# Was classical music ever popular music?



## Edward Elgar

Classical music (i.e. Haydn, Mozart) seemed to be aimed at the aristocracy and people with money. Only the super-rich it seems had court composers in their employ.

Nowardays it seems classical music is still a pirsuit of the the well-off. Why is this?

Might it be that educated composers just can't see eye to eye with the great unwashed?

Do we want the great unwashed to listen to classical music?

What was pop music like in Mozart's day?

Was classical music ever universally popular?

Will classical music ever be popular?

Should classical music be popular?

What are the social ideals that classical music promotes?

I do not have strong views about these subjects because I merely enjoy the listening and study of classical music. Perhaps classical music isn't popular because you have to know a bit about it to enjoy it. Who knows?!


----------



## Tapkaara

I say, if they cannot afford caviar, Bentleys or Italian villas in Tuscany, no, hey have no right listening to classical. That is a divine honor that only we in this forum should be allowed.

I'm off to attend my afternoon banquet. If you need to get a hold of me, contact my assistant.


----------



## jhar26

Well, you sometimes read about the man in the street whistling tunes from this or that opera in 19th century Italy, so I suppose it must been quite popular at the time. 

As for if classical music SHOULD be popular - let's just say that it DESERVES to be popular and that many people don't realize how much it could potentially enrich their lifes if they gave it a chance. Sure - knowing a bit about it always helps, but you learn as you go along. Besides, even though most of it is less complicated than classical music, knowing a bit about the history of popular music and the differences in styles and so on makes one enjoy pop/rock/jazz/whatever more also. What doesn't help is prejudice, and unfortunately many of the uninitiated suffer from that when it comes to classical music.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Tapkaara, from your banal sarcasm, I deduce that you believe classical music should be universally enjoyed. Please correct me if you were in fact being serious!

jhar26, it's interesting you should mention prejudice being the inhibitor of classical music. Maybe the prejudice people have is that classical music is only for posh/interlectual snobs. What do you think?


----------



## Elgarian

Doesn't the success of Classic FM suggest that there are lots of people enjoying 'popular classics'? There seem to be an awful lot of people who like 'The Lark Ascending', for instance.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, if "popular" means "of the people," then no, classical is not popular music. Not saying that it is not worthy of being popular, just saying it is not.

Mozart and Haydn wrote for aristrocrats, not for pub-goers. Perhaps it was here where "classical" got off on the wrong foot.

Ever since, classical music...or shall we say art music...has always been a dressy, black-tie type of affair. I think this is how the tradition was started.

Plus, the meandering, rhetorical nature of a lot of classical music also makes it a turn off, I think. People have short attention spans. If there is not a distinct tune with a persistant back beat to hold it all together, you're going to lose people's interest. As a classical fan, even I have trouble sitting through works where the music just kind of keeps going and going. I've never sat through Verdi's Requiem in one sitting, for example. Usually takes me a weekend. So, in a world of 2.5 minutes radio jams, who wants to listen to an epic symphonic ork lasting an hour or more...what's next in the rotation?

Long story short, I believe there are two things that prevent it from being truly popular: the "music for aristocrats" tradition that has permeated to the present day (yes, it is still very much in effect) and the not-always-tuneful aspect which can come off as "boring" or "too complicated" to someone who hasn't any patience. And let's face it, not a lot of people do not like anything that lies outside the realm of instant gratification.


----------



## jhar26

Edward Elgar said:


> jhar26, it's interesting you should mention prejudice being the inhibitor of classical music. Maybe the prejudice people have is that classical music is only for posh/interlectual snobs. What do you think?


Yes, I think that's unfortunately part of the problem. Also the lack of new works that have any popular appeal (not speaking of artistic merit here). Although I obviously wasn't there I imagine that in the past the premiere of, say a new Puccini opera or Elgar symphony raised some interest in the media and among the public whereas now classical music is seen by many as a museum art form. Most people don't even know that there is such a thing as modern classical music. To them U2 is modern music and classical music is something from the 18th and 19th centuries.


----------



## Tapkaara

Very good points, jhar.

Very true, much "modern classical" has very little popular appeal, but, as far as I'm concerend, it does not appeal to lot of classical fans, either. I am certainly a devotee of classical music, but a lot of the modern masterworks that are being produced since the 1950s till today are pieces of fussy, intellectual nonesense.

Film soundtracks (yes I know there is a thread about this) are, in my humble estimation, legit works of classical music. At least they are classical in term of their conception and scope. Film scores often have very popular appeal, and how many time have you heard someone say they got into classical becuase they loved the Star Wars soundtrack? (We should embrace good film scores, not poo poo on them because they are not the demented musings of some 'modernist' hack from Eastern Europe.)

Since when did it become a sin to admit you like music that is tonal, a little bombastic and has great stick-in-your-head melodies? And so what if the music accompanied a dogfight in outer space? 

But even the most popular film soundtrack will still be obscure next to the latest hit from Beyonce.


----------



## Elgarian

Tapkaara said:


> Ever since, classical music...or shall we say art music...has always been a dressy, black-tie type of affair.


But has it? Even though there is a certain social group that operates like that, there seem to be a quite a lot of listeners who simply don't make much of a fuss about it. Here in the UK they phone requests in to Classic FM, and get something played that they like, and they don't care too much (it seems) about the fact that it's just a single movement of a symphony, or something. And the station seems to thrive on this, issuing CDs of popular classics that (I presume) sell quite well. Certainly their magazine is sold in all the major supermarkets around here (while _Gramophone_ is not). I'm not suggesting that it attracts the sizes of audience that true pop music does, but it seems to have carved a significant niche in popular listening culture here.

This isn't _my_ way of enjoying classical music, but it's _a_ way of enjoying it. Classic FM makes me squirm quite a bit because it so often seems to miss a lot of the real richness of classical music, but so what? We tend to get a bit snooty, ourselves about all this, don't we? - but that's no more defensible that the Glyndebourne-going social elite's attitude. It seems to me that classical music does have a significant foothold in popular consciousness, in its own unembarrassed 'picking out the plums' way.


----------



## David C Coleman

I think one problem why classical music is not appreciated by the masses, is because they think it's too damn long!!....The attention span of modern homo-sapiens is not attuned to sitting down for two/three hours and watching or listening to ear-splitting sopranos over-acting anymore and you can't get up and jig around like you can to Kylie! So...it's appreciated by only a few elites..

Classic FM is only popular because it tries to reduce classical music to bight-size portions...


----------



## Elgarian

David C Coleman said:


> Classic FM is only popular because it tries to reduce classical music to bight-size portions...


But my point is that it _is_ popular, and it _does_ play classical music - no matter how small the chunks, and even if they are bleeding. And after all, many classical pieces _are_ short. We don't sniff at a Boyce symphony because it only lasts 10 minutes. Size doesn't always matter.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, maybe I should have said that classical is MOSTLY a black tie affair. But, when you go to enjoy a symphonic concert, the performers are (usually) dressed to the 9s and concert goes also like to pull out tgeir formal attire that doesn;t fit anymore. I used to like getting all gussied up to go to the symphony, but nowadays, I just go in jeans with a sweater or something like that. I'm more comfortable that way, and I'm certainly not the only one who isn't in tophat and tails.

As for Classic FM, I've only heard it over the internet as I live in the US. Bot I know what you mean. Our National Public Radio plays classical music over night, but they rarely will play a whole symphony and, if the do, it's a short one. At least this has been my experience.

Our local FM classical outlet here in San Diego is atrocious. Not only is their rotation stale and predictable, but they are VERY guilty of only playing one movement from a multi-movement work. This makes no sense to me, but I guess this is applealing to our "grab and go" culture.

Yes, length of pieces can be dauntiing, and not only for the general public. I mentioned earlier I cannot sit through Verdi's Requiem, for example, except if I take it in chunks. Perhaps I am a heretic for doing so, but even I can only take so much. I can usually sit throgh Mahler, though, in one stting, but he keeps my attention much longer than Verdi.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

I suppose we already have the latter half of the 20th century behind us, with its rapid expansion of mass culture and its "instant gratification" and oversimplified bubble gum-like "products". Therefore, I am not buying that "short attention spans in modern homo sapiens" slogan. Just because we are made into working faster and thinking less about our own delights, we do not become a new species that is unable to listen to pieces of music that are longer than 2 minutes. In the 21st century we no longer spend our days in front of a tv screen feeding us with preselected worthless pulp. We sit in front of the computer which gives us CHOICE. And by the way, not being able to sit the whole Verdi requiem and being able to take the whole Mahler at once may simply mean that you like Mahler a bit more than Verdi and perhaps not necessarily that we turned into a new species that can only listen to short tunes 

Also, I think the actual state of "general public" is rather different than the stereotypical assumptions that mass culture is trying to make us believe. I think people are smarter and fond of more complex things than is generally assumed. I even tend to believe that the "general public" is so bored with mass culture "products" that a lot of people become very interested when they find something that goes beyond the usual "pulp".

Just to give you an example, if the classical is so "boring" and "unappealing" to general public, why do we have the aria from Lakme sampled in this hip hop piece:






By the way, I also think that Beyonce, Kylie and others also get more sophisticated and complex and tend towards the world beyond "pulp", "pop", "soda", "plastic" or whatever you call it. If you compare 1980s Kylie and 2000s Kylie there is a HUGE difference, isn't there?

So, just to sum things up - I think if popular means that 90 % of Western population listens to the classical then no, it is not popular by any means. However, if popular means being one of the directions the more sensitive listeners will go, then yes, it IS popular now even more than before and since records are bought on Amazon and elsewhere on a daily basis, one has to disagree with the assumption that the general public is not "smart enough" to discover classical for themselves. As for Classic FM and such, even though they are something in between pop and classical as far as the format is concerned, they still prove there is some longing for a better world and a better sound among the more general public.


----------



## Tapkaara

Well, very true...I do like Mahler more than Verdi. So, it all kind of comes together, doesn't it?

Points all well taken, Ciel rouge. And I think that classical music has to be popular to some extant, thus classical radio stations exist, live concerts still go on, etc. But I still think it is a terra incognita to the general public, and thus cannot truly be deemed "popular music." It may be music that is enduringly popular, but its mass appeal is obviously less than the Top 40 Countdown.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

Yes, I just think the top 40 popularity does not mean much as the music is simply forced upon some kind of an "imaginary listener"  Another funny thing is that some of the pop icons, after they accumulate substantial wealth, simply start travelling and getting familiar with many other flavours of music. I suppose this is why we sometimes get pop artists involved with some folk music or other projects on the side and bits and pieces of that actually get into their pop albums later on. However, I still wonder how hip hop artists come across classical pieces like the Flower Duet aria used in the video that I linked earlier or how techno artists get familiar with pieces like Adagio For Strings or why heavy metal artists occasionally play Bach or Beethoven on their electric guitars and why there are such genres as "symphonic metal" and "sort of operatic" voices in some pieces. Any ideas?


----------



## Weston

Ciel_Rouge said:


> However, I still wonder how hip hop artists come across classical pieces like the Flower Duet aria used in the video that I linked earlier or how techno artists get familiar with pieces like Adagio For Strings or why heavy metal artists occasionally play Bach or Beethoven on their electric guitars and why there are such genres as "symphonic metal" and "sort of operatic" voices in some pieces. Any ideas?


This isn't entirely new. Back in the late 60's many budding rock groups started trying to make their genre more serious (as jazz groups had done much earlier I have discovered) and started incorporating classical pieces into their compositions, creating the bombastic and much maligned "progressive rock." Some groups even tried to crreate suites with movements in the sonata allegro form or as tone poems. I still find it some of the most adventurous inventive music ever made.

But it too was as esoteric as classical, maybe even more so. I for one hope it stays that way. Too often I have latched on to an underdog style or genre, then the world jumps on the bandwagon and ruins the fun for the cognoscenti.


----------



## Tapkaara

Ah yes, so-called "prog rock" and classical. Emerson Lake and Palmer, whom I love, were great musicians who owed as much to classical as they did to rock. The were influenced by classical and performed classical, but did it in such a way that it could be "rockin'" music too. Really brilliant.


