# Post 1950 classical music: was it relevant?



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I've been watching the *Ken Burns* documentary on the _Vietnam War_ and *Merrill McPeak* (Air Force, a retired 4-star general in the United States Air Force whose final assignment before retirement was as the 14th Chief of Staff of the Air Force from 1990 to 1994 but who served in Vietnam 1969-1970) commented that during the '60s the USA had the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environment issues, and the soundtrack to all of it was "some of the greatest rock music." He said that this culture was what he felt he was fighting to preserve.

I have to agree that during the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, the music which expressed our big concerns was rock, or country, and Motown/soul/R&B, and especially the folk revival music - these musics spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams.

It wasn't classical music, which by comparison was a marginal academic backwater.

*In this thread I wish to hopefully have a discussion first if you agree with my OP, and to ask if classical music was ever as relevant as rock music was in the '60s.*


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The rise of popular culture post-war is something you could write an entire Burns-ian documentary on. 

Composers of course attempted to engage with subjects like that, some more successfully than others (vis. "Come Out"/"Different Trains", "Black Angels" et al) but "high culture" was never going to be as relevent to the average listener in terms of speaking to "on-the-ground" social changes than the music _of_ the people driving those changes.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

I think contemporary classical composer, Samuel Andreyev has a good take on this.


----------



## AndorFoldes (Aug 25, 2012)

The best classical music is more universal than any one place or time period. Contemporary rock music may have had a lot of relevance to Americans in the 1960s, but not so much to me today.

There was certainly good classical music being written at the time, but the dominant academic style of serialism unfortunately got the most attention and funding.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I don't know if this was specifically the case in the US, which is where a lot of the popular culture of the period originated from (and the doc was apparently US-focused). People who know more about the era can chime in but I don't associate the US with specific politics around influence like the Boulez-esque stuff happening in France around that time.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

discusses the enormous influence of Stockhausen on the Beatles


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I've been watching the *Ken Burns* documentary on the _Vietnam War_ and *Merrill McPeak* (Air Force, a retired 4-star general in the United States Air Force whose final assignment before retirement was as the 14th Chief of Staff of the Air Force from 1990 to 1994 but who served in Vietnam 1969-1970) commented that during the '60s the USA had the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environment issues, and the soundtrack to all of it was "some of the greatest rock music." He said that this culture was what he felt he was fighting to preserve.
> 
> I have to agree that during the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, the music which expressed our big concerns was rock, or country, and Motown/soul/R&B, and especially the folk revival music - these musics spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams.
> 
> ...


There's a risk that you're underestimating the extent to which (for example) Luigi Nono's music was politically engaged. Same for Michael Finnissy's and Cornelius Cardew and Frederic Rzewski . It's not only that their music worked with popular "concerns, frustrations, and dreams" It's also that they got their hands dirty involving the working class in music making, as a sort of political project. The same could be said of Pauline Oliveros and Benjamin Britten and Michael Tippett -- at least to the extent that they were active in raising consciousness about gay and feminist politics.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The sentiments in popular music reflected what was happening in society with the anti war movement. At least in the 60s and 70s anyway. I wouldn't include the 80s. Were the boys in Vietnam really fighting to preserve our crass, commercial culture? I'm not sure how killing Vietnamese had anything to do with it. I'd attribute that to the Truman Doctrine which transformed our Republic into a perpetual warfare state. And so what if contemporary classical wasn't the music of choice for the hippie movement. It wasn't created for that reason.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

Rossini's operas were pretty popular, if I remember my ancient history correctly. Socially relevant, too, if you are into that early 19th century Viennese society stuff

and didn't Beethoven make some sort of commentary on Napoleon with one of his symphonies? or am i thinking of somebody else?

Isn't "The Marriage of Figaro" rather controversial, too? I wouldn't know, I'm not really offended by anything...

but I think there were times in the dim dark past when classical music was every bit as relevant as rock music of the 60s was for us


----------



## Philidor (11 mo ago)

SanAntone said:


> It wasn't classical music, which by comparison was a marginal academic backwater.


At no time in the west-european history, more than about 4 % of the entire population had access to the music that is called "classical music" today (20th/21th century) or made use of that access.

It was always something marginal.

In the time of the Notre-Dame-School the same way as in ars antiqua, ars nova, trecento, early and late renaissance, early and late baroque, classical period, 19th century, 20th century, ...


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

SanAntone said:


> *if classical music was ever as relevant as rock music was in the '60s.*


In a word, No. The '60s were quite tumultuous and people sought affirmation of their beliefs; the popular music of the day fit the bill. It was an age of rebellion and serious question of how the world was being run. So there were songs of protest, songs celebrating drugs and sex, songs denigrating the Establishment. There were, to be sure, the artists and songs that tried to stay above the fray and the songs that kept up the older Tin Pan Alley traditions of idealized romance. If you didn't own the 45 rpms yourself, you listened to American Top 40 on AM radio. Pop music was highly relevant; it spoke for a generation and it still does. Does anyone write politically active songs like Blowin' in the Wind nowadays?

Classical in the '60s: several things were going on. The predominant white culture was trying to hang on to great traditions and tried to preserve the old values and classical music was one of the great symbols. It was no accident that when Nixon had an inaugural concert he asked for the Philadelphia Orchestra and Ormandy playing Tchaikovsky. In the '60s, there was Leonard Bernstein on TV. PBS ran actual live classical concerts. In schools we had Music Appreciation or something like it pumped in through the PA system. All to no avail. While the promoters of classical music believed strongly that classical makes you a better person, makes you more cultured and civilized, the public by and large didn't care and the downhill spiral got worse and worse. Every now and then something remarkable happened that suddenly classical was relevant: the movie 2001, the album Switched On Bach and Van Cliburn winning the Tchaikovsky competition. No matter how hard the classical business tried, rock music was winning the day and pushed classical music into complete irrelevancy. Roll Over Beethoven won the day. 

We can debate and speculate forever on why classical is an unpopular and irrelevant as it has become. And sadly, it ain't ever gonna change. Like the CD player, classical music has become a severely marginalized and niche product. Next year, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra with Muti is playing in town. Decent tickets start at $150 or so. Expensive? I suppose - everyone I talk to says prices are way too high. But they have no trouble plunking down $200 to watch the local NBA team or $300 and up to catch the Rolling Stones. The pop things are relevant and worth it, I guess.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

mbhaub said:


> Pop music was highly relevant; it spoke for a generation and it still does. Does anyone write politically active songs like Blowin' in the Wind nowadays?


Yes, though it's generally part of a hip-hop or R+B context, and not a folk music context which was only really hugely pop-charts-level mainstream for a bit in the 1960s.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

The best CM is relevant on a universal level. Such music might decline in popularity for a time, but it'll never disappear due to its timeless appeal.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

*LOL

"Are the Beatles Avant-Garde?"*

Funny thing about the *Beatles* was their evolution, and their willingness to try new things, to expand the rock/pop music vocabulary: They started as a skiffle band, evolved into a Pop/Rock cover band, then started releasing albums and changing the musical landscape, slowly at first, then explosively.

Were they Avant-Garde? Usually NOT, BUT they COULD be.
Were they Prog? Usually NOT, BUT they COULD be.
Were they Punk? Usually NOT, BUT they COULD be.

Musically AND lyrically they went a lot of places: Proto-punk, proto-Prog, pseudo-classical, experimental, psychedelic, Alt-Rock, bubble-gum, fusion, Indian music, Hard Rock, balladry, folk-rock, baroque, blues, skiffle, and many other styles. The band's increasingly sophisticated experimentation encompassed a variety of _genres. _

One could even make a list of music subgenres the *Beatles* 'accidentally" invented:

Twist and Shout - Hard Rock
A Hard Day's Night - Jangle Pop
I'll Be Back - Folk Rock 
She Loves You - Power Pop 
Tomorrow Never Knows - Art Rock, Raga Rock
Yellow Submarine, I'm Only Sleeping - Stoner Rock
Eleanor Rigby, A Day In The Life, Happiness Is A Warm Gun - Prog
Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds - Acid Rock
Helter Skelter - Proto-Metal
I Want You (She's So Heavy) - Doom

Yeah, I know; "Stoner Rock" is a purely debatable subgenre, but whatever, don't bogart that joint. 

When they started out, they were incorporating small innovative things, and after only a few years the stuff they did was so diverse that no single mainstream band could keep up with them. Exceptions? Sure. Um . . . *Zappa*. And . . . yeah, well, just *Zappa*. The Beach Boys? Well, they were innovative, but as diverse as the Beatles? No. The *Rolling Stones*? They tried in 1967, but ultimately, and wisely, went back to Blues, honky-tonk, R&B, and 50s rock and continued on. Plenty of bands had sounds that one could say were based on one single aspect of the *Beatles* musical palette, or even one song. *The Byrds*, for instance.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I do not wish to equate popularity with relevance. IMO relevance relates to how the music/songs express the general attitudes in the society and how it captured the imagination, dreams, aspirations, and unrest of the generations of the '50s, '60s, '70s, and beyond.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Within the Rock genre, the Beatles certainly were progressive.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

in a funny way (funny as in strange, there's very little to laugh about in modern music) but the very nature of the late 20th century "classical" music was an expression of the times. the music is rather alienatory, it rejects tradition, it challenges the listener to cope with elements outside their comfort zones...basically everything that modern life dishes out

and if popularity doesn't equate to relevance, then I would say the music of the 2nd half of the 20th century is quite relevant to the time that produced it. It is a product of those times and grapples with many of the same elements that the people living in that time faced.

of course now in 2022 we are so much more advanced than those 20th century cavemen with their faxes and tape recorders


----------



## Subutai (Feb 28, 2021)

Buy! Buy!! Buy!!!
A stonking soundtrack to the 60's, and I wasn't even there!
You've possibly heard many like it but this (thanks to K Burns) appears definitive in so many ways. Enjoy.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Post withdrawn...


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

The hippy music of the 60s personifies the period because only people who were teenagers and college-aged adults back then remain alive today to remember it. In addition you have the whole trope of movies made a decade or more later which use this music as a soundtrack. The rock music of the 60s was not relevant to the adults that lived at the time, they listened to the older Jazz-based popular music, country or whatever. 

it’s unrealistic to expect that a largely instrumental music form could become the focus of a particular era. How many ordinary people who lived during WW2 would point to any classical music of that time as relevant? Was Beethoven’s music supposed to be relevant to the Napoleonic wars and early industrialization of Europe?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

It depends on what's meant by relevance. Music that represents relatively narrow or "fashionable" political thinking runs a big risk of becoming dated fairly quickly. Although it was certainly relevant in 1968, "Street Fighting Man" isn't really as relevant now as Pärt's Spiegel im Spiegel.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Shaughnessy said:


> I've highlighted, what to me, is the most precise - the most prominent - the most relevant of the words used within the OP's post - Soundtrack...
> 
> It's rather unfortunate that the phrase "the soundtrack to our lives" has been reduced to a cliché now used exclusively during commercials run late at night on television programs that we didn't care for when they were on prime time and we like even less now that it's 2 o'clock in the morning and we have to be up in 3 hours for work - Commercials hosted by former "stars" with otherworldly dark as midnight colored hair - "Stars" that you thought had passed away years ago but are actually alive and well and hawking compilation albums of "all-time-great-classic-hit songs" that you never really cared for all that much when they were being played twice an hour on AM radio but now - now they seem to be really good - maybe not great - but better than you remember them being - a lot better - Even the ones that you hated so much that you broke the dial off the car radio when they kept being played over and over and over and were being sung by your girl-friend even though she couldn't sing and even worse - didn't actually know the lyrics and so she just made them up even though they made no sense and you started day-dreaming about speeding up, opening the door, and pushing her out of the car.
> 
> ...


In other words its relevance now lies in nostalgia. "Whiter Shade of Pale" is actually less relevant now than the nearly 340-year-old Bach who musically partly, however distantly, inspired it. The pop/rock/soul classics of the 60s were certainly more relevant _in their time_ than classical music, but is it a relevance that will long outlast those who were alive when it was created and who therefore hold it in their memories? Rudy Vallee, Al Jolson and Bing Crosby were more relevant in their time than Stravinsky. But we still listen to Stravinsky; the other three not so much.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

Bwv 1080 said:


> The rock music of the 60s was not relevant to the adults that lived at the time, they listened to the older Jazz-based popular music, country or whatever.


its funny, I was just talking about this with a percussionist friend of mine, but when I was a young musician in the 70s and 80s if you wanted to get a gig at the Country Club or some upscale restaurant you had to play jazz.

Back then I thought it was because old people liked jazz. 50 years ago, that was true but now all those old people are dead and if you want to play those same upscale gigs now you have to be playing classic rock from the 60s and 70s. Why? because the hippies are all in their 70s now and they don't want o hear jazz, they want to hear what they grew up listening to.

so there is a nostalgia about that era of the 60s and 70s that I believe is actually a byproduct of the audience of the 60s now being in their 70s


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

How many 17 year olds listen to Led Zeppelin? They were certainly relevant in 1973. Are they still relevant other than with holdout AOR FM stations?


----------



## Roy Fuller (Apr 4, 2019)

SanAntone said:


> I've been watching the *Ken Burns* documentary on the _Vietnam War_ and *Merrill McPeak* (Air Force, a retired 4-star general in the United States Air Force whose final assignment before retirement was as the 14th Chief of Staff of the Air Force from 1990 to 1994 but who served in Vietnam 1969-1970) commented that during the '60s the USA had the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environment issues, and the soundtrack to all of it was "some of the greatest rock music." He said that this culture was what he felt he was fighting to preserve.
> 
> I have to agree that during the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, the music which expressed our big concerns was rock, or country, and Motown/soul/R&B, and especially the folk revival music - these musics spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams.
> 
> ...





SanAntone said:


> I've been watching the *Ken Burns* documentary on the _Vietnam War_ and *Merrill McPeak* (Air Force, a retired 4-star general in the United States Air Force whose final assignment before retirement was as the 14th Chief of Staff of the Air Force from 1990 to 1994 but who served in Vietnam 1969-1970) commented that during the '60s the USA had the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environment issues, and the soundtrack to all of it was "some of the greatest rock music." He said that this culture was what he felt he was fighting to preserve.
> 
> I have to agree that during the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, the music which expressed our big concerns was rock, or country, and Motown/soul/R&B, and especially the folk revival music - these musics spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree, and, no, modern classical music was not relevant. The relevance of any art is dependent upon the dominant philosophy of the culture, and, since Aristotle faded into the background, there has been no dominant philosophy.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> How many 17 year olds listen to Led Zeppelin? They were certainly relevant in 1973. Are they still relevant other than with holdout AOR FM stations?


For a while people would still peruse Rolling Stone/NME/SPIN etc recommendations for a catalog and they'd be up there. Not sure how much anymore.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

fbjim said:


> For a while people would still peruse Rolling Stone/NME/SPIN etc recommendations for a catalog and they'd be up there. Not sure how much anymore.


Rolling Stone. Is it still relevant? 


Roy Fuller said:


> I tend to agree, and, no, modern classical music was not relevant. The relevance of any art is dependent upon the dominant philosophy of the culture, and, since Aristotle faded into the background, there has been no dominant philosophy.


The dominant philosophy now is Postmodern Soup.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Definitely not, though things like their published record lists were at least looked at for a long time, same with stuff like the SPIN Alternative Record Guide, Pitchfork lists, 1001 Records You Must Read Before You Die et al. 

I don't know if this has held up in the age of streaming.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

fbjim said:


> Definitely not, though things like their published record lists were at least looked at for a long time, same with stuff like the SPIN Alternative Record Guide, Pitchfork lists, 1001 Records You Must Read Before You Die et al.
> 
> I don't know if this has held up in the age of streaming.


At any rate I think there needs to be a distinction of some kind between "relevance" and "fame". I don't think the latter automatically implies the former. I think even Elvis is fading into cultural irrelevance.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yabetz said:


> How many 17 year olds listen to Led Zeppelin? They were certainly relevant in 1973. Are they still relevant other than with holdout AOR FM stations?


I'd say great rock music will always be relevant. Black Dog has over 32 million hits on YouTube. I doubt they are all boomers.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Elvis is like Frank Sinatra where they're still icons even if not as many people are interested in their work.

These can fade away - how many people now know who Rudolph Valentino was? - but that's a level of popular fame that very few people ever get.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

As far as no classical music being connected to events like WW2, I'd say a case could be made for Shostakovich. Especially for the Russian people. Some of them even played his music when under siege by the Nazis.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

starthrower said:


> I'd say great rock music will always be relevant. Black Dog has over 32 million hits on YouTube. I doubt they are all boomers.


Gangnam Style has 4.5 billion. Smells Like Teen Spirit, 1.5 billion. Bad Romance by Lady Gaga, also 1.5 billion. Which raises a question, is Lady Gaga relevant? If so, in what way?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

In terms of influence, yes, though she certainly isn't a tastemaker anymore. Pop fame can be brutal that way.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

fbjim said:


> In terms of influence, yes, though she certainly isn't a tastemaker anymore. Pop fame can be brutal that way.


Madonna was the same way. We're talking about momentary relevance then, in which case the hot air cooker infomercial on TV at 2 am is more relevant than _Citizen Kane._


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Withdrawn for revision...


----------



## ORigel (May 7, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> Madonna was the same way. We're talking about momentary relevance then, in which case the hot air cooker infomercial on TV at 2 am is more relevant than _Citizen Kane._


Modern Classical Music rarely has any relevance. You're confusing quality (which post 1950 classical music has) with relevance (which it usually lacks). For example, Part's Spiegel im Spiegel would have NO relevance (except to some individuals) IF it hadn't seeped into popular culture via movie soundtracks.


----------



## Simon Moon (Oct 10, 2013)

pianozach said:


> *LOL
> 
> "Are the Beatles Avant-Garde?"*
> 
> ...


You forgot to mention:

*Revolution 9 - Musique Concrete *


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yabetz said:


> Gangnam Style has 4.5 billion. Smells Like Teen Spirit, 1.5 billion. Bad Romance by Lady Gaga, also 1.5 billion. Which raises a question, is Lady Gaga relevant? If so, in what way?


Relevant to what? Just peoples' taste in music. What other relevance does music require other that providing entertainment for the listener?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Shaughnessy said:


> Who cares whether music from the 60's is relevant now?


I don't know, you spent several paragraphs rhapsodizing on its continued relevance. So who cares how you feel about Motown _now? _That has no...relevance.


> The question the OP asked was in reference to there being a time when classical music was as relevant within a particular historical timeframe *to the people* who existed within that period that matched that which was experienced during the 1960's.


Which people? The demographic that listened to it? So it was relevant to the people who preferred pop to classical, just as Benny Goodman was in the 30s. I would say a good many people over 40 in the 60s didn't feel the Beatles were very relevant apart from a marketing standpoint.

As for the overall point about a "time when classical music was as relevant within a particular historical timeframe that matched the 60s", I would point to late 1840s Europe. You had musicians who were actual revolutionaries. The Risorgimento in Italy also.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> As far as no classical music being connected to events like WW2, I'd say a case could be made for Shostakovich. Especially for the Russian people. Some of them even played his music when under siege by the Nazis.


This is what I was hoping to read.

The kind of relevance I referred to in my OP is not related to how long the music remains prominent in listening patterns. But if the music which captured the time, resonated the issues and concerns, and was the music which was the most meaningful for a great number of people during a certain stressful period of history.

So, ST, thank you for reminding me of how Shostakovich's 7th symphony was so very relevant for many Russians during WWII.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

starthrower said:


> Relevant to what? Just peoples' taste in music. What other relevance does music require other that providing entertainment for the listener?


So is this thread just rehashing the "pop music is more relevant than classical" thing again? OK, Lady Gaga is more relevant than Stravinsky. What's the point?


SanAntone said:


> But it the music which captured the time, resonated the issues and concerns, and was the music which was the most meaningful for a great number of people during a certain stressful period of history.


The Shostakovich probably resonated with a wider cross section of the population than 60s pop did in its time. In retrospect it was groovy because everybody loved Dylan, the Beatles, Hendrix and the Stones. But "everybody" didn't, really.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

ORigel said:


> Modern Classical Music rarely has any relevance. You're confusing quality (which post 1950 classical music has) with relevance (which it usually lacks). For example, Part's Spiegel im Spiegel would have NO relevance (except to some individuals) IF it  hadn't seeped into popular culture via movie soundtracks.


By the same token you could say the Beatles would've had NO relevance (outside of Liverpool anyway) were it not for Brian Epstein and Ed Sullivan.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

What's the point? Re-read the OP's first post. The subject was what type of music expressed the concerns of the public concerning social and political events. War, etc.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

starthrower said:


> What's the point? Re-read the OP's first post. The subject was what type of music expressed the concerns of the public concerning social and political events. War, etc.


I don't think the Beatles or Rolling Stones expressed the concerns of my late grandparents at all. Or my late parents for that matter. The relevance is what's assigned to it in rosy retrospect.


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

starthrower said:


> As far as no classical music being connected to events like WW2, I'd say a case could be made for Shostakovich. Especially for the Russian people. Some of them even played his music when under siege by the Nazis.


that is a good counterexample, but if you polled the Soviet population in the 1950s I would bet that popular songs like Katyusha (after which they named the rocket launcher) were the music that most represented the war to them


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yabetz said:


> I don't think the Beatles or Rolling Stones expressed the concerns of my late grandparents at all. Or my late parents for that matter. The relevance is what's assigned to it in rosy retrospect.


I never mentioned those bands. How old are you? My grandparents were way over 50 by the time the Beatles and Stones were popular. Of course they weren't listening to that music.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Bwv 1080 said:


> that is a good counterexample, but if you polled the Soviet population in the 1950s I would bet that popular songs like Katyusha (after which they named the rocket launcher) were the music that most represented the war to them


I don't doubt it. As we all know most people don't listen to classical music.


----------



## Alfacharger (Dec 6, 2013)

starthrower said:


> What's the point? Re-read the OP's first post. The subject was what type of music expressed the concerns of the public concerning social and political events. War, etc.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Simon Moon said:


> You forgot to mention:
> 
> *Revolution 9 - Musique Concrete *


You are right, although I can confidently say that *The Beatles* DIDN'T "accidentally invent" Musique Concrete, although they were the first mainstream Pop/Rock band to include a track of this sort on an album of this sort.

And this wasn't the first time they'd "_dabbled_" in Musique Concrete: Tape loops on *"Tomorrow Never Knows"*, the clanging tram car sound in *"Penny Lane"*, the hallucinatory sounds and melting voice on the end section of *"Strawberry Fields Forever"*, the tumbling calliope tape loop collage that runs through *"Being For The Benefit Of Mr Kite"*, and the blurred, random _Through The Looking Glass_ radio Shakespearean effect that haunts *"I Am The Walrus"*. Although, these were all hybrids. 

And, of course, they were certainly NOT the first pop or rock band to put a sound effect into a song, like a jet plane or something like that. But they did use sounds in non-programmatic ways.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

starthrower said:


> I never mentioned those bands. How old are you? My grandparents were way over 50 by the time the Beatles and Stones were popular. Of course they weren't listening to that music.


Well they're excluded from "the people" or "the population" then. You didn't mention those bands, so who's it about? The Troggs? The Kinks? The Chambers Brothers? They didn't address my parents' or grandparents' concerns either. The "relevance of pop" issue looks to be as potentially myopic and narrow as the "relevance" of classical avant garde. OK it expressed the concerns of "the people" at the time...those say from 16-25. Well, not all of those 16-25. Some of them. To how many people on the planet do you think Lady Gaga is, was and always will be utterly irrelevant? The same could apply to 50+ years ago.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

Social issues, national incidents, etc. have sometimes inspired composers to write music as a response to these types of trending events. Luciano Berio got himself into civil rights movements and wrote "O King", which Berio subsequently utilized as a movement within his *Sinfonia* as a response to Martin Luther King's assassination.

I am unaware, though, if these sorts of compositions are ever disseminated towards the public at large.

Two years ago, when rioters & looters in Portland, OR were tear gassed by Federal reinforcements, did they play Berio's Sinfonia or O King?
No.
What music did they play? Why ... The Imperial March from *The Empire Strikes Back* ... naturally. 
John Williams turns out to be more relevant than Luciano Berio.


----------



## prlj (10 mo ago)

Not sure if this is what you mean, but my first thought is about the immediacy of folk/pop/rock, and how easily these artists could adapt to the rapidly changing times and get their message/music out quickly. 

A singer with just their voice and an acoustic guitar can make a stronger and more immediate musical statement than a composer who needs to write, publish, rehearse, perform, and release a major symphonic work, or even a string quartet, etc. 

Shosty 7 is the obvious counter argument to this, but I would call that more of an exception than anything else.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> Well they're excluded from "the people" or "the population" then. You didn't mention those bands, so who's it about? The Troggs? The Kinks? The Chambers Brothers? They didn't address my parents' or grandparents' concerns either. The "relevance of pop" issue looks to be as potentially myopic and narrow as the "relevance" of classical avant garde. OK it expressed the concerns of "the people" at the time...those say from 16-25. Well, not all of those 16-25. Some of them. To how many people on the planet do you think Lady Gaga is, was and always will be utterly irrelevant?


Much of the music during the '60s was what the soldiers listened to who were fighting in Vietnam. It was also the music which often inspired the anti-war movement, as well as the civil rights movement, and the women's movement, the protect the environment push - this music was relevant because it was part of the social change, and often was the inspiration behind it.

