# Classical Mainstream Music



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

This may be a controversial topic. Mainstream is defined in Wikipedia as including:

something that is ordinary or usual;
something that is familiar to most people;
something that is available to the general public;
something that has ties to corporate or commercial entities.

For Classical Music we can rule out the 3rd since almost everything is now available to all through the internet.

Now Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky, Brahms, etc. may be considered very mainstream. While Cage, Varese, Palestrina, Gesualdo are not. I would say Mahler, Prokofiev, Bartok, Shostakovich are only somewhat mainstream.

Is mainstream music necessarily better, as some would say, the cream always rising to the top, or is it just safer and accessible music, or just handed down through generations being traditionally more well known? Or just more iconical, given the context it was written. Some works, were well received at the beginning, but subsequently fell out of favour. Is this due to just neglect, or enduring quality?

How much influence do critics and marketing have?

My own view is there are masterworks in every single quarter of a century since the 1500's. While some of the earlier eras that may not have the complexity or scope as Beethoven's 9th in musical terms, there have been some since, they are just less accessible, and subsequently less promoted. There are some works that are as good as anything Bach wrote, before Bach. What are your views?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

In my opinion, mainstream would mean "appeals to the masses" and anything that appeals to the masses likely is not going to be of interest to me. I would say any classical that appeals to the masses must be that which is from movie soundtracks and such.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Florestan said:


> In my opinion, mainstream would mean "appeals to the masses" and anything that appeals to the masses likely is not going to be of interest to me. I would say any classical that appeals to the masses must be that which is from movie soundtracks and such.


Movie music may definitely one part of mainstream. Thing is, mainstream is not necessarily bad or uninteresting. My point is there are preconceptions in the Classical world, and even prejudices, and cliques, or tribal mentality. Someone that only likes tonal will likely think atonal is crap, or someone who only likes atonal or difficult music may think tonal music is fluff.

Some say no one can write anything better than Beethoven, another says Mozart, and they both reach a compromise that both are better than composer X, who's music may just be as good, but has less supporters.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> Movie music may definitely one part of mainstream. Thing is, mainstream is not necessarily bad or uninteresting. My point is there are preconceptions in the Classical world, and even prejudices, and cliques, or tribal mentality. Someone that only likes tonal will likely think atonal is crap, or someone who only likes atonal or difficult music may think *tonal music is fluff.*
> 
> Some say no one can write anything better than Beethoven, another says Mozart, and they both reach a compromise that both are better than composer X, who's music may just be as good, but has less supporters.


If the music of Bach, Brahms, Mozart and Beethoven is fluff, then I can't get enough of that fluff stuff!


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> Movie music may definitely one part of mainstream. Thing is, mainstream is not necessarily bad or uninteresting. My point is there are preconceptions in the Classical world, and even prejudices, and cliques, or tribal mentality. Someone that only likes tonal will likely think atonal is crap, or someone who only likes atonal or difficult music may think tonal music is fluff.
> 
> Some say no one can write anything better than Beethoven, another says Mozart, and they both reach a compromise that both are better than composer X, who's music may just be as good, but has less supporters.


Easy to embed in one's favorite areas of classical and discount the rest. Right now I couldn't care less about atonal music. I don't even have a hint of what it is about, but perhaps someday I might really get into it. But my plate is full now so it won't be soon.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

I can see this thread running into difficulties over differences between different people's concept of mainstream.

I would see Mahler, Prokofiev, Bartok and Shostakovich as very firmly in the mainstream, along with Debussy, Ravel, Copland, Sibelius, Nielsen, Berg, Stravinsky, Ives, Walton, Vaughan Williams, Poulenc, Britten, Riley, Glass, Reich... You see the problem.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

TurnaboutVox said:


> I can see this thread running into difficulties over differences between different people's concept of mainstream.
> 
> I would see Mahler, Prokofiev, Bartok and Shostakovich as very firmly in the mainstream, along with Debussy, Ravel, Copland, Sibelius, Nielsen, Berg, Stravinsky, Ives, Walton, Vaughan Williams, Poulenc, Britten, Riley, Glass, Reich... You see the problem.