----------



## Elgarian

Ciel_Rouge said:


> As for Classic FM and such, even though they are something in between pop and classical as far as the format is concerned, they still prove there is some longing for a better world and a better sound among the more general public.


Yes, that's pretty much what I was trying to suggest. In the context of the discussion we're having, the format hardly matters, though. The crucial thing is that a substantial number of people are listening to the music it plays and, presumably, finding it rewarding. And I think it may be relevant that the most popular piece in one of their major polls (I forget the details of when and how) was 'The Lark Ascending'. That isn't what I'd have guessed, by any means. There's something quite interesting going on 'out there', I think (though I'm not sure what I mean by 'out there').


----------



## JoeGreen

Tapkaara said:


> Our local FM classical outlet here in San Diego is atrocious. Not only is their rotation stale and predictable, but they are VERY guilty of only playing one movement from a multi-movement work. This makes no sense to me, but I guess this is applealing to our "grab and go" culture.


Are you talking about XLNC1? It is isn't it? 

Do you mine if I ask what part of San Diego to you live in?

As for the popularity of classical music, at one time during the 19th century Opera was considered a very popular enterntainment even still in the very early 20th century, it was seen as such.


----------



## Tapkaara

Indeed, I speak of XLNC1. I don't even bother listening to them because their signal is very shaky and their offerings are generally pretty lousy. Maybe I'm just being to picky.

I live in Allied Gardens but moving to Lakeside next month.


----------



## Edward Elgar

JoeGreen said:


> As for the popularity of classical music, at one time during the 19th century Opera was considered a very popular enterntainment even still in the very early 20th century, it was seen as such.


Popular amongst whom? Only the wealthy would have been able to attend the opera and write about it for the history books. It's alright some aristocrat writing "the opera was bally popular", they wouldn't have meant the working class included.


----------



## JoeGreen

Edward Elgar said:


> Popular amongst whom? Only the wealthy would have been able to attend the opera and write about it for the history books. It's alright some aristocrat writing "the opera was bally popular", they wouldn't have meant the working class included.


Well I've read a handful of biographies on Verdi, Puccini, Wagner, Rossini etc.

I don't have all the correct page numbers and all the hard facts at hand for your own refrence, but what I took away from those accounts is that Opera was pretty much what Broadway and musical theatre is today

One time Verdi had to buy up all the hurdy gurdys in his village just so he wouldn't be bothered by his own tunes!


----------



## Margaret

Ciel_Rouge said:


> So, just to sum things up - I think if popular means that 90 % of Western population listens to the classical then no, it is not popular by any means.


But 90% of the Western population *does* listen to classical music. They just don't realize they are.

Classical music is _everywhere_. If it were so unappealing to the masses then it wouldn't be used in advertising, as background music in movies and TV shows, etc.

There are constant questions on Yahoo! Answers about what piece is being used in this or that. (Though I admit that a disproportionate number of the clips being asked about seem to be Orff's "O Fortuna." And -- if it's not O Fortuna or Pachabel's "Canon in D" -- it seems like there's very little chance that the inquiry will be answered.)

I say the fact that classical music is being used in this manner shows that it *is* appealing to the masses. The advertisers aren't going to try to put music with the products that people will hate. Same goes for TV and movie background music.

Does that mean that all those people are going to start listening to the full length pieces? Obviously not. But I take contention with the issue that they don't listen to classical music.

We're inundated by it. And I say, "Thank goodness!!"

_____________________________________
EDIT:
Oops, apologies. Didn't mean to revive an old thread. I was looking at another thread and this one was listed at the bottom. It looked interesting so I pulled it up without realizing that it had gone to its natural thread death.


----------



## Elgarian

Margaret said:


> Oops, apologies. Didn't mean to revive an old thread. I was looking at another thread and this one was listed at the bottom. It looked interesting so I pulled it up without realizing that it had gone to its natural thread death.


_[Nimrod playing quietly in the background] _
Old threads never die. They only fade away, Margaret. 
But when people find them, and bring them back to our attention ...
_[Nimrod approaching its climax]_
... it brings new life to them; they are ...
_[Nimrod reaches its climax]_
... reborn ... and then fascinate us for some short time,
before fading once more into obscurity ...
_[Nimrod fades quietly away]_


----------



## nickgray

Margaret said:


> Orff's "O Fortuna." And -- if it's not O Fortuna or Pachabel's "Canon in D" -- it seems like there's very little chance that the inquiry will be answered


Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. This "90% of the western population" knows ~10 melodies (maybe full movements) and that's it. Few know that Ride of the Valkyries is actually an opening of the third act of Die Walkure, that O Fortuna is from Orff's Carmina Burana, etc., etc. Personally I hate that classical music is presented in mainstream media this way (but then again, mainstream media sucks pretty much at everything). Anyway, playing a piece out of its context is like reading a couple of lines from some book - sounds nice, but without any meaning. All those classical cd compilations "bezt ov classics 50 tracks"... Just horrible


----------



## JoeGreen

nickgray said:


> Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. This "90% of the western population" knows ~10 melodies (maybe full movements) and that's it. Few know that Ride of the Valkyries is actually an opening of the third act of Die Walkure, that O Fortuna is from Orff's Carmina Burana, etc., etc. Personally I hate that classical music is presented in mainstream media this way (but then again, mainstream media sucks pretty much at everything). Anyway, playing a piece out of its context is like reading a couple of lines from some book - sounds nice, but without any meaning. All those classical cd compilations "bezt ov classics 50 tracks"... Just horrible


and to add to terrible ways they present classical music in the mass media, adding lyrics to melodies that didn't have any in the first place (vice versa) and cheesy reorchestrations


----------



## hdk132

"Ode to Joy" is probably the best example of this. I played it a ton on recorder and what not when I was little. The first time my dad played the real deal for me I was astounded. Classical music has always given to popular music and taken things out of popular/folk music, but classical music has never been popular. I think that in a sense art is inherrently not popular. The definition of art is a very touch subject (and I am quite eliteist about it); but part of the distinction between art and non-art is that art takes work to appreicate/understand (there's always something more to get in a piece). This trait makes it non-appealing to the masses, except in its "Ode to Joy" and "Cannon in D" form. (Pachobell's Rant, anyone? If not, search on youtube.)

On the other hand, Opera houses were very popular in 19th century France among ALL CLASSES. Blood sports died down in favor of more artistic flavored entertainment. (Thanks AP Euro)


----------



## JTech82

Edward Elgar said:


> Nowadays it seems classical music is still a pirsuit of the the well-off. Why is this?


I don't buy into this philosophy of classical is just for people who are well-off. I think that's a terrible way to look at music. People who are musicians and who love music enjoy classical. People from all sides of the world can find enjoyment in it. That is, if they like what they hear.



Edward Elgar said:


> Might it be that educated composers just can't see eye to eye with the great unwashed?


I don't buy into this either. I have no comment for this question.



Edward Elgar said:


> Do we want the great unwashed to listen to classical music?


I don't care who listens to it or not. If people are naturally curious about music, then they will discover the world of classical.



Edward Elgar said:


> What was pop music like in Mozart's day?


No comment. I don't know why don't you call him up and ask him?



Edward Elgar said:


> Was classical music ever universally popular?


I don't know, but it's still being played in concert halls around the world, so that might tell you something.



Edward Elgar said:


> Will classical music ever be popular?


No and I hope it doesn't become popular. Music, like art, will stand on it's own. It will always be there to be appreciated. It all depends on how curious you are and how passionate you are about it.



Edward Elgar said:


> Should classical music be popular?


YES!!!! Of course it should. What are you crazy? I would love to hear someone walking down the street humming some Berlioz, but this is an imperfect world, so I doubt that will ever happen.



Edward Elgar said:


> What are the social ideals that classical music promotes?


Who cares. It makes me happy. It gives me great joy. That's all that matters to me.


----------



## Elgarian

hdk132 said:


> I think that in a sense art is inherrently not popular.


I think that on the contrary, it could be argued that art may be the second most popular thing there is and has ever been. People have been dancing, singing, playing musical instruments, decorating things, making sculptures, putting paintings on walls (even cave walls) for as long as there have been people. A lot of it may not be what some of us think is _good_ art; but it is art, and it is important to people. The fact that we may sniff and disapprove of the art they're enjoying is _our_ problem, not theirs.



> part of the distinction between art and non-art is that art takes work to appreicate/understand (there's always something more to get in a piece)


Some art is like that, and it's a point I raise whenever anyone has difficulty appreciating any work of art. But it doesn't _have_ to be hard work to be good, or worth our attention. Cezanne was known to give paintings away to people on occasion, just because they said they liked them. Here's one of the greatest painters of his time, and the comment 'I like that' from a passing stranger was a good enough response, for him.

Remember that quote of Vaughan Williams's (which I can never remember exactly) about the soldier and the bugle. When the soldier is going over the top into battle, he wants to hear the bugle play. He doesn't want to hear a discussion about whether it was played well, or an analysis of the score. (And there is a sense in which the metaphor speaks for all of us: we're all soldiers going into battle, much of the time, even if the battles are internal ones).

So I think art is more than just popular. I think art, in all its basic forms, is demonstrably _necessary_; but in our western culture we've managed to argue ourselves into so many different intellectual corners that the lines of communication have all but broken down. The chap driving home, worn out after a day's work, and feeling better for a quick burst of 'Ode to Joy' on Classic FM, is enjoying his music, then and there, in the way that matters most to _him_, whatever _we_ might think about it.


----------



## hdk132

Elgarian said:


> I think that on the contrary, it could be argued that art may be the second most popular thing there is and has ever been. People have been dancing, singing, playing musical instruments, decorating things, making sculptures, putting paintings on walls (even cave walls) for as long as there have been people. A lot of it may not be what some of us think is _good_ art; but it is art, and it is important to people. The fact that we may sniff and disapprove of the art they're enjoying is _our_ problem, not theirs.


Well we have to make the destinction between folk/tradition and Western post-medieval art. Not trying to insult any other cultures, and I know the line is blurry. Isn't the definition of folk music/art popular music/art?



Elgarian said:


> Some art is like that, and it's a point I raise whenever anyone has difficulty appreciating any work of art. But it doesn't _have_ to be hard work to be good, or worth our attention. Cezanne was known to give paintings away to people on occasion, just because they said they liked them. Here's one of the greatest painters of his time, and the comment 'I like that' from a passing stranger was a good enough response, for him.
> ...
> So I think art is more than just popular. I think art, in all its basic forms, is demonstrably _necessary_; but in our western culture we've managed to argue ourselves into so many different intellectual corners that the lines of communication have all but broken down. The chap driving home, worn out after a day's work, and feeling better for a quick burst of 'Ode to Joy' on Classic FM, is enjoying his music, then and there, in the way that matters most to _him_, whatever _we_ might think about it.


Yes, science and art grow together. And everyone definetly can experiance classical music! I recently took a group from our school orchestra to hear a real concert--for most of the kids the first time they have heard serious stuff. They liked it--some--but nobody can experiance classical music in the extremely intense, emotional mannar that a listener with 3k hours logged can. I have always responded emontionally to music, but it took me about 14 years before I started having extremely intense, passionate, and deep reactions as I do now. My understanding of music grows daily.


----------



## Aramis

IMHO putting classical piece into some damn commercial is great missunderstanding. It looks sarcastic when they show humanoid-looking carrots walkin' in the line with some Beethoven's music background. Actually there is a Nescafe commercial with Prokofiev's Dance of Knights and it looks like they are trying to show how noble is the taste of their coffe. It's funny but somehow I dislike those commercials.


----------



## Edward Elgar

JTech82 said:


> I don't buy into this philosophy of classical is just for people who are well-off. I think that's a terrible way to look at music. People who are musicians and who love music enjoy classical. People from all sides of the world can find enjoyment in it. That is, if they like what they hear.