I am not sure what your point is with bringing up your grandparents or others who were not in their 20s during the Vietnam War, since the music I am describing was written by and for the kids fighting and protesting the war - not their parents or their grandparents.

I stated this in my OP with the quote from McPeak.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Much of the music during the '60s was what the soldiers listened to who were fighting in Vietnam. It was also the music which often inspired the anti-war movement, as well as the civil rights movement, and the women's movement, the protect the environment push - this music was relevant because it was part of the social change, and often was the inspiration behind it.
> 
> I am not sure what your point is with bringing up your grandparents or others who were not in their 20s during the Vietnam War, since the music I am describing was written by and for the kids fighting and protesting the war - not their parents or their grandparents.
> 
> I stated this in my OP with the quote from McPeak.


Did it inspire all the above or reflect them? Or was concurrent and provided as mentioned before, a contemporary soundtrack?

The point is that if you're going to say that it's relevant to "the people" and it turns out that it's not really relevant to "the people" but just a subset of "the people", it's no different from the "relevance" of classical. It's just a larger demographic group due to the post-WWII baby boom and the growing omnipresence of mass media.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> Did it inspire it or reflect it?


I'd say both. And often the music that was not overtly about these issues, the rock, was also very important since it represented American culture at the time, a rebellious, raunchy, anti-authority attitude which eventually achieved critical mass with the mass protests.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I'd say both. And often the music that was not overtly about these issues, the rock, was also very important since it represented American culture at the time, a rebellious, raunchy, anti-authority attitude which eventually achieved critical mass with the mass protests.


I'd say it'd be hard to show it _inspired _much of anything beyond Woodstock, the Manson murders and maybe Altamont, although the last was probably inspired by the idiocy of hiring Hells Angels as security.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yabetz said:


> Well they're excluded from "the people" or "the population" then. You didn't mention those bands, so who's it about? The Troggs? The Kinks? The Chambers Brothers? They didn't address my parents' or grandparents' concerns either. The "relevance of pop" issue looks to be as potentially myopic and narrow as the "relevance" of classical avant garde. OK it expressed the concerns of "the people" at the time...those say from 16-25. Well, not all of those 16-25. Some of them. To how many people on the planet do you think Lady Gaga is, was and always will be utterly irrelevant? The same could apply to 50+ years ago.


I don't know why you're arguing with me? I'm not the OP who stated this premise. I listen to music for the music. The lyrics are secondary. I'm not arguing for any bands as the voice of the people.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

I think it's relevant to the people who like and liked that music. It doesn't really have much relevance for me anymore except for that great 60s Motown which still sounds about as perfect as pop music can get. 


> But if the music which captured the time, resonated the issues and concerns, and was the music which was the most meaningful for a great number of people during a certain stressful period of history.


Like George M. Cohan with "Over There".


----------



## Bwv 1080 (Dec 31, 2018)

I am in my 50s, so no memory of the period, but the music that exemplifies the 60s to me is more the Mad Men / Once Upon a Time in Hollywood vibe- i.e the Jazz influenced popular music. I now identify with people who were my age during the period, not their dirty hippie kids. So likely in 3 or 4 years when the baby boomers have all either died off or drooling in their jello, my genX view will then dominate


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Whether the rock, soul, country music of the '60s inspired or reflected the political issues and the war is not the point. The point is that this was the music that the soldiers in Vietnam listened to, as well as the music the anti-war protesters listened to. It was the music that was heard at civil rights marches and protests, as well as the music that everyone was listening to on the radio during these times.

This music provided the accompaniment to the day to day expression of the issues and causes that transcended class, region, and race.

I think it is something that pop, rock, R&B/funk, country, and other similar genres provide people that classical music often does not. A visceral quality which people crave when they are standing up to their government, or protesting injustice, or simply kicking back in order to forget what is happening in the streets.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Did someone already mention that the various manifestations of civil turmoil across the world found an expression in post war Classical? I don't _know _that students manned the barricades in Budapest and Paris after listening to Boulez and Stockhausen, but I'm willing to bet that contemporary classical undoubtedly contributed something to the revolutionary zeitgeist.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Are we talking of relevance to political events and realities or to life as it was lived by composers' peers? The first is easy to demonstrate. The second can only be a matter of diverse opinions.


----------



## justekaia (Jan 2, 2022)

SanAntone said:


> I do not wish to equate popularity with relevance. IMO relevance relates to how the music/songs express the general attitudes in the society and how it captured the imagination, dreams, aspirations, and unrest of the generations of the '50s, '60s, '70s, and beyond.


modern and contemporary composers were focusing on making new music ( spectralism, minimalism, electronic and electro-acoustic music) in the sixties and seventies; they had no intention to influence society and to capture the aspirations of our societies. as a matter of fact composers and artists realise they cannot influence society because their share of voice is far too small. a composer like nono had some ideals and expressed them in his music but he is an exception and his influence on society was close to zero. so classical composers have never and will never be relevant in the sense that you describe.
popular music like rock capitalised on the opportunity to appeal to a young public by incorporating comments on societal issues in their songs, which is a positive thing. film makers in turn capitalised on the appeal of rock music to make their films more attractive to the young generation.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Whether the rock, soul, country music of the '60s inspired or reflected the political issues and the war is not the point. *The point is that this was the music that the soldiers in Vietnam listened to, as well as the music the anti-war protesters listened to.* It was the music that was heard at civil rights marches and protests, as well as the music that everyone was listening to on the radio during these times.
> 
> This music provided the accompaniment to the day to day expression of the issues and causes that transcended class, region, and race.
> 
> I think it is something that pop, rock, R&B/funk, country, and other similar genres provide people that classical music often does not. A visceral quality which people crave when they are standing up to their government, or protesting injustice, or simply kicking back in order to forget what is happening in the streets.


But what would the point of _that_ be? In WWII it was the likes of Harry James and Frank Sinatra and not the relatively irrelevant Aaron Copland. So yeah popular music tends to be more popular. Also I don't think we can assume that all or even most soldiers, Marines and airmen in Vietnam were always listening to the Doors and Jimi Hendrix just because Michael Herr mentioned them so often in _Dispatches. _A lot of them may have been listening to country or Motown or maybe not much at all, and the "concerns expressed" in each are quite different. You'd have to have been there I guess. Some of this seems to be based on romanticized retrospectives. It could be that that music spoke mostly to bourgeois white college kids who later got tenure or wrote the histories and news features and screenplays.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Forster said:


> Did someone already mention that the various manifestations of civil turmoil across the world found an expression in post war Classical? I don't _know _that students manned the barricades in Budapest and Paris after listening to Boulez and Stockhausen, but I'm willing to bet that contemporary classical undoubtedly contributed something to the revolutionary zeitgeist.


One of the chants of the '68 Parisian protests was "Xenakis pas Gounoud!"


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Yabetz said:


> I'd say it'd be hard to show it _inspired _much of anything beyond Woodstock, the Manson murders and maybe Altamont, although the last was probably inspired by the idiocy of hiring Hells Angels as security.


There were plenty of songs that inspired the Civil Rights movement and the Anti-Vietnam War protests.

One anti-war protest at Ohio State University inspired Neil Young's song "*Ohio*" [_"Four dead in Ohio"_], which in turn inspired more protests against a government that would turn its own troops against its own people. 

There were PLENTY of songs that inspired the Civil Rights movement, like

'A Change Is Gonna Come' — Sam Cooke, 1963
Nina Simone - “Mississippi Goddam” 1964
James Brown’s “Say It Loud, I’m Black and I’m Proud” 1968
Nina Simone, 'To Be Young, Gifted and Black' (1970)
Marvin Gaye, 'Inner City Blues (Make Me Holler)' (1971) 
Marvin Gaye - What's Goin' On - 1971
Stevie Wonder - Living In the City


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

pianozach said:


> There were plenty of songs that inspired the Civil Rights movement and the Anti-Vietnam War protests.
> 
> One anti-war protest at Ohio State University inspired Neil Young's song "*Ohio*" [_"Four dead in Ohio"_], which in turn inspired more protests against a government that would turn its own troops against its own people.
> 
> ...


The Civil Rights movement began before 1963.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> The Civil Rights movement began before 1963.


D'oh...inspired in a general sense, I think, not merely, "gave rise to" or "initiated".


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> D'oh...inspired in a general sense, I think, not merely, "gave rise to" or "initiated".


Either way I'd say the movement inspired the songs rather than the other way around. And anyway the songs were relevant to those who listened to and liked them, which is probably a small subset of "the people" or "the population". Just as in classical music.

Truth to tell, I don't really see the relevance or overall point of this thread, unless it's to highlight the old "ivory tower elitist" thing once again. Of course a politically-charged song about a topic everybody was talking about the day before is going to be more immediately "relevant" than a 200-year-old work, just as a Substack entry from yesterday has a more immediate relevance than a poem by Donne. D'oh. But there's relevance and there's _relevance. _I think the music from the 60s that retained the most relevance is that which isn't explicitly political and dated.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Yabetz said:


> Either way I'd say the movement inspired the songs rather than the other way around. And anyway the songs were relevant to those who listened to and liked them, which is probably a small subset of "the people" or "the population". Just as in classical music.


I've read through the thread, and I'm confused about your basic point. The OP suggested that popular songs have been relevant especially in the 50s - 80s. An open question was whether classical music has ever been relevant in the same way. Most people on the thread seem to agree that popular music has been relevant to certain groups, and some suggested that some classical music has also been relevant (e.g. Shostakovich 7). 

You've stated that only a subset of people found specific music relevant. I think everyone agrees with that. You also have stated that some events preceded the timing of music relevant to those events (e.g. popular songs about the Vietnam war). I think everyone agrees with that. I believe most people posting on the thread feel that popular music has been relevant, and more specifically, that it's not clear that classical music has been relevant in the same manner (particularly the percentage of people viewing the music as relevant). The presumed fact that more people view or have viewed popular music as relevant than people who have viewed classical music as relevant seems to be the topic under discussion. 

So, overall, I don't understand what you are trying to say in this thread.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mmsbls said:


> I've read through the thread, and I'm confused about your basic point. The OP suggested that popular songs have been relevant especially in the 50s - 80s. An open question was whether classical music has ever been relevant in the same way. Most people on the thread seem to agree that popular music has been relevant to certain groups, and some suggested that some classical music has also been relevant (e.g. Shostakovich 7).
> 
> You've stated that only a subset of people found specific music relevant. I think everyone agrees with that. You also have stated that some events preceded the timing of music relevant to those events (e.g. popular songs about the Vietnam war). I think everyone agrees with that. I believe most people posting on the thread feel that popular music has been relevant, and more specifically, that it's not clear that classical music has been relevant in the same manner (particularly the percentage of people viewing the music as relevant). The presumed fact that more people view or have viewed popular music as relevant than people who have viewed classical music as relevant seems to be the topic under discussion.
> 
> So, overall, I don't understand what you are trying to say in this thread.


Who is the "you" in your post?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

SanAntone said:


> Who is the "you" in your post?


The member I responded to, Yabetz.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> ...
> You've stated that only a subset of people found specific music relevant. I think everyone agrees with that. You also have stated that some events preceded the timing of music relevant to those events (e.g. popular songs about the Vietnam war). I think everyone agrees with that. I believe most people posting on the thread feel that popular music has been relevant, and more specifically, that it's not clear that classical music has been relevant in the same manner (particularly the percentage of people viewing the music as relevant). The presumed fact that more people view or have viewed popular music as relevant than people who have viewed classical music as relevant seems to be the topic under discussion.
> 
> So, overall, I don't understand what you are trying to say in this thread.


Overall, I don't understand what the point of the thread is. Pop music is more popular in its time than classical? Well, yeah, that's fairly obvious and apparently a pastime on this forum is the pop vs classical battle. Pop music was more effective at expressing "our" concerns, frustrations and dreams? Not for everybody. Does it still, after 50-60 years? Do some "outgrow" pop music? If so, how effective really was it at expressing those things? Do you still listen to it because it best expresses those hopes and fears etc or is it just nostalgia?


> You've stated that only a subset of people found specific music relevant. I think everyone agrees with that...


But that's not what was stated in the OP. The OP was pretty sweeping. Pop was relevant. It spoke to "us" about "our" concerns etc etc. Classical was an academic backwater. And then a "discussion" is requested which I suppose would come down to Elvis vs Mahler or some such, eventually. And then the burden is to "prove" that Mahler is as "effective" as Elvis when "50,000,000 fans can't be wrong"... I don't get it.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Yabetz said:


> The Civil Rights movement began before 1963.


Yes, true. There was plenty of music for the Civil Rights movement for at least half a century before 1963.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

pianozach said:


> Yes, true. There was plenty of music for the Civil Rights movement for at least half a century before 1963.


Gospel music, primarily. I don't really put that in the pop category.

By the way, another snippet from the OP:


> *and to ask if classical music was ever as relevant as rock music was in the '60s.*


I would say that the congregations in European churches -- for example, the Leipzig churches -- found the music presented there far more relevant than any pop fan could feel about their favorites. That strikes me as a shallow question, no offense.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> Overall, I don't understand what the point of the thread is.


I agree. You continue to conflate popularity with relevance, despite my having said more than once that is not how I used the term. If you don't understand the point of the thread, and do not accept the terms of the OP, then you might consider ignoring this thread.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I agree. You continue to conflate popularity with relevance, despite my having said more than once that is not how I used the term. If you don't understand the point of the thread, and do not accept the terms of the OP, then you might consider ignoring this thread.


If I don't understand the point of the thread maybe you could clarify it a little bit. 

All right, let's put it this way. "Bob Dylan was and is really no more relevant than Beethoven." Convince me otherwise.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Yabetz said:


> Overall, I don't understand what the point of the thread is.


I agree with SanAntone that you don't understand the point of the thread.



> Pop music is more popular in its time than classical? Well, yeah, that's fairly obvious and apparently a pastime on this forum is the pop vs classical battle.


Several have pointed out that the issue is not popularity but rather relevance. Specifically, the OP says popular music "spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams."



> Pop music was more effective at expressing "our" concerns, frustrations and dreams? Not for everybody. Does it still, after 50-60 years? Do some "outgrow" pop music? If so, how effective really was it at expressing those things? Do you still listen to it because it best expresses those hopes and fears etc or is it just nostalgia?


You repeatedly say that pop music is not relevant to everyone and not relevant at all times (e.g. now). Yes, but that is irrelevant. The question does not require popular music to be relevant to everyone and for all eternity. The OP 1) says popular music was relevant to a significant group of people in the 50s - 80s and more so than classical was at that time and 2) asks if classical music was ever as relevant _at some time in history _as popular music _was relevant in the 50s - 80s. _So forget whether popular music was relevant to everyone and how much it's relevant now. Determine whether you think popular music was _more relevant _than classical music _in the specific period_ 50s - 80s. If yes, then determine whether there was any time in history where classical music was as relevant _in that period_ as popular music was relevant in the 50s - 80s. And relevant means expressing people's concerns, frustrations and dreams.



> But that's not what was stated in the OP. The OP was pretty sweeping. Pop was relevant. It spoke to "us" about "our" concerns etc etc. Classical was an academic backwater. And then a "discussion" is requested which I suppose would come down to Elvis vs Mahler or some such, eventually. And then the burden is to "prove" that Mahler is as "effective" as Elvis when "50,000,000 fans can't be wrong"... I don't get it.


No, you don't get it. You are arguing things very different than what the OP asks. Maybe you do not find the question interesting. Fine. Then this thread would be targeted to others rather than you.

SanAntone could comment if I misconstrued the OP.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> I agree with SanAntone that you don't understand the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So tell me...how do you measure relevance? Ultimately the thread is the OP saying that he/she thinks pop music from that era was more relevant than classical music ever was. But the vast majority of the world's population found it utterly irrelevant, just as we're constantly reminded that they also find classical utterly irrelevant. It was relevant to many in that generation that had exploded on the scene post-WWII. To them, absolutely, it was the most relevant at that point in time. And then the question is...so? Most if not all of it has since faded into irrelevance along with the Big Bands. As far as relevance is concerned, all I can speak for is what I find to be relevant. And so I guess "relevant" can take the place of "subjective" on this forum. Speaking of which, "relevance" seems to be mighty subjective too. The more properly-stated question really is "have so many young people ever listened to classical the way most of them ate up pop music in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s?" And of course the answer is no. To that demographic it was certainly more relevant than classical.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

*mmsbls *your post accurately reflects my intention in the thread.

I was hoping for people to suggest classical works which did resonate for a nation or people at a specific time in history. Shostakovich was brought up and that was a very good example.

It was never my intention to make a sweeping claim that popular music is generally more relevant than classical music - but using the specific example of the soldiers, anti-war factions, war supporters, families and friends of the soldiers and society at large during the Vietnam War who have said that the rock music during the '60s and '70s was relevant to their lives during this time.

It might be an interesting question as to why that was. I made a slight reference to the general attitude of the rock music from the '50s and '60s reflecting a rebellious/anti-authority stance as possibly contributing to it resonance with the wider society. But there may be other aspects at work.

I was a few years too young to have served in the Vietnam War, but I was in my late teens, and then in college until 1973, by which time the war was being de-escalated - but I experienced how important this music was for me and my peers and by extension those who served.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Yabetz said:


> So tell me...how do you measure relevance?


I don't know how to measure it.



> Ultimately the thread is the OP saying that he/she thinks pop music from that era was more relevant than classical music ever was.


The OP (original post) says that pop music from that era was more relevant than classical music _from that era_. The OP _asks_ whether classical music was _ever_ as relevant.



> But the vast majority of the world's population found it utterly irrelevant, just as we're constantly reminded that they also find classical utterly irrelevant.


The OP makes no statement concerning those who found popular music irrelevant. That group _does not matter_ for the purposes of this discussion. 



> It was relevant to many in that generation that had exploded on the scene post-WWII. To them, absolutely, it was the most relevant at that point in time.


The OP asks if people agree with the OP. Based on your statement, I would say you might agree (unless you feel classical music in the 50s - 80s was also very relevant to many people.



> And then the question is...so? Most if not all of it has since faded into irrelevance along with the Big Bands.


Whether popular music has faded in relevance is of no concern to this thread.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> The OP (original post) says that pop music from that era was more relevant than classical music _from that era_. ...


No it doesn't.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

IMO, the music somewhat relevant to the times in the 50s was a mishmash of the tail end of big band music that had been popular during WW2, folk music, the beginnings of popular music reflecting the unrest of the progeny of the Greatest Generation and a smidgen of classical music reflecting the idealized, but disappearing, romanticism of the times (eg. as exemplified in the movie Rhapsody).

But I agree that after the fifties, classical music had less and less relevance of music to the times with IMO a few exceptions where classical music in iconic movies reflected a prevailing ‘feeling’ of the times. One was Richard Strauss’ _Also sprach Zarathustra_ in 2001: A Space Odyssey, a movie that reflected the public interest and wonder surrounding the developing space program. Another was Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries in Apocalypse Now (which I can’t hear now without thinking of ‘_I love the smell of napalm in the morning.’) _which reminded of the Vietnam War and was arguably in a tie with The Doors’ _The End _ as most iconic of a movie that resurrected that memory of the war.

Otherwise, somewhere in the 50s and on, it was a number of subsets of popular music, rock, folk etc. that became relevant to the times with classical music now relegated to a diminishing niche having, sadly, little or no relevance.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Yabetz said:


> No it doesn't.


OK, there's no point in arguing this. The OP agreed that my statement accurately reflects his intention. If somehow you believe the OP's statement does not mean what I wrote, now you know what the OP intended. You can continue by discussing the actual intention of the OP.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

DaveM said:


> IMO, the music somewhat relevant to the times in the 50s was a mishmash of the tail end of big band music that had been popular during WW2, folk music, the beginnings of popular music reflecting the unrest of the progeny of the Greatest Generation and a smidgen of classical music reflecting the idealized, but disappearing, romanticism of the times (eg. as exemplified in the movie Rhapsody).
> 
> But I agree that after the fifties, classical music had less and less relevance of music to the times with IMO a few exceptions where classical music in iconic movies reflected a prevailing ‘feeling’ of the times. One was Richard Strauss’ _Also sprach Zarathustra_ in 2001: A Space Odyssey, a movie that reflected the public interest and wonder surrounding the developing space program. Another was Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries in Apocalypse Now (which I can’t hear now without thinking of ‘_I love the smell of napalm in the morning.’) _which reminded of the Vietnam War and was arguably in a tie with The Doors’ _The End _ as most iconic of a movie that resurrected that memory of the war.
> 
> Otherwise, somewhere in the 50s and on, it was a number of subsets of popular music, rock, folk etc. that became relevant to the times with classical music now relegated to a diminishing niche having, sadly, little or no relevance.


I remember two uses of classical music in movies which seemed to resonate with the wider audience:

1. Samuel Barber's _Adagio for Strings_ in the movie Platoon

and

2. "Nessun dorma" in the movie The Killing Fields - interestingly both movies about Vietnam era wars.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

DaveM said:


> IMO, the music somewhat relevant to the times in the 50s was a mishmash of the tail end of big band music that had been popular during WW2, folk music, the beginnings of popular music reflecting the unrest of the progeny of the Greatest Generation and a smidgen of classical music reflecting the idealized, but disappearing, romanticism of the times (eg. as exemplified in the movie Rhapsody).
> 
> But I agree that after the fifties, classical music had less and less relevance of music to the times with IMO a few exceptions where classical music in iconic movies reflected a prevailing ‘feeling’ of the times. One was Richard Strauss’ _Also sprach Zarathustra_ in 2001: A Space Odyssey, a movie that reflected the public interest and wonder surrounding the developing space program. Another was Wagner’s Ride of the Valkyries in Apocalypse Now (which I can’t hear now without thinking of ‘_I love the smell of napalm in the morning.’) _which reminded of the Vietnam War and was arguably in a tie with The Doors’ _The End _ as most iconic of a movie that resurrected that memory of the war.
> 
> Otherwise, somewhere in the 50s and on, it was a number of subsets of popular music, rock, folk etc. that became relevant to the times with classical music now relegated to a diminishing niche having, sadly, little or no relevance.


But yet Leonard Bernstein, Glenn Gould, Yo Yo Ma and Yitzhak Perlman became some of the most recognizable people in the world. My problem I guess in a nutshell is that I think statements like "pop was/is more relevant" is just too much of a generalization and has to be seriously qualified regardless of which era is talked about. Relevant _to whom? _The 16-24 demographic?


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> But yet Leonard Bernstein, Glenn Gould, Yo Yo Ma and Yitzhak Perlman became some of the most recognizable people in the world. My problem I guess in a nutshell is that I think statements like "pop was/is more relevant" is just too much of a generalization and has to be seriously qualified regardless of which era is talked about. Relevant _to whom? _The 16-24 demographic?


I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure how many people outside the CM community would know those artists except perhaps for Leonard Bernstein. Where I think that CM does have some limited relevancy these days is during calamities when many people seem to be drawn to performances of works such as Beethoven’s 9th.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> But yet Leonard Bernstein, Glenn Gould, Yo Yo Ma and Yitzhak Perlman became some of the most recognizable people in the world. My problem I guess in a nutshell is that I think statements like "pop was/is more relevant" is just too much of a generalization and has to be seriously qualified regardless of which era is talked about. Relevant _to whom? _The 16-24 demographic?


You are right to observe that the demographics of musical tastes and political opinions are complex and cannot be reduced to the simplicity of "a generation" inspired by "(x) music" to a particular set of idealised sentiments.

Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that certain groups of certain demographics (middle class university students for example) were plainly inspired by some of the popular music of the period.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

It wasn't just during the '60s and the Vietnam War era that popular music seemed to play an important role in the lives of a generation. During WWII the music of swing bands like Benny Goodman and others, as well as the popular songs sung by Frank Sinatra and others were a part of that period's zeitgeist.

Songs such as "I'll Be Seeing You" were representative of the kind of war song that was important both to the fighting soldiers as well as loved ones back home.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

DaveM said:


> I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not sure how many people outside the CM community would know those artists except perhaps for Leonard Bernstein. Where I think that CM does have some limited relevancy these days is during calamities when many people seem to be drawn to performances of works such as Beethoven’s 9th.


But the same thing could be said right this minute about Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber or Lady Gaga. Most of us have heard those names, primarily because of mass media. Some of us here may enjoy their music, and that's fine. But only a small subset have listened to their music to any significant degree. That is the community of contemporary pop music fans, and that subset definitely does not include everybody. But then just about everyone's heard of Bach, Mozart and Beethoven as well. None of the former three have any relevance at all to me. But yet they're certainly not absolutely irrelevant.


Forster said:


> You are right to observe that the demographics of musical tastes and political opinions are complex and cannot be reduced to the simplicity of "a generation" inspired by "(x) music" to a particular set of idealised sentiments.
> 
> Nevertheless, there is plenty of evidence that certain groups of certain demographics (middle class university students for example) were plainly inspired by some of the popular music of the period.


There's no doubt about it and I'm not disputing that at all. I'm questioning the scope of the relevance. Phrases like "spoke most to us" or "the people" have to be qualified. Someone who was 50 years old in 1965 probably felt a lot differently about the Beatles, Bob Dylan or Rolling Stones than a 17 or 22 year old.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> I've been watching the *Ken Burns* documentary on the _Vietnam War_ and *Merrill McPeak* (Air Force, a retired 4-star general in the United States Air Force whose final assignment before retirement was as the 14th Chief of Staff of the Air Force from 1990 to 1994 but who served in Vietnam 1969-1970) commented that during the '60s the USA had the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environment issues, and the soundtrack to all of it was "some of the greatest rock music." He said that this culture was what he felt he was fighting to preserve.
> 
> I have to agree that during the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, the music which expressed our big concerns was rock, or country, and Motown/soul/R&B, and especially the folk revival music - these musics spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams.
> 
> ...