Ah, now we are getting somewhere: What is mainstream among classical listeners only, not the whole world.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

TurnaboutVox said:


> I can see this thread running into difficulties over differences between different people's concept of mainstream.
> 
> I would see Mahler, Prokofiev, Bartok and Shostakovich as very firmly in the mainstream, along with Debussy, Ravel, Copland, Sibelius, Nielsen, Berg, Stravinsky, Ives, Walton, Vaughan Williams, Poulenc, Britten, Riley, Glass, Reich... You see the problem.


I figured some would. But the fact Prokofiev and Shostakovich are not household names like Beethoven or Bach even in the Classical community might classify them as demigods, like what one writer puts it. That is a common perspective, while I and some see them as all equal.


----------



## JeffD (May 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Is mainstream music necessarily better, as some would say, the cream always rising to the top, or is it just safer and accessible music, or just handed down through generations being traditionally more well known? ?


I think the main distinction between mainstream and not would be accessibility by those not experts. The reason may be complicated though, because accessibility is determined by not just the music, but also how the prevailing culture has prepared the listener.

For example, I think Prokofiev's Classical Symphony is one of his most accessible pieces, and that may be because he went about deliberately creating it within culturally expected symphonic conventions.

Less accessible does not mean less great or less more or less sophisticated, it just means it takes some work and some experience to access it.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

JeffD said:


> I think the main distinction between mainstream and not would be accessibility by those not experts. The reason may be complicated though, because accessibility is determined by not just the music, but also how the prevailing culture has prepared the listener.
> 
> For example, I think Prokofiev's Classical Symphony is one of his most accessible pieces, and that may be because he went about deliberately creating it within culturally expected symphonic conventions.
> 
> Less accessible does not mean less great or less more or less sophisticated, it just means it takes some work and some experience to access it.


Yup, that was exactly the way I saw it.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Florestan said:


> Ah, now we are getting somewhere: What is mainstream among classical listeners only, not the whole world.


You are on fire Florestan. :tiphat:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I seem to find myself always addressing these sorts of questions by wondering if the cart is being put before the horse.

Is a work popular because it's "safe" or "accessible" or "great"? I'm inclined to think the relationship runs in the opposite direction. If a work is popular among _us_ (for a given value of _us_), then we get to acclaim it as "great". Whereas if a work unpopular among _us_ is popular among _them_, then we get to dismiss it as "safe", or explain away its popularity by calling it "accessible".

So I've started to view "popularity" and "greatness" as two ways of describing the same thing. "Mainstream" might be defined as "that which most resonates among the most people in a given population" - but "masterwork" might well be defined that way too!

Obviously this fails to address how a work becomes popular in the first place. To which my stock answer is to say, "ask a neurologist from the future". Clearly some works resonate strongly with a lot of people, but I've yet to see a convincing explanation, other than vague and meaningless appeals to greatness, for why some works resonate so well and others don't. There's just too much going on in terms of interplay between musical factors, individual factors, and cultural factors for us to be able to make generalisations. For a given work we can probably point to certain specific aspects of the music, or the circumstances of its composition and its reception; but all of those explanations may be irrelevant for some other work.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

Would class mainstream as traditional music such as Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky etc. Music that most people have heard of even though they are not into classical music!


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Judith said:


> Would class mainstream as traditional music such as Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky etc. Music that most people have heard of even though they are not into classical music!


That is the definition I had in mind when I drew up my rough list (above). It depends what demographic you ask - more people of my children's generation in their 20s have heard of Mahler, Britten, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Reich, Glass, Adams etc.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Any cd that can get a minimum of 10 likes in Current Listening.