The working class in Britain listen exclusively to dance/trance/hip-hop/rap, this is a solid fact. Are you saying that any offspring of these may possibly find meaning in a classical work?



JTech82 said:


> I don't buy into this either. I have no comment for this question.


Why? Composers are the peak of artistic academia, while they may be able to empathise with the working class (in Britain at least), I really can't see them attending to their need for instantly gratifying music



JTech82 said:


> I don't care who listens to it or not. If people are naturally curious about music, then they will discover the world of classical.


What circumstances does one need to have in order to be naturally curious about music? Given the academic nature of classical music, I'm not sure Beethoven would go down a bomb in a Manchester estate!



JTech82 said:


> No comment. I don't know why don't you call him up and ask him?


I suppose a more possible approach would be to subvert the techniques used in musicology to determine what music was popular in Mozart's day. I also don't appreciate the sarcasm.



JTech82 said:


> I don't know, but it's still being played in concert halls around the world, so that might tell you something.


So there you're infering classical music has a worldwide fan base. That doesn't tell me what types of people go to see these concerts.



JTech82 said:


> No and I hope it doesn't become popular. Music, like art, will stand on it's own. It will always be there to be appreciated. It all depends on how curious you are and how passionate you are about it.


So now you say classical music isn't popular. Isn't this a contradiction of your last comment?



JTech82 said:


> YES!!!! Of course it should. What are you crazy? I would love to hear someone walking down the street humming some Berlioz, but this is an imperfect world, so I doubt that will ever happen.


But in your last comment didn't you say you hope classical music doesn't become popular? I find this just a little misleading!


----------



## Mr Dull

I find it sad that you think Classical music can't be appreciated by the working classes. I am working class and have always liked it. I have known several other working class people who liked it to. Whilst the mass of the population of likes other types of music there will always be people of all classes who enjoy classical music. Such comments reflect the British obsession with class more than why classical music is or isn't popular.

On the topic of popular music in the past don't forget during the 19th and much of the 20th century most towns and villages in Britain had brass bands and choral societies which played classical music which would indicate it was known and popular with the masses.

You should also remember other countries will be different from Britain. For instance I have seen a lot about the passion that Italians have for opera.


----------



## Elgarian

Mr Dull said:


> I find it sad that you think Classical music can't be appreciated by the working classes. I am working class and have always liked it. I have known several other working class people who liked it to. Whilst the mass of the population of likes other types of music there will always be people of all classes who enjoy classical music. Such comments reflect the British obsession with class more than why classical music is or isn't popular.


Well said, Mr Dull - I will sign up to your manifesto! I too am 'working class'. I'm not rich either - far from it. I know many people who are also 'working class', who also are not at all rich, but who love classical music, literature, and the visual arts. There's great confusion in this thread in my view about exactly what is being discussed (and I confess to being as confused as the next man!)


----------



## Elgarian

hdk132 said:


> Well we have to make the destinction between folk/tradition and Western post-medieval art. Not trying to insult any other cultures, and I know the line is blurry. Isn't the definition of folk music/art popular music/art?


I think I'm questioning that distinction. Certainly it has been made, but perhaps it's just another of those intellectual blind alleys we've painted ourselves into. I think the line may be more than blurry - I think there may be a pretty continuous spectrum right across all these areas - but we're obsessed with pigeon-holing things, and so we force intellectual distinctions (often organising our definitions to make something that seems self-consistent) where such distinctions may not really exist.

We're obsessed with analysis of music and our responses to it, and indeed to any art. I do it myself, I'm as much a part of this process as anyone. But Wittgenstein was right when he said 'Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent'. There are crucial areas of human life, and art, where what is experienced is beyond all our carefully contrived distinctions, beyond analysis, beyond language. We can't really know _anything_ about the nature of the experience that the tired driver is having when he listens to 'Ode to Joy' on the radio, and we try to judge that at our peril, I think.


----------



## hdk132

You make a valid point, and if I were nice and non-eliteist I would agree with you. However I do take pride in my eliteism.

But seriously, you are right that language is totaly inadequate to express the emotions I find in music. Poetry may come close, but it's not the same. So really, the term philosophy of music is slightly oxymoronic and to discuss music trans-genre doesn't work. I like to belive that classical/art music has a kind of emotional expression that no other form of music does. Anybody I debate this point with ends up hating me so....


----------



## Elgarian

hdk132 said:


> However I do take pride in my eliteism.


Well, of course that's your choice (and there are times when I find myself reacting that way too) though it's a character trait, not an argument.



> But seriously, you are right that language is totaly inadequate to express the emotions I find in music. Poetry may come close, but it's not the same. So really, the term philosophy of music is slightly oxymoronic and to discuss music trans-genre doesn't work. I like to belive that classical/art music has a kind of emotional expression that no other form of music does.


Well it's true. It does. That's part of the power of art - each art form has its own kind of expression. There are certain things human beings need to express, or to experience, that can only be expressed or experienced through music of a certain kind, or paintings of a certain kind, or poetry of a certain kind, and so on. And because we're all different, we all shift the priorities around. So, I often read opinions that music is somehow more expressive than the other arts - and clearly for those who say that, it is. But it isn't so for me, nor for many other people I know. The visual arts are no less important to me than music, and literature only slightly behind them. Indeed, all are _necessary_ to me. As long as we have all these diverse needs and desires, as individuals (i.e. _always_), it's going to be impossible to maintain a credible intellectual stance that elevates one form over another. What we _can_ do is exchange ideas, compare notes, and try to understand each other's views better - and perhaps, even, our own ...



> Anybody I debate this point with ends up hating me so...


Well, some of the debates on this forum become very bad-tempered, but there's no excuse for it. A passionate defence is one thing, and I'll argue about the ideas that are important to me as doggedly as the next - but any discussion that ends with one of the parties hating another is a failure, surely? That's not a discussion, it's a fight.


----------



## hdk132

Well put, well put!


----------



## Herzeleide

Edward Elgar said:


> The working class in Britain listen exclusively to dance/trance/hip-hop/rap, this is a solid fact. Are you saying that any offspring of these may possibly find meaning in a classical work?


I'm working class.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Herzeleide said:


> I'm working class.


I'm talking about general trends in British culture.

I don't want to be the butt of a monty python joke, but I live with a single parent on the minimum wage and my uni education is paid for by the govornment (i.e. British taxpayers). However, I've not been exposed to working class culture due to my own personal choices. I befriended people at school who were eager to learn and in turn, I adopted their middle class ideals in a way.

However, you can't deny these guys 



 arn't going to buy the latest BPO releases! This is an accurate picture of the state of Britain today!


----------



## Herzeleide

Edward Elgar said:


> I'm talking about general trends in British culture.
> 
> I don't want to be the butt of a monty python joke, but I live with a single parent on the minimum wage and my uni education is paid for by the govornment (i.e. British taxpayers). However, I've not been exposed to working class culture due to my own personal choices. I befriended people at school who were eager to learn and in turn, I adopted their middle class ideals in a way.
> 
> However, you can't deny these guys
> 
> 
> 
> arn't going to buy the latest BPO releases! This is an accurate picture of the state of Britain today!


You said:

'The working class in Britain listen *exclusively* to dance/trance/hip-hop/rap, this is a solid fact.' (Bold font my own).

You didn't say 'in general'. You're just spreading class hatred. I'm well aware of the so-called 'hoodies', but to try and claim that they represent the average working class person is a gross distortion of the truth! (And if anything, they further demonstrate the self-fulfilling prophecy that is capitalism: middle class people exploit working class, some working class people are screwed up by their impecuniousness/the media/society in general, take revenge on society).

What, out of interest, are these middle-class ideals of which you speak?


----------



## Elgarian

Edward Elgar said:


> I'm talking about general trends in British culture.


I understand roughly where you're going, EE; but I'm not sure, myself, about how this proposed general correlation with class works out in practice. Don't you think there's a lot of indifference to classical music and fine art among well-to-do folks who would _not_ describe themselves as 'working class'? I'm not at all sure about this class issue - I think we need some hard facts and figures before we can decide.


----------



## Herzeleide

Elgarian said:


> I understand roughly where you're going, EE; but I'm not sure, myself, about how this proposed general correlation with class works out in practice. Don't you think there's a lot of indifference to classical music and fine art among well-to-do folks who would _not_ describe themselves as 'working class'? I'm not at all sure about this class issue - I think we need some hard facts and figures before we can decide.


Indeed. I've met just as many philistine MC people as I have WC.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Look guys, I'm not spreading class hatred, although considering the way I poorly worded my previous posts on such a delicate issue I can appreciate why you would come to that conclusion.

My main beliefs stand thus: Classical music is out there for every single human being to enjoy. Because of many circumstances (mostly combinations of circumstances) including class, prejudice and background, many people who would otherwise benefit from listening to classical music, don't.

The purpose of this thread is to explore why this is the case. I would very much like to hear all your opinions on this. This thread is not to shy away from controversial steriotypes, but to explore why we have them and why they impede the popularity of classcal music.


----------



## hdk132

First of all, universally speaking the great artists were poor and emotionally unsettled. I think the whole rich stereotype has to do partly with the expense of classical concerts. It is true that in my experience concert halls are filled with well-off elderly people. I think among youth there is much less of a wealth bias. I do think there is a positive coorelation between a taste for classical music and intellegence. Most of the musitians at school are honor roll students.

The real reason why classical music is not popular is that it is not "cool". The present metaculture is largely about instantaneous rewards: sex, drugs, and rock n' roll to be exact. People want to have fun, right here, right now. Classical music isn't like that. You can't have no listening experience and then be brought into a different emotional state by Mahler's 5th. I took my school-orchestra peers to a symphony. They sorta liked Mahler's 1st, but were restless and did not experiance it with the depth that an experienced listener does. Some say 2000 hours + listening is required to "understand" classical music in a deep, complex manner. Regardless of your opinion on that, you must admit that classical music has a learning curve. The other aspect of the "not cool" arguement is that classical music isn't even enjoyable most of the time. Late romanticism is largely about pain, sorrow, longing, etc. Even the most beautiful pieces have this eerie element of some form of grief in them. Classical music can make you feel good--or it can make you want to rip your flesh apart.


----------



## Elgarian

Edward Elgar said:


> Look guys, I'm not spreading class hatred, although considering the way I poorly worded my previous posts on such a delicate issue I can appreciate why you would come to that conclusion.


Just to clarify: I never thought for a moment that you were doing any such thing, EE. Please don't feel in the least under attack from me. I'm just voicing my uncertainty about the suggested correlation with class, and no judgement of you or anyone else is implied.


----------



## Herzeleide

hdk132 said:


> I think the whole rich stereotype has to do partly with the expense of classical concerts.


Classical concerts are, in general, cheaper than rock or pop concerts.


----------



## nickgray

Herzeleide said:


> Classical concerts are, in general, cheaper than rock or pop concerts.


Depends... In Israel, afair, classical concerts cost around 150nis, and "regular" rock concert around 50nis. Also there was some kind of festival in Eilat (city on the southern side of the country) where tickets were about 450nis. They played Mahler's 8 there, btw (Gergiev with Kirov orchestra), so it's kinda a pity I didn't make it. Oh, and $1 = 4.something shequels.


----------



## Herzeleide

nickgray said:


> Depends... In Israel, afair, classical concerts cost around 150nis, and "regular" rock concert around 50nis. Also there was some kind of festival in Eilat (city on the southern side of the country) where tickets were about 450nis. They played Mahler's 8 there, btw (Gergiev with Kirov orchestra), so it's kinda a pity I didn't make it. Oh, and $1 = 4.something shequels.


In Britain, the cheapest I've seen a rock gig is about £10, whereas I've got into classical concerts for £6.


----------



## hdk132

America a symphony is between $40 and $100. I don't know much about rock concerts, but I think they range from $10 to $100. I don't know...its definetly easier to get a rock album.