1. This is largely an American experience, and an American-induced experience in other countries.
2. The music reflected zeitgeist, of course, but the kind of music on offer to reflect the bleeding geist was not for the hoi polloi to choose. It was a massive marketing effort of the American corporations.
3. Of course I, at the time, enjoyed Led Zeppelin and King Crimson as much as the next guy. They were the better ones. Bob Dylan and the Doors were an esthetic abomination, of course, even then.
4. These topics can never be resolved without going deep into the entrails of the 20-ies century Western society. How the degradation has set in and who is to blame. And if I do that I will be banned forever by Art Rock.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

advokat said:


> 1. This is largely an American experience, and an American-induced experience in other countries.
> ...


That point right there is a great one.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

advokat said:


> 1. This is largely an American experience, and an American-induced experience in other countries.
> 2. The music reflected zeitgeist, of course, but the kind of music on offer to reflect the bleeding geist was not for the hoi polloi to choose. It was a massive marketing effort of the American corporations.
> 3. Of course I, at the time, enjoyed Led Zeppelin and King Crimson as much as the next guy. They were the better ones. Bob Dylan and the Doors were an esthetic abomination, of course, even then.
> 4. These topics can never be resolved without going deep into the entrails of the 20-ies century Western society. How the degradation has set in and who is to blame. And if I do that I will be banned forever by Art Rock.


I am curious, do you think it important for music to fulfill a relevance beyond entertainment in people's lives? A relevance tied to social change or upheaval, such as wars, and other changes which have a direct and dramatic effect on our lives.

Instead of denigrating the kind of music which provided this role during the Vietnam War era, I would be much more interested in examples you could offer of classical music works which have similarly served this purpose.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

advokat said:


> ..Bob Dylan and the Doors were an esthetic abomination, of course, even then..


Is that your opinion or are you saying that is how the general public perceived them at the time?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Is that your opinion or are you saying that is how the general public perceived them at the time?


It wasn't addressed to me, but the "general public" over the age of 30 or so may very well have. I wasn't around then.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

advokat said:


> 1. This is largely an American experience, and an American-induced experience in other countries.
> 2. The music reflected zeitgeist, of course, but the kind of music on offer to reflect the bleeding geist was not for the hoi polloi to choose. It was a massive marketing effort of the American corporations.
> 3. Of course I, at the time, enjoyed Led Zeppelin and King Crimson as much as the next guy. They were the better ones. Bob Dylan and the Doors were an esthetic abomination, of course, even then.
> 4. These topics can never be resolved without going deep into the entrails of the 20-ies century Western society. How the degradation has set in and who is to blame. And if I do that I will be banned forever by Art Rock.


American culture is actually way more isolated than one would think. To appreciate that isolation you only need to ask a hundred Americans a series of questions about the world outside their own borders.

OTHER countries certainly experience a great deal of American "culture", but it certainly doesn't dominate. An anecdotal example: In one of the "What Non-Classical Music are you Listening to" there is one non-American TC member that continually only shares music from *Turkish* artists. _Never_ an _American_ artist. No *Justin Beiber*, no *Ella Fizgerald*, no *Led Zeppelin*, no *KC & the Sunshine Band. *American culture doesn't register or connect to them - it has no impact. I think you may be overestimating the impact of American culture.

"Popular Music" has been a For-Profit industry since the widespread retailing of recorded music in the 1920s. The commercialism of how music is produced and marketed has become more cynical every decade. There is music styles and subgenres that are "marketed" to us like Frozen Yogurt or Poké. 

I'm always amused how many of us like _*these*_ bands but hate _*those*_ bands. You say you _"enjoyed Led Zeppelin and King Crimson"_ but that _"Bob Dylan and the Doors were an esthetic abomination"_. Naturally, I disagree for many reasons, but I think the *Doors* and *Led Zeppelin* are great while rarely listening to *Dylan* or *KC*.

But we're both off-topic here: The gist of the thread is whether *1950s Classical Music - was it relevant?.*

That is considerably different than the subject of the commercialization of 1950s music (and beyond). I'm reminded of the Pop Music payola scandals of the time, where producers and managers would pay off radio DJs to play particular songs (or even NOT play the music from OTHER artists).


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> I'm reminded of the Pop Music payola scandals of the time, where producers and managers would pay off radio DJs to play particular songs (or even NOT play the music from OTHER artists).


But it was much worse after deregulation in the 1980s when one program director controlled thousands of radio stations, picking 40 songs (or some number in that range) that they all played. If the PD decided against your song, there was no place for you to take it.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

In a way though, isn't this just a little like asking "was the theater ever as relevant as the movies"? One factor that I don't think has been mentioned is that with mass media the barriers between urban and rural were crossed. Before the revolutions in communication, classical music was an urban thing, and as such it did play a role in the 1848 revolutions in Europe and the unification of Italy. Plus as I mentioned earlier the role of music in churches. But in a sense you could say that _nothing _aside from the Bible that predates that mass media culture was ever as "relevant". _Hamlet _was probably nowhere near as relevant in its time as _Gone with the Wind. _So to me it's more a question of media presence and demographics than about the nature of the art itself.

Now if as someone said the question is about the relevance of classical music composed after 1950 vs that of popular music, then it's a no-brainer. We can refer to Milton Babbitt maybe concerning the reasons for that.


----------



## Doulton (Nov 12, 2015)

I was a teenager throughout most of the 1960's. Was 1950's music relevant to me? Not really. I can appreciate Elvis and Frank Sinatra now, but it took until old age to appreciate their vintage.


I purchased every Beatles album, but my quest was a complete set of Puccini operas and a complete Beethoven. My completion quests continued but aside from the Beatles, I purchased a few albums by Joan Baez, Peter, Paul, Mary and Pete Seeger. Every night I lay quietly and listened to a great spoken word album of the poetry of Yeats read by Siobhan Mckenna and Cyril Cusack.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I've been watching the *Ken Burns* documentary on the _Vietnam War_ and *Merrill McPeak* (Air Force, a retired 4-star general in the United States Air Force whose final assignment before retirement was as the 14th Chief of Staff of the Air Force from 1990 to 1994 but who served in Vietnam 1969-1970) commented that during the '60s the USA had the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environment issues, and the soundtrack to all of it was "some of the greatest rock music." He said that this culture was what he felt he was fighting to preserve.
> 
> I have to agree that during the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, the music which expressed our big concerns was rock, or country, and Motown/soul/R&B, and especially the folk revival music - these musics spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams.
> 
> ...


As I've tried to argue here in many threads (perhaps not clearly and cogently enough), imo classical and popular art generally have very different functions or purposes. Classical art is a celebration of our multi-generational cultural traditions. Popular art tries to capture the zeitgeist or mood of the moment. In times of great social upheaval, or profound changes in fundamental social values, capturing the mood of the moment can seem more significant than bows to tradition. 

The time period you cite, especially the 60s and 70s, was one of major social change in America, though we really can't discuss that in detail and stay within the rules of this forum. Popular art, and popular music in particular, played an important role. But for me, classical art retains its relevance even in such periods.

Chuck Berry said, "Roll over Beethoven, tell Tchaikovsky the news". But why is he even mentioning those long-gone composers? Because they created a cultural tradition that persists, and even the need to rebel against it proves its continued relevance. Da Da Da Dum.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Someone mentioned the Shostakovich 7th symphony being a watershed moment for Russians after the siege of Leningrad. This is relevance beyond the historical kind of cultural sign you suggest. I would say Messiaen's _Quartet for the End of Time_ might also have been significant for the camp audience when it was performed.

I don't want to imply that the kind of relevance "All Along the Watchtower" or "And it's one, two, three, / What are we fighting for?" might have had during Vietnam is beyond the pale for classical music.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I guess what I might have subliminally been trying to do with this thread was to suggest that pop or rock music has a significance beyond its musical content, or vocal style. Often in threads which contrast pop or rock with classical, pop and rock are dismissed as being nowhere as complex or rich musically as classical music.

Well, maybe so. But there is a visceral cultural significance rock and pop music have which it is just possible classical music does not share.


----------



## Fabulin (Jun 10, 2019)

Prodromides said:


> Two years ago, when rioters & looters in Portland, OR were tear gassed by Federal reinforcements, did they play Berio's Sinfonia or O King?
> No.
> What music did they play? Why ... The Imperial March from *The Empire Strikes Back* ... naturally.
> John Williams turns out to be more relevant than Luciano Berio.


I recall a video of BLM protesters holding their phones high playing the Imperial March at the police / chanting it mockingly.

Similarily, during the 2013 Euromaidan in the Ukraine a piano was dragged onto a barricade and a teen girl played Chopin's revolutionary etude.

Classical hits like the aforementioned or Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" still resonate in the culture enough to be recognizable symbols.

I have a sense that if the USA were to go to war again like in WW2, Star Wars music would immediately become leased from Disney to serve as patriotic music, the way Donald Duck served propaganda / information in the 1940s


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> ...
> Well, maybe so. But there is a visceral cultural significance rock and pop music have which it is just possible classical music does not share.


Again a visceral cultural significance among a certain demographic group who were plugged into mass media over maybe three decades, during which time classical composers distanced themselves from audiences and put themselves into that academic backwater.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Someone mentioned the Shostakovich 7th symphony being a watershed moment for Russians after the siege of Leningrad. This is relevance beyond the historical kind of cultural sign you suggest. I would say Messiaen's _Quartet for the End of Time_ might also have been significant for the camp audience when it was performed.
> 
> I don't want to imply that the kind of relevance "All Along the Watchtower" or "And it's one, two, three, / What are we fighting for?" might have had during Vietnam is beyond the pale for classical music.


Of course it isn't. But I'd argue that the Shostakovich 7th has broader and deeper significance and meaning than patriotic Russian defiance of the German siege of Leningrad, and Messiaen's Quartet has broader and deeper significance and meaning than finding in one's faith the means to survive internment in a Nazi prison camp. Those two great pieces of music will still be performed when their historic contexts are known only to academic specialists. In my humble opinion.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Its certainly nowhere near as popular, but classical has continued to make subtle impacts, particularly among those who create music. Its not relevant in itself so much as being part of the mix of music on offer.

The second half of the 20th century saw the end of the industrial revolution which began in the 18th century. The concert hall and opera house are products of that bygone age. That's the big picture, which I addressed in this thread:









The dearth of new music


Exactly. Also, a term like "ultra-modernist" or "atonal" should either be used correctly, or all should agree on some alternative meaning. I never realized Cowell and Ruggles were referred to as "ultra-modernists". Virgil Thomson used the amusing term "far outs" for the likes of Cage...




www.talkclassical.com


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Sid James said:


> Its certainly nowhere near as popular, but classical has continued to make subtle impacts, particularly among those who create music. Its not relevant in itself so much as being part of the mix of music on offer.
> 
> The second half of the 20th century saw the end of the industrial revolution which began in the 18th century. The concert hall and opera house are products of that bygone age. That's the big picture, which I addressed in this thread:
> 
> ...


Yes, good points. Also, classical music shouldn't be defined as music of the concert hall and opera house, unless one wishes to limit all discussion to music of 18th and 19th century Europe. Which some here want to do, I suppose. BTW, that post quoted at the top of the page you linked to seemed surprisingly intelligent and clever, and then it dawned on me why: I wrote it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> Again a visceral cultural significance among a certain demographic group who were plugged into mass media over maybe three decades, during which time classical composers distanced themselves from audiences and put themselves into that academic backwater.


I am not sure what your point is. If a certain kind of music has relevance for a certain demographic during a certain period of time - it is still an important fact of relevance which impacted the lives of that demographic. 

One might claim that their lives were not only impacted but changed. Some songs can unify a large swathe of society, where many people of a certain age all related to, sang along with and danced to, the same group of songs at the same time.

I dunno, but I find that worth recognizing and even cause to celebrate the power of rock, or country, or pop music.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I am not sure what your point is. If a certain kind of music has relevance for a certain demographic during a certain period of time - it is still an important fact of relevance which impacted the lives of that demographic.
> 
> One might claim that their lives were not only impacted but changed. Some songs can unify a large swathe of society, where many people of a certain age all related to, sang along with and danced to, the same group of songs at the same time.
> 
> I dunno, but I find that worth recognizing and even cause to celebrate the power of rock, or country, or pop music.


The point is that if everyone who listened to that music were more or less from the same demographic group, then it really wasn't that much of a swathe. Otherwise there were huge swathes who watched Lawrence Welk for three decades. Another point is that it may also be a manifestation of the power of mass media. Also some of it was simply fun. Everybody's heard about the bird. Louie Louie aww no said weegago yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> The point is that if everyone who listened to that music were more or less from the same demographic group, then it really wasn't that much of a swathe. Otherwise there were huge swathes who watched Lawrence Welk for three decades.


This music was important to my generation, much more important than Lawrence Welk was to my parents who religiously watched his program each week. We felt that this music spoke to us and for us. What the songs were about were the important things going on in our lives and times - as well as you say, many were just fun dance tunes. But those were important as well. Each time an artist rose and then flamed out, like Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, those deaths hit us hard.

Now maybe there were other important artists for different generations, which is also my point: Jimmie Rodgers in the 1920s and '30s; Hank Williams in the 1940s and '50s; Elvis Presley in the 1950s; Frank Sinatra from the 1940s until the end of his career.

Anyway, I have said my bit and feel I am repeating myself.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

Very good post, IMVHO.



pianozach said:


> American culture is actually way more isolated than one would think. To appreciate that isolation you only need to ask a hundred Americans a series of questions about the world outside their own borders.


Agree, with a proviso. I assume that "culture" is structured. What you say is true about the majority of Americans. There is a sizable minority with a high degree of appreciation of CM and high culture. After all, this site is largerly American!



pianozach said:


> OTHER countries certainly experience a great deal of American "culture", but it certainly doesn't dominate. An anecdotal example: In one of the "What Non-Classical Music are you Listening to" there is one non-American TC member that continually only shares music from *Turkish* artists. _Never_ an _American_ artist. No *Justin Beiber*, no *Ella Fizgerald*, no *Led Zeppelin*, no *KC & the Sunshine Band. *American culture doesn't register or connect to them - it has no impact. I think you may be overestimating the impact of American culture.


As far as modern pop music is concerned - agree. Modern pop music in the US is getting weirder and weirder. However, was there any above-the-poverty-line country in the 70ies that did not listen to the Eagles? As far as modern pop CULTURE is concerned, one personal anecdote. My Spanish neighbour has his grandchildren for the summer. They all spend their in-house time watching Netflix and HBO+. Nowadays it is not the music, it is mostly the series. In the 40ies and 50ies it was jazz, movies and literature.



pianozach said:


> "Popular Music" has been a For-Profit industry since the widespread retailing of recorded music in the 1920s. The commercialism of how music is produced and marketed has become more cynical every decade. There is music styles and subgenres that are "marketed" to us like Frozen Yogurt or Poké.


Agree.



pianozach said:


> I'm always amused how many of us like _*these*_ bands but hate _*those*_ bands. You say you _"enjoyed Led Zeppelin and King Crimson"_ but that _"Bob Dylan and the Doors were an esthetic abomination"_. Naturally, I disagree for many reasons, but I think the *Doors* and *Led Zeppelin* are great while rarely listening to *Dylan* or *KC*.


Sure



pianozach said:


> But we're both off-topic here: The gist of the thread is whether *1950s Classical Music - was it relevant?.*
> 
> That is considerably different than the subject of the commercialization of 1950s music (and beyond). I'm reminded of the Pop Music payola scandals of the time, where producers and managers would pay off radio DJs to play particular songs (or even NOT play the music from OTHER artists).


During the Cold War, the after-1950 classical music was quite relevant, even though most of the population never listened to it (When was the time that it did?). The ideological battle exemplified by DSCH and IS is the case in point. Now I think we are at some sort of crossroads. My very lay and very tentative impression is that the atonal/serial music is steadily moving to its natural small niche from the unnatural position of ideological and organisational dominance, while the contemporary tradition-based CM has not emerged as anything with a minimal cultural influence. As with many things, the coming decade will show in what direction we will move.


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Is that your opinion or are you saying that is how the general public perceived them at the time?


My opinion, and also of many people I know.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Leonard Bernstein, Glenn Gould, Yo Yo Ma and Yitzhak Perlman


Well, as a follower of CM, I'd only recognise two of these. I don't agree that they've become famous across the world. I think you're falling prey to the same error you're accused the OP of: generalising too widely from the particular.



Yabetz said:


> There's no doubt about it and I'm not disputing that at all. I'm questioning the scope of the relevance.


Did I not put enough caveats here, to narrow the scope that concerns you?



Forster said:


> *certain groups* of *certain demographics* (middle class university students for example) were plainly inspired by *some of* the popular music of the period.





advokat said:


> 1. This is largely an American experience, and an American-induced experience in other countries.
> 2. The music reflected zeitgeist, of course, but the kind of music on offer to reflect the bleeding geist was not for the hoi polloi to choose. It was a massive marketing effort of the American corporations.
> 3. Of course I, at the time, enjoyed Led Zeppelin and King Crimson as much as the next guy. They were the better ones. Bob Dylan and the Doors were an esthetic abomination, of course, even then.
> 4. These topics can never be resolved without going deep into the entrails of the 20-ies century Western society. How the degradation has set in and who is to blame. And if I do that I will be banned forever by Art Rock.


1. Yes, of course. The Vietnam War was mostly significant for the USA and Vietnam, though the whole thing had ramifications for world politics well beyond the 70s.
2. American corporations undoubtedly had, and still have, significant influence, but you seem to be suggesting some kind of coordinated effort to create the zeitgeist. I don't think this is the case.
3.  
4. The role of the mods is to moderate according to the ToS - not for individual mods to pick on individual members for their political views.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> This music was important to my generation, much more important than Lawrence Welk was to my parents who religiously watched his program each week.
> ...


The music was important to you. Your entire generation may not have attached quite the same importance to it that you do. But if that kind of importance was and is attached to pop music maybe it says more about the generation, the social milieu and the Zeitgeist than it does about the music.


Forster said:


> Well, as a follower of CM, I'd only recognise two of these. ...


Although it's a little odd that a "follower of CM" would know only two of those four, I don't think I said "universally recognizable" or "universally known".


> Did I not put enough caveats here, to narrow the scope that concerns you?


 Right, and those are the caveats I put forth throughout the thread.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

In poking around listening to Nikolai Myakovsky's music I found a series of recordings, I believe 18 installments in all, called "1941-1945: Wartime Music" with music written by Russian composers during WWII.

Seems to fit in this thread. Here's Vol. 1:






Also, I am not sure how impactful these works were, I suppose some more than others.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> The music was important to you. Your entire generation may not have attached quite the same importance to it that you do. But if that kind of importance was and is attached to pop music maybe it says more about the generation, the social milieu and the Zeitgeist than it does about the music.
> I don't think I said "universally recognizable".
> Right, and those are the caveats I put forth throughout the thread.


To the extent the experience of the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the other social upheavals that occurred between 1956 and 1975 is important, then the music that was an integral part of those events was also important. And this association does not disappear any more so than the historical significance of these events with the passage of time.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> To the extent the experience of the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights Movement, and the other social upheavals that occurred between 1956 and 1975 is important, then the music that was an integral part of those events was also important. And this association does not disappear any more so than the historical significance of these events with the passage of time.


But you're conflating current events with the music without any solid evidence that one had anything _directly_ to do with the other. It's an association of the music with the times rather than a consideration of the music itself and without considering the role of demographics and mass media. There's just no point and no "right answer" that will avoid snippy ripostes other than to agree with the prior assumption that no, no other music has had that kind of visceral effect. So I'll just leave it to you to sing the praises of that more-visceral genre and its timeframe, although I have to wonder what it has to do with a classical music forum. Maybe the non-classical section would be more appropriate.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> But you're conflating current events with the music without any solid evidence that one had anything _directly_ to do with the other. It's an association of the music with the times rather than a consideration of the music itself and without considering the role of demographics and mass media. There's just no point and no "right answer" that will avoid snippy ripostes other than to agree with the prior assumption that no, no other music has had that kind of visceral effect. So I'll just leave it to you to sing the praises of that more-visceral genre and its timeframe, although I have to wonder what it has to do with a classical music forum. Maybe the non-classical section would be more appropriate.


In my OP I provided first-hand quote from a soldier about the importance of the music. I also ended my OP with this explanation of the intention of the thread, and why I put it in the classical discussion:

*In this thread I wish to hopefully have a discussion first if you agree with my OP, and to ask if classical music was ever as relevant as rock music was in the '60s.*

However you have only rejected the premise (without acknowledging the first hand evidence of the participants) and ignored the second half of my closing statement.

The title of the thread is "Post 1950 classical music: was it relevant?" since I only used the example of rock music during Vietnam as a context, but was really looking for times in history and works when classical music was similarly relevant.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> In my OP I provided first-hand quote from a soldier about the importance of the music. I also ended my OP with this explanation of the intention of the thread, and why I put it in the classical discussion:
> 
> *In this thread I wish to hopefully have a discussion first if you agree with my OP, and to ask if classical music was ever as relevant as rock music was in the '60s.*
> 
> However you have only rejected the premise (without acknowledging the first hand evidence of the participants) and ignored the second half of my closing statement.


And the discussion has to go in the acceptable way. Like I said this is probably more appropriate for a pop forum. The "X is more * than Y" and "Who or what are the top ten _*" things get pretty old.

Like I may have said earlier, it was relevant to those who found it relevant. And if they did, terrific.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

And yet you are the one who focused entirely on the pop aspect and ignored the request for a discussion of classical works.

I've offered several examples but was hoping for more from others. It was never my intention to make this a pop vs classical discussion but wanted some ideas of when classical music was as viscerally relevant as rock music was during the '60s.

Maybe the question is too hard or at least not as easy as dissing pop and rock on a classical music forum.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> ... It was never my intention to make this a pop vs classical discussion but wanted some ideas of when classical music was as viscerally relevant as rock music was during the '60s.


Along with the thinly-veiled assumption that no, no music ever had that visceral effect. How am I or you to know how "viscerally" Viennese audiences in 1790 took their music?



> Maybe the question is too hard or at least not as easy as dissing pop and rock on a classical music forum.


Who dissed pop? There's a bunch of it that I love. Anyway enough.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> And yet you are the one who focused entirely on the pop aspect and ignored the request for a discussion of classical works.
> 
> I've offered several examples but was hoping for more from others. It was never my intention to make this a pop vs classical discussion but wanted some ideas of when classical music was as viscerally relevant as rock music was during the '60s.
> 
> Maybe the question is too hard or at least not as easy as dissing pop and rock on a classical music forum.


I completely misunderstood the first post - and only gradually came to realize the true intent once I had read the additional posts which added further clarification - I had made what I thought was a good faith effort to provide an answer but in retrospect as I revised my original post I realized that I had essentially written a variation of a variation of a variation of a theme - That what I had written had more to do with what I wanted to write about - what I found interesting - and less to do with providing an answer to the actual question which was posed which is probably why I should never participate in these kinds of threads and most likely won't continue doing so.

With the realization of its complete irrelevance, there was really no other alternative than to delete the post - although long-forgotten - in its entirely as it served no real purpose other than being an unnecessary distraction and an unwanted memory of a well-written post that expressed everything except what it was actually supposed to...


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

I'm reminded of this comment-


RogerWaters said:


> Opera lovers might not like to admit that their enjoyment rests on less abstract artistic properties: vocals (in common with pop and rock), relatively simple emotional cues, and a story.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> I'm reminded of this comment-


Yeah, one more thing: good point. You want "visceral impact"? Wagner. Tristan und Isolde. It's a visceral impact that many still feel. In fact film composers are still under his influence.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Music began with drumming and singing. This is the basis of human expression through music. And coincidentally also the primary components of most rock and pop music.

Not only do I not find vocal music having less depth than instrumental so-called "abstract" music, but consider vocal music a higher form of expression precisely because it can tap into human emotion at an organic level more so than purely instrumental music which remains vague and undefined.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Music began with drumming and singing. This is the basis of human expression through music. And coincidentally also the primary components of most rock and pop music.
> 
> Not only do I not find vocal music having less depth than instrumental so-called "abstract" music, but consider vocal music a higher form of expression precisely because it can tap into human emotion at an organic level more so than purely instrumental music which remains vague and undefined.


Absolutely. There we can agree.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

SanAntone said:


> In my OP I provided first-hand quote from a soldier about the importance of the music. I also ended my OP with this explanation of the intention of the thread, and why I put it in the classical discussion:
> 
> *In this thread I wish to hopefully have a discussion first if you agree with my OP, and to ask if classical music was ever as relevant as rock music was in the '60s.*
> 
> ...


I think your explanation of the purpose for the thread is clear. The thread is using an example about popular music to explore an issue about classical music, and as such, it's appropriate for the main forum. 

Your popular music example discusses music written during the time of it's relevance. Would you consider classical music that was appropriated from the past as relevant for a future time? An example would be Beethoven's 5th used during WWII as a powerful symbol for Allied forces.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> And yet you are the one who focused entirely on the pop aspect and ignored the request for a discussion of classical works.
> 
> I've offered several examples but was hoping for more from others. It was never my intention to make this a pop vs classical discussion but wanted some ideas of when classical music was as viscerally relevant as rock music was during the '60s.
> 
> Maybe the question is too hard or at least not as easy as dissing pop and rock on a classical music forum.