----------



## MissKittysMom (Mar 2, 2017)

I will suggest that the "mainstream" of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and maybe Schubert and Tchaikovsky are somewhat self-reinforcing, since they are also the basis of education for both students and listeners. In high school days (late 60s), I played Bartok, Prokofiev, and Khachaturian, all of which were definitely viewed as outside the norm, and therefore somewhat suspect. (Maybe very suspect, in the case of Bartok's piano sonata.) I recently posted a reference to Bartok's Mikrokosmos on Facebook, and a friend from high school still remembers the Bartok that I used to play.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I will not disparage the "mainstream" of classical music. That mainstream includes familiar names, sure. And though I remain deeply committed to seeking out new and unusual and off-beat and rarely heard and ... well, in other words "non-mainstream" classical music (and that of other genres as well, of course), I assuredly confirm that the "mainstream" is exactly that for all good reasons.

Because I enjoy exploring the musical world I encounter much of what is seemingly poor quality, uninteresting to me, mediocre and derivative sounding, lackluster and just plain bad music. But gems pop up here and there, which is what makes musical exploration so exhilarating. Still, it seems to me that one finds fewer bloopers and a greater percentage of gems in the music of what we would call "the mainstream masters." Yes, those guys: Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaikovsky, Schubert, Chopin, Schumann, Mendelssohn ... you know who they are. You can't really go wrong with them.

I know that if I had to prune down my record collection in a hurry, keeping only a handful of discs on which to rely, that handful would include all mainstream masters. I would certainly miss my avant-garde John Cage/Pierre Boulez/Karlheinz Stockhausen-style works, that horde of Soviet and Scandinavian composers (well-known, somewhat known, and obscure) which fills so much of my shelf space, my collection of American masters (Hanson, Piston, Bernstein, Copland ... and many many much lesser known), and, well, so much stuff.

But ... I wouldn't have gone wrong with my Bach and my Mozart and my Schubert and my Beethoven .... There's a reason why these guys are "the mainstream". And one needn't feel diminished in any way enjoying their music. Too, their music is a great place to start a look-round (or listen-round) in classical music, for it will likely inevitably be the ending place one finally arrives at after a thorough exploration of classical music. 

Beethoven's Fifth, Bach's Brandenburgs, Schubert's "Unfinished", Chopin's Etudes, Brahms's and Tchaikovsky's symphonies and concertos ... these may all be "warhorses" -- that is, the ultimate in mainstream music -- but it remains essential, satisfying, and worthwhile.

I've heard the above works dozens, even well over a hundred times in some cases, yet never tire of taking them on for another listen ... or another dozen or hundred listens. Prime stuff. Great music. Mainstream. And well deserving to be.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

You could compare this with other fields of culture and come up against the same issues. Great and mainstream philosophers? You will get a list of the usual suspects: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Wittgenstein. What about literature: Shakespeare's name would be in there among the varying lists.

The thing is, a lot of the names mean nothing in terms of experience. Walk down the street and ask how many people have heard the name Beethoven. Loads probably, but the number who have actually listened to his music will be far fewer. Brahms and Liszt is probably better known as old cockney rhyming slang for being inebriated. The same goes for Shakespeare, his name is just a cultural marker for so many people. I'm okay with this.

The thing is most of the top dogs in the lists are not there just by accident. Bach is a giant in music, but I don't think the mainstream public actually likes a lot of his works. The majority of the 'greats' only get a select number of their work played in the mainstream anyway. I'm fairly confident in asserting that these works have something that makes them stand out; including a tradition of being long appreciated, which can add to it.

The mainstream music audience doesn't even listen to classical or 'art' music in great numbers anyway so the question is always going to be one discussed between fans of the music and their tastes vary a lot.

With regard to film music, I don't turn my nose up at it. Many films over the decades have done a great job in introducing audiences to music beyond the scope of the pop/rock song format. I think of _The Sting_ and it's use of Scott Joplin's music. And as much as people feel it is now saturated the use of Barber's Adagio, because it wouldn't have been so well-known. Many soundtracks of indy cinema and art films of the 50s and 60s had great soundtracks that tapped into the 'new music' and introduced audiences who likely would never have listened to it. I particularly like the soundtrack to Jules et Jim by Georges Delarue. Also the Brigitte Bardot film La Vérité has Stravinsky's _L'oiseau de feu_ and Bach's _Well Tempered Clavier_ in it.

The only thing with film music is Hans Zimmer. He needs to be marooned on a desert Island.


----------