----------



## FlyMe

I think the class issue is a bit of a red herring as it is so difficult to define what we mean by class. I consider myself to be working class, I'm a member of Glyndebourne Festival Society and spend a large part of my disposable income on classical music (concert tickets, opera tickets, CD's. hifi etc). IS any music popular with most of the population? I think the beauty of our diverse society is that we have different likes and dislikes, I can not stand (possibly understand) jazz, yet I love Abba! Does it matter? As long as there is a market to keep the music going we should be content.


----------



## Edward Elgar

hdk132 said:


> I think the whole rich stereotype has to do partly with the expense of classical concerts. It is true that in my experience concert halls are filled with well-off elderly people. I do think there is a positive coorelation between a taste for classical music and intellegence.


Firstly, thank you for your valid opinions on the matter. In Britain, at least, classical is on the whole cheaper than rock/pop, but I can verify that in Britain, most of the classical audience is well-off elderly people. This, I think, links with your next comments about classical not being "cool". Plus, I think your observations in the last sentence have sound validity. Maybe it's not class, but intelligence that is the advocate of classical music. This is a risky area but very much worth discussing in my opinion.



hdk132 said:


> The present metaculture is largely about instantaneous rewards: sex, drugs, and rock n' roll to be exact. People want to have fun, right here, right now. Classical music isn't like that.


Exactly! We live in a "grab and go" culture orchestrated by our lust for consumerism that leaves little time for truly meaninful pirsuits.



hdk132 said:


> Classical music can make you feel good--or it can make you want to rip your flesh apart.


Amen brother! Thanks again for your comments!


----------



## Herzeleide

hdk132 said:


> America a symphony is between $40 and $100. I don't know much about rock concerts, but I think they range from $10 to $100.


Try chamber concerts.


----------



## hdk132

At a rock concert there is only 5 or so "artists" (sorry I don't consider rock music to be art) to pay, but at a symphony there are maybe 50 musicians to pay. Insturment wise, I think guitars top out at US $3k or $4k, but a good cellos or violins range can from $5k to $5mil.


----------



## Herzeleide

hdk132 said:


> At a rock concert there is only 5 or so "artists" (sorry I don't consider rock music to be art) to pay, but at a symphony there are maybe 50 musicians to pay. Insturment wise, I think guitars top out at US $3k or $4k, but a good cellos or violins range can from $5k to $5mil.


The only cellos or violins worth millions are ancient or had an illustrious previous owner - same with electric guitars owned by Jimi Hendrix or something like that.

A more relevant point is not the maximum price of instruments, but how much instruments cost in a low to mid-range. One can purchase a violin for a hundred pounds, and classical guitars are almost always cheaper than electric. What's more, electric guitars require amplifiers which further adds to the cost. I know from experience the costs involved for these things.


----------



## Margaret

Well, where I'm at the cheap seats in the symphony are $15 and $18 depending on which town's symphony I go to. Student tickets are about half that price. Maximum prices is $55. (Unless there's a superstar playing like Perlman who, I'm thinking, must have made a decision to give up some money because he wanted to play somewhere smaller where people wouldn't normally be able to see him. Because even with the higher ticket prices I don't think that size theater, even sold out, could generate the fees that a Perlman command.)

The symphony pays its players, but not much. I remember spotting this one girl who looked about 13 years old who was a violinist. A couple of years later I was working with someone and it turned out to be his daughter. She *was* a teenager. He said they don't pay much, but that's also not why the musicians do it. (The "Little Theater" is all volunteers and I think the Opera only pays the principal players.) He was pretty well off, so his daughter wasn't doing it for the money. In fact, he was in the middle of buying her a new violin and had $100,000 worth of violins shipped to his house for his daughter to try. And that was more than 15 years ago, so goodness knows what those violins would be worth today. She wasn't even going to be a professional violinist or even study music. Playing the violin was just an amateur pastime for her.

We have a university so they do free chamber music. They'll set up the students at a church. Some of the churches will have chamber groups in occasionally, but they'll have usually $10 "donation" suggested.

Rock / Country / Pop concerts by any "name" person / band are going to be a lot more than that. Many years ago, no, the ticket prices were lower as they looked at earning their money through albums sales and merchandising. Nowadays even the cheap seats go for $50 -- and we don't get the huge names like the Rolling Stones or U2, those go to New Orleans or Atlanta. My neighbor went to see Cher a few years back and the nosebleed seats cost $70. The only "names" that I know of that are cheaper than $50 are the well past their prime bands that play the casinos and small venues.


----------



## Edward Elgar

I think the cost of concerts pales to insignificance in light of hdk132's comments about classical music not being cool and having a positive correlation with intelligence. I think he/she has made a profound and bold statement that deserves to be debated. I think there is much validity in hdk132's comments and it would be interesting to discuss how classical music became "uncool" and why it seems to attract the interllectual. Could it possibly be down to the fact that classical music infers social values that some groups find contrary to their own social values?


----------



## Herzeleide

Edward Elgar said:


> I think the cost of concerts pales to insignificance in light of hdk132's comments about classical music not being cool and having a positive correlation with intelligence. I think he/she has made a profound and bold statement that deserves to be debated. I think there is much validity in hdk132's comments and it would be interesting to discuss how classical music became "uncool" and why it seems to attract the interllectual. Could it possibly be down to the fact that classical music infers social values that some groups find contrary to their own social values?


'Cool' to whom? I think we ought to use more precise terminology here, since even amongst youth culture, there are a myriad of ideas over what is considered 'cool'. What's more, in this context, it sounds rather fatuous. I also don't think we ought to assume that classical music attracts 'intellectual' people; there's probably a greater correlation between income rather than intelligence; further, I believe the term 'well-educated' is preferable, because education I believe is a more decisive factor than intelligence.


----------



## jhar26

Edward Elgar said:


> I think the cost of concerts pales to insignificance in light of hdk132's comments about classical music not being cool and having a positive correlation with intelligence. I think he/she has made a profound and bold statement that deserves to be debated. I think there is much validity in hdk132's comments and it would be interesting to discuss how classical music became "uncool" and why it seems to attract the interllectual. Could it possibly be down to the fact that classical music infers social values that some groups find contrary to their own social values?


Part of the problem may be that potential newcomers to classical music are made to feel - or get the impression that they are made to feel inferior. Many of these people probably have a passion for rock or pop or rap or whatever, genres that some classical music fans hate. Nobody likes to be talked down at or be made to feel 'intellectually inferior' simply because he/she enjoys listening to popular music. That superiority complex of 'you're listening to rubbish and we know best' turns a lot of people off in my opinion. If I had joined a forum like this one 25 years ago before I even knew the difference between baroque or romantic music I would have felt very intimidated by the specialists and annoyed by those who made derogatory remarks about my rock faves. What I would have interpreted as 'a snobbish attitude' might even have killed my love for classical music before it had even started.


----------



## Herzeleide

jhar26 said:


> Part of the problem may be that potential newcomers to classical music are made to feel - or get the impression that they are made to feel inferior. Many of these people probably have a passion for rock or pop or rap or whatever, genres that some classical music fans hate. Nobody likes to be talked down at or be made to feel 'intellectually inferior' simply because he/she enjoys listening to popular music. That superiority complex of 'you're listening to rubbish and we know best' turns a lot of people off in my opinion. If I had joined a forum like this one 25 years ago before I even knew the difference between baroque or romantic music I would have felt very intimidated by the specialists and annoyed by those who made derogatory remarks about my rock faves. What I would have interpreted as 'a snobbish attitude' might even have killed my love for classical music before it had even started.


Personally, I don't post here as part of a recruiting campaign to get people to listen to or like classical music, so I won't hesistate to opine on pop/rock in a negative way.


----------



## jhar26

Herzeleide said:


> Personally, I don't post here as part of a recruiting campaign to get people to listen to or like classical music, so I won't hesistate to opine on pop/rock in a negative way.


I understand that and you definitely have every right to say whatever you want, but part of the discussion here is about what the reason(s) may be why people don't get into classical music. Well, 25 years ago that would have been a reason for me and since I'm anything but a special person I bet that I'm not the only one. At this point in my life I really couldn't care less what classical music fans think about rock or vice versa.


----------



## Herzeleide

jhar26 said:


> At this point in my life I really couldn't care less what classical music fans think about rock or vice versa.


Well you seem to be concerned with what rock music fans think about classical music, otherwise you wouldn't voice concern over people's criticism of rock/pop on this forum, and the subsequent intimidation/negative reactions that may occur from classical neophytes browsing this forum.


----------



## Elgarian

jhar26 said:


> I'm anything but a special person


For the record (and with apols for going off topic), jhar26 has opened so many new musical windows for me in these last few months that I'm inclined to doubt his statement here.


----------



## jhar26

Herzeleide said:


> Well you seem to be concerned with what rock music fans think about classical music, otherwise you wouldn't voice concern over people's criticism of rock/pop on this forum, and the subsequent intimidation/negative reactions that may occur from classical neophytes browsing this forum.


What I mean is that I'm not concerned in that TO ME PERSONALLY it doesn't matter what people here think about non-classical music.


----------



## nickgray

jhar26 said:


> That superiority complex of 'you're listening to rubbish and we know best' turns a lot of people off in my opinion.


Yeah, that's a somewhat common phenomena on some musical forums, devoted to a particular genre. Some people may even think that they're "smarter" than others because they're listening to the "right" kind of music, even if you're a PhD in Physics or a Nobel Prize laureate who prefer uncomplicated pop music.


----------



## Herzeleide

nickgray said:


> Some people may even think that they're "smarter" than others because they're listening to the "right" kind of music, even if you're a PhD in Physics or a Nobel Prize laureate who prefer uncomplicated pop music.


Wise of you to generalise these accusations.


----------



## Margaret

Oh boy, when I brought this thread up again it certainly got revived.

Some points in some recent posts that -- as a newbie here -- I'm not going to get into.

But this thread has gotten me thinking about why I listened to pop rather than classical growing up and more why I _liked_ the pop.

I listened to pop. All my peers listened to pop. Heck, we listened to the exact same radio station.

I suppose there was a classical station, but I never dialed down that far to find it.

Pop music was about our lives in a very accessible way. Instrumental songs were rare. It almost all had lyrics -- in English. And the songs were about things we could relate to. Boys, love, dancing, or short self-contained stories with high emotional impact like "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald" or "Wildfire."

The tunes were catchy and we could sing them. (Note, I didn't say we could sing them well.)

I recently started listening to country. Again I like it because it relates to my life and the lives around me. I say, jokingly, but it's the plain truth that in an hour of country music I guarantee that I will hear songs with all of the following:
1 a baby will be born
2 someone will die (usually young)
3 religion will be mentioned
4 a generational transition i.e. grandfather - grandchild, mother - daughter
5 there will be a funny song often about someone who got really drunk

Classical, though I love it, is just not as accessible as that. Classical you have to work to appreciate. How many posts have I seen here about a piece someone didn't like but they tried it later after they knew more and then they liked it or other posts along that theme that is basically you don't like something the first time you hear it?

The lyrics in classical aren't even in a language I understand (for the most part).

So I don't think it's class or education. I think a large part of it is about what relates to people's lives and how easily they access & notice that this relates to their lives. Easy to do with pop. Much harder to do with classical.

Pop/rock/country is the folk music of today -- the songs people play when they get together, at their wedding receptions, at their dances, etc.

Now I will go back to what I said in my first post which is that we are inundated by classical music though many people don't realize they're listening to it. I looked up the definition of "popular" in my Miriam-Webster and found among the definitions this one:

"3 -- frequently encountered or widely accepted"

By that definition classical music *is* popular because it is frequently encountered thanks to it use by mainstream media. In fact, it's probably more popular now than it's ever been.


----------



## jhar26

Good post, Margaret.


----------



## Elgarian

Margaret said:


> I looked up the definition of "popular" in my Miriam-Webster and found among the definitions this one:
> 
> "3 -- frequently encountered or widely accepted"
> 
> By that definition classical music *is* popular because it is frequently encountered thanks to it use by mainstream media. In fact, it's probably more popular now than it's ever been.


That's an excellent point to make.


