a lot more money on live classical music. But if that doesn't happen - if the economics never work out - then a lot of American orchestras are going down with the boomers no matter what they program.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

External pressure on composer's to create works that the CM public presently wants is detrimental to classical music. That would be true in any such endeavor. For example, we don't want physicists to only create theories that the public can understand or economists to only advocate policies that the public immediately favors.

If we accept that tenet and if we believe that the mismatch between audience desire and composer output is problematic (i.e. society can't support CM), then we are forced to accept more public funding or the following:



some guy said:


> You may have noticed already that marketing is not about giving people what they want, anyway. It's about creating a desire for what you're trying to sell. Hey! Maybe that IS the answer!! Create a desire for new music....


Personally, I have always felt this is the ideal solution to CM's economic problems, but it may not be the most practical. We have had a few threads on the best ways to create a desire for new music, but it's not obvious that any proposed way is likely to succeed.



TalkingHead said:


> ... I'll be attending a good chunk of concerts at this French city's annual contemporary music festival (see link hereafter) featuring non-rubbish composers such as Georges *Aperghis*, George *Benjamin* (that's another name for CoAg to check out), Pierre Boulez (rumour has it he will be present if not too ill...), Elliott *Carter* (rumour has it he _won't_ be attending...), James *Dillon* (CoAg !!...), Henri *Dutilleux*, Georg Friedrich *Haas*, 'Johnny' *Harvey*, _concrètist_ Pierre *Henry*, Michael *Jarrel*, André *Jolivet*, 'George' *Ligeti* ... the list goes on. Anyway, click on the link hereafter to check out the full programme of the 49 non-rubbish composers. And here's the thing: these are for the most part full-house concerts. Got my tickets for free from an insider source, nah!


Posts such as these are rather heartening. We (based on TC posts) seem to feel that there is simply not enough desire for new music to allow an economically feasible way to promote new music. I don't really know the economics of modern composing. I assume the vast majority are supported from teaching, public grants, or some other endeavor rather than direct support. Certainly modern classical music composition for the past century has continued the long tradition of classical music so apparently composers can both make a living and compose interesting and desirable music.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

aleazk said:


> I'm paying you, and you have no rights, composer, and I want tonal, and I'm paying you, then, composer, you have to compose the tonal music I like, and entertain me, because I think I own you.


nice sarcasm  what I found out is that a job is a job whether in the arts or otherwise and quite often you've got to do a lot of things you don't like and/or compromise your grand vision in order to put bread on the table.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> When one talks about 'yer regular CM concert goer, is there an equivalent for the theatre goer? Those that attend plastic-arts exhibitions/vernissages? Poetry events? Cinema? Lovers of literature? Do they too have a "wigs" _versus_ "avant gardistes" dynamic?


of course they do. The Tate Modern vs. Tate Britain public, art cinema vs. Hollywood blockbuster, 50 shades vs. postmodern lit, slam poetry vs. Frost etc.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

TalkingHead said:


> Mission Impossible theme? Rubbish! Far too offbeat, not even in regular 4/4 or 3/4, obviously total rubbish, anti-clerical, anti-family, lascivious, sensual, devil-inspired...


HEY! It is in the standard Greek 5/4.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

For $20 I can typically buy 2 albums that I can listen to again and again. I doubt that it would be easy to get a concert seat for $20. If thousands started raining down into my bank account, then I would likely see it differently. If thousands started raining down into my bank account, I would finish my masters degree.

There is also the time commitment: I can put on a CD whenever I want, but a concert demands my participation at a set time. I've been spoiled by the convenience of recorded music. I have never known a time without it. Music consumption has never been an event for me; it has always been accessible 24/7. I don't need to make daily trips to the local well: I just open the faucet.

None of that is actually what I want from music.

What I want from music of any era is that it is challenging, makes me think, leaves me (figuratively or literally, when at all possible) gasping for breath by its sheer ingenuity, never becomes stale, is not simplistic or banal... I want intellectual stimulation, entertainment, relaxation, background... Music serves so many purposes.

I want a lot of things from music, but going to a concert hall is not likely to give them to me. On occasion, sure, as a special event.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I know what _I_ want from music.......

.....a little more income!


----------



## JCarmel (Feb 3, 2013)

...more gorgeous white plastic cd boxes!