I tried to respond when I said classical music is more about celebrating cultural traditions that apply across generations where popular music is more about what is happening right now and having the greatest possible immediate impact. The most successful popular music, or art generally, will have an immediate "visceral relevance" that classical music or art will usually lack.

There is a site somewhere that lists the top ten most popular songs in the U.S. each year, going way back. If you go back far enough, say to the early 20s or late teens, you may well recognize none of the songs, unless you are a barbershop quartet singer. A few years later, the Gershwins, Jerome Kern, Irving Berlin et al. came along, but there are still plenty of top 10 songs that are forgotten today. Are those songs consistently worse than the top ten of the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s or today? It's hard to evaluate popular music in that way. In the CM world, Bartok, Prokofiev, Ravel and Stravinsky were producing some of their greatest music at that time. Today they are cultural icons, but in terms of "visceral relevance", I doubt they can compete with today's biggest popular hits.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mmsbls said:


> I think your explanation of the purpose for the thread is clear. The thread is using an example about popular music to explore an issue about classical music, and as such, it's appropriate for the main forum.
> 
> Your popular music example discusses music written during the time of it's relevance. Would you consider classical music that was appropriated from the past as relevant for a future time? An example would be Beethoven's 5th used during WWII as a powerful symbol for Allied forces.


Yes, since post-1950 classical music has never really caught on at all, except with some of the more populist works, e.g. Philip Glass, and Arvo Pärt. 

I had thought of the Beethoven 9th being played at various times during times of social and political upheaval. I think it was played at the Berlin Wall. I'm not sure what was played at 9/11 commemorative events. I hope it wasn't John Williams, but it may have been. I wonder if any classical musicians were part of the USO tours during WWII?

Classical works must have resonated with people when faced with a historical crisis, and I had hoped TC members to bring those works to my attention.

This thread was motivated by my own curiosity, not an attempt to contrast rock with classical in order to show that rock was superior in this way.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I'm not sure what was played at 9/11 commemorative events. I hope it wasn't John Williams, but it may have been. ...


This was one of them.




This is another, as I recall:


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, since post-1950 classical music has never really caught on at all, except with some of the more populist works, e.g. Philip Glass, and Arvo Pärt.


That depends how one defines "classical music", doesn't it? Is it still classical once one leaves traditional acoustic instruments, the acoustic concert hall and opera stage partly or fully behind? Can music made with synthesizers and computers still be classical? What about John Corigliano, Michael Nyman, Brian Eno and Tan Dun? They have certainly written some music that has "caught on", as have Philip Glass, and Arvo Pärt, as you say.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> That depends how one defines "classical music", doesn't it? Is it still classical once one leaves traditional acoustic instruments, the acoustic concert hall and opera stage partly or fully behind? Can music made with synthesizers and computers still be classical? What about John Corigliano, Michael Nyman, Brian Eno and Tan Dun? They have certainly written some music that has "caught on", as have Philip Glass, and Arvo Pärt, as you say.


Just as jazz is not defined by instrumentation, which was the controversy in the 1970s and Miles Davis's electric bands. His music still had the primary components of jazz whether it was played on acoustic or electric instruments. I believe the same is true for classical music. 

But as soon as one tries to define any genre, the exceptions become too evident to sustain the effort.

But I am less interested in defining genres than in just appreciating quality music, as I perceive it, no matter how someone may classify it.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Just as sort of an afterthought here about "visceral" and "relevance" and so on. Not really a judgement of worth or value but of the character of genres. As I said there's a lot of pop that I love and still listen to. But one of the reasons that I and many others feel that we "outgrow" pop music is because the range of human experience represented there is limited. It's adolescence-early adulthood. In your adolescence and early adult years, absolutely it's viscerally relevant. But when you get older and take on a mortgage and are married and have kids and other responsibilities and then you get even older you might start thinking about things like Strauss' Four Last Songs. You lose a loved one and you might turn to Bach's BWV 106 or BWV 21 or Fauré's or Duruflé's Requiems. There's not much in pop that has quite that relevance other than some escapism which does have its place sometimes too. But life isn't just raunchy rebellion against authority.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

I will say though that one of the great powerful things about rock, particularly in its sort of "glory days" in the 50s-80s was that it was (as far as I can tell) a truly new thing with several ethnic roots, but springing mainly imo from African American music. That can't be denied.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> Just as sort of an afterthought here about "visceral" and "relevance" and so on. Not really a judgement of worth or value but of the character of genres. As I said there's a lot of pop that I love and still listen to. But one of the reasons that I and many others feel that we "outgrow" pop music is because the range of human experience represented there is limited. It's adolescence-early adulthood. In your adolescence and early adult years, absolutely it's viscerally relevant. But when you get older and take on a mortgage and are married and have kids and other responsibilities and then you get even older you might start thinking about things like Strauss' Four Last Songs. You lose a loved one and you might turn to Bach's BWV 106 or BWV 21 or Fauré's or Duruflé's Requiems. There's not much in pop that has quite that relevance other than some escapism which does have its place sometimes too. But life isn't just raunchy rebellion against authority.


Well, there is ever the tension between a society's need for traditions and its need to evolve, isn't there? Yes, one's age and social position and responsibilities have something to do with it, but I think it goes broader and deeper than that. And my question for SanAntone, as to exactly which traditions constitute traditional classical music, or western classical music, isn't a simple one. I think he's right that the traditional acoustic instruments of the symphony orchestra aren't absolutely essential to the genre, though I suspect that is at least a part of it, and he's also right to cite a genre-stretcher like Miles Davis. What, then? The diatonic scale, and triad-based harmony? Progressions based on the circle of fifths? Final cadences? The "sonata allegro" structure? Thematic unity? All that and very much more, probably.

In the 20th century, we saw some of those traditions partly or conditionally abandoned, though most of them remained in some form, even if altered. But what isn't abandoned, not by Schoenberg, and not even by Boulez, is the concept of musical tradition itself. Only that impish, contrarian, enfant terrible provocateur John Cage gleefully tweaked our noses and dared challenge the concept of tradition itself.

I like John Cage. He helped keep us from becoming complacent and self-satisfied. But I'm looking forward to whatever music comes next, for as long as I'm around to hear it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I just started watching a film about Woodstock. A perfect example of the power of music to unify a generation. I just wish there was a comparable festival where classical music did the same thing.

Some here have repeatedly claimed that rock or pop is transitory and short lived. But I believe that the music of Jimi Hendrix and others is good enough to live beyond its time.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> ...
> Some here have repeatedly claimed that rock or pop is transitory and short lived. But I believe that the music of Jimi Hendrix and others is good enough to live beyond its time.


I think so too, actually. I think Hendrix, Lennon-McCartney (and the underused Harrison), Dylan were geniuses. I believe what happened maybe in part is that the new wore off as far as the genre's concerned, or it burned itself out. Actually though my favorite Dylan albums were post-60s: _Blood on the Tracks, Infidels_ and _Time Out of Mind. _Also when I think of rock/pop I tend to think of individual songs or albums rather than the whole genre. Van Morrison is another favorite of mine. Only Motown employed brass as effectively. And of course I love Motown, which really did cross ethnic/racial lines.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Over the last week I've listened to several symphonies and string quartets by Shostakovich, Myakovsky, and Weinberg; and some Mahler and Beethoven, and even some Richard Strauss and Berlioz, two composers I hardly ever listen to.

But I've also listened to Hank Williams, Jimmie Rodgers, Chuck Berry, Bill Monroe, and Yes. 

All of this music is lasting, IMO. And all of it was created with an artistic integrity and seriousness of purpose that transcends genre.


----------



## haziz (Sep 15, 2017)

Except for a few compositions by Shostakovich, largely no.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Just as sort of an afterthought here about "visceral" and "relevance" and so on. Not really a judgement of worth or value but of the character of genres. As I said there's a lot of pop that I love and still listen to. But one of the reasons that I and many others feel that we "outgrow" pop music is because the range of human experience represented there is limited. It's adolescence-early adulthood. In your adolescence and early adult years, absolutely it's viscerally relevant. But when you get older and take on a mortgage and are married and have kids and other responsibilities and then you get even older you might start thinking about things like Strauss' Four Last Songs. You lose a loved one and you might turn to Bach's BWV 106 or BWV 21 or Fauré's or Duruflé's Requiems. There's not much in pop that has quite that relevance other than some escapism which does have its place sometimes too. But life isn't just raunchy rebellion against authority.


I love the idea that if you get a mortgage, Strauss might suddenly pop into your head! 😄

You are just unfamiliar with enough "pop" or are defining "pop" too narrowly. The notion of "outgrowing" (in relation to music) is nonsense. It's true that some who once assiduously followed what was happening in the Top 40 eventually stop seeking out, following, engaging with pop, and simply leave aside the records they used to listen to. But we might all do that with classical pieces which no longer move us, or seem relevant to us in the way they once did.

The idea of "outgrowing" is wrong partly because there is popular music that reflects the concerns of older listeners; and partly because it is based on a single (very popular) model of the progress of life. But life is not a simple progress from some state of immaturity to one of maturity - and then an ever increasing maturity as one reaches old age. You can model it that way, but day-to-day experience tells us something quite different. Life is a messy business, with (sometimes) ordered and organised activities and events, but with a complex accompaniment of thoughts and feelings, memories and dreams, hopes and fears, moods and atmospheres, sensations and experiences that constantly shift you backwards and forwards in time as well as propelling you through or holding you in the present. There is music to accompany all of this mess, suited to each one of us, from many genres. When I was raising my sons, I rediscovered the pleasure of nursery rhymes (which surely I had outgrown) and themes from children's TV and movies. When my dog died, I fixated on Sibelius' 6th. Now, I'm fixated on the music of Elbow, which speaks to me, an over 60, despite its being composed by a bunch of over 40s.

My wife and I have a joke about retirement homes in the UK. We know that when (if) we get there, they will still insist on playing us Vera Lynn and reminiscing about the Battle of Britain because that's what the elderly of the UK do in their progress towards the end.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> But I've also listened to Hank Williams, Jimmie Rodgers, Chuck Berry, Bill Monroe, and Yes.
> *All of this music is lasting, IMO.*


In your opinion? But how do you know how many will listen to their music in 100 years? 200 years?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> I love the idea that if you get a mortgage, Strauss might suddenly pop into your head! 😄


Or something else other than Strawberry Alarm Clock. 



> You are just unfamiliar with enough "pop" or are defining "pop" too narrowly. The notion of "outgrowing" (in relation to music) is nonsense.


How do you know? I wasn't speaking for you then. Nonsense to you. It isn't to me. Maybe you're just unfamiliar with classical.


> When I was raising my sons, I the pleasure of nursery rhymes (which surely I had outgrown) and themes from children's TV and movies.


But if you weren't raising your sons, finding continued visceral impact and relevance in nursery rhymes and kids' TV would've been a little strange. Not that there's anything wrong with that. To each his own.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Or something else other than Strawberry Alarm Clock.
> 
> How do you know? I wasn't speaking for you then. Nonsense to you. It isn't to me. Maybe you're just unfamiliar with classical.
> But if you weren't raising your sons, finding continued visceral impact and relevance in nursery rhymes and kids' TV would've been a little strange. Not that there's anything wrong with that. To each his own.


OK, so we've both drawn conclusions about each other's musical knowledge which may be premature. Let's rewind.🙂

Tell me about your use of the word "pop" in your post about growing out of it.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> OK, so we've both drawn conclusions about each other's musical knowledge which may be premature. Let's rewind.🙂
> 
> Tell me about your use of the word "pop" in your post about growing out of it.


Let's ask instead why you would sort of scoff at the idea of listening to Vera Lynn in the retirement home. No longer relevant?


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Rock and jazz were certainly more socially relevant to me in my youth. Weather Report's "Unknown Soldier," Crimson's "Schizoid Man" and "Epitaph," Tull's "My God," Mingus's "Fables of Faubus," and many others.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Let's ask instead why you would sort of scoff at the idea of listening to Vera Lynn in the retirement home. No longer relevant?


But I asked first....

I'm not scoffing at her personally, but merely observing a habit of stereotyping the "aged". My mother is 91, and I'm pretty sure she would much rather listen to the Rolling Stones or Manfred Mann when reminiscing about the music she loved most. Of course, she lived through, and has memories of WW2, as a child/teen, but I don't suppose she would be the only one of her generation who felt cheated of her youth and grasped at the next exciting musical thing to come along.

That wasn't Vera Lynn.

I'm not blaming the retirement/care/nursing homes so much as the media. Whenever there's an item about retirement homes and the aged on TV, no account is taken of the age range or the cultural variation that must be present there.

As for my knowledge of classical, my preference is for orchestral and solo piano, which might explain why I would recognise Bernstein and Gould but not the other two artists you named. Did you really mean to conclude that I must be quite ignorant about CM because I said I wouldn't recognise just two out of the many hundreds of faces from the classical world?


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

We have some historical evidence that Verdi's _Nabucco_, especially the chorus "Va, pensiero" was significant for his audience of the time. Some scholars have thought that the chorus was intended to be an anthem for Italian patriots, who were seeking to unify their country and free it from foreign control in the years up to 1861 (the chorus's theme of exiles singing about their homeland, and its lines like O mia patria, si bella e perduta / "O my country, so beautiful, and lost" was thought to have resonated with many Italians). But in reading the Wikipedia article later revisionist historians have tried to undercut this idea. Wrongly, IMO. Some of Verdi's other operas had the same kind of political undertone.

Also, Stravinsky's _Le Sacre_ might have represented the modern world coming out of the 19th century for audiences, and it certainly caused a stir at its premier. But that might have been instigated more by the dancing than the music itself.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> Let's ask instead why you would sort of scoff at the idea of listening to Vera Lynn in the retirement home. No longer relevant?


I suppose you chose Vera Lynn because it is likely no one still listens to her music (I didn't even know who she was). But Frank Sinatra is still listened to, as well as Bing Crosby, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday and others from that generation certainly are still popular with older fans, and probably younger ones as well.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

"Mesmerizing Adultery: "Così fan tutte" and the Kornman Scandal
Mesmerizing Adultery: "Così fan tutte" and the Kornman Scandal on JSTOR
A notorious adultery scandal involving Guillaume Kornman (a co-founder and sponsor of the French mesmeric society) and Beaumarchais, who defended Kornman's unfaithful wife, should be considered one of the main sources of inspiration for Così fan tutte. A pamphlet war between the two broke out in 1787, when Salieri was living with Beaumarchais in Paris. Significantly, the earliest sources of the opera - Salieri's first unfinished setting of La scola degli amanti, Da Ponte's original libretto, and Mozart's autograph - all spell the name of Guglieimo as 'Guilelmo.' A study of this real-life Parisian drama helps to clarify several dramatic and musical elements of the opera, including the use of mesmeric references, which is more pervasive than previously recognized. In this new light, the opera appears to offer a political response to the radical ideas on the regulation of sexual and social matters disseminated by Kornman's mesmeric circle."

Guillaume Kornmann (born 1741, Strasbourg) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillaume_Kornmann


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I hesitate to bring this up, but one of the biggest ways classical music interacted with social trends was part of the conservative intelligentsia's turn against modernist and political art of the 1960s.

Lebrecht is an obvious name to bring up wrt his infamous reporting on Milton Babbitt, but Tom Wolfe (while not someone who can simply be called a conservative without a boatload of qualifications) probably was the most notable figure here - one of his most notable books was a portrayal of Leonard Bernstein as a hapless, hypocritical "champagne socialist" (though his most famous work was more about modernist visual art than classical music).


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fbjim said:


> I hesitate to bring this up, but one of the biggest ways classical music interacted with social trends was part of the conservative intelligentsia's turn against modernist and political art of the 1960s.
> 
> Lebrecht is an obvious name to bring up wrt his infamous reporting on Milton Babbitt, but Tom Wolfe (while not someone who can simply be called a conservative without a boatload of qualifications) probably was the most notable figure here - one of his most notable books was a portrayal of Leonard Bernstein as a hapless, hypocritical "champagne socialist" (though his most famous work was more about modernist visual art than classical music).


Didn't Tom Wolfe write an article titled "Radical Chic" about a party at Bernstein's apartment with members of the Black Panthers in attendance, and the naive and ludicrous nature of the interaction?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Yes. To be clear the distaste for "champagne socialism" and the interaction with radical politics and upper-class society is not confined to the right wing (and it'd be way too reductive to call Wolfe a right-winger), but the general social turn of intellectual conservatives against modernist art started around then. 

Remember that for a bit, modernist art was seen as a symbol of freedom-of-expression in contrast to the Soviet Union (which had similar attitudes toward "bourgeoise art" from the precise opposite end of the political spectrum), so we are talking about a significant social change related to art here.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

fbjim said:


> I hesitate to bring this up, but one of the biggest ways classical music interacted with social trends was part of the conservative intelligentsia's turn against modernist and political art of the 1960s.
> 
> Lebrecht is an obvious name to bring up wrt his infamous reporting on Milton Babbitt, but Tom Wolfe (while not someone who can simply be called a conservative without a boatload of qualifications) probably was the most notable figure here - one of his most notable books was a portrayal of Leonard Bernstein as a hapless, hypocritical "champagne socialist" (though his most famous work was more about modernist visual art than classical music).


Ah, yes. William F. Buckley Jr.'s Firing Line used Bach's 2nd Brandenburg Concerto for its opening theme, while the Dick Cavett Show used Bernstein's Overture to Candide (edit: Actually it's the theme from Glitter and Be Gay, prominently featured in the Overture). Some subtle political jockeying for position using classical music?


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

In some sense this is more of an anti-interaction but it's had significant social effects that still can be seen to this day - witness things like the controversy of the design of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial, the public funding of "P*ss Christ" (NEA grants were more or less fodder for late night host monologues after that one), or, more relevantly, orchestra funding.


To drag this away from politics (and sorry, I'm more talking about broad social trends than specific political issues), the growing pains of rock music and its attempts to become artistically "reputable" involved attempts to aesthetically emulate classical music which resulted in things like the production of Brian Wilson, "Prog" rock in general, and also Deep Purple's "Concerto for Rock Group and Orchestra", possibly the worst piece of music ever recorded by a notable band.

So to an extent the "high status" of classical was very much relevant to early rock artists who wished to make the genre more "artistic".


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I don't think it was "_early_ rock artists" who wished to make the genre more so-called artistic (IMO there was plenty of art in early rock 'n roll). Prog rock was almost twenty years after Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis and Little Richard. 

Personally, I prefer the raw, driving music of those artists from the '50s to the (what I consider) often pretentiousness of prog rock of the '70s. Although I do enjoy Yes, occasionally.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The problem I have with a lot of prog is that it sometimes seems almost ashamed of its rock roots. My favorite prog is stuff like King Crimson's "Red" and a bit of Rush for still being fully in a rock idiom rather than attempting to adopt a classical-inspired idiom. (well that and German prog for its inspirations being more avant-garde, and I don't think it's a coincidence that German prog is the one prog genre with by far the most far-ranging aesthetic influence today)

And yeah I should have said "classic rock" as in the Rolling Stone Canon, rather than "early rock" - not talking about Little Richard here.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

The romance of German prog/experimental rock with avant-garde classical, by the way, apparently has its origins in late 1960s European student-protest culture, though this isn't a topic I really have expertise on, aside from the broad sense that those coming of age in post-War Germany, for obvious reasons, wanted to create aesthetic trends which reflected the "New Germany".

So in German progressive rock, you have a neat confluence of rock music, avant-garde classical, and post-war political and social changes.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

OK - I apologize for the triple post here, but one other thing I wanted to bring up.

One of the ironies of hip-hop frequently being used as an example of everything classical music is _not_ is that one of the most direct lineages of hip-hop music is from classical music. This is sort of an absurd stretch, but to humor me, classical music, begat avant-garde experimental music, begat German progressive rock, begat electro, begat hip-hop. 





(above: the aesthetic descendent of Stockhausen, and I'm not even joking here)

of course, hip-hop had many other "parents", like funk and Caribbean "dub" culture, but it's still very amusing that one of the major influences of the genre is as a descendent of an artistic music tradition that can be traced through Kraftwerk's avant-garde influences all the way back through Stockhausen and through him, classical music generally. 

I think I've said before that I think the influence that avant-garde music and modernist music had on popular culture was _indirect_, where ideas get filtered down and adopted by populist musical forms. It's maybe a ridiculous thing to say, but it's also not entirely wrong - the main influence that post-war classical music has on us today is, at least partially, a result of popular forms adopting techniques from it, and melding it with other forms - and these days, hip-hop and electronic are arguably _more_ relevant than rock music is.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I've never bought into this genealogy of hip-hop/rap.

From what I've read, hip-hop came was an outgrowth of block parties and DJ-ing. The direct precursors were as you did say funk and Caribbean dub and other styles. But a huge influence was "the dozens," a street corner one-upmanship phenomenon of urban black neighborhoods going back to the '20s if not before - related to "cutting contests" which were a part of the jazz scene for decades.

I dunno, maybe down the road as hip-hop producers began to look elsewhere for inspiration they discovered Stockhausen and the European electronic music - but I see those quasi classical styles as technological window dressing for the main hip-hop style.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

fbjim said:


> OK - I apologize for the triple post here, but one other thing I wanted to bring up.
> 
> One of the ironies of hip-hop frequently being used as an example of everything classical music is _not_ is that one of the most direct lineages of hip-hop music is from classical music. This is sort of an absurd stretch, but to humor me, classical music, begat avant-garde experimental music, begat German progressive rock, begat electro, begat hip-hop.
> 
> ...


Well said. The ground shifts under our feet, and many of us don't realize it. I, for one, am cut off (by choice) from a medium that is quickly becoming an important source of new music: video games. But I try not to dismiss things simply based on my own ignorance of them. In time, the music of video games will have its impact on the culture at large, if it hasn't already.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I usually consider electro to be one of the most important proto-hip-hop precursors and that certainly had inspiration in German experimental rock, but yeah. Funk and (maybe more importantly) dub music are probably the more "important" genealogical roots. 

It's worth noting that German experimental rock also had a far more obvious influence on techno music, which was also a genre that originated as Black american music (specifically in Detroit). Perhaps you could say that the more Krautrock-inspired stuff became Techno, while the more Funk/Dub stuff became hip-hop, though this is almost certainly way too reductive. 

That said, I still find the wide spread of influences really fascinating.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I need to delve more deeply in the Smithsonian box I bought recently devoted to hip-hop. They usually do a good job with the documentation and musicological essays included in the rather heavy book that came with it. 










"The Smithsonian Anthology of Hip-Hop and Rap is a first-of-its-kind multimedia collection chronicling the growth of the music and culture from the parks of the Bronx to solidifying a reach that spans the globe. The set includes 129 tracks on 9 CDs and a 300–page book with original design by Cey Adams, artist and founding creative director of Def Jam Recordings, as well as essays by some of hip-hop’s leading writers and critics and hundreds of photographs spanning decades of history. Through the music, writing, and extensive liner notes, the Anthology reveals the many trends within this multifaceted genre, its social and political implications, and its influence on popular culture." (Folkways)


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I suppose you chose Vera Lynn because it is likely no one still listens to her music (I didn't even know who she was). But Frank Sinatra is still listened to, as well as Bing Crosby, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday and others from that generation certainly are still popular with older fans, and probably younger ones as well.


I chose Vera Lynn because she is pertinent to my story about the way old people are portrayed in the UK. None of the others would have been relevant to my story. It's important to restate that the differences between the US, the UK and Europe are significant, so some of the references we depend on might NOT be fully appreciated.



fbjim said:


> the growing pains of rock music and its attempts to become artistically "reputable" involved attempts to aesthetically emulate classical music which resulted in things like the production of Brian Wilson, "Prog" rock in general, and also Deep Purple's "Concerto for Rock Group and Orchestra", possibly the worst piece of music ever recorded by a notable band.
> 
> So to an extent the "high status" of classical was very much relevant to early rock artists who wished to make the genre more "artistic".


"Rock music" couldn't attempt to be anything. I know you didn't mean it literally, but if we're not careful, we begin to see musical developments as coordinated and deliberate. Whilst some individual artists at different times did set out specific agendas, I can't think that, for example, Genesis, Yes and ELP got together and said let's transform rock into something more highbrow, like classical, nor did Neu!, Can and Kraftwerk collaborate to create Krautrock. These changes were organic, somehow simultaneously random and yet inevitable, once certain choices had been made and directions followed.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

fluteman said:


> Yes, good points. Also, classical music shouldn't be defined as music of the concert hall and opera house, unless one wishes to limit all discussion to music of 18th and 19th century Europe. Which some here want to do, I suppose.


History didn’t stop at a certain point in time, nor does the new cancel out the old. I know that trying to exclude certain types of music has been part of the machinations of this forum, but I think that's more to do with the pitfalls of online discussion than anything else (e.g. making and trying to uphold dichotomies).

I think that the premiere of Shostakovich's Leningrad symphony and the Woodstock festival where both landmark events of 20th century music. Ed Vulliamy covered both of these, and others, in his autobiographical book published in 2018. I planned to do a series of posts on it, but I only got to his chapter on Schubert:









Franz Schubert


Schubert wrote so much damn music... I'll never hear it all.




www.talkclassical.com





Its obvious that classical didn't define the boomers generation the way rock and pop did, but it still made subtle impacts. Here's Billy Joel talking about his high school music teacher, who he said was his best teacher, particularly for opening up the history of classical music to him:


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I suppose you chose Vera Lynn because it is likely no one still listens to her music (I didn't even know who she was). But Frank Sinatra is still listened to, as well as Bing Crosby, Ella Fitzgerald, Billie Holiday and others from that generation certainly are still popular with older fans, and probably younger ones as well.