----------



## hdk132

I beg we make the following decision: it's not classical _music_ that's "widely accepted"; it's classical _notes_. The media may spread around tunes and such, but not the emotional, artistic, _music_.


----------



## Mr Dull

I found the point about Classical you have to work to appreciate interesting as I listen to all music the same way. I just listen and if it appeals I listen again. 
I often had to listen to pop songs several times before they really got my attention. 
The main difference is you have to actively listen to classical music as it is often to quiet and too long for casual listening. 
I would suggest Margaret that you are both right and wrong. You don't need to work to appreciate the music but you do need to make the effort to listen to it.

I understand what you mean about how music relates to your life but hearing a piece of classical music can invoke feelings and memories in the same way as hearing a pop song does.


----------



## Margaret

hdk132 said:


> I beg we make the following decision: it's not classical _music_ that's "widely accepted"; it's classical _notes_. The media may spread around tunes and such, but not the emotional, artistic, _music_.


Certainly hearing samples is not the same thing as hearing the entire piece. Any more than hearing a quote from literature is the same as reading the entire work.

Although you didn't say it, I get the feeling from some posters that they think that people shouldn't be listening to just the "samples" because it's not the full experience. Yet, I'm guessing that if I were on a Shakespeare forum that they wouldn't be saying that people shouldn't quote Shakespeare unless all parties involved had read the entire play. I think they are just glad that the Bard has enriched the English language. The same goes for the use of other great literature in mainstream culture like the Bible or _Dumas_.

Personally, I don't see that much difference. Bits of great classical music are absorbed into the mainstream culture the same as bits of great literature. I'm (obviously) perfectly fine with both uses.

For the people who are not, of course, they're free to feel that way about it and perfectly free to say that in a post. Only thing they can do, because it's not going to change anything.



Mr Dull said:


> I found the point about Classical you have to work to appreciate interesting as I listen to all music the same way. I just listen and if it appeals I listen again.
> I often had to listen to pop songs several times before they really got my attention.
> The main difference is you have to actively listen to classical music as it is often to quiet and too long for casual listening.
> I would suggest Margaret that you are both right and wrong. You don't need to work to appreciate the music but you do need to make the effort to listen to it.


You're right, that's true of any music. You have to pay attention. That goes for pop as well as classical. But it's a lot easier to pay attention to words in your own language.



Mr Dull said:


> I understand what you mean about how music relates to your life but hearing a piece of classical music can invoke feelings and memories in the same way as hearing a pop song does.


I never said that classical music didn't relate to my (or anyone's) life. Didn't imply it either. If classical didn't relate to our lives/feelings/memories it wouldn't still be around today.

What I said was it's "I think a large part of it is about what relates to people's lives and how easily they access & notice that this relates to their lives. Easy to do with pop. *Much harder to do with classical*." That in no way says or even implies that it doesn't relate.


----------



## hdk132

Margaret said:


> Certainly hearing samples is not the same thing as hearing the entire piece. Any more than hearing a quote from literature is the same as reading the entire work.
> 
> Although you didn't say it, I get the feeling from some posters that they think that people shouldn't be listening to just the "samples" because it's not the full experience. Yet, I'm guessing that if I were on a Shakespeare forum that they wouldn't be saying that people shouldn't quote Shakespeare unless all parties involved had read the entire play. I think they are just glad that the Bard has enriched the English language. The same goes for the use of other great literature in mainstream culture like the Bible or _Dumas_.


Music is fundementally different from words.
I really can't defend that very well so I'm not going to try. But music is different. In this respect music is closer to art. A little section of Guernica or the tip of a mountian in one of Cezanne's paintings is beautiful and expressive. But it cannot stand for the power an beauty of the whole work.

In the video game "The Sims" the love theme from Tchaikovsky's Romeo and Juliet is used. It has expression, but has nothing compared to the full piece (I should know, I just played it).

Ode to joy on recorder in kindergarden class. Seriously. Don't even try to compare that to the massive finale of Beethoven's 9th.

As it happens, I right now have an excellent English teacher. We are studying Homer, but I know the following holds true with Shakespeare (I've studied a bit of Henry IV word by word with my dad...whew is it hard!). One quote may have a lot of meaning. But the quote alone may have an extraordinary number of parralelisms and symbolisms with the rest of the book.

Another point is, when you quote Shakespeare you are quoting exactly what Shakespeare wrote. Imagine doing this: Take a Shakespeare quote (this is part of Hal's first soliloquy from Henry IV--1.2.176-184)

_Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wondered at
By breaking through the foul and ughly mists
Of vapors, that did seem to strangle him._

The equivelent of the unmusical ways classical music seeps into popular culture is equivelent to quoting this passage like this:

_I'm gonna be overcome by rudeness so when I come out and be myself I will look extra nice._

When classical music seeps into popular society, the expression is largely removed and it turns into this dumbed down, misrepresentation of real music. This misrepresentation is the source of much false accusations that classical music is "boring" or "ad nauseum".


----------



## Mr Dull

Hi Margaret I misunderstood what you were saying about the ease with which you can absorb the music. A three minute pop song is easier to take in than a hour long symphony.

The bit about the language just shows the odd side of my personality as some of my favorite pop and rock songs are in French and German even though I don't speak a word of ether language.
But I would also say that people respond to the musical sounds being made by the singers even if they are singing in their own language. The words of lots of songs are either meaningless or are so badly performed that you can't understand them but you will respond to the song just the same.


----------



## jhar26

Edward Elgar said:


> Nowardays it seems classical music is still a pirsuit of the the well-off. Why is this?


Maybe because the average guy thinks that classical music is the pursuit of the well-off and therefore not for him. I think that argument only goes so far though. Most people here aren't millionaires I don't think, but I could be wrong of course. 


> Do we want the great unwashed to listen to classical music?


If only the educated and well-off were to listen to classical music concert halls would be 75% empty and record sales for classical music would be even worse than they already are. So, yes - the well educated may not like the idea, but the great unwashed help finance classical music and thus are essential for it's survival.


> Will classical music ever be popular?


I doubt if some classical music lovers would even want classical music to be popular. They like the idea that they know something that the rest of the world doesn't know about. If a contemporary composer would ever become as popular as, say, Mozart or Beethoven they would call him a sell-out or at the very least overrated. If that composer with the exact same music stayed unknown to the public at large he's the hero of the chosen few, and they prefer it that way.


> Should classical music be popular?


Sure, why not? I would love it if classical artists would sell as many records as Britney Spears or AC/DC.


----------



## Contrapunctus666

> Sure, why not? I would love it if classical artists would sell as many records as Britney Spears or AC/DC.


 The reason why classical artists don't sell too much records is the low biological quality of humankind.


----------



## Herzeleide

Contrapunctus666 said:


> The reason why classical artists don't sell too much records is the low biological quality of humankind.


yeh defo anithumainsm is da best!!!111


----------



## nickgray

> The reason why classical artists don't sell too much records is the low biological quality of humankind.


You aren't that Conser-something guy, are you?


----------



## Scottie

Sticking my 2 pence worth in here and I usually take a while to get to the point - sorry!

I know little about classical music. I enjoy listening to it, but I really know very little about and, to be brutally honest, I can't identify an awful lot of it (apart from the famous Mozart, Beethoven etc pieces). I am working class, from a working class family and live in a working class area (Eccles in Manchester). The only other person I know of who really likes classical music is a woman who I work with.

Why hasn't classical music penetrated in to the working class? I wonder whether it is for many reasons (all of which have been mentioned; elitism, accessibility, social credibility, money etc), but one which has been missed is, I believe, a very obvious one - you can't dance it. Sure, you can dance to a waltz, but would you and could you (I couldn't)? But dance to a symphony???

My wife (an intelligent woman) doesn't like classical music and, gently, makes fun of me for my liking of it. Yet on our wedding day she wanted classical music to walk down and back up the aisle to. I played her some pieces and she found that she actually knew most of them and liked them. But she listens to what she can dance to, or what she work to.

Pop music is background, classical isn't (most of the time - I do the decorating to Beethoven because I need 'muscular' music to get me through it), but also spend time sitting back, relaxing and letting the wonderful music wash over me.

So, (getting to the point at last) I believe that classical music isn't 'popular' because people can't dance to it. A simplistic answer maybe.

I shall now re-read this thread as I really have found it interesting and may have actually learned something - who knew!


----------



## Scottie

PS - Just had a thought: maybe we need to think about how music is listened to now. Before recorded music you only had three ways of listening to it;

1. played it yourself
2. knew someone else who could play it
3. went to a concert.

The result of this was (probably) a greater understanding of music in general. Today we have; cds, mp3s, radio, television, concerts, pubs, clubs etc. The result being that we don't need to understand anything about music or even make any kind of effort to listen to it, so it has become background for our day to day lives.

Just a thought


----------



## Herzeleide

The reason why classical music isn't popular is twofold. Firstly, the overwhelming dominance of pop and rock music in the media and in the corporate sphere means that it has received an overwhelmingly greater exposure than classical music. Hence, generations of ears are conditioned to form particular expectations contrary to the aim of classical music. Now, you ask, how is it possible then for classical music to have an audience? Which leads to the second reason: education. The reason why classical music is not popular is because education isn't, and is positively discouraged in today's society. Education is primarily the luxury of an elite, and is a tool which fosters an attitude in some people that may lead to them rejecting received ideas of what constitutes good music is -i.e. pop and rock- because education makes one think for oneself. This last point is the reason why education isn't encouraged more, because it would mean the authorities would be screwed - all those people thinking for themselves! It's capitalism which is the cause of this.


----------



## Edward Elgar

Herzeleide said:


> Hence, generations of ears are conditioned to form particular expectations contrary to the aim of classical music.


I totally agree with this



Herzeleide said:


> The reason why classical music is not popular is because education isn't, and is positively discouraged in today's society.


I can relate to this brother! It's in the interests of popular culture to keep people dim and obedient so they'll buy whatever you tell them to buy!


----------



## Gorm Less

Herzeleide said:


> The reason why classical music isn't popular is twofold. Firstly, the overwhelming dominance of pop and rock music in the media and in the corporate sphere means that it has received an overwhelmingly greater exposure than classical music. Hence, generations of ears are conditioned to form particular expectations contrary to the aim of classical music. Now, you ask, how is it possible then for classical music to have an audience? Which leads to the second reason: education. The reason why classical music is not popular is because education isn't, and is positively discouraged in today's society. Education is primarily the luxury of an elite, and is a tool which fosters an attitude in some people that may lead to them rejecting received ideas of what constitutes good music is -i.e. pop and rock- because education makes one think for oneself. This last point is the reason why education isn't encouraged more, because it would mean the authorities would be screwed - all those people thinking for themselves! It's capitalism which is the cause of this.


Interesting. If I understand this correctly, you consider that education is frowned upon in capitalist economies because a poorly educated society helps sustain demand for pop and music, which type of music is promoted by the media and corporate sector. Hence classical music is unpopular is because this serves the best interests of capitalism.

I have heard of capitalism being blamed for all sorts of things, including of course the current world economic meltdown, but to lay blame for the relative lack of interest in classical music at the door of capitalism is a new one on me. All this raises a few issues and below are some that quickly occur to me.

Firstly, what exactly do you mean by "education"? Is it education in general or education relating to music? What mechanisms do you consider are used by capitalist bosses to see to it that the State provides a poor education service to the country's youth/population?

Secondly, why do you think that capitalism should profit from an uneducated workforce, when all the evidence is to the contrary that it needs a better educated workforce in order to survive and prosper in a highly competitive world?

Thirdly, I assume that your theory is based upon more than mere conjecture and that you have some kind of empirical evidence, either from history or elsewhere, to support the view that capitalism leads to poor education. Or possibly you simply believe that Socialist societies have better education facilities, and in consequence their populations have a greater general interest in classical music. What is the evidence for any of this?