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

KenOC said:


> I'm speaking of the broader CM public, especially the ones that are moved to attend concerts. What will put their behinds in those seats and their dollars in the till?
> 
> There's been a lot of talk about what they *should* want, which doesn't seem very useful. So what is it that they *do* want? Certainly today's orchestras can supply it. Can today's composers? Should they even bother? What do you think?


It depends who's asking. If I'm setting up in business as a promoter of the avant garde, I won't even ask the question. If I'm a composer who wants to make it big like Rieu or Kennedy, I'll also not ask because I can see what they do and how it works (although I may not be able to replicate it.) If I'm responsible for running a concert venue...I _must _ask the question, regularly and often.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> maybe what the orchestras could do to get bums on seats is to develop this idea a bit more:





Mahlerian said:


> That's the most depressing thing I've read all week...


No, no, you're looking at this all wrong...I mean, look at how they've crammed all that music into a single groove of vinyl! I knew there would be a reason to buy a new turntable!! Heaven!!!


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

PetrB said:


> I think some of those audience members seem to think composers, more like the flat out commercial composers of film scores and video games, can write in a myriad of styles. I think there is some misconceived notion the composer who makes the sort of music many a more conservative audience member will not like, or buy a seat to hear, can simply shift what they write to more readily gain an audience.
> 
> I don't think many classical composers can do that, and I don't think they should be expected to, either. This topic is a constantly recurring one, which will continually come up because it is and has been always an issue for some.


There are very few composers indeed who can actually have success in both popular and learned forms. Bernstein, I feel, found more success in the former (I don't think his concert music will never become standard repertoire). Then there are the examples of attempted crossover that make one wonder what the composer was thinking, like Adams' _I was looking at the ceiling and then I saw the sky_ or Schoenberg's shot at the Zeitopfer craze, _Von Heute auf Morgen_ (a 12-tone domestic comedy ).

One of the few examples of a composer who succeeded at making his name in both arenas was Takemitsu, who wrote popular songs in his film scores which became genuine hits, all the while writing modernist concert music. But there's an odd relationship between popular and classical music in Japan. Here's a symphony written by composer Ikuma Dan in 1960, conducted by the composer.





And, here's the saccharine (warning, I mean it) music Dan wrote a few years earlier for the "Rajio Taisou" broadcast calisthenics routine, done daily by Japanese of all ages.







PetrB said:


> At some not far past date the average audience had more than a little trouble with Ravel, Stravinsky, Debussy, Mahler, (within a very recent past I've heard each called "dissonant, weird, atonal,") These are names of composers who now for many seem pretty tame, i.e. it is mainstream music which many regularly and readily enjoy.


Well, their music _is_ weird. It breaks what had been considered conventions and rules from the past, goes beyond what people might have considered "tasteful". It stakes out new ground, and usually with a deliberate knowledge that the audiences of the time would have to become accustomed to it before accepting it. So did Mozart, Beethoven, and Wagner, and I think that the listener who hears any of this music as radical is closer to its spirit than the one who lets it slide by as background.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

As for today's composers, that's personal opinion.

As for what do people want from music? Well, to answer that, one must ask oneself: what does one _get_ from music when they are satisfied (i.e. What brings about that satisfaction in music)? Besides income. 

For me, music does not always comply with my mood - rather, many times, it changes it. Actually, being a little heartless, music can allow me to sort of "feel with others" type of thing. But that's not why I listen. Rather, I listen to music because it echoes some of the most passionate, devastating, and important points in life - points that often have nothing or little to do with what society is promoting, as is displayed in many teenagers' songs of the 21st century.

And if we want to get really intense, listen to Plato, who must have been having some dream-of-the-future in which he listened to Rachmaninov before he wrote this, I'm sure: "Music is a moral law. It gives soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination, and charm and gaiety to life and to everything."


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> And, here's the saccharine (warning, I mean it) music Dan wrote a few years earlier for the "Rajio Taisou" broadcast calisthenics routine, done daily by Japanese of all ages.


26 seconds in: I give up.:lol: Unable to remember what calisthenics are, I'm hearing this and imagining an odd sped-up jovial yoga performance.... Forget it, Mahlerian, forget it.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I like that symphony by Ikuma Dan. (It's NOT those type of extreme alienating stuff that puts the vast majority of listeners off.)