No I chose it because the person to whom I was responding mentioned it.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> But I asked first....
> 
> I'm not scoffing at her personally, but merely observing a habit of stereotyping the "aged". My mother is 91, and I'm pretty sure she would much rather listen to the Rolling Stones or Manfred Mann when reminiscing about the music she loved most. Of course, she lived through, and has memories of WW2, as a child/teen, but I don't suppose she would be the only one of her generation who felt cheated of her youth and grasped at the next exciting musical thing to come along.
> 
> That wasn't Vera Lynn.


But yet you listen to the Sibelius 6th which was written quite a bit before Vera Lynn's prime.



> As for my knowledge of classical, my preference is for orchestral and solo piano, which might explain why I would recognise Bernstein and Gould but not the other two artists you named. Did you really mean to conclude that I must be quite ignorant about CM because I said I wouldn't recognise just two out of the many hundreds of faces from the classical world?


The only thing I concluded is that it's kind of odd.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I guess what I might have subliminally been trying to do with this thread was to suggest that pop or rock music has a significance beyond its musical content, or vocal style. Often in threads which contrast pop or rock with classical, pop and rock are dismissed as being nowhere as complex or rich musically as classical music.
> 
> Well, maybe so. But there is a visceral cultural significance rock and pop music have which it is just possible classical music does not share.


It _had_ a visceral cultural impact which seems to have faded since, except among those who get whiffs of nostalgia. I remember reading somewhere a description of latter-day Rolling Stones concerts as "Civil War re-enactments for the counterculture". Also as already mentioned there were extramusical factors at work as well. However I thought that wasn't the purpose of the thread. I don't see how it's permissible to say "rock has visceral impact that classical doesn't", but yet saying "classical shows more musical skill and emotional range than pop" is sure to bring flames down on the unfortunate who dares to utter it. Maybe the only criterion isn't "visceral impact" -- after all porn and UFC bouts also have that. And besides not every rocker or pop star had any "visceral impact" at all.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> But yet you listen to the Sibelius 6th which was written quite a bit before Vera Lynn's prime.


So...what? What has this to do with... with what I think we started with, which is about outgrowing pop music?



Yabetz said:


> The only thing I concluded is that it's kind of odd.


What you actually said was_ "Maybe you're just unfamiliar with classical "_

Now, I took the trouble to expand and explain in response to your question: how about you answer mine, from our exchange in posts #144 and #145? For example, would you concede that perhaps I know more about CM than your "maybe" first suggested you assumed? There are some members here with a vast and comprehensive knowledge of CM in all its guises - but I'm not one, wouldn't pretend to be one, and would bet that many others here also have an incomplete knowledge of the faces of CM.

And what do you include by the term 'pop', just so we're clear what it is you've outgrown? Just the Top 40 from your teen years?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

> For example, would you concede that perhaps I know more about CM than your "maybe" first suggested you assumed?


Don't know and don't care.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Don't know and don't care.


Forum equivalent of Knock Down Ginger I guess (or whatever it's called in the US).


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> It _had_ a visceral cultural impact which seems to have faded since, except among those who get whiffs of nostalgia.


That's not the point. This thread is not about the lasting relevancy of rock or pop, but of its relevance at a certain point in time for a large, linked (either through demographics or history) group.

Rock and pop moves with the times and each generation has their artists who may rise to the a level of visceral relevancy depending upon the historical reality of those times.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

Forster said:


> *Forum equivalent of Knock Down Ginger I guess (or whatever its called in the US).*


No formal name as such - "ringing someone's doorbell and running away" - would be used in the US.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Shaughnessy said:


> No formal name as such - "ringing someone's doorbell and running away" - would be used in the US.


No, more like "honest answer". Anything further would be inappropriate to describe someone I don't even know.


SanAntone said:


> That's not the point. This thread is not about the lasting relevancy of rock or pop, but of its relevance at a certain point in time for a large, linked (either through demographics or history) group.
> 
> Rock and pop moves with the times and each generation has their artists who may rise to the a level of visceral relevancy depending upon the historical reality of those times.


The problem being that you can't differentiate with certainty between "visceral relevancy" and "My friends are listening to it and so I will too". It's always going to come down to a popularity contest.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> No, more like "honest answer".
> The problem being that you can't differentiate with certainty between "visceral relevancy" and "My friends are listening to it and so I will too". It's always going to come down to a popularity contest.


I didn't start this thread with a description of what my friends were listening to, but with a description of the music was important to of soldiers fighting in Vietnam. I've also talked about the music which was part of the Civil Rights Movement.

This thread is not about the mere popularity of some music. But about the music which has been at the center of some major societal movements and upheaval.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I didn't start this thread with a description of what my friends were listening to, but with a description of the music was important to of soldiers fighting in Vietnam.


Were you in Vietnam?


> This thread is not about the mere popularity of some music.


Of course it is, unless you can cleanly differentiate between "visceral effect" and "listening to what's on".


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

This thread has unfortunately been about 20% discussion and 80% arguing with the premises of this thread.



Forster said:


> "Rock music" couldn't attempt to be anything. I know you didn't mean it literally, but if we're not careful, we begin to see musical developments as coordinated and deliberate. Whilst some individual artists at different times did set out specific agendas, I can't think that, for example, Genesis, Yes and ELP got together and said let's transform rock into something more highbrow, like classical, nor did Neu!, Can and Kraftwerk collaborate to create Krautrock. These changes were organic, somehow simultaneously random and yet inevitable, once certain choices had been made and directions followed.


I think the founding of the "legitimate" rock press a la Crawdaddy!/Creem and obviously Rolling Stone did create some sort of institutional biases for specific critics to push rock toward a more "artistic" direction, and away from, y'know, Tutti Frutti.

Of course a lot of these same critics hated prog, and it'd be a mistake to simply say that rock critics directed the direction of pop music, but I do think they had at least some effect.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> Were you in Vietnam?


No, I was a few years too young, I graduated from high school in 1969 when I was 17. I entered college, with a deferment, and did not not turn 18 until December of 1969. In 1973 my last year in college, I did not file the deferment form and was eligible for the draft but by that time soldiers were being brought home, not sent to Vietnam. But I have known plenty of guys who were there. I daresay I was much closer to the events than you, although I am not sure of your age, I suspect you are much younger than me.



> Of course it is, unless you can cleanly differentiate between "visceral effect" and "listening to what's on".


This thread is about the historical context and what music was an integral part of those events, as well as the participants who witnessed those events and the music which was important to them. 

By "visceral" I mean that the music had a gut level attraction to the members of the specific group I am discussing. The music reflected the intensity of what they were living through.

This is different than a discussion of music which is generally popular outside of any specific historical context.

You can reject my premise, but I wish you would at least make your argument within the context of this thread and not distort the basis of the thread.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Red Terror said:


> The best CM is relevant on a universal level. Such music might decline in popularity for a time, but it'll never disappear due to its timeless appeal.


Sounds a bit self elevating if you pardon me saying. 

There is no universality in anything cultural outside of that culture. 

Peace


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> No, I was a few years too young, I graduated from high school in 1969 when I was 17. I entered college, with a deferment, and did not not turn 18 until December of 1969. In 1973 my last year in college, I did not file the deferment form and was eligible for the draft but by that time soldiers were being brought home, not sent to Vietnam. But I have known plenty of guys who were there. I daresay I was much closer to the events than you, although I am not sure of your age, I suspect you are much younger than me.


you are two years older than I. Almost to the day. (Dec 1) I too graduated high school at 17 and turned 18 in December away at school. My number in the draft was 171. They drafted up to 170 that year. 
My roommate was a Vietnam vet who had been blown off a tank. Great guy, lost part of his brain. He could not add one and one but in most things he was perfectly fine. 
He was partially paralyzed on his left side also. 

Woodstock was more of a religion to me than a music event. BTW, Woodstock anniversary is today, the last day of the festival.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> How many 17 year olds listen to Led Zeppelin? They were certainly relevant in 1973. Are they still relevant other than with holdout AOR FM stations?



Wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy to many. IMHO

I will never understand why this music just does not make way for newer sounds.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> Woodstock was more of a religion to me than a music event. BTW, Woodstock anniversary is today, the last day of the festival.


Woodstock was a watershed event, IMO. So many landmark performances took place there. But there were some big absences, e.g. Bob Dylan. Although living in Woodstock at the time decided to leave the country and perform at the Isle of Wight festival instead.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

eljr said:


> Sounds a bit self elevating if you pardon me saying.
> 
> There is no universality in anything cultural outside of that culture.
> 
> Peace


It's no more self-elevating than declaring 50s-80s pop unsurpassed in its "visceral effect".

-"No other music than classical has had such a cerebral effect..."

-"HOW DARE YOU?!?!?!?!?!?!?"


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> It's no more self-elevating than declaring 50s-80s pop unsurpassed in its "visceral effect".


agree


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I am going to re-post the OP since the theme of this thread has consistently been misconstrued and sometimes distorted:

_I've been watching the *Ken Burns* documentary on the Vietnam War and *Merrill McPeak* (Air Force, a retired 4-star general in the United States Air Force whose final assignment before retirement was as the 14th Chief of Staff of the Air Force from 1990 to 1994 but who served in Vietnam 1969-1970) commented that during the '60s the USA had the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environment issues, and the soundtrack to all of it was "some of the greatest rock music." He said that this culture was what he felt he was fighting to preserve.

I have to agree that during the '50s, '60s, '70s, '80s, the music which expressed our big concerns was rock, or country, and Motown/soul/R&B, and especially the folk revival music - these musics spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams.

It wasn't classical music, which by comparison was a marginal academic backwater.
_
*In this thread I wish to hopefully have a discussion first if you agree with my OP, and to ask if classical music was ever as relevant as rock music was in the '60s.*

I never said it was unsurpassed, I said that during those decades the rock music spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams. And then I asked for examples of classical music which served the same purpose.

Maybe the thread has run its course. But I want to try to bring it back to the OP.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> I am going to re-post the OP since the theme of this thread has consistently been misconstrued and sometimes distorted:


Sorry you're dealing with belligerence over something you introduced with perfectly clarity. Sigh. To answer the second question: In the USSR during the 60s, Shostakovich likely was as relevant, although to a smaller audience.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

EdwardBast said:


> Sorry you're dealing with belligerence over something you introduced with perfectly clarity. Sigh. To answer the second question: In the USSR during the 60s, Shostakovich likely was as relevant, although to a smaller audience.


There can't be "perfect clarity" when you're trying to compare things that aren't really comparable.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> Sorry you're dealing with belligerence over something you introduced with perfectly clarity. Sigh. To answer the second question: In the USSR during the 60s, Shostakovich likely was as relevant, although to a smaller audience.


Yes, the example of his 7th symphony has been mentioned. I subsequently found a series of recordings of mainly Russian composers called _Wartime Music: 1941-1945_. There are 18 volumes with 40+ works. Now, there is no way to know how important to Russians these works were, but one can assume they spoke to the wartime experience for that population.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Yes, the example of his 7th symphony has been mentioned. I subsequently found a series of recordings of mainly Russian composers called _Wartime Music: 1941-1945_. There are 18 volumes with 40+ works. Now, there is no way to know how important to Russians these works were, but one can assume they spoke to the wartime experience for that population.


I was thinking in your time frame, the early 60s, and especially of the the 13th symphony. Yevtushenko's poetry and its critiques of Soviet antisemitism, suppression of speech, the inefficient consumer economy, etc. No one who heard that could have failed to get the message — or, at least, the parts that survived the censors. And plenty of others would likely have understood the significance of 60s works like the 10th Quartet.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

My copy of the book from the Vietnam War film arrived today and I found the quote from *Merrill McPeak* that I referred to in the OP:

_"The late '60s" Air Force Merrill McPeak recalled "were a kind of confluence of several rivulets. There was the antiwar movement itself, the whole movement towards racial equality, the environment, the role of women. And the anthems for that counterculture were provided by the most brilliant rock and roll music that you can imagine. I don't know how we could exist today as a country without that experience - with all of its warts and ups and downs - that produced the America we have today, and we are better for it. And I felt that way in Vietnam. I turned the volume up on all that stuff. That, for me, represented what I was trying to defend." _(_The Vietnam War: An Intimate History_. Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns. Alfred A. Knopf (New York: 2017). p. 405)

I wanted to provide the full quote since it was what inspired this thread, and I did not give it justice in the OP.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I am going to re-post the OP since the theme of this thread has consistently been misconstrued and sometimes distorted:
> 
> _I've been watching the *Ken Burns* documentary on the Vietnam War and *Merrill McPeak* (Air Force, a retired 4-star general in the United States Air Force whose final assignment before retirement was as the 14th Chief of Staff of the Air Force from 1990 to 1994 but who served in Vietnam 1969-1970) commented that during the '60s the USA had the anti-war movement, the civil rights movement, the women's movement, the environment issues, and the soundtrack to all of it was "some of the greatest rock music." He said that this culture was what he felt he was fighting to preserve.
> 
> ...


With utmost respect, I don't think I misconstrued or distorted your topic, which does lead to some interesting questions. My main response was that classical and popular art, very much including music, in general serve fundamentally different purposes, though the boundary between them is not absolute. The main purpose of classical art is to celebrate and build on our cultural traditions, things that usually are more permanent and universal than whatever is of greatest interest at the moment and are passed down through multiple generations.

Popular art is the opposite. Its main purpose is to seize upon that which is of greatest interest in its own time. So classical music rarely serves the same purpose as popular music. 60s and 70s rock music spoke for the concerns, frustrations and dreams of its era. And, of course, the best of it continues to be heard and influence popular music today, so it hasn't really left us. But as I said earlier, by the time you get back to 1919 or 20, you may not recognize any of the top ten popular songs in America.

I have equally high respect for the best of both classical and popular music.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

fbjim said:


> This thread has unfortunately been about 20% discussion and 80% arguing with the premises of this thread.


*The "Post 1950 classical music: was it relevant?" thread: was it relevant?*


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fluteman said:


> With utmost respect, I don't think I misconstrued or distorted your topic, which does lead to some interesting questions. My main response was that classical and popular art, very much including music, in general serve fundamentally different purposes, though the boundary between them is not absolute. *The main purpose of classical art is *to celebrate and build on our cultural traditions, things that usually are more permanent and universal than whatever is of greatest interest at the moment and are passed down through multiple generations.
> 
> *Popular art is the opposite. Its main purpose is *to seize upon that which is of greatest interest in its own time. So classical music rarely serves the same purpose as popular music. 60s and 70s rock music spoke for the concerns, frustrations and dreams of its era. And, of course, the best of it continues to be heard and influence popular music today, so it hasn't really left us. But as I said earlier, by the time you get back to 1919 or 20, you may not recognize any of the top ten popular songs in America.
> 
> I have equally high respect for the best of both classical and popular music.


I'm not sure that "the purposes of" can be so readily defined, except by those who come after and want to create a model to suit their purposes (!)

Some artists have "something to say", compose a song, symphony and want everyone to hear it. Some artists dream of celebrity and want everyone to buy it. Some want to change the world. Others want to noodle and are surprised that anyone's listening. Some want to make a business out of it.

I'm sure you can think of other reasons why classical and popular artists make their music - for dancing, to be in with the in-crowd, for their patron's pleasure, something to do on a Saturday night. It's only afterwards that we can discern any kind of patterns, declare historical tendencies, observe how this kind of music went this way, then that, and why that kind of music was consumed more by these than those. (Hope I'm making sense here.)

No one stood up at the beginning of music making and declared that There Shall Be Two Purposes. Instead, we can look back and sift the messy evidence and make judgements that some might find compelling, others find flimsy ("Schoenberg ruined classical", "Wagner caused WW2", "Bill Haley invented R 'n R", "The Beatles were the 1st avant-garde pop group" etc etc etc )

In the case of the OP, I'm inclined to agree with the broad premise that the popular music of the 50s and 60s played a role in defining a cultural perspective that embraced an optimism about the potential for young people to man barricades, oppose the establishment and lead us to a brighter future. It was not a perspective that was shared across all generations, or by everyone within a generation, but there is evidence that it also extended beyond the borders of the countries making the music.

I can't say whether classical music ever created such a perspective at any other time, but I do recall a documentary about the symphony that showed how the composer drew on contemporary revolutionary songs for one piece and this was readily recognised by the consumers of "art music". (Someone here will know who - I can't remember).


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

SanAntone said:


> _"That, for me, represented what I was trying to defend."_


What he said made sense until this line, particularly in terms of how conscription alone divided Americans at home. However, the soldiers fighting where not defending anything in particular, except for the apparent geopolitical interests of the USA. Even by the late 1960's, the domino theory was seen by many as flimsy at best. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was the writing on the wall, even the CIA said that the war was unwinnable, but this wasn't admitted until 1973 when the USA finally pulled out. Until then, those fighting on the ground where caught in a deadly game of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing.








SanAntone said:


> Yes, the example of his 7th symphony has been mentioned. I subsequently found a series of recordings of mainly Russian composers called _Wartime Music: 1941-1945_. There are 18 volumes with 40+ works. Now, there is no way to know how important to Russians these works were, but one can assume they spoke to the wartime experience for that population.





EdwardBast said:


> I was thinking in your time frame, the early 60s, and especially of the the 13th symphony. Yevtushenko's poetry and its critiques of Soviet antisemitism, suppression of speech, the inefficient consumer economy, etc. No one who heard that could have failed to get the message — or, at least, the parts that survived the censors. And plenty of others would likely have understood the significance of 60s works like the 10th Quartet.


Serious works like the _Leningrad_ and _Babi Yar_ symphonies where undoubtedly high points of Shostakovich's output, in terms of connecting with some of the major events of his time. At the same time, film music was his bread and butter, the broader public would have at least recognised his name on the credits of over thirty movies. His most popular work at home was _Moscow Cheryomushki_, an operetta/musical about the residents of a housing estate. It seems Shostakovich enjoyed musicals, on a visit to London he went to see _Jesus Christ Superstar_ twice. Today, the jazz suites are probably the best known aspect of the lighter, down to earth side of Shostakovich.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Sid James said:


> What he said made sense until this line, particularly in terms of how conscription alone divided Americans at home. However, the soldiers fighting where not defending anything in particular, except for the apparent geopolitical interests of the USA. Even by the late 1960's, the domino theory was seen by many as flimsy at best. The Tet Offensive of 1968 was the writing on the wall, even the CIA said that the war was unwinnable, but this wasn't admitted until 1973 when the USA finally pulled out. Until then, those fighting on the ground where caught in a deadly game of the right hand not knowing what the left hand was doing.


Have you watched the Ken Burns documentary? What you wrote is clearly the view Burns makes central to his film. However, the film is a series of monologues of participants from various perspectives; McPeak's just one. But I responded strongly to his comment about the importance of late '60s rock.

McPeak essentially was saying that Communism represented the opposing force of American culture of rock, civil liberties (even flawed as it was) and everything the America he grew up in stood for. Whether the domino theory rationale of Vietnam was accurate or not, McPeak was caught up in it as a young man in uniform.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I haven't seen the documentary. I realise its just one opinion among many. I've studied the Vietnam war, so I can't do anything but question McPeak's logic in terms of the rationale for fighting. At the same time, in that clip I gave from Bill Ehrhart, he goes into detail about the huge gulf between the propaganda in publications like Time Magazine and what was happening on the ground. Even he says that he didn't realise the reality of what he was going through until long after he returned home from fighting the war.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Bill Ehrhart appears more in the Burns film than McPeak, and it is obvious that Burns identified more with the antiwar group than the others. But I wouldn't classify McPeak as buying into the propaganda. His involvement in Vietnam was fairly late in the war, 1969-70, which by then it was or should have been obvious to anyone that the war was unwinnable. 

McPeak though brought up rock music and its role, so that was why I focused on his quote.

After the Kent State killings I don't think there were many people outside of the most vociferous anti-communists who had unquestioning support of the war. (As an aside I have no tolerance with people like Neil Young who I saw as exploiting that event, as a non-American. His song "Ohio" was the beginning of my rejection of him and his music, which eventually became a total disregard and disgust.)


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

SanAntone said:


> Bill Ehrhart appears more in the Burns film than McPeak, and it is obvious that Burns identified more with the antiwar group than the others. But I wouldn't classify McPeak as buying into the propaganda. His involvement in Vietnam was fairly late in the war, 1969-70, which by then it was or should have been obvious to anyone that the war was unwinnable.
> 
> McPeak though brought up rock music and its role, so that was why I focused on his quote.
> 
> After the Kent State killings I don't think there were many people outside of the most vociferous anti-communists who had unquestioning support of the war. (As an aside I have no tolerance with people like Neil Young who I saw as exploiting that event, as a non-American. His song "Ohio" was the beginning of my rejection of him and his music, which eventually became a total disregard and disgust.)


I don't have feelings one way or another about Neil Young, but where I live I wouldn't reflexively take the reactions of Canadians as those of non-Americans. Some of my Canadian friends are the offspring of draft refugees, some have relatives on both sides of the border, and the ties of culture and trade are fluid and pervasive. Many of the homes in my area are owned by Canadians. And wasn't Ohio a CSN&Y song?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Forster said:


> I'm not sure that "the purposes of" can be so readily defined, except by those who come after and want to create a model to suit their purposes (!)
> 
> Some artists have "something to say", compose a song, symphony and want everyone to hear it. Some artists dream of celebrity and want everyone to buy it. Some want to change the world. Others want to noodle and are surprised that anyone's listening. Some want to make a business out of it.
> 
> ...


There is no need to argue this point, as one can read what many of the most famous classical (and for that matter) popular composers have written about what the purpose of their music is. A great deal of this material supports what I've said in a very direct and explicit way, from Beethoven and Mozart to Chopin and Schumann to Wagner and Brahms to Schoenberg and Boulez.

Of course, that doesn't mean there is any ironclad and completely consistent distinction between classical and popular music at all. Moreover, as a practical matter, art that survives and is remembered in a culture through multiple generations, even centuries, is usually what earns the label "classical", regardless of what anyone knows about its original purpose. This is as true in India, where a rich and extensive musical tradition is referred to as "classical music", as it is in the west.

Finally, my comment has to be put in the context of SanAntone's original post, where he requires us to accept his description of the "purpose" (his word) of the popular music of a certain era, and then challenges us to name any classical music that has served a similar "purpose". His challenge contains premises which I think are not entirely valid, that's all.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

EdwardBast said:


> I don't have feelings one way or another about Neil Young, but where I live I wouldn't reflexively take the reactions of Canadians as those of non-Americans. Some of my Canadian friends are the offspring of draft refugees, some have relatives on both sides of the border, and the ties of culture and trade are fluid and pervasive. Many of the homes in my area are owned by Canadians. And wasn't Ohio a CSN&Y song?


You make an interesting point about draft dodgers living in Canada. But the song "Ohio" was written by Neil Young. He has made a career of judgmental political songwriting, something I've never respected, from anyone. I vastly prefer the stance of Bob Dylan in a song like "A Pawn in Their Game" in which he is not judgmental and makes the point that even the racist assassin was a pawn in the larger context. As were the national guards, along with the victim who was in the ROTC and just there to see what was going on.

There have been many acknowledged shameful episodes in the history of the United States but I don't like to hear them thrown in my face from a non-citizen.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> Finally, my comment has to be put in the context of SanAntone's original post, where he requires us to accept his description of the "purpose" (his word) of the popular music of a certain era, and then challenges us to name any classical music that has served a similar "purpose". His challenge contains premises which I think are not entirely valid, that's all.


As I've pointed out more than once this thread was inspired not by my own ideas but something articulated by a participant in the Vietnam War about the importance of rock music of the late '60s, and what it represented in his mind. And I asked if there had been examples of classical music which served the same purpose. (I provided the exact quote a few posts before yours.)

The only premise embedded in the OP was that rock music was important to soldiers in Vietnam in a viscerally relevant way (my words), and the assumption that classical music must also had been at some time(s) in history.

Instead of commenting within this context of the thread, as far as I can tell you have spent most of your time here describing why and how classical and rock music are different. Others have provided examples of classical works which were viscerally relevant for an audience. I appreciate their contributions.


----------



## Prodromides (Mar 18, 2012)

pianozach said:


> *The "Post 1950 classical music: was it relevant?" thread: was it relevant?*


rogue elephant, more like.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

fluteman said:


> There is no need to argue this point,


I don't understand what this means.



fluteman said:


> one can read what many of the most famous classical (and for that matter) popular composers have written about what the purpose of their music is.


Of course, but that doesn't mean that _is _what the purpose of music is, only what they declare _their _purpose to be (for them and the rest of mankind).



fluteman said:


> art that survives and is remembered in a culture through multiple generations, even centuries, is usually what earns the label "classical", regardless of what anyone knows about its original purpose.


well, yes...I'm not sure what that has to do with the point under discussion which is about the purpose of music.



fluteman said:


> Finally, my comment has to be put in the context of SanAntone's original post, where he requires us to accept his description of the "purpose" (his word) of the popular music of a certain era, and then challenges us to name any classical music that has served a similar "purpose". His challenge contains premises which I think are not entirely valid, that's all.


He didn't use the word 'purpose' in his OP, and where he did use the word, it was in reference to a specific purpose, not "the" purpose.



> I said that during those decades the rock music spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams. And then I asked for examples of classical music which served the same purpose.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Popular music exploded during the 60s partly because of the increasing influence of the culture and counterculture developing among young people due to a number of factors, the Vietnam War being one and the ‘free love movement’ another. But also due to the almost miraculous development of many advanced and even sophisticated forms of popular music. The Beatles music was an important one and Woodstock highlighted a number of others.