Lastly, remedies. What exactly do you want Government to do about the problems as you see them? Abandon capitalism? If so how? Maybe you consider that capitalism is a necessary "evil" but that we need greater State control over what is taught in schools? If so, why do you think that there is inadequate control at present, and how would you change it? Or possibly you think that Government should tell media and the corporate sector to stop promoting pop/rock culture and switch to promoting a more classical music bias. If so what enforcement mechanisms would you recommend and what penalties for non-compliance might seem appropriate to you?


----------



## Herzeleide

Gorm Less said:


> Firstly, what exactly do you mean by "education"? Is it education in general or education relating to music? What mechanisms do you consider are used by capitalist bosses to see to it that the State provides a poor education service to the country's youth/population?


1) Education in general; music as an ancillary, because of the current relativist ideology that is reluctant to acknowledge the importance of some musics over others. I realise that this is particular to music: e.g. one must study Shakespeare and be able to read and write in GCSE English, whereas one must not study Bach and be able to read and write music in GCSE music. 2) A huge question which I can only answer perhaps superficially. Let me put it to you this way: Rupert Murdoch would not want the general populace to start questioning or demanding more than _The Sun_ provides: i.e. writing that rises above that of a seven year old's. Similarly he would not want workers to be distracted by organising themselves when they could be watching any of the _Sky_ channels.



Gorm Less said:


> Secondly, why do you think that capitalism should profit from an uneducated workforce, when all the evidence is to the contrary that it needs a better educated workforce in order to survive and prosper in a highly competitive world?


Okay, I ought to refine my definition of education. I mean 'education' as intellectuals of the Enlightenment would have understood it: that of rational questioning of things tacitly accepted in society.



Gorm Less said:


> Thirdly, I assume that your theory is based upon more than mere conjecture and that you have some kind of empirical evidence, either from history or elsewhere, to support the view that capitalism leads to poor education. Or possibly you simply believe that Socialist societies have better education facilities, and in consequence their populations have a greater general interest in classical music. What is the evidence for any of this?


According to the UN, literacy in Cuba (joint highest in the world) is 99.8%, whereas in, for example, the USA, it is 99.0%. Example of socialist education in classical music:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2006/nov/24/classicalmusicandopera



Gorm Less said:


> Lastly, remedies. What exactly do you want Government to do about the problems as you see them? Abandon capitalism? If so how? Maybe you consider that capitalism is a necessary "evil" but that we need greater State control over what is taught in schools? If so, why do you think that there is inadequate control at present, and how would you change it? Or possibly you think that Government should tell media and the corporate sector to stop promoting pop/rock culture and switch to promoting a more classical music bias. If so what enforcement mechanisms would you recommend and what penalties for non-compliance might seem appropriate to you?


I'm an anarchist-syndicalist, hence I think that organisation of the workers is central to the overthrowing of capitalism. I'm afraid that, unlike, for example, Marxist-Leninism, I have no cut and dryed plans for these sorts of things, and generally believe that the spontaneous nature of such an event cannot be predicted. Anarchists generally believe that processes like this are an on-going thing, and do not happen just over night.

I'm predicting a lengthy response which questions the fundamental nature of the political stance I take. Unfortunately, having experienced these kinds of debates both on the internet and in 'real life', I'm afraid that I may have to abandon such a debate, because 1) its futility 2) its ineluctable deviation from the topic of the thread 3) I don't have enough time or energy.

Just to let you know. I'm sure you'll still reply: I may or may not form a counter-response.


----------



## Herzeleide

Edward Elgar said:


> I totally agree with this
> 
> I can relate to this brother! It's in the interests of popular culture to keep people dim and obedient so they'll buy whatever you tell them to buy!


Indeed. 

The propaganda for pop music is ridiculously powerful, and goes to the level of brainwashing. I can't walk into a supermarket or almost any shop without hearing some kind of pop.

I quipped recently to a friend about the idea of filtering classical (well, impiously I suggested serial music) music into all these shops.

Clearly it's in corporations' interest to do this. A fifty-minute symphony is not easily packageable and is not conducive to the strictures that a thirty-second advert would place on it.

Speaking of which, this is hilarious:


----------



## jhar26

Herzeleide said:


> The propaganda for pop music is ridiculously powerful, and goes to the level of brainwashing. I can't walk into a supermarket or almost any shop without hearing some kind of pop.


Yes, but if the same kind of propaganda is applied to classical music it's followers object. Fans don't like for classical music to be reduced to 'elevator music', they object when it is used in commercials or when snippets of it turn up as background music in a documentary or things like that.


----------



## Herzeleide

jhar26 said:


> Yes, but if the same kind of propaganda is applied to classical music it's followers object. Fans don't like for classical music to be reduced to 'elevator music', they object when it is used in commercials or when snippets of it turn up as background music in a documentary or things like that.


I agree. There should be no music in shops, or lifts, or any situation like that. It cheapens music.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

Herzeleide said:


> ...the reason why education isn't encouraged more, because it would mean the authorities would be screwed - all those people thinking for themselves! It's capitalism which is the cause of this.


To begin with, I have considerable sympathy for the position that education as it's currently constituted is a shambles. Having said that, I think some effort should be made to identify those who've had their hands on the controls of education for well over a generation. They're emphatically NOT capitalists.

Unless you're backed by considerable wealth or are blessed with considerable talent, pre-college public education has the most captive of captive clientele. It is the very antithesis of consumer choice and market selections that lead to more desireable options in services where the principles of open competition are applied.


----------



## Herzeleide

Chi_town/Philly said:


> They're emphatically NOT capitalists.


I assume you mean America. How have people other than capitalists (presumably socialists, and by 'capitalist' I don't just mean the people who practice it, but also those in government who espouse and therefore contribute to it) been controlling education in America?


----------



## howlingmadhowie

*a few musings*



Edward Elgar said:


> Classical music (i.e. Haydn, Mozart) seemed to be aimed at the aristocracy and people with money. Only the super-rich it seems had court composers in their employ.


yeah, that's fair enough. don't forget the church, however.



> Nowardays it seems classical music is still a pirsuit of the the well-off. Why is this?
> Might it be that educated composers just can't see eye to eye with the great unwashed?
> Do we want the great unwashed to listen to classical music?
> What was pop music like in Mozart's day?
> Was classical music ever universally popular?
> Will classical music ever be popular?
> Should classical music be popular?
> What are the social ideals that classical music promotes?
> 
> I do not have strong views about these subjects because I merely enjoy the listening and study of classical music. Perhaps classical music isn't popular because you have to know a bit about it to enjoy it. Who knows?!


i'm sure if the media had existed in the 17th or 18th century, and it hadn't been controlled by the upper class, they would have played folk music on it. in fact you could look at classical music in the classical period being some sort of educated musical tradition, being passed from scholar to scholar at the courts and in the universities. classical music was always something you studied, rather than something you picked up while you weren't at the day job. did folk musicians playing in the pub for general entertainment sometimes play an aria from the latest hit mozart opera? i can't see any reason why not, but most classical operas only ran for one season and were then forgotten. not until the steamboat and the railway allowed relatively quick distribution could you imagine aida being played somewhere on every night of the year.

i imagine going to the opera used to be prohibitively expensive for all but the rich. classical church music would be a different matter, though this was of course generally a very regional affair. every stadtkantor wrote their own music, just like every hofkomponist did. the difference being that there were thousands of stadtkantoren and only a few hofkomponisten.

summing up, no i don't think classical music was ever universally popular. it probably wasn't as explicitly disliked as it sometimes is nowadays, but most people could only afford it at rare times. an orchestra costs real money, and the organ in the church was only played for you on three occasions in your life.

generally the world is very different nowadays. the mass-media have revolutionized our relationship to music and to the performer. even the poorest can choose to be surrounded with music. the conserving nature of modern media is also interesting (and at odds with capitalism---how many different must-have special editions of the complete works of horowitz can be compiled?). the result is obvious. at some stage everybody will have access to all recordings (above a certain age) at the press of a button for free.

i'm not sure classical music should be popular. i think it is a remarkable thing. classical composers, much like scientists since galileo, were/are standing on the shoulders of giants. the amount of knowledge and understanding in a bar of richard strauss, for example, is mind-boggling. popular music only started being a science in this way quite a lot later.


----------



## Edward Elgar

howlingmadhowie said:


> don't forget the church, however


As I said, the super-rich!



howlingmadhowie said:


> i'm sure if the media had existed in the 17th or 18th century, and it hadn't been controlled by the upper class, they would have played folk music on it.


Thank you for providing your theory of popular music in the classical era.



howlingmadhowie said:


> i imagine going to the opera used to be prohibitively expensive for all but the rich. classical church music would be a different matter, though this was of course generally a very regional affair.


I'll be interested to find out what social values you think are implied in classical music.



howlingmadhowie said:


> it probably wasn't as explicitly disliked as it sometimes is nowadays


Even though there are some people who hate contemporary classical music with a passion, don't forget that not many great composers were appreciated by the majority during their lifetimes.



howlingmadhowie said:


> even the poorest can choose to be surrounded with music.


And even so, it's only well off elderly people that make the bulk of concert audiences.



howlingmadhowie said:


> i'm not sure classical music should be popular.


I agree with you on this basis. Popular culture has conditioned the masses to expect instant gratification when it comes to music. Ergo art which is unpopular will most likely give more meaning and therefore more enjoyment on the whole.

Thanks for the post!


----------



## howlingmadhowie

Edward Elgar said:


> I'll be interested to find out what social values you think are implied in classical music.


nowadays there are lots of pictures which come to mind when we think of classical music. i'm sure you can list them better than i can. on the one hand you have the wealthy concert goer wearing evening dress. then you have the poor, struggling, long-haired violinist, struggling for his art. i suppose you still have the idea of the famous concert pianist, however out of place that picture may well be. then you have the member of the local choral society, 45, balding, spots trains in his spare time.

social values is a more difficult question. we're used to artists being a pretty left-wing bunch on the whole. however, classical music is an extremely conservative form, unlike graffiti, for example, so i'd like to think of classical music being politically fairly neutral in general. what do you think? i suppose you could argue that professional classical musicians often need the sponsorship provided by the government, which would tend to push them towards the left, politically.

back in the days of franz 'just call me elvis' liszt, i suppose classical music was viewed more through the glasses of romanticism, with the result that the great pianist/singer/composer/conductor/violinist/and-that's-all-of-them was often regarded as being above such worldly things as politics or social values. my aunt is quite happy to say that professional musicians are in their own social class, neither working, middle nor upper.



> Even though there are some people who hate contemporary classical music with a passion, don't forget that not many great composers were appreciated by the majority during their lifetimes.


one of the things i was told at university was that beethoven was the first musician known primarily as a composer. as elgar once said (was it elgar?) 'the rot set in with beethoven'.



> Popular culture has conditioned the masses to expect instant gratification when it comes to music. Ergo art which is unpopular will most likely give more meaning and therefore more enjoyment on the whole.


seeing as i have little active contact to popular music, i would hate to render an opinion here, though i often remark to my pupils, that the piano is something you have to put a lot of work into, before you really get something back.


----------



## Margaret

Edward Elgar said:


> I agree with you on this basis. Popular culture has conditioned the masses to expect instant gratification when it comes to music. Ergo art which is unpopular will most likely give more meaning and therefore more enjoyment on the whole.


Would you please explain the reasoning behind this philosophy of yours more fully?


----------



## Orgel

I just happened onto this discussion, which I find somewhat interesting, as far as the *opinions* are concerned. I'd still like an answer to the first part of the question: was what we now call classical music ever "popular"? It is my understanding that each of the movements in Vivaldi's _Gloria_ is based on a dance form popular at the time. If the general population didn't care for the current serious music, at least a serious composer appreciated the popular culture [unless, of course, only the rich were doing the dancing].

Ideas?


----------



## Edward Elgar

Margaret said:


> Would you please explain the reasoning behind this philosophy of yours more fully?


Certainly, just consider this highly possible scenario. An individual listens to any pop/rock song. It's instantly gratifying, got a catchy rhythm and lyrics that might possibly make resonance with your own life. Hell, there's even a music video with gyrating half-naked girls! The individual thinks, this is good and their brain subconciously says "I want more of this".