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> As a composer, you got to accept that there WILL ALWAYS BE listeners who do not like your music, as much as there are listeners who DO LIKE YOUR MUSIC. You are simply choosing to accept and welcome those who do, and block off those who don't as being arrogant and insulting etc. It's perfectly simple human nature on all levels and explainable.
> 
> I am not a composer but hopefully a perfomer. I accept the same - folks will like my performance and those who don't but I don't think those who think I am a weak performer any less than those who enjoy my performance.


What a puzzling response  I don't think COAG even mentioned his own work in the post.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2013)

ArtMusic said:


> I like that symphony by Ikuma Dan. (It's NOT those type of extreme alienating stuff that puts the vast majority of listeners off.)


Ikuma Dan is a name, at least. His symphony no. 3 is a particular work. It has a youtube link. We can listen to it any time we want and draw whatever conclusions we draw.

It might even alienate some of us. Extremely.

But "those type of" and "extremely alienating stuff" don't point to anything in particular. There are no names. There are no particular works.

Name some names, why not? Name some specific works that have alienated you. And, while you're at it, where did you hear those specific works? _If_ you've ever heard any of them. I don't recall ever hearing from you anything about a particular work that was alienating. All I recall is vague generalities, vague categories that may or may not have any content. We don't know, because all we ever get from you is the vague categories, never any particular, specific pieces or any particular, specific composers, even.

Who? Who is it who has alienated you and the _vast majority_ of listeners? (Whose opinions you know of how?)

Of course, if you do name any names, you know that there will be people on this board (perhaps in some cases even a majority) who will spring to their defense.

If you _have_ heard anything at a symphony concert that could be called "extreme alienating stuff," I would be very surprised. Incredulous. But we just don't know, yet, do we? 'Cause you never tell us. Have you really been seriously scarred by having to listen to extremely alienating music? You seem to have a fundamental, visceral response to..., to what? To a vague category. I really cannot see how you can drum up such vitriol for a vague category.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

violadude said:


> What a puzzling response  I don't think COAG even mentioned his own work in the post.


Indeed.
Also, I don't believe in this complete relativization of everything. Whether you like or not his style, it's evident that, in the case of CoAG for example, there's talent behind. Only someone with a clear agenda would deny that, I'm speaking generally now, can be any composer. I don't like Rachmaninoff, for example, but I recognize his craft and inventive.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

aleazk said:


> Indeed.
> Also, I don't believe in this complete relativization of everything. Whether you like or not his style, it's evident that, in the case of CoAG for example, there's talent behind. Only someone with a clear agenda would deny that, I'm speaking generally now, can be any composer. I don't like Rachmaninoff, for example, but I recognize his craft and inventive.


That pains, me, Aleazk. Have I ever told you my real name?

*Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninov.* :lol:


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Great taste. Fewer calories.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

GGluek said:


> Great taste. Fewer calories.


Out of music, points, or Rachmaninov? (For your own sake, I hope it's not the third.... :lol


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> I like that symphony by Ikuma Dan. (It's NOT those type of extreme alienating stuff that puts the vast majority of listeners off.)





some guy said:


> Ikuma Dan is a name, at least. His symphony no. 3 is a particular work. It has a youtube link. We can listen to it any time we want and draw whatever conclusions we draw. It might even alienate some of us. Extremely.


I checked the Ikuma Dan Symphony No. 3, and to my ears it was a string of banal cliches which were off-putting enough that I then jump-skipped through it, a few seconds here, another few there, and quickly concluded it was not going to change enough to do anything other than stay "what it was," i.e., off-putting.

Now Rachmaninoff, excellent composer, manages to alienate me completely within less than moments, each and every time, regardless of the genre, symphonic, concerto, solo piano. His music has never done anything else for me but that, including the Russian traditional choral style Vespers... any and all of it is for me a complete turn-off.

It certainly does not meet any of my emotional or intellectual criteria to be of any interest to me at all, and I genuinely am put off within a few bars of hearing it, I'll admit to that.

If you know what you do and don't like, I don't get the point of whining about or dissing that which you do not like, which may, if you know enough about the inner workings of music composition, actually be good work.

Put off by something? Stay away from it. Once known as a turn off, that is just what I do. Simple enough.

However, I am neither ignorant enough or arrogant enough to think to call Rachmaninoff -- this excellent composer's extremely well crafted music -- noise, crrrrrap, garbage, etc.