But some of the most influential popular music was coming out of Southern California, a significant part of it coming from what was a sort of popular music garden: (From the Wiki):_ Laurel Canyon_ became a nexus of counterculture activity and attitudes in the mid-late 1960s and early 1970s, becoming famous as home to many of L.A.'s rock musicians, such as Cass Elliot of the Mamas & the Papas; Joni Mitchell; Frank Zappa; Jim Morrison of The Doors; Carole King; The Byrds; Buffalo Springfield; Canned Heat; John Mayall; members of the band The Eagles; the band Love; Neil Young; Brian Wilson of The Beach Boys as well as James Taylor, Jackson Browne, Ned Doheny, Bonnie Raitt, Linda Ronstadt, Harry Nilsson and Micky Dolenz & Peter Tork of The Monkees. Cass Elliot's home was considered one of Laurel Canyon's biggest party houses with all-night, drug-fueled sleepovers, well attended by the hippest musicians and movie stars of the era.

Of course, the subject is far more complex than the above. Many books have been written about it so I have only touched on the bare surface.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> *In this thread I wish to hopefully have a discussion first if you agree with my OP, and to ask if classical music was ever as relevant as rock music was in the '60s.*
> 
> I never said it was unsurpassed, I said that during those decades the rock music spoke for our concerns, frustrations, and dreams. And then I asked for examples of classical music which served the same purpose.
> 
> Maybe the thread has run its course. But I want to try to bring it back to the OP.





Forster said:


> I don't understand what this means.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, I don't know what else I can say. I think the topic here is clear, SanAntone's comment is clear, and is an interesting and reasonable comment. My response is also clear, and not intended as a refutation of SanAntone's comment. It is, in an era of political, cultural and/or social rebellion, the mood of the day is more likely reflected in popular art than in classical art. Your comments are the only ones in this thread I do not understand.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Please keep politics (past or present) out of this discussion, in line with our Community Rules. Some recent posts have been deleted.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think you've just expanded the scope of the rules here. Politics of the past is history. My posts, and those of a couple of others, involved discussion of the history of the Vietnam war in relation to the quote in the OP. I specifically talked about the causes, course and consequences of that war, and also related that to music. The conversation I was having with the OP was entirely cordial. Fluteman's response to me was the same, although I didn't have time to respond to it. 

Its a sad day on this forum when discussion of something that happened fifty years ago has to be curtailed like this. The only conclusion I can make regarding the censure of this discussion is that any opinion that is critical of American foreign policy is considered political and should therefore not be discussed. I could somewhat understand this in relation to the war in Ukraine, but seriously, Vietnam?

By doing this, I think you're playing into those who espouse a certain agenda, even though they talk of their distaste for anything _extramusical_. What that label basically means is that the speaker is discomfited by certain things being discussed and wants them nicely shoved under the carpet. What would you do if there where Holocaust deniers on this forum? Ban all discussion on the Holocaust? That's what your response amounts to.

You know an easy way out? Ban all discussion of history more recent than the Stone Age. Then you'll have no danger of that horrible extramusical stuff polluting the forum.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I am also disappointed at the decision to remove posts which addressed the history of this period. This kind of censorship restricts a discussion of music to blandness and robs these discussions of context and complexity.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

I suppose in discussing Beethoven's Eroica Symphony and the French Revolution, we should be careful to avoid any mention of political events. There were a significant number of French monarchists still politically active in France at least as late as the late 19th century. Vincent D'Indy (1851-1931) was one, as I mentioned here at one point. I've read there are still Russian monarchists in the mix today, though I don't know how accurate that is, so maybe all discussion of Shostakovich should be avoided. And Wagner's Rienzi -- well, I once sat through that whole @#$% thing and am happy not to discuss it.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

It's an interesting dilemma. 

Obviously, discussing art (music included) often intersects with history, and history is inherently political, as pointed out by fluteman and Sid James:

Beethoven's Eroica
Wagner's Rienzi
Jozef Kropinski's music written in a Nazi concentration camp

I recently "went astray" and posted the Ukrainian National Anthem in a thread on Russian music, which was considered political. I get it. I was deliberately stirring the political pot.

And, of course, once posts are deleted due to their political content, they cannot be discussed properly, as they're gone gone gone.

BUT, as for *Classical Music of the 1950s*, here's some *1950 premieres*:

John Cage - *Dream* - 1948
Prokofiev - *Cello sonata* - 1949
Villa-Lobos - *Symphony No. 6* _Sobre a linha das montanhas do Brasil_ - 1950 (premiere)

In *1950* there were a few _Operas_ that premiered: *Job, The Triumph of Saint Joan, The Jumping Frog of Calaveras County, The Taming of the Shrew*, and *The Consul*. In fact, there were no overt political statements that I can find in any major works. Of course, the world was still reeling from the effects of WWII, and perhaps everyone wanted non-political music. However, that wasn't necessarily true of some Folk Music, which did find some political stuff to sing about.

As I look down the list of *Classical Music of 1951*, I don't really see any overtly politically relevant premieres either. But, then again, I'm not even sure that the *OP* was looking for _political_ relevance, only "*relevance*"; *"was post-1950 Classical music relevant?"* This could mean _musically_ relevant, as a slam on the directionless wandering of Classical Music of the late 1900s.

In the spirit of the wording of the thread title I'd venture to say that *Post-1950 Classical Music has very little relevance*. It has had a _minor_ influence on some *Popular music*, and it is certainly a major factor in *Film Scores*, but beyond that, *"new"* *Classical Music* has made very little impact (even on Classical Music listeners in general).


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> I am also disappointed at the decision to remove posts which addressed the history of this period. This kind of censorship restricts a discussion of music to blandness and robs these discussions of context and complexity.


I don’t think a brief reference to the Vietnamese War as it influenced music is what is in question. (Maybe the moderators can clarify.) The main post in question, without much or any reference to music, was essentially an attempt to give a simplified history of the war. The problem then occurs when what someone thinks is pure unadulterated history, another person sees as containing opinion based on oversimplified hindsight judgment. So, someone feels the need to respond and so it starts. What is next, a discussion of the Iraq War? The issue can be even more potentially inflammatory on an international forum when the subject is one particular country. Another (non-music) forum I was on was torn apart on this subject.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

The reality is that rock music is often political - without even being about any specific issue.

Rock musicians, with long hair, were immediately political no matter if all they played were blues songs. Elvis Presley was political because of what he did on stage and the rebellious nature of what he represented to the parents of his fans.

During the Vietnam War era, there were antiwar songs as well as songs like "Okie from Muskogee" which became an anthem of the "Silent Majority" - which is ironic if you know anything about Merle Haggard and his band's behavior on the road.

I certainly don't want this thread to rehash the old arguments about the VW, but at the same time I can't see how we can talk about the '60s and the music without some political contexting.


----------



## Shaughnessy (Dec 31, 2020)

One idea to consider - Requesting that this thread be moved from the "Classical Music Discussion" section and into the "Politics and Religion in Classical Music" sub-forum - They tend to be more tolerant there - The leash is longer but it's still a leash - stray too far and with a quick tug, the discussion is brought to heel.

Zero tolerance for politics means "zero" - If you attempt to use reason and logic to argue the merits of your case in an attempt to seek justice, they will respond with a curt "What part of "zero" do you not understand?" - and there the matter ends. As mentioned, the one hope that you do have to continue the discussion in this vein is to have it transferred to the sub-forum.

Don't fight battles that you can neither win nor even fight to a draw - No one is going to win this one but everyone who tries to continue with this battle will most certainly lose.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> I am also disappointed at the decision to remove posts which addressed the history of this period. This kind of censorship restricts a discussion of music to blandness and robs these discussions of context and complexity.


If it only it was just "the history" of the period. It wasn't. History that is just bare facts (eg "There was a war known as the Vietnam War") is not a history worth studying. History that explains the whys and wherefores inevitably offers a perspective that risks taking a position that may be perceived as partisan. (eg "The US was right/wrong to seek to oppose communism wherever it offered a threat to US hegemony"). If people can't stick to background facts which have music in the foreground (eg "Dylan and others expressed through their music, a resistance to the Vietnam War") then it's hardly surprising that posts are moderated.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> The reality is that rock music is often political - without even being about any specific issue.
> 
> Rock musicians, with long hair, were immediately political no matter if all they played were blues songs. Elvis Presley was political because of what he did on stage and the rebellious nature of what he represented to the parents of his fans.
> 
> ...


I've read that "Okie from Muskogee" might have been a little tongue-in-cheek, lampooning the "straight types" as much as the hippies.

But if you can't discuss the music without discussing the politics, it could indicate the music was more affected by the politics than the other way around. And let's face it, the pop music from that era wasn't _all_ politics, except what might be read into it in retrospect.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Forster said:


> If it only it was just "the history" of the period. It wasn't. History that is just bare facts (eg "There was a war known as the Vietnam War") is not a history worth studying. History that explains the whys and wherefores inevitably offers a perspective that risks taking a position that may be perceived as partisan. (eg "The US was right/wrong to seek to oppose communism wherever it offered a threat to US hegemony"). If people can't stick to background facts which have music in the foreground (eg "Dylan and others expressed through their music, a resistance to the Vietnam War") then it's hardly surprising that posts are moderated.


Agree with all the above recent posts. For my part, I'm sure everyone here knows I'm a history buff and not a current political issues discussion guy. But where to draw the line is always a question. It seems 55 years ago is still too recent, and it's true that Arlo Guthrie, though now retired from performing, is still living last I checked. What about Paul Robeson (1898-1976), who first recorded Ol' Man River in 1928? A politically active and controversial singer in his day. He also recorded Stephen Foster's My Old Kentucky Home. A 78 of his with those two songs is currently up for auction at ebay for more than I could afford. That isn't just because of rarity or musical merit.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

It occurs to me that when it comes to things like the wars, the farther back in history, the less likely for there to be a problem. There are still unsettling memories and consequences going back to the Vietnam War. Not so much anymore for those prior.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> I've read that "Okie from Muskogee" might have been a little tongue-in-cheek, lampooning the "straight types" as much as the hippies.
> 
> But if you can't discuss the music without discussing the politics, it could indicate the music was more affected by the politics than the other way around. And let's face it, the pop music from that era wasn't _all_ politics, except what might be read into it in retrospect.


Well, Okie was not straight forward for sure, but I don't think Haggard was lampooning the people, who were his fan base. More likely he was lampooning the media expectations of who he was and also probably lampooning the antiwar hippie crowd, but obliquely.

Haggard was a sophisticated writer and did not write from one perspective. He was like Dylan in this regard. But he was probably surprised when it became such a big hit, and as I said an anthem for the conservative block. He probably thought of it as a throw-away little funny ditty. I doubt he was serious about the song.

Of course not all rock music was political or related to the VW. But at this time people were reading into lyrics to a very high degree. I'm not sure when it was but there was article claiming that "Puff the Magic Dragon" was a pro-drug song. So even if a rock group wasn't intentionally political, often times they were heard that way because of the hyper-political climate.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Popular music exploded during the 60s


It did? Did it not simply keep growing from when it was first electronically reproduced ?


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> I've read that "Okie from Muskogee" might have been a little tongue-in-cheek, lampooning the "straight types" as much as the hippies.


I am sure it was but I doubt any hippies cared. We respected their culture and understood it was not the same as ours. We still went out on the weekend and partied with them. 

Now days, not so much. I have grown to resent the song the last 6 years.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

eljr said:


> I am sure it was but I doubt any hippies cared. We respected their culture and understood it was not the same as ours. We still went out on the weekend and partied with them.
> 
> Now days, not so much. I have grown to resent the song the last 6 years.


So it was a musical tribalism. That isn't really unifying except for those in the tribe.

I would say instead of describing 20th century pop with terms like "visceral effect" which it may or may not have had for this or that person, 20th century pop is probably more inextricably tied to time and place than any other music. We can probably listen to a song or selection and place it within a decade. A Strauss waltz could "apply" to 1870 or 1914. The "visceral effect" of the song "Ohio" that someone mentioned earlier comes from the current events that inspired it, and not really purely musically. Neil Young's singing is sometimes problematic for me...although I do like the _Rust Never Sleeps _album. And "Cinnamon Girl" before that.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> The reality is that rock music is often political - without even being about any specific issue.
> Rock musicians, with long hair, were immediately political no matter if all they played were blues songs. Elvis Presley was political because of what he did on stage and the rebellious nature of what he represented to the parents of his fans.


Weren't most of them like-
<Top 10 Unpleasant Facts About John Lennon> by Edward Benjamin Top 10 Unpleasant Facts About John Lennon - Listverse
#3 Mindless Conformist
"Right from the beginning, Lennon was posing. Back in the day, the teddy-boy look was the in thing, so he showed up in leather jackets and a pompadour. Then it was the cute pop look. Then the psychedelic hippie thing. Then the angry avant-garde hipster. It never ended. Everything about Lennon, from his music and politics to the way he dressed, was an attempt to fit in with sub- or counter-cultures that already existed."
#6 Politically Clueless


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> ...The reality is that rock music is often political - without even being about any specific issue.
> 
> Rock musicians, with long hair, were immediately political no matter if all they played were blues songs. Elvis Presley was political because of what he did on stage and the rebellious nature of what he represented to the parents of his fans.
> ...


Which puts the subject less in the realm of music and more in the realm of sociology. Which is what I've been saying the whole thread.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> Which puts the subject less in the realm of music and more in the realm of sociology. Which is what I've been saying the whole thread.


The argument I have with most of your posts is that you're trying to make this era and the music about one thing. 

There were songs which were directly tied to the events occurring or the sentiments that were in the air. And there were songs without any political connection. There were also songs that were misinterpreted for opportunistic purposes by politicians and the media.

This period was charged with a kind of electricity more so than we have today. Today there is more tribalism, IMO. There was no "hive mentality" in the '60s; and less apathy. Today with social media there is what I see as fake connectivity; whereas in the '60s the connection one felt with their peer group was visceral and personal and real.

The music reflected all these contradictions and realities and resonated strongly with the peer audience.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

hammeredklavier said:


> Weren't most of them like-
> <Top 10 Unpleasant Facts About John Lennon> by Edward Benjamin Top 10 Unpleasant Facts About John Lennon - Listverse
> #3 Mindless Conformist
> "Right from the beginning, Lennon was posing. Back in the day, the teddy-boy look was the in thing, so he showed up in leather jackets and a pompadour. Then it was the cute pop look. Then the psychedelic hippie thing. Then the angry avant-garde hipster. It never ended. Everything about Lennon, from his music and politics to the way he dressed, was an attempt to fit in with sub- or counter-cultures that already existed."
> #6 Politically Clueless


Treat all such "facts" with extreme ⚠ caution.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> Treat all such "facts" with extreme ⚠ caution.


Yeah I agree. I think Lennon was a powerful force up until his death and beyond. And things like "political cluelessness" are extremely subjective. From what I gather Lennon always wanted to be the "rocker" and kind of disliked "cutesyness".


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> ...There was no "hive mentality" in the '60s; and less apathy. Today with social media there is what I see as fake connectivity; whereas in the '60s the connection one felt with their peer group was visceral and personal and real.
> ...


I think the last sentence kind of undercuts the first. And again there are lots of extramusical factors involved, to the extent that you really cannot say "this _music_ had a more visceral effect than that music", which in itself is highly subjective and varies from person to person.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

hammeredklavier said:


> Weren't most of them like-
> <Top 10 Unpleasant Facts About John Lennon> by Edward Benjamin Top 10 Unpleasant Facts About John Lennon - Listverse
> #3 Mindless Conformist
> "Yes, he was trying to fit in with groups that were considered non-conformist, but conformism is conformism. Right from the beginning, Lennon was posing. Back in the day, the teddy-boy look was the in thing, so he showed up in leather jackets and a pompadour. Then it was the cute pop look. Then the psychedelic hippie thing. Then the angry avant-garde hipster. It never ended. Everything about Lennon, from his music and politics to the way he dressed, was an attempt to fit in with sub- or counter-cultures that already existed."
> ...


Aw, singling out *John Lennon's* vague jingo-istic social consciousness songs is a poor example. And while author Benjamin is mostly right, he's overstating his case with his black & white assessment. _"He never actually did anything whatsoever of note in the political realm"_? Yeah he _did_. He actually supported a few causes, even shaved his head and donated his hair as a fundraiser (that later fell through). 

His forays into politics through song was more of an _inspirational_ sort; an esoteric thing that cannot be measured due it being so ephemeral. And that's not bad. Even the traditional *"We Shall Overcome"* worked that way . . . more of a rallying cry than a concrete solution.

His songs, starting with Revolution, just resonated with people, and got them thinking about political issues. Later solo songs like *Give Peace a Chance, Power To The People, Cold Turkey, Imagine*, and *Gimme Some Truth* were just musical commentary on social and cultural issues. His one political album, *Sometime In New York City*, was _full_ of social commentary. Never before had someone written a song like *Woman Is the N****r of the World*, and you can bet that plenty of people nodded their heads while rolling their eyes. Nixon felt that Lennon was incredibly influential, and tried to get him deported: THAT'S a very good indication of Lennon's influence, regardless of his actual actions.

And, Lennon DID actually pony up cash for SOME charities: Aid Still Required, Jerry Garcia Foundation, Playing For Change Foundation, UNICEF, and WhyHunger. In 1975, Lennon spent an entire weekend in Philadelphia working on the *WLIF Helping Hand* marathon, answering phones and taking pledges from callers. Lennon also donated a large sum of money in the late 1970s for the purpose of supplying bullet-proof vests for NYPD officers. He and Yoko set up the "*Spirit Foundation*". In 1971 Lennon paid the funeral expenses for the victims of Ireland's Bloody Sunday; this led to his getting tagged as a "supporter of the IRA", which contributed to his later immigration problems.

Agreed; *Lennon* himself really didn't participate all that much personally, but his iconic personality and songs inspired _others_ to get off their asses and do things, knowing they weren't alone in their indignation over injustices.

*Lennon* was unique, and didn't really DO all that much, aside from being an inspiration. People seemed to THINK he was being a social conscience, but he was just a convenient musical figurehead.

To be charitable to his legacy, in the late 1960s and early '70s, *John Lennon* began to actively endorse a wide variety of progressive _and_ radical political causes. He championed the anti-war movement as well as Native and African-American rights while demonstrating a deepening interest in feminism.

You know who actually did more? His bandmate *George Harrison*, who organized the first rock mega-fundraiser *Concert to help the people of Bangladesh*. *Harrison* assigned the royalties of his second studio album to the Save The World Charitable Foundation (technically, all but ONE song on the album that he couldn't because it was assigned to a different royalty house). Bandmate *McCartney* actually supported causes like vegetarianism and abolishing product testing on animals. Later *McCartney* was fully on board with the abolishment of land mines. And contributed far more money than Lennon ever did. But *Lennon's* songs were gold.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

> You know who actually did more? His bandmate *George Harrison*,


Politics and philanthropy aside, _All Things Must Pass _is imo the best post-breakup work by any Beatle. "Beware of Darkness" really does transcend.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

It was the chemistry of the Four that mattered. To attempt to isolate and evaluate the individual contributions is to fundamentally misunderstand the idea of a group being more than the sum of its parts.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> It was the chemistry of the Four that mattered. To attempt to isolate and evaluate the individual contributions is to fundamentally misunderstand the idea of a group being more than the sum of its parts.


Well yeah, from a show-biz phenomenon perspective. But the White Album was pretty much about individual musical contributions.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Well yeah, from a show-biz phenomenon perspective. But the White Album was pretty much about individual musical contributions.


The way they operated evolved and eventually broke down, but not before they had already collaborated in the creation of some of the best songs of the period. It was obviously not always "all four together": that is well documented. Neither was it four individuals handing out parts to be played according to their instructions. They jammed in various combinations, some songs taking years to be realised, others being quite quickly finalised.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

SanAntone said:


> I am also disappointed at the decision to remove posts which addressed the history of this period. This kind of censorship restricts a discussion of music to blandness and robs these discussions of context and complexity.


Indeed. Its an insult to the intelligence of those who wish to take part in such conversations in a full and mature way. Nothing that I said was controversial, its the sort of information you can read on any reputable history of the period, not matter what the particular approach or ideology the writer holds. Its laughable that even Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" speech would probably be controversial, and liable to excision, under this draconian policy.

In any case, it is good that the moderators have left my criticism to stand. Its entirely valid.



DaveM said:


> I don’t think a brief reference to the Vietnamese War as it influenced music is what is in question. (Maybe the moderators can clarify.) The main post in question, without much or any reference to music, was essentially an attempt to give a simplified history of the war. The problem then occurs when what someone thinks is pure unadulterated history, another person sees as containing opinion based on oversimplified hindsight judgment. So, someone feels the need to respond and so it starts. What is next, a discussion of the Iraq War? The issue can be even more potentially inflammatory on an international forum when the subject is one particular country. Another (non-music) forum I was on was torn apart on this subject.


As I said to Art Rock, we can solve the problems you are concerned about, by banning discussion of all history more recent than the Stone Age. I guess there would still be some members who would even argue about which stone implement is better than the other, but not many. It brings to mind comments made by historian Johan Huizinga when comparing archaic to modern thought: "It is not so much the abstract question of right and wrong that occupies the archaic mind as the very concrete question of winning and losing."

As for claiming that my post had no reference to music, it did. I talked about the impacts of the war on people, including those who fought it and gave two examples of songs from the Australian perspective. Here they are, without the context I provided. I won't explain why Australia got involved in the war. That involves criticism of US foreign policy, and that obviously doesn't fit into the new diktat on this forum.

Redgum's_ I was only 19_ and Cold Chisel's _Khe San. _These videos have lyrics, and the songs tell of the impacts well enough - PTSD, illness caused by agent orange, and drug use by war veterans as a way of coping.













DaveM said:


> It occurs to me that when it comes to things like the wars, the farther back in history, the less likely for there to be a problem. There are still unsettling memories and consequences going back to the Vietnam War. Not so much anymore for those prior.


Perhaps you can provide us with a date? As I suggest, the Stone Age would be best. Countries like the USA and Vietnam didn't even exist then, so we'd be safe.



Forster said:


> If it only it was just "the history" of the period. It wasn't. History that is just bare facts (eg "There was a war known as the Vietnam War") is not a history worth studying. History that explains the whys and wherefores inevitably offers a perspective that risks taking a position that may be perceived as partisan. (eg "The US was right/wrong to seek to oppose communism wherever it offered a threat to US hegemony"). If people can't stick to background facts which have music in the foreground (eg "Dylan and others expressed through their music, a resistance to the Vietnam War") then it's hardly surprising that posts are moderated.


Tell us where history ends and politics begins. As regards this forum, previous to this year, I thought it was with Donald Trump taking power. A few months ago, I thought it was the Ukraine war. Now we've gone further back to the Vietnam war. As I said, the safest thing would be to go back about 2 million years, but what would be your suggestion?


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

^^ If the offending posts have been removed, it's difficult (and probably inappropriate anyway) to comment. I only recall a post, possibly an exchange of posts (I don't remember whose posts they were) which included political comment that risked falling foul of the ToS.

I don't regard every act of moderation as censorship, nor do I think it necessary to demarcate history. Quite a few members have had posts removed or edited over time ( including this poster!) but I guess we've recovered our composure as we're still here posting.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Ironic as it may be, I can see the reason for this new direction in controlling the content of discussion here, disturbing as it is. I won't go into any detail on that, since it risks being historical, but it confirms to me yet another way in which this forum is beholden to a set of views which implicitly suggest its best not to come here with a mindset of someone living in the 21st century.

At TC as of now, history is the new politics. I can appreciate how it makes the job of the mods easier. However, it is also for the benefit of a few members to whom any departure from whatever their archaic world view is can trigger some sort of crisis. Its pathetic how they have implicitly forced the rest of us to avoid real conversation. The censure is based on nothing more than the lame musical-extramusical dichotomy I mentioned.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Sid James said:


> Indeed. Its an insult to the intelligence of those who wish to take part in such conversations in a full and mature way. Nothing that I said was controversial, its the sort of information you can read on any reputable history of the period, not matter what the particular approach or ideology the writer holds. Its laughable that even Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" speech would probably be controversial, and liable to excision, under this draconian policy.
> 
> In any case, it is good that the moderators have left my criticism to stand. Its entirely valid.
> 
> ...


Though, if I had it to do over, I would omit the Vietnam war discussion in my deleted post as much as possible, which was only meant as background to put in context what was at the time a hugely successful and famous popular song that happened to convey a political message in a way no classical piece ever could, imo. 

Arlo Guthrie came from a folk music tradition that includes a kind of homespun storytelling that he cleverly manipulated and used to extraordinary effect in Alice's Restaurant. Yes, traditional classical music can have at least as powerful and immediate an emotional impact. For me, the second movement Adagio of the Schubert C-major cello quintet is second to nothing in the raw power of its emotional impact. But it comes from a highly complex and sophisticated musical tradition that takes immense skill for musicians to pull off and probably some listening experience and familiarity for an audience to appreciate.

Alice's Restaurant, OTOH, is almost ridiculously simple musically, (though deceptively so), and requires no great singing or instrumental skill to pull off (though again, Guthrie is deceptively competent in both areas). The powerful message is delivered naturally and with little apparent effort, almost as in ordinary conversation. That is what popular music can do, and maybe that is part of what SanAntone is getting at.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Sid James said:


> Indeed. Its an insult to the intelligence of those who wish to take part in such conversations in a full and mature way. Nothing that I said was controversial, its the sort of information you can read on any reputable history of the period, not matter what the particular approach or ideology the writer holds. Its laughable that even Eisenhower's "military industrial complex" speech would probably be controversial, and liable to excision, under this draconian policy. In any case, it is good that the moderators have left my criticism to stand. Its entirely valid.