Then the individual listens to a late Beethoven quartet. It takes a while to get going, not much of a slavishly regular pulse, nothing you can really sing back and no lyrics. There's even no half-naked girls! This is unlike the pop music the individual heard earlier, ergo they acknowledge that pop is their kind of music and that classical music is boring and unentertaining.

The individual will then listen back to their pop song in order to relive their good experience. Over repeated listenings, the simple chord structures becomes less appealing, the words become predictable and generic. Even those dancing girls are starting to loose their charm! This is usually the point when that particular group/band/artist goes out of fashion. But this is okay because there is another generic and instantly appealing band waiting in the wings! Hence popular culture's cycle of prosperity.

Had the individual tried to get into the Beethoven quartet, it might have made a much more meaningful and lasting impact. But then again, art is so subjective it's difficult to safely predict this. The only thing we can be certain of is that the artists of popular culture will continue to have a week of fame, become insanely wealthy and spend the rest of their days either on the deck of a luxury yacht... or in rehab!


----------



## Elgarian

Edward Elgar said:


> It's instantly gratifying, got a catchy rhythm and lyrics that might possibly make resonance with your own life. ... Over repeated listenings, the simple chord structures becomes less appealing, the words become predictable and generic.


What worries me about this, is that one might say the same about folk songs: popular in aim, simple structures, predictable words, resonances with one's own life. Yet those simple musical and lyrical structures _don't_ tend to become less appealing with repeated listening, in my experience. There's a timelessness about them. Conversely, by sheer force of repetition, 'Nimrod' or 'The Four Seasons' can become as wearisome and predictable as any overplayed pop song.

So the tendency to conflate 'unpopular' with 'more meaningful' makes me uneasy. I don't think I believe it.


----------



## Herzeleide

Elgarian said:


> There's a timelessness about them. Conversely, by sheer force of repetition, 'Nimrod' or 'The Four Seasons' can become as wearisome and predictable as any overplayed pop song.




Are you sure of this? I mean, there's predictable and then there's _predictable_. Any pieces I've played, copied out or listened to so many times that I memorise it, then of course when I listen to it I know what's going to happen next. I'm not literally predicting anything of course, but I know the piece like the back of my hand - like Bach's F# minor triple fugue from WTCII. Still, the magic never disappears.


----------



## Margaret

Edward Elgar said:


> Certainly, just consider this highly possible scenario. An individual listens to any pop/rock song. It's instantly gratifying, got a catchy rhythm and lyrics that might possibly make resonance with your own life. Hell, there's even a music video with gyrating half-naked girls! The individual thinks, this is good and their brain subconciously says "I want more of this".
> 
> Then the individual listens to a late Beethoven quartet. It takes a while to get going, not much of a slavishly regular pulse, nothing you can really sing back and no lyrics. There's even no half-naked girls! This is unlike the pop music the individual heard earlier, ergo they acknowledge that pop is their kind of music and that classical music is boring and unentertaining.
> 
> The individual will then listen back to their pop song in order to relive their good experience. Over repeated listenings, the simple chord structures becomes less appealing, the words become predictable and generic. Even those dancing girls are starting to loose their charm! This is usually the point when that particular group/band/artist goes out of fashion. But this is okay because there is another generic and instantly appealing band waiting in the wings! Hence popular culture's cycle of prosperity.
> 
> Had the individual tried to get into the Beethoven quartet, it might have made a much more meaningful and lasting impact. But then again, art is so subjective it's difficult to safely predict this. The only thing we can be certain of is that the artists of popular culture will continue to have a week of fame, become insanely wealthy and spend the rest of their days either on the deck of a luxury yacht... or in rehab!


Thanks, Edward Elgar, for the explanation. It is your point of view which is what I asked for.

But I can agree with what Elgarian said:



Elgarian said:


> What worries me about this, is that one might say the same about folk songs: popular in aim, simple structures, predictable words, resonances with one's own life. Yet those simple musical and lyrical structures _don't_ tend to become less appealing with repeated listening, in my experience. There's a timelessness about them. Conversely, by sheer force of repetition, 'Nimrod' or 'The Four Seasons' can become as wearisome and predictable as any overplayed pop song.
> 
> So the tendency to conflate 'unpopular' with 'more meaningful' makes me uneasy. I don't think I believe it.


I like Vivaldi, but sometimes I tire of him because it sounds like I'm hearing the same thing over and over even if it's a new piece. I've often read where people are tired of Pachelbel's "Cannon in D," Beethoven's "Fur Elise", etc due to repetition.

Some music you tire of, some you don't. For me, I can't categorize it and say I don't tire of classical pieces while I do tire of pop. I'll tire of both.

And, I'm seriously not interested in half-naked (or even fully naked) dancing girls.


----------



## saladino

It was not just the wealthy originally in America who saw classical music. If it was - the issue is certainly not a simple one. I really suggest reading the book High Brow Low Brow, by Lawrence Levine, to everyone interested in the subject of classical music and snootiness in America, and the division of culture. The book will entirely reshape and enlighten your views on why classical music is in the position it currently holds in America.


----------



## starry

I haven't so far read all of this long thread but in modern terms which classical music are we talking about? The more modern stuff (which even alot of those who listen to classical music often feel is difficult or lesser, though I listen to it) or older stuff (over 100 years old let's say) which some people wouldn't feel a connection with because they feel it is too distant and different?

It's different from the past where in - for example - Mozart's time there were popular arrangements of opera tunes and classical music seems to have been central to the musical culture of many places. That doesn't mean they listened to JS Bach then though, they probably felt it sounded too distant sounding. We might be more tolerant of older styles than they were back in those days, but far less tolerant to the prevailing contemporary styles. There's alot more competition now musically though with the greater democratization of music in the last century where just about anyone could make music and get recorded and now the globalization of music through the internet. There are many more forms of entertainment as well, with films, computer games, the internet etc etc. We generally have a less elitist society now really, the problem for classical music is that it is a smaller fish in a bigger pond. That is why it will not get the kind of funding it got in the past or have the same kind of profile. The classical music that most people are familiar with now is mainly the older stuff, it still can have some prominence for instance it might get used in adverts. But because it is from a different time period to contemporary popular music it is not seen as alive or in real competition with it for the limelight. 

Composers did perhaps get some star treatment back in the olden days (though having the vagaries of fashion to deal with) and the crowd did respond to the music in a more raucous way, cheering to hearing the 'coup d'archet' in Mozart's Paris symphony for example. However Mozart actually didn't like that he thought it was boorish, lol. We now associate classical music more with history than with the present and as a result it gets more of a respectful treatment in some ways but sometimes more in the way of being a museum piece than being a living part of contemporary culture. 

Composers probably write less for concerts than they did in the past (as there are less of them) and more just for themselves. A composer in the more distant past might sometimes do that as well but other times they might do more of a straight populist piece (eg Beethoven's Battle Symphony aka Wellington's Victory) which could be made to directly appeal to the crowd, or as just part of their job for regular occasions (JS Bach cantatas). It could be a piece to celebrate an important occasion in some political or cultural sense (Beethoven's Symphony no7 eg). Classical music could stir up controversy as with Mozart's Marriage of Figaro. But things change, society changes. The more individualist democratic society has meant the rise of popular music and classical music has become associated more with the seemingly more restricted musical culture and society of the past (which though narrower some might argue could be deeper as well and maybe valued more).


----------



## Davidjo

I think the answer is more or less no, apart from perhaps in parts of Italy (e.g. Naples) where, from what I have read, the opera used to be genuinely popular.


----------



## Lukecash12

Chopin, Liszt, and Thalberg were the rockstars of their day.


----------



## starry

Davidjo said:


> I think the answer is more or less no, apart from perhaps in parts of Italy (e.g. Naples) where, from what I have read, the opera used to be genuinely popular.


I suppose it depends what you mean by 'popular'. If you mean that it had a more important and prominent position within cultures then I think you could say it was popular in more places than that. I think there may have been popular arrangements of some pieces which may have been heard on the streets though so even those who weren't part of the concert going audience might still have got to hear some of this music. Also some music was part of the experience of those who went to church particularly in the baroque period perhaps in some countries and I would guess that all classes went to church.


----------



## Polednice

Perhaps it might be interesting to consider more specific branches of classical music, rather than try to determine whether it was _all_ popular music in its day.

An example that immediately sprang to mind was Brahms's _Hungarian Dances_. They were incredibly popular, and I believe perhaps his best-selling item, and you could argue that they have less 'artistic merit' (though I wouldn't argue that myself), or at least a smaller impact than his symphonies _etc_. For one, the larger orchestral works would have been less accessible due to the fact that you would have to be of the social class that attends concerts and can afford it. For the _Dances_, however, all you need is a piano and a friend!

It is perhaps something to note that this more 'popular' form of classical music is deeply inspired by folk music. I think the form of the music has a very big part to play also - i.e. duets for one piano - but folk-inspired classical music could perhaps be regarded as the popular variety of classical music in its day.

...as well as, of course, the worthless populist trash that is Johann Strauss II


----------



## Jaime77

The sooner the terms classical and popular and traditional are dropped the better. Music should be treated equally rather than claiming one kind superior to another or of higher cultural standing or something. Also not all classical is Western. Some people say that Mozart was the pop of his day but that is misuse of terminology. As Starry said, popular when not meaning a genre, can or could have applied to to any music in the past. The term 'popular' however is a different sphere of influence and has a different history of development. It would be like saying that Rembrandt was the Picasso of his day just cause they were both painters. It is true though that classical music is hugely associated with dead guys rather than the living as regards composers and that has caused many people to make the mistake that the one follows the other. Classical music still exists. It is now extremely marginal. More reason to put it as a subgenre of all music rather than the higher of the arts separate from the mediocrity of pop. These ways of thinking are idiotic. I am rambling. Anyway, class is involved yes and hopefully with time (this might sound Marxist) music will be freed from class reference. 

J


----------



## starry

Brahms loved the music of Johann Strauss Jnr.


----------



## starry

Weston said:


> This isn't entirely new. Back in the late 60's many budding rock groups started trying to make their genre more serious (as jazz groups had done much earlier I have discovered) and started incorporating classical pieces into their compositions, creating the bombastic and much maligned "progressive rock." Some groups even tried to crreate suites with movements in the sonata allegro form or as tone poems. I still find it some of the most adventurous inventive music ever made.
> 
> But it too was as esoteric as classical, maybe even more so. I for one hope it stays that way. Too often I have latched on to an underdog style or genre, then the world jumps on the bandwagon and ruins the fun for the cognoscenti.


Some progressive music I'm sure can be good. BUT I do have a problem with how those who are really doing popular music who want to somehow separate themselves from others and call themselves 'rock' and the others 'pop' as if there is that much difference when quite often there isn't. The aim for a lengthier piece just because length is supposed to = more serious seems to me stupid. It's the same snobism that meant rock critics started fawning over masterpiece albums (even if many of them weren't masterpieces) instead of just concentrating on someone producing just a decent song. Schubert produced small pieces - individual songs - which many consider contain some great music. Greater length doesn't always mean good or greater.


----------



## starry

Mr Dull said:


> The bit about the language just shows the odd side of my personality as some of my favorite pop and rock songs are in French and German even though I don't speak a word of ether language.


I'm even odder then, because I've heard things from all over (despite only understanding English). The internet has changed things considerably, horizons now are far broader. Of course alot of people may not have discovered that yet, and certainly radio stations haven't I'm sure.

But of course in the past we very much tended to only listen to what was from our country or was imported into our country (whatever country that may be).



hdk132 said:


> Music is fundementally different from words.
> I really can't defend that very well so I'm not going to try. But music is different. In this respect music is closer to art. A little section of Guernica or the tip of a mountian in one of Cezanne's paintings is beautiful and expressive. But it cannot stand for the power an beauty of the whole work.