I think any number of those so seemingly outraged that composers are writing music "not for them" have confused the pop music mentality for the very different arena of classical music, how it has always worked, how it works now as well. _Pop Music, past and present, Is All About Ego._

*To be egocentric or narcissistic enough to think that every composer in the world past or present was or should be writing for me and the limitations of my taste would be to impose a pop music market mentality on classical music.*

I would also fight tooth and nail to battle off any who think turning classical music more into the same kind of pop music market mentality of pleasing the crowds is at all a good idea. Imposing that crowd-pleasing mentality on classical music will end up with new classical music in such a slump of the blandest of mediocrities that it might never recover its vitality.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

PetrB said:


> *To be egocentric or narcissistic enough to think that every composer in the world past or present was or should be writing for me and the limitations of my taste would be to impose a pop music market mentality on classical music.*


True! Notice that almost all pop music sounds the same, especially when contrasted with the different styles and eras of classical music. It's not trash, though. Some people think otherwise. Some people like pop music.

Petr, I have to disagree wholeheartedly with your comment about Rachmaninov, and I am glad that I do right now. It just goes to prove that we don't all have the same tastes in music. If we did, then yes, Petr, classical music would all have the same format, same sound, etc., just as much of pop music does today.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

mstar said:


> True! Notice that almost all pop music sounds the same, especially when contrasted with the different styles and eras of classical music. It's not trash, though. Some people think otherwise. Some people like pop music.
> 
> Petr, I have to disagree wholeheartedly with your comment about Rachmaninov, and I am glad that I do right now. It just goes to prove that we don't all have the same tastes in music. If we did, then yes, Petr, classical music would all have the same format, same sound, etc., just as much of pop music does today.


But Petr actually said that Rachmaninoff was an excellent composer. It's true that he also said that he dislikes Rachmaninoff's music. But that's his personal taste, you can't agree or disagree with that, since it's only of PetrB's business. 
Sorry if I'm sounding pedantic, but PetrB's point is something important: one can objectively recognize the talent and craft of a composer without being a fan of his music.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

PetrB said:


> *To be egocentric or narcissistic enough to think that every composer in the world past or present was or should be writing for me and the limitations of my taste would be to impose a pop music market mentality on classical music.*


Thanks for pointing that out  I am very quick to note that pop musicians are not writing for me, when their work has no appeal for me, but this must clearly also hold true for classical composers. Luckily, there are many composers who do write music that appeals to me strongly.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't claim that the composers should've sat around thinking, "What would the talkclassicaler known as 'science' want?" But all the same, I just listen to what I want to listen to. And I should be allowed to do so!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

mstar said:


> That pains, me, Aleazk. Have I ever told you my real name?
> 
> *Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninov.* :lol:


Sorry to disappoint, but Rachmaninov always signed off as "Rachmaninoff" when using the Latin alphabet (rather than the Cyrillic alphabet)


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> Ikuma Dan is a name, at least. His symphony no. 3 is a particular work. It has a youtube link. We can listen to it any time we want and draw whatever conclusions we draw.
> 
> It might even alienate some of us. Extremely.
> 
> ...


Well, if you insist. Noise music crap like Merzbow. You sure have a hard time, I mean a real hard time, reading my (and other people's) expression of dislike of some pieces of music, don't you? It's now getting fun to know what your listening weaknesses are, as a supporter of avant-garde stuff.


----------



## Guest (Sep 21, 2013)

[Edit: I spent so much time on a response to science's most recent post, that ArtMusic had time to supply an actual name. Good job Art! And my response to his post is to say, again, "You will never ever be in a position where you have to listen to Merzbow. So why the vitriol? Since you will never ever have to listen to it, why do you care if it exists or not?" And now, back to science's post.)

No one is, or ever has been, disallowed, so it's extremely perplexing that people keep wishing they could be allowed to listen to whatever they like.

But that's as may be.

This might just be a great thread in which to propose an alternate to "I just listen to what I want to listen to." (And I feel really stupid that I just noticed this.)

"I just listen to what I want to listen to" limits you to what you already know--ignoring the inevitable process that must have taken place at some time. No one starts out knowing everything. Hey! No one ends up knowing everything, either. So how did you get to know what you know now? By exploring.

Of course, no one really JUST listens to what they want to listen to. Everyone does explore.

So my "alternative" is really just (!) encouragement to keep doing what you all already do, but do more more consciously, more aggressively. 