The very fact that you equate a conversation on the subject with full and mature behavior infers that you would understand that the discussion requires a careful presentation of the subject with, in mind, possible sensitivities of some in the audience and the fact that you are from another country. You assumed that you were presenting pure historical fact and that you were preaching purely to the choir. Wrong on both counts.



> As I said to Art Rock, we can solve the problems you are concerned about, by banning discussion of all history more recent than the Stone Age. I guess there would still be some members who would even argue about which stone implement is better than the other, but not many. It brings to mind comments made by historian Johan Huizinga when comparing archaic to modern thought: "It is not so much the abstract question of right and wrong that occupies the archaic mind as the very concrete question of winning and losing." I won't explain why Australia got involved in the war. *That involves criticism of US foreign policy, and that obviously doesn't fit into the new diktat on this forum.*


The comment about going back to the Stone Age and the one highlighted above are an example why this subject has to be off the table. What you consider as nothing more than history is apparently history oversimplified, without context and with a dollop of your spin.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Sid James said:


> As for claiming that my post had no reference to music, it did. I talked about the impacts of the war on people, including those who fought it and gave two examples of songs from the Australian perspective.


Sorry, I have to agree with DaveM on this. The deleted post mostly discussed US's foreign policies in its main content and included a single line, "all these were reflected in the music of the time" (or something to the effect) at the end just to pretend to be on topic and related to music. But I highly doubt all that discussion of history or politics (whichever you want to consider it) was really necessary. Sure, the war and the various other campaigns had a devastating effect on civilian lives of many parts of the world, and you're free to discuss how they were related to the music of the time, but the need to discuss US's political decisions is something I can't understand. For example, _"The problem was the US treated the X War like how they did the Y War."_ - is this even necessary in the context of this discussion?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There has been a discussion about the decision to delete certain posts based on political content. It would require an exceedingly long post to explain everything over the past 10 years or so that has influenced our decision making process relative to politics, and I won’t attempt to do so. Instead, I will try to address some of the comments and hopefully give people a better sense of why we act as we do concerning what we view as potentially problematic political comments.

Over the past 10 years we have tried numerous strategies to allow some political discussion hoping that the new strategy would not lead to problems (insults, chiding, infractions, bans, members leaving the forum, members choosing not to participate in threads due to aggressive political posts attacking other members, etc.). No strategy has worked so we decided to restrict political comments to one forum where all such posts must explicitly relate to classical music.
_Our decision is simply a practical one based on empirical results from political posting that has clearly harmed the forum. _

We don’t care if a post includes history (5, 50, or 2000 years ago). Banning discussions of history makes as much sense as banning discussions of sports. That’s not the problem. We care if a post focuses on political content that we feel too strongly attacks a political entity (country, politician, political party, political ideology) especially without a strong tie to music. Yes, any opinion critical of American foreign policy is likely too political just as any opinion praising American foreign policy is likely too political. Obviously, there is a (large?) grey area that is difficult to clearly define. Unfortunately, moderators must deal with those grey areas.

Almost all discussions that resulted in problematic political posts and inappropriate replies started off cordially with statements that most would consider quite reasonable. It’s amazing how sometimes such discussions can evolve into aggressive attacks that lead to the problems mentioned above.

Many suggest that it’s impossible to discuss many of these issues with mentioning politics. It depends on one’s definition of politics. Our definition is along the lines of “political content that too strongly attacks a political entity (country, politician, political party, political ideology) especially without a strong tie to music or content that contains excessively provocative political comments.” That is a subset of what most here view as politics, and yes, it’s not clearly defined. Personally, I think it’s not too difficult to find ways to discuss these subjects without straying into what I have defined as inappropriate politics.

Some have criticized moderators for treating members like children, In fact we treat TC members like TC members (i.e. humans). The empirical evidence from years of TC posts suggests that some members react poorly to perceived provocative political content. They escalate threads to the point where moderators must step in. Our policy is simply an attempt to avoid that as best we can knowing that members ought to be able to contribute their thoughts on music without such political comments.

Please refrain from further derailing the thread to discuss moderator policies. The place for that is Area 52.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

DaveM said:


> The very fact that you equate a conversation on the subject with full and mature behavior infers that you would understand that the discussion requires a careful presentation of the subject with, in mind, possible sensitivities of some in the audience and the fact that you are from another country. You assumed that you were presenting pure historical fact and that you were preaching purely to the choir. Wrong on both counts.
> 
> 
> The comment about going back to the Stone Age and the one highlighted above are an example why this subject has to be off the table. What you consider as nothing more than history is apparently history oversimplified, without context and with a dollop of your spin.


There's no need for you to be outraged, and no need for me to tread on eggshells here. I'm the one pushing things off the table? You must be joking. Since you suggested earlier that Vietnam should be out of bounds, how far back in history should we actually go?

Is it okay for people who aren't from the US to discuss its foreign policy, even in relation to what happened in their own country? In this context, how does discussion of things like the widely discredited domino theory constitute spin? I don't think many Americans, historians or not, would still put much effort in trying to uphold that. My post included the Australian songs which I reposted. I guess its too historical to say that 500 Australians lost their lives in this war, and thousands of others came back wounded and traumatised. That's what these songs are about.



hammeredklavier said:


> Sorry, I have to agree with DaveM on this. The deleted post mostly discussed US's foreign policies in its main content and included a single line, "all these were reflected in the music of the time" (or something to the effect) in the bottom just to pretend to be on topic and related to music. But I highly doubt all that discussion of history or politics (whichever you want to consider it) was really necessary. Sure, the war and the various other campaigns had a devastating effect on the civilian life of many parts of the world, and you're free to discuss how they were related to the music of the time, but the need to discuss US's political decisions is something I can't understand. For example, _"The problem was the US treated the X War like they did the Y War."_ - is this even necessary in the context of this discussion? You know what I mean?


Since you seem to have a copy of what I wrote, why don't you simply repost it here, and we can talk about it. Until now I didn't think I was a person worth keeping tabs on. I really don't think I said anything extraordinary about the Vietnam war.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> There has been a discussion about the decision to delete certain posts based on political content. It would require an exceedingly long post to explain everything over the past 10 years or so that has influenced our decision making process relative to politics, and I won’t attempt to do so. Instead, I will try to address some of the comments and hopefully give people a better sense of why we act as we do concerning what we view as potentially problematic political comments.
> 
> Over the past 10 years we have tried numerous strategies to allow some political discussion hoping that the new strategy would not lead to problems (insults, chiding, infractions, bans, members leaving the forum, members choosing not to participate in threads due to aggressive political posts attacking other members, etc.). No strategy has worked so we decided to restrict political comments to one forum where all such posts must explicitly relate to classical music.
> _Our decision is simply a practical one based on empirical results from political posting that has clearly harmed the forum. _
> ...


Yessir. FWIW, I think the point I tried to make here, agree with it or not, is equally valid regardless of what one thinks about American foreign policy of any era. I have no desire to sidetrack the discussion here with an argument about that (if that was happening), so I probably should have worded my post a bit differently. Sorry. I still stand by the post, which concerned the different roles or main purposes of classical and popular art in a culture, minus any explicit or implicit judgment on global political issues, new or old.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Sid James said:


> There's no need for you to be outraged, and no need for me to tread on eggshells here. I'm the one pushing things off the table? You must be joking. Since you suggested earlier that Vietnam should be out of bounds, how far back in history should we actually go?
> 
> Is it okay for people who aren't from the US to discuss its foreign policy, even in relation to what happened in their own country? In this context, how does discussion of things like the widely discredited domino theory constitute spin? I don't think many Americans, historians or not, would still put much effort in trying to uphold that. My post included the Australian songs which I reposted. I guess its too historical to say that 500 Australians lost their lives in this war, and thousands of others came back wounded and traumatised. That's what these songs are about.


It’s been made clear that one can mention the Vietnam War with the main context being how it affected music of the time. But even your post above indicates that you appear to have more on your mind than just the music. I would love to respond, but rules are rules.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> Yes, any opinion critical of American foreign policy is likely too political just as any opinion praising American foreign policy is likely too political. Obviously, there is a (large?) grey area that is difficult to clearly define. Unfortunately, moderators must deal with those grey areas.


I guess that makes things clear enough. Its good to get the low down from the horse's mouth, so to speak. I can say more, but I'll go by your request to avoid further comment on moderator actions here.



DaveM said:


> It’s been made clear that one can mention the Vietnam War with the main context being how it affected music of the time. But even your post above indicates that you appear to have more on your mind than just the music. I would love to respond, but rules are rules.


Without going too much further, here's what the songwriter, John Schumann had to say about his song _I was only 19 _(which I posted above) concerning the issues it reflected and its impacts. His concluding statement about why he believes that a song can change the world is directly relevant to this thread:


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

Cats pushing things off the table, soundtrack is Carmen Suite by Bizet


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> 20th century pop is probably more inextricably tied to time and place than any other music.


I strongly disagree.

It is no different, in this regard, than was opera at the start of the last century or music of any other time.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

eljr said:


> I strongly disagree.
> 
> It is no different, in this regard, than was opera at the start of the last century or music of any other time.


I strongly disagree. I can listen to a Wagner opera that premiered in 1865 and it not only isn't of that era, it was in many ways contrary to it. It could've been written in 1859 or 1899 or 1915. I can listen to The Byrds from 1965 and it has 1965 all over it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

> 20th century pop is probably more inextricably tied to time and place than any other music.


Well, duh.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> I strongly disagree. I can listen to a Wagner opera that premiered in 1865 and it not only isn't of that era, it was in many ways contrary to it. It could've been written in 1859 or 1899 or 1915. I can listen to The Byrds from 1965 and it has 1965 all over it.


Could it be because you were there at the time in 1965, but not there at the time in 1865?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> Could it be because you were there at the time in 1965, but not there at the time in 1865?


No, it couldn't be.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> No, it couldn't be.


Figures


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

That's why threads like this are pointless and really go nowhere. We must concede at the outset that pop music of a certain era has more "visceral appeal", whatever that is. If you point out an area in which you think that classical might have an advantage then that's nonsense because *____* is equal to it or better. It's a rigged discussion with a predetermined conclusion.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> That's why threads like this are pointless and really go nowhere. We must concede at the outset that pop music of a certain era has more "visceral appeal", whatever that is. If you point out an area in which you think that classical might have an advantage then that's nonsense because *____* is equal to it or better. It's a rigged discussion with a predetermined conclusion.


That's not how I see it. Classical music has advantages in several areas above most rock: 1) long form serious works which develop musical ideas; 2) a long history with a plethora of styles but all sharing a kind of complexity or depth of musical expression; 3) often a timeless quality, or universality, which allows audiences across several centuries to enjoy and appreciate the same music.

I am not saying that because rock music in the '60s had more relevance than certainly classical music being written during that time, but any classical music as well, does not mean I think that rock music is generally better than classical music. It is just that in this regard rock music has it over classical music. Timeliness is just one characteristic of music which can appeal and reach an audience. In my first paragraph I outlined those characteristics of classical music which I think are important and meaningful to audiences as well.

I don't have any interest in arguing which is better, classical or rock, since for me they both are valuable and each in its own way necessary to my enjoyment of music.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> ...
> I am not saying that because rock music in the '60s had more relevance than certainly classical music being written during that time, but any classical music as well, does not mean I think that rock music is generally better than classical music. It is just that in this regard rock music has it over classical music. Timeliness is just one characteristic of music which can appeal and reach an audience. In my first paragraph I outlined those characteristics of classical music which I think are important and meaningful to audiences as well.
> ...


But you're starting out with an assertion taken as self-evidently true, but it hasn't been demonstrated or defined. Relevant to whom, a wide sample of society or just a particular demo? In a sense pop is just as niche as anything else; it's just that the demo group that follows that genre exploded post WWII. I don't think it's any more universally "relevant" or "visceral" than anything else. And "visceral" can't be precisely separated from the "popular". There's no way to tell one from the other.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Shish. I have explained this in this thread more than once. My OP explained it, i.e. a participant in the Vietnam War talked about how the rock music was a "brilliant" accompaniment to the issues of the late '60s. So, I don't know where your first sentence comes from.

I actually said the opposite than what you wrote with, " I don't think it's any more universally "relevant" or "visceral" than anything else." I wrote that it was "viscerally relevant" to the *specific generation of the Vietnam War* - not _universally_ relevant. I do think it was very relevant to the soldiers fighting, the anti-war protestors, and those marching as part of the civil rights and women's movements, and everyone at concerts like Woodstock.

You can deny these facts but your denials are not credible to anyone who lived through this period.

All I get from your many posts (which you have contributed to what you describe as a "pointless" thread) as a complaint that rock music cannot claim to have a relevance over classical music in anyway, at any time.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

SanAntone said:


> Shish. I have explained this in this thread more than once.


Yes, and it was clear the first time you explained it and every subsequent time. 



> I actually said the opposite than what you wrote with, " I don't think it's any more universally "relevant" or "visceral" than anything else." I wrote that it was "viscerally relevant" to the *specific generation of the Vietnam War* - not _universally_ relevant. I do think it was very relevant to the soldiers fighting, the anti-war protestors, and those marching as part of the civil rights and women's movements, and everyone at concerts like Woodstock.


You've been clear that the popular music was relevant to a _select group of people at a particular time _rather than universally relevant for all times. I think several people in the thread have given reasons that might make sense. I think the popularity of popular music, the ease with which one can access it through various media, and the widespread dissemination of news create a situation where such music can potentially be quite relevant. The most popular classical was written a long time ago so it has vastly less chance of being relevant since the 50s compared to popular in that time period. 

I don't know enough about the history of classical performance to know whether certain works were particularly relevant when they were written. I suspect not, but possibly some works were powerfully socially impactful to a modest group of people. I wonder if any sacred choral works had a stronger impact than others at the time. Most were written in Latin which few people knew.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Shish. I have explained this in this thread more than once. My OP explained it, i.e. a participant in the Vietnam War talked about how the rock music was a "brilliant" accompaniment to the issues of the late '60s. So, I don't know where your first sentence comes from.
> 
> I actually said the opposite than what you wrote with, " I don't think it's any more universally "relevant" or "visceral" than anything else." I wrote that it was "viscerally relevant" to the *specific generation of the Vietnam War* - not _universally_ relevant. I do think it was very relevant to the soldiers fighting, the anti-war protestors, and those marching as part of the civil rights and women's movements, and everyone at concerts like Woodstock.


Prove it, even within that generation, and define exactly what "visceral effect" is. And separate that clearly from merely "well known" and "popular". Mozart is pretty darn famous among a large segment of the population, maybe more so than most pop artists today. Has he had a "visceral effect"?



> You can deny these facts but your denials are not credible to anyone who lived through this period.
> 
> All I get from your many posts (which you have contributed to what you describe as a "pointless" thread) as a complaint that rock music cannot claim to have a relevance over classical music in anyway, at any time.


Then your question and blanket statements can extend no further than the generation of the 60s and 70s that listened to the music. "Has classical ever been as popular as rock was to a large segment of the 16-24 demographic during the 50s-80s?" That's all that can be addressed, not vague "visceral effects" that you may have felt but others didnt. The point I've made over and over again is that the phenomenon may say as much about media and demographics as it does about the _music _itself.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> I wonder if any sacred choral works had a stronger impact than others at the time. Most were written in Latin which few people knew.


You've got to be kidding.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Prove it,


This is not a scientific hypothesis or a mathematical theorem requiring proof. No one has to "prove" their opinions. You are obviously welcome to spend as much time as you wish in a "pointless" thread, but other readers may wonder at your having made four pages of contributions...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Yabetz said:


> You've got to be kidding.


No, I'm serious. I'm guessing the answer is no, but I don't know. Could you give us some sense of what your comment means? As written, it says very little.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> This is not a scientific hypothesis or a mathematical theorem requiring proof. No one has to "prove" their opinions. You are obviously welcome to spend as much time as you wish in a "pointless" thread, but other readers may wonder...


It's been referred to as a statement of fact of which I am in denial.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

mmsbls said:


> I wonder if any sacred choral works had a stronger impact than others at the time. Most were written in Latin which few people knew.


There were also plenty of cantatas and masses written in German.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> No, I'm serious. I'm guessing the answer is no, but I don't know. Could you give us some sense of what your comment means? As written, it says very little.


It says maybe you don't consider very carefully the historical "relevance" and "visceral impact" of music throughout the history of the church, Catholic and Protestant. Most of which would be considered "classical music" today. Another part of the problem is the image of "classical music" as concert hall and performers and conductors in tuxedos and evening gowns playing pretty much Beethoven and Brahms. Has any single work of pop ever had the "visceral impact" of The Rite of Spring? That one was an intergenerational kick in the guts, which is still felt, even more so than the Sex Pistols. So was _Tristan und Isolde._ They were relevant and viscerally effective "to a _select group of people at a particular time" _and unlike "Sunshine Superman" they're still relevant. SImply because the appeal wasn't limited for the most part to tweens, teens and young adults doesn't mean it was any less "relevant" or "visceral".


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

hammeredklavier said:


> There were also plenty of cantatas and masses written in German.


Do you think most people who listened to these works understood the content? If most choral work was written in either Latin or German, what percentage of the population understood either of those languages?

Obviously, there were a subset of listeners who did understand, and perhaps for those, a particular work or set of works had a strong visceral impact.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> Do you think most people who listened to these works understood the content? If most choral work was written in either Latin or German, what percentage of the population understood either of those languages?
> 
> Obviously, there were a subset of listeners who did understand, and perhaps for those, a particular work or set of works had a strong visceral impact.


In the case of German, the congregations in the churches understood very well the chorales on which they were based. They sang them.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Yabetz said:


> It says maybe you don't consider very carefully the historical "relevance" and "visceral impact" of music throughout the history of the church, Catholic and Protestant. Most of which would be considered "classical music" today. Another part of the problem is the image of "classical music" as concert hall and performers and conductors in tuxedos and evening gowns playing pretty much Beethoven and Brahms. Has any single work of pop ever had the "visceral impact" of The Rite of Spring? That one was an intergenerational kick in the guts, which is still felt, even more so than the Sex Pistols. So was _Tristan und Isolde._ They were relevant and viscerally effective "to a _select group of people at a particular time" _and unlike "Sunshine Superman" they're still relevant. SImply because the appeal wasn't limited for the most part to tweens, teens and young adults doesn't mean it was any less "relevant" or "visceral".


Thank you. That response was vastly more helpful than your first one. I think the Rite of Spring did have a strong impact on a group of people. What's a bit interesting is that the impact of the Rite of Spring was negative for many. I don't know how many rebelled against it compared to those who found it remarkable. The anti-war songs were adopted in a positive manner, but both would be considered relevant/visceral. 

It's true that I don't have a good sense of how sacred works were felt by many in the church. I don't know how many actually understood the words. My understanding is that when the Bible was read in Latin, very few understood the meaning so I wonder how many could feel those works in the same way one could feel the meaning of a work in one's own language. It certainly occurred to me that sacred works would be another example for the OP.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

I would suggest that it is those who didn’t experience the period surrounding the Vietnam War that have to prove that the rock music _wasn’t_ ‘viscerally relevant to that generation’. It is hard to narrow down exactly when it started, but my guess would be circa 1967-68. The Vietnam War was ramping up and the Draft was impacting more and more young American men. In addition, there were other events at the time that added insult on injury: the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King in 1968, The Kent State killings in 1970, The Manson murders in California in 1969, etc.

The developing rock music reflected the feeling of desperation, resistance to all things war and a general distrust of those older than 40. The increasing sophistication and innovation of records coming from The Beatles, Woodstock and music from Southern California arrived at just the right time as a sort of salve for young people and, of course, just the right backdrop for what was an attempt to escape the harsh reality of the time: ‘party-time’ from about 1968 to 1975 in the U.S. There were parties galore every weekend in Southern California, like nothing seen before: the aroma wafting through the air of marijuana, black-light posters, aromatic candles, flower people, flower vans with who knows what going on inside. And always accompanied by the music. I could go on. Assume that the above is just a smidgen of how the music impacted and almost defined the period.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

> What's a bit interesting is that the impact of the Rite of Spring was negative for many. I don't know how many rebelled against it compared to those who found it remarkable. The anti-war songs were adopted in a positive manner,


There were many who had negative reactions to 60s pop and rock as well. They were halcyon days maybe to those who were alive then (nostalgia) but it doesn't mean the musical soundtrack was equally "relevant" or "viscerally effective" to everybody, even within that demo. The Beatles were _apparently_ never particularly popular with Black people, in general. Again I tend to look at individual works, songs, music whatever rather than making sweeping generalizations about an entire genre. That's another reason the topic is pointless to me.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

DaveM said:


> I would suggest that it is those who didn’t experience the period surrounding the Vietnam War that have to prove that the rock music _wasn’t_ ‘viscerally relevant to that generation’. ...


The same could probably be said about any other historical period.


> There were parties galore every weekend in Southern California, like nothing seen before: the aroma wafting through the air of marijuana, black-light posters, aromatic candles, flower people, flower vans with who knows what going on inside. And always accompanied by the music. I could go on..


I don't think you're even describing the "generation" as much as a subset of it. Not everywhere was Southern California.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> I would suggest that it is those who didn’t experience the period surrounding the Vietnam War that have to prove that the rock music _wasn’t_ ‘viscerally relevant to that generation’. ...


I understand your point, and in general, agree. I do think that accepting the visceral relevance of rock music during the war is reasonable. 

Actually comparing the impact of rock music during the war to other music at other times is likely difficult. I think SanAntone simply wished people to "suggest classical works which did resonate for a nation or people at a specific time in history." So anyone who suggests such classical music would contribute to the thread.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> I understand your point, and in general, agree. I do think that accepting the visceral relevance of rock music during the war is reasonable.
> 
> Actually comparing the impact of rock music during the war to other music at other times is likely difficult. I think SanAntone simply wished people to "suggest classical works which did resonate for a nation or people at a specific time in history." So anyone who suggests such classical music would contribute to the thread.


Yeah but that wish is expressed with the knowledge that there aren't any historical parallels with the demographic and media situation prevailing from 1950-1990, especially in the Anglosphere (which really is what this must be limited to, let's face it). In that sense the wish seems disingenuous.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> The same could probably be said about any other historical period.


Well the OP narrows the subject of classical music and rock music to the period surrounding the 60s. Since rock music exploded during the 60s into 70s (or do you want to argue that as well), as far as the subject at hand is concerned there was no other historical period quite like it.



> I don't think you're even describing the "generation" as much as a subset of it. Not everywhere was Southern California.


Southern California and mid-California (San Francisco eg. Haight-Ashbury) reflected the generation of the time more than any other area in the U.S. (outside of the short period of Woodstock). That included the silly Beach Movies, music from and activity in the Laurel Canyon, movies filmed in Los Angeles wherein the characters were trying to emulate the behavior of the young people and so on.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

DaveM said:


> ...
> Southern California and mid-California (San Francisco eg. Haight-Ashbury) reflected the generation of the time more than any other area in the U.S. (outside of the short period of Woodstock). That included the silly Beach Movies, music from and activity in the Laurel Canyon, movies filmed in Los Angeles wherein the characters were trying to emulate the behavior of the young people and so on.


Let me guess, it's Californians and Woodstock veterans who made that determination. Sorry, but that sounds like typical coastal arrogance to me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

DaveM said:


> ...Southern California and mid-California (San Francisco eg. Haight-Ashbury) reflected the generation of the time more than any other area in the U.S. (outside of the short period of Woodstock). That included the silly Beach Movies, music from and activity in the Laurel Canyon, movies filmed in Los Angeles wherein the characters were trying to emulate the behavior of the young people and so on.



The war period did cause a significant change in how Americans viewed war. Perhaps you could say that Southern California and mid-California (San Francisco eg. Haight-Ashbury) reflected _that change_ more than any other area in the U.S. (outside of the short period of Woodstock).


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> The war period did cause a significant change in how Americans viewed war. Perhaps you could say that Southern California and mid-California (San Francisco eg. Haight-Ashbury) reflected _that change_ more than any other area in the U.S. (outside of the short period of Woodstock).


Or we could say that California then was no more representative of the bulk of the country than it is now.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

DaveM said:


> Well the OP narrows the subject of classical music and rock music to the period surrounding the 60s. Since rock music exploded during the 60s into 70s (or do you want to argue that as well), as far as the subject at hand is concerned there was no other historical period quite like it.


Initially I did refer to post-1950 classical music but later opened it up to classical music which had a strong impact at any time.

Some works which I remember being mentioned were -

*Shostakovich, Symphony No. 7*. Resonated very strongly with the Russian audience of the time coming after the siege of Leningrad.

*Beethoven, Symphony No. 9*. Has been played at the Berlin Wall, at 9/11 memorial events, and I attended a New Year's concert with Leonard Bernstein conducting the work in the cause of peace.

*Stravinsky, Rite of Spring*. Caused a riot at its premier, so it must have impacted the audience in some manner. But I have read much of this response could have been caused by the choreography, rather than the music.

*Messiaen, Quatuor pour la fin du temps*. Messiaen wrote the piece while a prisoner of war in German captivity and it was first performed by his fellow prisoners. I can only imagine what that audience felt listening to it. It had to have been viscerally relevant.