Yeh I think music is different to words. And really I think popular music is not about the words much - in general - anyway. Most people are just interested in the music, in the tune. So in that sense there isn't that big a leap from a pop song to a classical piece of absolute music. Not all classical pieces are hugely complex lengthy pieces anyway. People get into classical music through short tuneful pieces which are not such a difficult jump from listening to a pop song.


----------



## starry

Scottie said:


> Sticking my 2 pence worth in here and I usually take a while to get to the point - sorry!
> 
> I know little about classical music. I enjoy listening to it, but I really know very little about and, to be brutally honest, I can't identify an awful lot of it (apart from the famous Mozart, Beethoven etc pieces). I am working class, from a working class family and live in a working class area (Eccles in Manchester). The only other person I know of who really likes classical music is a woman who I work with.
> 
> Why hasn't classical music penetrated in to the working class? I wonder whether it is for many reasons (all of which have been mentioned; elitism, accessibility, social credibility, money etc), but one which has been missed is, I believe, a very obvious one - you can't dance it. Sure, you can dance to a waltz, but would you and could you (I couldn't)? But dance to a symphony???
> 
> My wife (an intelligent woman) doesn't like classical music and, gently, makes fun of me for my liking of it. Yet on our wedding day she wanted classical music to walk down and back up the aisle to. I played her some pieces and she found that she actually knew most of them and liked them. But she listens to what she can dance to, or what she work to.
> 
> Pop music is background, classical isn't (most of the time - I do the decorating to Beethoven because I need 'muscular' music to get me through it), but also spend time sitting back, relaxing and letting the wonderful music wash over me.
> 
> So, (getting to the point at last) I believe that classical music isn't 'popular' because people can't dance to it. A simplistic answer maybe.
> 
> I shall now re-read this thread as I really have found it interesting and may have actually learned something - who knew!


Older classical music has plenty of dance music, but it would be considered old fashioned and therefore not something to be seen dancing to for most people. Most classical music is seen as museum music in that sense. People aren't really even aware of modern classical music much. But really not all popular music is dance music, what about ballads?


----------



## Argus

I have just read this whole thread and thought I would add a few things that may have been missed. 

Firstly, I would consider myself working class and most of my friends and colleagues in the same social bracket. Where I work there is a radio normally fixed on a pop station like Absolute Radio or XFM. If I put on a classical station like Classic FM or even a more eclectic station such as Radio 3 it will not go down too well, to say the least.

There is a general dislike towards classical (and Jazz) amongst the populace for a lot of reasons already mentioned especially as it is seen as uncool, archaic or even a dead genre.

Another point to make would be that most people just aren't that interested in music. It appears to be that most musicians and people who invest a lot of time and money in music will be more receptive to classical music. Before I started playing guitar and bass I mainly listened to indie or modern rock, but now I listen to all kinds of music with an open mind as there is worth in all styles. 

Just look at the great musicians in all genres and they will most likely admit to liking some classical. A lot of the jazz greats like Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Miles etc profess their love of composers like Berlioz, Debussy and Ravel. This applies to the great musicians in all disciplines of music, most of them will acknowledge influence from the great composers of the past and even current progressive composers.

So in my opinion classical is unpopular amongst the majority of people not due to class or intelligence factors but more likely due to the level of interest in the subject the common man has. Good music (if such a thing exists) of all kinds will be popular forever through musicians and true music lovers.


----------



## MusicalOffering

Think Vivaldi was very appreciated in his day, I heard women fainted when his "tour" came to town and played. Händel was also somewhat of a "mainstream" composer, very well known during his time and somewhat of a celebrity. When his composition Water Music premiered, huge crowds gathered at the Thames to hear it being performed (hence the name "water music").


----------



## UniverseInfinite

UniverseInfinite absolutely agrees with MusicalOffering's point of view! Yes, "classical" music was once a very "popular" music among people who had access to such musical appreciation. But, hey, at the ancient time, if a person must strive very hard only to find food every day, this person would surely spend a minimal time in musical enjoyment during this person's life span. The same is for today's. 

Haha, one very interesting phenomena is probably from the very ancient human societies and the modern "tribal" hunting and gathering societies. For those societies, there is some form of "socialism" or "communism" going on within them. People work very hard to go hunting and gathering together every day. Then, they share food and share ritual dancing and music together on a regular basis.

, some even share men and women. Yes, truly so according to existing evidence!


----------



## UniverseInfinite

Johann Strauss Jr. is a great composer! He is one of the most "happy" and melodious composers. His work that became so popular at his time must have its unique attribute.


----------



## starry

Argus said:


> I have just read this whole thread and thought I would add a few things that may have been missed.
> 
> Firstly, I would consider myself working class and most of my friends and colleagues in the same social bracket. Where I work there is a radio normally fixed on a pop station like Absolute Radio or XFM. If I put on a classical station like Classic FM or even a more eclectic station such as Radio 3 it will not go down too well, to say the least.
> 
> There is a general dislike towards classical (and Jazz) amongst the populace for a lot of reasons already mentioned especially as it is seen as uncool, archaic or even a dead genre.
> 
> Another point to make would be that most people just aren't that interested in music. It appears to be that most musicians and people who invest a lot of time and money in music will be more receptive to classical music. Before I started playing guitar and bass I mainly listened to indie or modern rock, but now I listen to all kinds of music with an open mind as there is worth in all styles.
> 
> Just look at the great musicians in all genres and they will most likely admit to liking some classical. A lot of the jazz greats like Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Miles etc profess their love of composers like Berlioz, Debussy and Ravel. This applies to the great musicians in all disciplines of music, most of them will acknowledge influence from the great composers of the past and even current progressive composers.
> 
> So in my opinion classical is unpopular amongst the majority of people not due to class or intelligence factors but more likely due to the level of interest in the subject the common man has. Good music (if such a thing exists) of all kinds will be popular forever through musicians and true music lovers.


Yes, the curious will find a way to hear it...and really with the internet, radio etc it is available for many people in the world should they wish to listen to it.


----------



## yoshtodd

UniverseInfinite said:


> UniverseInfinite absolutely agrees with MusicalOffering's point of view! Yes, "classical" music was once a very "popular" music among people who had access to such musical appreciation. But, hey, at the ancient time, if a person must strive very hard only to find food every day, this person would surely spend a minimal time in musical enjoyment during this person's life span. The same is for today's.
> 
> Haha, one very interesting phenomena is probably from the very ancient human societies and the modern "tribal" hunting and gathering societies. For those societies, there is some form of "socialism" or "communism" going on within them. People work very hard to go hunting and gathering together every day. Then, they share food and share ritual dancing and music together on a regular basis.


Interesting points but I draw an opposite conclusion about the result of the scarcity of listening time for the ancients. I bet for them music was really a novel treat, whereas today it is more throwaway because we're bombarded with music from radio, tv, and movies all day long. Before there was recorded music it must have been a real event to savor if a bunch of musicians put on a performance, and people might even feel cheated and disappointed if the work were very short. I know that if I don't listen to any music for a few days, it is easier to sit through an entire multi movement work.


----------



## Lukecash12

yoshtodd said:


> I know that if I don't listen to any music for a few days, it is easier to sit through an entire multi movement work.


I would go absolutely nuts if I didn't hear any music for more than three days. Scarcely could I imagine subjecting myself to that much torture. But go on, I don't mean to throw us off topic. Interesting discussion.


----------



## graaf

_Might it be that educated composers just can't see eye to eye with the great unwashed?_
many of them did see eye to eye

_Do we want the great unwashed to listen to classical music?_
couldn't care less

_What was pop music like in Mozart's day?_
wasn't he quite pop in the castle, and folk music in the village?

_Was classical music ever universally popular?_
not to my knowledge.
_
Will classical music ever be popular?_
in some cases it is to a certain degree - in some countries people sing arias as they go about their day...
_
Should classical music be popular?_
hehe

_What are the social ideals that classical music promotes?_
not sure there are any, generally speaking. some pieces might be trying to say something (Deine Zauber binden wieder, Was die Mode streng geteilt, Alle Menschen werden Brüder, Wo Dein sanfter Flügel weilt)

_I do not have strong views about these subjects because I merely enjoy the listening and study of classical music. Perhaps classical music isn't popular because you have to know a bit about it to enjoy it. Who knows?!
_not sure about knowing a bit in order to enjoy, but it it surely isn't invasive as pop-music is. if people are ready to listen to music with the same undivided attention like when they are watching a movie, then they have made the first and most important step towards listening to it - the rest is easier.


----------



## Aarontastic

Classical music (i.e. Haydn, Mozart) seemed to be aimed at the aristocracy and people with money. Only the super-rich it seems had court composers in their employ.

I'm going to say no. As you mentioned, classical music has historically been an elitist past-time. The two incubators of European music from the Medieval period onward were the church and the aristocracy. Concert halls didn't become commonplace until the Romantic Era, and even then, going to one was essentially a bourgeois pursuit. In the Baroque and Classical eras, the common man was only hearing classical music in church or in the town square, so I don't think it was ever the mainstream genre.

Nowardays it seems classical music is still a pirsuit of the the well-off. Why is this?

Is it? I'm not sure that your premise is correct. Assuming that it is, I have no idea :/ maybe only wealthy people have time to enjoy 20+ minute musical pieces. Maybe interest in classical music comes from growing up in homes with pricey instruments like pianos, violins, etc. I just don't think that there are many opportunities to get into it for most people, because it has a relatively slight radio presence and besides that, exposure comes in the form of movie soundtracks and commercials. I have a feeling this relegates classical music to a background noise for many people. 

Might it be that educated composers just can't see eye to eye with the great unwashed?

Lol. I will say this: classical music is enjoyed more by some as a marker of status and refinement rather than as stimulating, interesting art. 

Do we want the great unwashed to listen to classical music?

No of course not; if that happened then who would we be able to look down upon and call "the great unwashed"

What was pop music like in Mozart's day?

Lieder and madrigals, maybe? There's always been a parallel development of simpler, catchier music alongside the serious stuff. Madrigals are more of a Renaissance thing, but surely the 18th century had some equivalent.

Was classical music ever universally popular?

In the sense that it was enjoyed across Europe, yes. 

Will classical music ever be popular?

It's sort of hard to answer because the definition could vary. I've often thought that, as a percentage of the population (in the "west"), classical music could well be more popular today than it ever was in the past. Certainly it's more demotic than it has ever been.

Should classical music be popular?

of course!

What are the social ideals that classical music promotes?

hmmm it promotes being cultured, sophisticated, intellectual, and creative.


----------



## hpowders

OP: Well if the play/film "Amadeus" was historically accurate, the common folk were singing and humming Don Giovanni throughout Prague after its premiere. So, if that was true, then yes, classical music appealed at one time to the common folk.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Argus said:


> Firstly, I would consider myself working class and most of my friends and colleagues in the same social bracket. Where I work there is a radio normally fixed on a pop station like Absolute Radio or XFM. If I put on a classical station like Classic FM or even a more eclectic station such as Radio 3 it will not go down too well, to say the least.
> 
> There is a general dislike towards classical (and Jazz) amongst the populace for a lot of reasons already mentioned especially as it is seen as uncool, archaic or even a dead genre.


This, of course, eventually happens to everything. ("Mr. Marsh, real guitars are for old people.")

Maybe a radio station that only plays recent avant-garde classical music would go over better?


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Aarontastic said:


> What was pop music like in Mozart's day?
> 
> Lieder and madrigals, maybe? There's always been a parallel development of simpler, catchier music alongside the serious stuff. Madrigals are more of a Renaissance thing, but surely the 18th century had some equivalent.


Comic opera. This is not an unknown thing, people.


----------



## trazom

Harold in Columbia said:


> Comic opera. This is not an unknown thing, people.


I thought folk music was the "pop" music of the late 18th century? That's why Haydn, at least, became known for combining popular music with "high art" because he frequently incorporated well known folk melodies in his music. Mozart tended to compose and improvise variations on these popular melodies. Although, now that I remember, some of those themes also came from operas by composers like Paisiello, so maybe you're right.


----------



## Harold in Columbia

Folk music is rural. Popular music is urban.


----------