This is particularly important for new music, music that's truly new and not just old music done recently. That music does not have the things you already know you like. So if you're looking for what you already like, you won't find it here. Big surprise. But actively seeking out new things might (it's no higher than "might") lead you to experiences you would never have thought you'd like, to things that might become new favorites.

When I was in seventh grade or so, I was intrigued but very put off by the music of Jean Sibelius. My solution to that? To go to the downtown library and check out all the Sibelius LPs there and take them home and spend the next week listening to nothing but Sibelius. It worked, too. I ended up liking Sibelius very much. So much that even when my interests shifted to Bartok to Carter to Xenakis to Cage to Karkowski to Lopez..., I still liked Sibelius very much.

Of course, I have since discovered music that I know I'll never like. But so what? Sometimes, years later, I discover that my first discovery was wrong. I knew, in 1984, that I would never like Scelsi. I found, in 2002, that I liked Scelsi very much. Sometimes, years later, I discover that my first discovery was right. (Still, given the Scelsi experience, that particular discovery must always be understood to be provisional. Without exploration, however, I would never discover anything. How sad that would be.

Today? Today I mostly listen to music I've never heard before. Sometimes I am able to like it right away. But mostly listening to music I have never heard before has led me to discover something else, that liking or disliking is not terribly important. 

And that has very possibly been my most important discovery.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> [Edit: I spent so much time on a response to science's most recent post, that ArtMusic had time to supply an actual name. Good job Art! And my response to his post is to say, again, "You will never ever be in a position where you have to listen to Merzbow. So why the vitriol? Since you will never ever have to listen to it, why do you care if it exists or not?" And now, back to science's post.)
> 
> No one is, or ever has been, disallowed, so it's extremely perplexing that people keep wishing they could be allowed to listen to whatever they like.
> 
> ...


"I listen to what I want to" can only imply "I listen to what I already know" if you assume that I only want to listen to music that I already know.

That's ridiculous, condescending, insulting, and unacceptable. *What do you know about me that gives you the right to judge that? Seriously, what do you know?

Defend your characterization of me.*


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sorry, I'm going to withdraw this in order to avoid trouble with the mods.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

aleazk said:


> But Petr actually said that Rachmaninoff was an excellent composer. It's true that he also said that he dislikes Rachmaninoff's music. But that's his personal taste, you can't agree or disagree with that, since it's only of PetrB's business.
> Sorry if I'm sounding pedantic, but PetrB's point is something important: one can objectively recognize the talent and craft of a composer without being a fan of his music.


Oh, I'm not _debating_ PetrB's opinion! Rather, I am only emphasizing that it is his opinion, and not a fact.... I was working more with the opinion part of it, not whether Rach was excellent or not. 
Even so, I see where you are going with that, Aleazk, and I have to say: You can't disagree with facts, but you _can_ disagree with opinion. 
Your last sentence I never contradicted! It is very true. I admit that Mozart is not my favorite, but he was certainly brilliant. Mozart's music is just not the style that I like.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Sorry to disappoint, but Rachmaninov always signed off as "Rachmaninoff" when using the Latin alphabet (rather than the Cyrillic alphabet)


Yes, it's the usual way of spelling it.... Sadly, I dislike spelling names like "Tchaikovsky" the way "T*s*chaiko*w*ky." In the same way, for some reason it bothers me to write "Rachmanino*ff*. 
Hey, can we call that opinion as well?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

mstar said:


> Yes, it's the usual way of spelling it.... Sadly, I dislike spelling names like "Tchaikovsky" the way "T*s*chaiko*w*ky." In the same way, for some reason it bothers me to write "Rachmanino*ff*.
> Hey, can we call that opinion as well?


It has that whiff of Smirnoff which may be unwanted in this context .


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

HaydnBearstheClock said:


> It has that whiff of Smirnoff which may be unwanted in this context .


What does: -off or -ov?

In any case, I say: Smirno*v*. :lol:


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Americans say -off, as far as I've heard. It's written with -ff. In Russian, it would be pronounced with 'v', there is no 'of' pronunciation.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

mstar said:


> You can't disagree with facts...


That doesn't stop people from doing it!


----------



## Guest (Sep 22, 2013)

mstar said:


> You can't disagree with facts,


"Oh yes you can!"



Mahlerian said:


> That doesn't stop people from doing it!


Quite.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

When studying, I told my comp teacher I felt "stuck" in mid process of the piece I was showing him, and asked what I might do to move forward.