Any other examples would be very welcome.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> Initially I did refer to post-1950 classical music but later opened it up to classical music which had a strong impact at any time.
> 
> Some works which I remember being mentioned were -
> 
> ...


Why is it that when it comes to classical you want specific works, but when it comes to pop/rock you just want to consider the genre as a whole? And not only pop/rock but blues, folk, country and so on. Why not consider _classical music _as a whole? Or we can stick with comparing artist to artist and work to work. Did Dylan's _Blonde on Blonde _match the impact of Beethoven's Ninth? Late Mozart and Beethoven's work coincided with the fall of monarchies in Europe and more representative government along with ideas of human rights. And Beethoven was idolized throughout the 19th century. That's a visceral impact.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> Let me guess, it's Californians and Woodstock veterans who made that determination. Sorry, but that sounds like typical coastal arrogance to me.


’Typical coastal arrogance’? Shoot the messenger.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

mmsbls said:


> The war period did cause a significant change in how Americans viewed war. Perhaps you could say that Southern California and mid-California (San Francisco eg. Haight-Ashbury) reflected _that change_ more than any other area in the U.S. (outside of the short period of Woodstock).


Yes I could. That sounds about right.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

DaveM said:


> ’Typical coastal arrogance’? Shoot the messenger.


What's the message? That San Diego speaks for Des Moines?


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> That's not how I see it. Classical music has advantages in several areas above most rock: 1) long form serious works which develop musical ideas; 2) a long history with a plethora of styles but all sharing a kind of complexity or depth of musical expression; 3) often a timeless quality, or universality, which allows audiences across several centuries to enjoy and appreciate the same music.
> 
> I am not saying that because rock music in the '60s had more relevance than certainly classical music being written during that time, but any classical music as well, does not mean I think that rock music is generally better than classical music. It is just that in this regard rock music has it over classical music. Timeliness is just one characteristic of music which can appeal and reach an audience. In my first paragraph I outlined those characteristics of classical music which I think are important and meaningful to audiences as well.
> 
> I don't have any interest in arguing which is better, classical or rock, since for me they both are valuable and each in its own way necessary to my enjoyment of music.


Yes. Why is this so controversial? Classical and popular art have different fundamental roles. Popular art focuses on what is happening right now, including what people are thinking about right now -- a certain period as little as one week (see below). Classical art focuses on long term cultural traditions and more universal themes, seeking to build upon them and leave an enriched legacy for future generations. Even when inspired by specific current events, classical art tends to take the longer-term view. 
Take Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima. It was composed in 1961, 16 years after the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima (though the resulting suffering, illness and death continued years afterwards).
Contrast that to Tom Lehrer's hilarious and amazingly clever (imo) songs for the 1964-65 NBC TV program That Was the Week That Was, later compiled into a famous album, That Was the Year That Was. IIRC, three songs in that album also deal with nuclear war, but more in the context of the arms race and cold war that dominated the news of the period.
Obviously, Penderecki and Lehrer are composing at nearly the same time and looking at the same current events. But Lehrer's songs are taken directly from the news headlines of a particular week, where Penderecki, imo, is looking at deeper themes relating to the horrors of war.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

mmsbls said:


> The war period did cause a significant change in how Americans viewed war. Perhaps you could say that Southern California and mid-California (San Francisco eg. Haight-Ashbury) reflected _that change_ more than any other area in the U.S. (outside of the short period of Woodstock).


Yeah but Nixon won in '68 and '72. What changed the public's view of the war wasn't Dylan and Lennon and Woodstock imo. It was Walter Cronkite going on national TV saying that he didn't think the war could be won (and he was right). It was newsmagazines printing the photos of killed servicemen on their covers. It was the kid down the street coming home in a coffin or with missing limbs. The counterculture of course reflected its own concerns, but to the general public it was probably background noise if not a turn-off.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

> The two world wars and the Great Depression spawned a "beat generation" that refused to conform to mainstream American values. In turn, this generation led to a counterculture of hippies who used folk and rock music to protest the status quo and question materialism. The antiwar movement of the 1960's thus became part of a protest against traditional American values and attitudes



ROOTS OF THE ANTI VIETNAM WAR MOVEMENT | Office of Justice Programs (ojp.gov)



> Though the Haight-Ashbury neighborhood of San Francisco and New York City’s East Village were famous hippie meccas, the movement thrived all over the country. In a cover story published in July 1967, during the “Summer of Love,” Time magazine reported that the hippie movement was “blooming in every major U.S. city from Boston to Seattle, from Detroit to New Orleans,” encompassing some 300,000 people.


How the Vietnam War Empowered the Hippie Movement - HISTORY 



> somewhere between 300,000 and 400,000 people, far more than its organizers originally expected, flocked to upstate New York to hear artists like Joan Baez, The Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jefferson Airplane, The Who, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young and Creedence Clearwater Revival play the music that fueled the hippie movement.


How the Vietnam War Empowered the Hippie Movement - HISTORY 

Just search the internet for "counterculture and Vietnam" and there's plenty of material.

I have to admit that I haven't actually found the word 'visceral', or reference to the counterculture in Des Moines.

But I can tell you that in my mum's hippy household, there was a lot of counterculture going on - and that was in provincial UK.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> I have to admit that I haven't actually found the word 'visceral', or reference to the counterculture in Des Moines.
> 
> But I can tell you that in my mum's hippy household, there was a lot of counterculture going on - and that was in provincial UK.


Which means you don't know very much about Des Moines, doesn't it. Or about "flyover country" in the US in general. I don't think I said anything about provincial towns in the UK.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

1. You're right. I know nothing about Des Moines.* But I don't have to know more than you used it as an example of somewhere that wasn't California.
2. No, you didn't. So what? I did.

*Actually, I do know that it's the capital of Iowa.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

The US was certainly a divided country during the '60s, especially the last half of that decade, and it wasn't simply a "generation gap" as it was called then.

I remember as I started getting into music and growing my hair, at one point I even began carrying a shoulder bag ("a purse" some of my friends called it) - I was ridiculed and even harangued by more people my age, strangers passing in cars, than I had compatriots. This was Shreveport, Louisiana, which was always pretty r*dn*ck - contrary to Cajun South Louisiana and, of course, New Orleans.

This is why songs like "1-2-3 What are We Fighting For," Hendrix's rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner," "Eight Miles High" and "Blowing In the Wind" were very popular along with songs like "The Green Berets" and "Okie from Muskogee". And many were popular with both people my age and our parents.

Most of the rebellious songs were rock but even pop and country had their subtly protest songs.

*John Hartford*, old time fiddler/banjoist before (and after) his "Gentle on My Mind" success and TV show - we knew he was one of us just by the way he presented himself. And some of his songs had subversive implications. In the lyrics to "Gentle" it's obvious the values he is celebrating are not the ones of the "silent majority."

_It's knowing that your door is always open
And your path is free to walk
That makes me tend to leave my sleeping bag
Rolled up and stashed behind your couch
And it's knowing I'm not shackled
By forgotten words and bonds
And the ink stains that are dried upon some line_

"Free love" was part and parcel of the antiwar movement, which was a subset of the hippie community.

The pop song "Galveston" was an antiwar ballad, brilliantly written by *Jimmy Webb* who is not usually associated with '60s protest.

_Galveston, oh Galveston
I still hear your sea winds blowing
I still see her dark eyes glowing
She was 21
When I left Galveston

Galveston, oh Galveston
I still hear your sea waves crashing
While I watch the cannons flashing
I clean my gun
And dream of Galveston_

*While the music the hippies at Woodstock were dancing to, and getting high to, was rock, as well as many of the solders, it was the wider society that made "Gentle on My Mind" and "Galveston" huge hits by Glen Campbell, not who you'd think of as an antiwar hippie. *

But these sentiments saturated the air.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> ...
> 2. No, you didn't. So what? I did.
> ...


Yeah I know, and if I had been discussing British provincial towns your anecdote might have had some relevance.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Yeah I know, and if I had been discussing British provincial towns your anecdote might have had some relevance.


It's not all about you and your posts.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> It's not all about you and your posts.


Of course not. But reading some of the things you linked raises some interesting points. In the "summer of love" the "hippy movement" encompassed some 300,000 people from coast to coast? In a country whose population at the time was c. 204 million.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> The US was certainly a divided country during the '60s, especially the last half of that decade, and it wasn't simply a "generation gap" as it was called then.
> 
> I remember as I started getting into music and growing my hair, at one point I even began carrying a shoulder bag ("a purse" some of my friends called it) - I was ridiculed and even harangued by more people my age, strangers passing in cars, than I had compatriots. This was Shreveport, Louisiana, which was always pretty r*dn*ck - contrary to Cajun South Louisiana and, of course, New Orleans.
> 
> ...


I remember John Hartford. He was wonderful, and Glenn Campbell, in addition to having a great singing voice and being a great guitar picker, had a keen ear and knew something worthwhile when he heard it. So Hartford had a lasting impact on the popular music scene, as you say.

I also remember Leonard Bernstein in the 1960s, realizing classical music was beginning to lose its audience, especially among younger listeners, and attempting to stimulate interest by talking about Bob Dylan and the Beatles on stage in his Young Peoples' Concerts.

Interestingly, at least imo, Bernstein was perfectly well aware of the gulf between current popular and classical music, especially traditional classical music of the 18th and 19th centuries. He turned to music theory, scales and harmony, to show how popular musicians used many of the same tools to create the effects they wanted as Beethoven. But he made no attempt to link popular and traditional classical music generally or claim classical music was 'relevant' in the same way the big popular hits were. Quite the opposite, if one pays careful attention to certain of his comments.

Not surprisingly, Bernstein had little success in reversing the decline of interest in classical music in the US. He reminds me of a brilliant, charismatic and witty college professor, who may be a hero to students who take an interest in his narrow topic and are bright enough to follow along, but who seldom have a major impact on culture at large. His greatest achievement as a public speaker imo was The Unanswered Question, a compilation of his Norton Lectures at Harvard, which ultimately were put on LPs and then CDs by Columbia. How many of us here have listened to all of them?


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> This is why songs like "1-2-3 What are We Fighting For," Hendrix's rendition of "The Star Spangled Banner," "Eight Miles High" and "Blowing In the Wind" were very popular along with songs like "The Green Berets" and "Okie from Muskogee". And many were popular with both people my age and our parents.


Sounds very much like my high school years in Vancouver, excepting the last two songs. In a jug band we played 1-2-3 and The LSD Song. In the 1970's I studied in the USA and modified my antiwar views after meeting a few veterans. One thing some readers may not know is that in the late 1960's the word "relevant" was brought into much greater prominence by the left, and was _just assumed_ to mean "relevant to current society," i.e. political and cultural issues such as the Vietnam War. So San Antone's title is in line with that, and arguing here about what "relevant" means is just, well, "irrelevant." 

Here anyone mentioned that so much of classical music is instrumental that attaching its relevance to particular political causes and concerns doesn't come as naturally as it does in song? Its relevance to me is partly to long-term human concerns e.g. joy, tragedy, love, anger, laughter.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Roger Knox said:


> Here anyone mentioned that so much of classical music is instrumental that attaching its relevance to particular political causes and concerns doesn't come as naturally as it does in song? Its relevance to me is partly to long-term human concerns e.g. joy, tragedy, love, anger, laughter.


I agree. Instrumental music generally has less connection to specific ideas, actions, policies, etc.. People did mention Shostakovich's 7th symphony and Beethoven's 5th during WWII. Sacred choral music likely can have a greater impact because of the texts.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

fluteman said:


> ...
> *Not surprisingly, Bernstein had little success in reversing the decline of interest in classical music in the US.* He reminds me of a brilliant, charismatic and witty college professor, who may be a hero to students who take an interest in his narrow topic and are bright enough to follow along, but who seldom have a major impact on culture at large. His greatest achievement as a public speaker imo was The Unanswered Question, a compilation of his Norton Lectures at Harvard, which ultimately were put on LPs and then CDs by Columbia. How many of us here have listened to all of them?


I wonder how much accuracy statements like the bolded portion there really have. Was there _really_ that much more of an interest in classical music in 1930 compared to 1990 or 2022? Is there _really_ so much less interest now? How many brilliant young performers are out there now compared to 1930? And what caused the decline in pop? There aren't any new Beatles or Dylans around anymore, no matter what anyone may say about the current pop climate. The last gasp seems to have been grunge in the 90s.


Roger Knox said:


> ... One thing some readers may not know is that in the late 1960's the word "relevant" was brought into much greater prominence by the left, and was _just assumed_ to mean "relevant to current society," i.e. political and cultural issues such as the Vietnam War. So San Antone's title is in line with that, and arguing here about what "relevant" means is just, well, "irrelevant."
> ...


No doubt true, but not everyone is or was of the left. Which is another thing that makes me think this may be more about sociopolitics than music. An alternate thread title could be "was music ever more political than it was from 1950-1990?"


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> I wonder how much accuracy statements like the bolded portion there really have. Was there _really_ that much more of an interest in classical music in 1930 compared to 1990 or 2022?


There are hard statistics that support this, at least for the US. Of course, one could always argue against those statistics, and that my own personal experience, which also supports this proposition strongly and in numerous ways, is merely anecdotal. But I decline to dive down that rabbit hole, among other reasons because that would require one to take a hard look at exactly what is meant by "classical music".


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

fluteman said:


> There are hard statistics that support this, at least for the US. Of course, one could always argue against those statistics, and that my own personal experience, which also supports this proposition strongly and in numerous ways, is merely anecdotal. But I decline to dive down that rabbit hole, among other reasons because that would require one to take a hard look at exactly what is meant by "classical music".


"Hard statistics" measuring what and in comparison with what? This just doesn't look like "decline" to me. It looks just as likely to be 17,000 thirsty people:








Review: Yo-Yo Ma does the impossible at the Hollywood Bowl


He was a very small figure seated on a wide expanse, a large stage empty but for a cellist on a chair.




www.latimes.com


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> And what caused the decline in pop?


What decline in pop? I think "_you're starting out with an assertion taken as self-evidently true, but it hasn't been demonstrated or defined_ "


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> What decline in pop? I think "_you're starting out with an assertion taken as self-evidently true, but it hasn't been demonstrated or defined_ "


Ask the OP who limited the discussion to pop dating from the 50s to the 80s.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> "Hard statistics" measuring what and in comparison with what? This just doesn't look like "decline" to me. It looks just as likely to be 17,000 thirsty people:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sounds like that typical coastal arrogance to me.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Sounds like that typical coastal arrogance to me.


Nothing arrogant about it. I didn't write Bach's cello suites.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> Ask the OP who limited the discussion to pop dating from the 50s to the 80s.


My OP was about rock music of the 1960s. But I expanded the decades for this thread; my focus has been on rock music more than pop. But I don't think there has been a decline in pop, or rock (there was a pretty contentious thread about this, so I hope we don't go there).


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Ask the OP who limited the discussion to pop dating from the 50s to the 80s.


I'm asking you, because you're the one who made the assertion.


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

Forster said:


> I'm asking you, because you're the one who made the assertion.


Tell ya what. Why don't you share with us your vast knowledge of current pop to demonstrate that it's just as vital as ever. Anyway Radiohead said it so it's settled.


SanAntone said:


> But I don't think there has been a decline in pop, or rock (there was a pretty contentious thread about this, so I hope we don't go there).


Now why on earth would that be contentious but writing the obituary of classical music is just the way things are, and it goes unchallenged in a thread like this? Except by me.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> Nothing arrogant about it. I didn't write Bach's cello suites.


Just for future reference, is it your plan to take everything seriously and argue against it even when it’s obviously meant to be humorous and not to be taken seriously?


----------



## Yabetz (Sep 6, 2021)

DaveM said:


> Just so I know for the future, is it your plan to take everything seriously and argue against it even when it’s obviously meant to be humorous and not to be taken seriously?


I don't plan anything. West Coast spontaneity all the way.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Yabetz said:


> "Hard statistics" measuring what and in comparison with what?


I'm sorry. You may have misread my post. I said I do NOT wish to dive down this rabbit hole, i.e., get into a discussion/debate on this topic, again. You are free to do some research on it yourself, or simply disagree with me, without doing any research. It is not central to the point I was making in this thread, which had to do with the difference between classical and popular music, something Leonard Bernstein recognized.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

Yabetz said:


> Now why on earth would that be contentious but writing the obituary of classical music is just the way things are, and it goes unchallenged in a thread like this? Except by me.


Are you under the delusion that I started this thread in order to write the obituary of classical music? Is that how you try to score points? By distorting the intention of the OP? Your opposition is to a straw man. 

I have gone out of my way to suggest classical works which have been relevant at certain times and for certain audiences. As well as describe several attributes of classical music which are in more abundance than found in rock or pop.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Are you under the delusion that I started this thread in order to write the obituary of classical music? Is that how you try to score points? By distorting the intention of the OP? Your opposition is to a straw man.
> 
> I have gone out of my way to suggest classical works which have been relevant at certain times and for certain audiences. As well as describe several attributes of classical music which are in more abundance than found in rock or pop.


Moreover, there have been many threads here (possibly too many?) about the current state of western classical music, is it in decline, can it continue to attract a significant audience, etc., etc. You and I and many others here have had our say on that topic. But every thread does not have to be about that, this one isn't, and I apologize for even mentioning it, however tangentially. 

I only meant to give a little background to Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts, which took place from 1958 to 1972 but became an especially big deal in the 60s. At the peak of their popularity they were broadcast in prime time by CBS. Bernstein covered a lot of ground, and the popular music of the day was only one of his many topics. But it was a famous one, as the music director of the NY Philharmonic talking on TV about the music of Bob Dylan and the Beatles (which he had become familiar with because his daughter listened to it) was out of the ordinary and a pretty big deal.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Yabetz said:


> Tell ya what. Why don't I share with you my vast knowledge of current pop to demonstrate that it's in decline


Fixed that for you


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

fluteman said:


> I only meant to give a little background to Leonard Bernstein's Young People's Concerts, which took place from 1958 to 1972 but became an especially big deal in the 60s. At the peak of their popularity they were broadcast in prime time by CBS. Bernstein covered a lot of ground, and the popular music of the day was only one of his many topics. But it was a famous one, as the music director of the NY Philharmonic talking on TV about the music of Bob Dylan and the Beatles (which he had become familiar with because his daughter listened to it) was out of the ordinary and a pretty big deal.


Yeah I know about them, watched a bunch of them. But thought he missed the point of Dylan, and did what most classical fans do when he talked about The Beatles (or any rock/pop), i.e. admire only those songs which exhibit an attribute which is central to classical music instead of truly appreciating rock/pop on its own merits. 

I think he said something like most of it is crap but 5% is very good ....


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> Yeah I know about them, watched a bunch of them. But thought he missed the point of Dylan, and did what most classical fans do when he talked about The Beatles (or any rock/pop), i.e. admire only those songs which exhibit an attribute which is central to classical music instead of truly appreciating rock/pop on its own merits.
> 
> I think he said something like most of it is crap but 5% is very good ....


Yes, yes and yes, that is exactly the point I was making. For all his supposed broadmindedness and hipness in talking about Dylan and the Beatles for his young audience, he never conceded that the popular music world was producing things as worthwhile as his classical music world. 

You can criticize him for being a snob or an elitist or even slightly disingenuous for that (remember Wolfe's sneering putdown 'radical chic'), but what I was trying to say was, perhaps on a deeper level, snobbery and elitism aside, he understands that classical and popular art function differently.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

SanAntone said:


> Are you under the delusion that I started this thread in order to write the obituary of classical music? ... I have gone out of my way to suggest classical works which have been relevant at certain times and for certain audiences. As well as describe several attributes of classical music which are in more abundance than found in rock or pop.


San Antone, your description of your purposes here strikes me as true. I think your posts have been courageous. The problem is peoples' lack of trust when the divide between classical and pop music is raised. Many people I know have had awful experiences to the point that I think this is a problem just about everywhere -- each side seeing an "Other" that wants to do them in, to put it bluntly. Yet there are many points of contact between different genres, and we do need a less rancorous critical environment.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Yabetz said:


> No doubt true, but not everyone is or was of the left. Which is another thing that makes me think this may be more about sociopolitics than music. An alternate thread title could be "was music ever more political than it was from 1950-1990?"


I was trying to explain the usage of "relevant," not advocate for it. It is being used in the same way nowadays. The right doesn't use it, and has its own vocabulary. But I'm not going to leap all over people just for using a particular word.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Roger Knox said:


> I was trying to explain the usage of "relevant," not advocate for it. It is being used in the same way nowadays. The right doesn't use it, and has its own vocabulary. But I'm not going to leap all over people just for using a particular word.


Looking back, I see I put it in quotes. I thought I could make a point here independent of political partisanship. A sophisticated, multifaceted culture that has developed over many centuries will likely feature extensive separate traditions of both classical and popular art. While I'm not an expert, from what I've read that can be seen in India, China and the Middle East as well as in the west.

And it's interesting to note how, although American (African-American?) jazz, rock, R&B and hip hop have had a global influence on popular music, there remain major distinctions between the current popular music of, say, Japan and Korea and that of Bangladesh or the US or Mexico. It seems that even in this age of instant global communication, there remain cultural distinctions, and those distinctions continue to be reflected in popular culture, including popular music, even as traditional western classical music is accepted in some of these cultures, particularly in the Asian countries of the Pacific rim, to exist whole and unchanged alongside their own very different classical music traditions.

Those differences again suggest that classical and popular art serve different purposes.


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

fluteman said:


> ... It seems that even in this age of instant global communication, there remain cultural distinctions, and those distinctions continue to be reflected in popular culture, including popular music, even as traditional western classical music is accepted in some of these cultures, particularly in the Asian countries of the Pacific rim, to exist whole and unchanged alongside their own very different classical music traditions.


On one point I'd like to ask for clarification. When you speak of _traditional _western classical music being accepted in East Asia "whole and unchanged" I know what "western classical music" means, but does adding the word "traditional" mean something like "tonal" or "before modernism?" Certainly performance of western classical music has attained the highest levels of excellence in those countries and, for _performance_, "whole and unchanged" has to mean the same thing for the music as in the west. Fine.

In _composition _it is different_. C_ontemporary classical music in the east often has mixed western and eastern elements, successfully in my view. But according to a Chinese-born composer I know, the problems come when you use traditional Chinese instruments in a contemporary western manner, applying extended techniques or avant-garde gestures to music for, say, the _pipa _(Chinese "lute") or _erhu _(Chinese "violin"). Then the traditionalist performers and teachers may take offence and make performances difficult. Plus the cultural situation overall keeps changing and the authorities can be hands-on in preventing what they don't want.

My impression is that Chinese classical music is rigidly traditional. I would hate to see western classical music forced into the same mold in China, a different but also unchanging music, plus "ne'er the twain shall meet." Where would the new and different found be then? Only in pop, etc.? But perhaps I've misunderstood your point.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

Roger Knox said:


> On one point I'd like to ask for clarification. When you speak of _traditional _western classical music being accepted in East Asia "whole and unchanged" I know what "western classical music" means, but does adding the word "traditional" mean something like "tonal" or "before modernism?" Certainly performance of western classical music has attained the highest levels of excellence in those countries and, for _performance_, "whole and unchanged" has to mean the same thing for the music as in the west. Fine.
> 
> In _composition _it is different_. C_ontemporary classical music in the east often has mixed western and eastern elements, successfully in my view. But according to a Chinese-born composer I know, the problems come when you use traditional Chinese instruments in a contemporary western manner, applying extended techniques or avant-garde gestures to music for, say, the _pipa _(Chinese "lute") or _erhu _(Chinese "violin"). Then the traditionalist performers and teachers may take offence and make performances difficult. Plus the cultural situation overall keeps changing and the authorities can be hands-on in preventing what they don't want.
> 
> My impression is that Chinese classical music is rigidly traditional. I would hate to see western classical music forced into the same mold in China, a different but also unchanging music, plus "ne'er the twain shall meet." Where would the new and different found be then? Only in pop, etc.? But perhaps I've misunderstood your point.


You bring up a lot of legitimate issues, but I didn't mean to discuss those. There are contemporary Asian classical composers who compose in a strictly western idiom, or nearly so, and those who do not. What I meant was, they accepted the western classical music TRADITION as a whole. Whether and how various musicians seek to enrich or add to it with new music or the traditions of their own culture is a different matter.
But popular music is more about the mood of the moment than celebrating tradition. J-pop and K-pop are genres very removed and distinct from anything western. Whereas, both Japan and Korea have orchestras and soloists who expertly perform music strictly in the western classical tradition, together with some contemporary music influenced by their own cultures, if such a generalization is possible. That's a big difference.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

fluteman said:


> J-pop and K-pop are genres very removed and distinct from anything western.


I think you said something similar before, but it's not true. They're pretty much "Western pop music (music of Western pop chordal harmony)" with lyrics in their respective languages.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> Over the last week I've listened to several symphonies and string quartets by Shostakovich, Myakovsky, and Weinberg; and some Mahler and Beethoven, and even some Richard Strauss and Berlioz, two composers I hardly ever listen to.
> But I've also listened to Hank Williams, Jimmie Rodgers, Chuck Berry, Bill Monroe, and Yes.
> All of this music is lasting, IMO. And all of it was created with an artistic integrity and seriousness of purpose that transcends genre.


I too happened to listen a bit to Williams recently, btw.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAa2C9vqnM8 (Hank Williams Greatest Hits)
Now that I've revisited the thread and the posts, I'm almost tempted to create a thread, "Which Williams Wins?" as a sequel to Which John do you enjoy more?


----------