His answer, to be clear, was in a mode which would be the antithesis of "frivolous."

"I don't know - it is your piece. _*Entertain me!*_"


----------



## Musician (Jul 25, 2013)

I don't get this question...

The relationship between music and listener is not of one wanting something from the other, its not a husband and wife relationship. So I believe that we don't 'want' anything from music. Music just exist, its like water, did anyone ever ask himself 'what do I want from water' before drinking it?...No.

Same is true, no one should listen to music with this question in mind 'what do I want from music'...what ever you will want , music will not provide because Music is not in a position to do anything for you, it doesnt have a choice. The correct question to ask is 'what do I want from myself after I listen to music'...? you can do that, cause you have a choice.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Musician said:


> I don't get this question...
> 
> The relationship between music and listener is not of one wanting something from the other, its not a husband and wife relationship. So I believe that we don't 'want' anything from music. Music just exist, its like water, did anyone ever ask himself 'what do I want from water' before drinking it?...No.


Surely that's because if they're going to drink it they already know what they want from water?
A tanker truck pulls up outside your house and the driver calls to your door and says "I've got a whole bunch of clean water out here. You can have some if you like."
And you ask yourself...


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Simple. People do NOT want rubbish music. There's plenty of that around.


There is more good music than bad


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> That doesn't stop people from doing it!


That's paradoxical, if I say so myself (disagreeing with facts), but then again....

*If facts are false 
And all opinion real 
Then facts would be 
Based on how you feel. *

That is paradoxical as well. WHEEEE!!!! :lol:


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I think any number of those so seemingly outraged that composers are writing music "not for them" have confused the pop music mentality for the very different arena of classical music, how it has always worked, how it works now as well. _Pop Music, past and present, Is All About Ego._
> 
> *To be egocentric or narcissistic enough to think that every composer in the world past or present was or should be writing for me and the limitations of my taste would be to impose a pop music market mentality on classical music.*


I have to call you out on those statements. The one about pop music being "all about ego" seems to me an insupportable generalisation which does not bear any kind of scrutiny at all.
'Market mentality' also operates in classical music but the market share is tiny in comparison. Hence the term 'popular music'. If you are implying that those who make pop music do so solely for the money, you could not be more wrong.

I am not in favour of 'dumbing down' either content or presentation because classical music of any era is never going to have the mass appeal of pop music and shouldn't attempt to attain it.

Also, when you say _"Imposing that crowd-pleasing mentality on classical music will end up with new classical music in such a slump of the blandest of mediocrities that it might never recover its vitality._" You are projecting your own view of what is_ bland_ or what is _vital _. Perhaps to many people, modern and post modern classical music is about as bland and non-vital as you can get which is why they listen to all the other well crafted and passionately created forms of music out there. Do not misunderstand me though. Modern classical composers who take their own work seriously should definitely _not_ write to please the crowd. All artists must be true to themselves.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Petwhac said:


> I have to call you out on those statements. The one about pop music being "all about ego" seems to me an insupportable generalisation which does not bear any kind of scrutiny at all.
> 'Market mentality' also operates in classical music but the market share is tiny in comparison. Hence the term 'popular music'. If you are implying that those who make pop music do so solely for the money, you could not be more wrong.
> 
> I am not in favour of 'dumbing down' either content or presentation because classical music of any era is never going to have the mass appeal of pop music and shouldn't attempt to attain it.
> ...


Clarifying, and it was oversight. Hard rock, rock, and not all pop music, of course is what I should have and meant to say. I am not talking about the lyrics, even attached to rock, but the music -- it is all about ego, *self-celebration*, and I am more than all for music which fulfills that function -- because at least at one phase or one age of life it is absolutely what is needed, and it serves as necessary a purpose as Apollonian deeply reflective classical does -- as you point out, the market place being whomever seeks out one or the other.

Pop is for "everybody." Without its ever having tried to be 'exclusive' -- classical music is, de facto -- exclusive because of the (acknowledged) much smaller number of people to whom it appeals.

You are correct about "bland" -- but if you look, without pointing fingers, at some of the whipped up zeal for this topic, pro audience directing the artist to "how they should write," I think you might agree that what those people are calling for, if not "bland" is the tame and not terribly adventurous -- and it is that I fear, if general audience are allowed to dictate too much and are capitulated to in their desires -- whatever the genre, the first to go would be the not tame and the adventurous.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Is classical music a marketplace? Remember (from the OP), we're talking about the people who might attend concerts by those big municipal orchestras that cost $50 to $100 million a year to keep going.

So, CM fans get a mailing about a concert next month. They look at the works, the soloist, and so forth. Then they decide whether to spend a couple of hundred bucks to attend, or else stay home, or go out to dinner instead, etc. In fact, it's a lot like making any other purchasing decision, including going to a rock concert.

Sounds very much like a marketplace to me.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Clarifying, and it was oversight. Hard rock, rock, and not all pop music, of course is what I should have and meant to say. I am not talking about the lyrics, even attached to rock, but the music -- it is all about ego, *self-celebration*, and I am more than all for music which fulfills that function -- because at least at one phase or one age of life it is absolutely what is needed, and it serves as necessary a purpose as Apollonian deeply reflective classical does -- as you point out, the market place being whomever seeks out one or the other.
> 
> Pop is for "everybody." Without its ever having tried to be 'exclusive' -- classical music is, de facto -- exclusive because of the (acknowledged) much smaller number of people to whom it appeals.
> 
> You are correct about "bland" -- but if you look, without pointing fingers, at some of the whipped up zeal for this topic, pro audience directing the artist to "how they should write," I think you might agree that what those people are calling for, if not "bland" is the tame and not terribly adventurous -- and it is that I fear, if general audience are allowed to dictate too much and are capitulated to in their desires -- whatever the genre, the first to go would be the not tame and the adventurous.


Tchaikovsky does not apply to everyone, for example. Definitely not everyone. 

....

....

.........

To clarify my point!!! lol Pop music "is for everyone," well, not everyone, but the majority, yes. Because the feelings portrayed in pop music are almost consistently erotic these days. Or fantasy-marital like.

My example was Tchaikovsky. So many people think different things about his Sixth, though in truth, it cannot be explained in words. It is just something one feels, and one then knows. So.... Can that pertain to any pop music these days? I think not.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Clarifying, and it was oversight. Hard rock, rock, and not all pop music, of course is what I should have and meant to say. I am not talking about the lyrics, even attached to rock, but the music -- it is all about ego, *self-celebration*, and I am more than all for music which fulfills that function -- because at least at one phase or one age of life it is absolutely what is needed, and it serves as necessary a purpose as Apollonian deeply reflective classical does -- as you point out, the market place being whomever seeks out one or the other.
> 
> Pop is for "everybody." Without its ever having tried to be 'exclusive' -- classical music is, de facto -- exclusive because of the (acknowledged) much smaller number of people to whom it appeals.
> 
> You are correct about "bland" -- but if you look, without pointing fingers, at some of the whipped up zeal for this topic, pro audience directing the artist to "how they should write," I think you might agree that what those people are calling for, if not "bland" is the tame and not terribly adventurous -- and it is that I fear, if general audience are allowed to dictate too much and are capitulated to in their desires -- whatever the genre, the first to go would be the not tame and the adventurous.


Perhaps a better description of what, I believe, we both are unimpressed with, is that brand of music which is rudimentary and unimaginative but which is portrayed or portrays itself as 'classical' music. There is an appetite for this music which is really pop or soundtrack type music played on orchestral instruments and there is per se, nothing wrong with it or with people enjoying it. But what I disagree with is the propagation of the idea that it is today's _equivalent_ of the 18th and 19th century classical repertoire.

As for rock/pop/folk/funk/soul/rnb/county et al. I still think you're generalisation of what any of it is 'about' is too sweeping. There are many examples of finely crafted, reflective and poignant music (not including lyrics) in those genres. And of course in Jazz which seems to have a quite separate 'DNA' though not entirely.

Think of Hollywood, especially in the 'Golden Age'. A great many fine movies, classics, masterpieces even, would never have been made if there wasn't the profit motive involved somewhere. There was schlock too but that, like certain musics will be forgotten.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I think a lot of people expect that music will somehow change them: put on an album and your foul mood will vanish, put on an album and you will be in a party mood, etc. Although I have read of people who fall into deep depressions from listening to Shostakovich  or who keep dark thoughts at bay by listening to pop music  music is an entertainment  some of it deep, some of it shallow.

PetrB's teacher said it best:



PetrB said:


> "I don't know - it is your piece. _*Entertain me!*_"


----------

