# Why do recent generations avoid classical music?



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

I don't know if this has been brought up here before, but I thought I'd pose this question as it seems like a complex issue with many answers. According to statistics, classical music is on the decline and largely ignored by millenials and younger generations.

Some of my thinking is classical music doesn't feel relevant to this generation brought up in a world of mass entertainment. It doesn't speak to today's problems and concerns on an emotional level. There are fewer classical music radio stations these days, and those often play opera and modernistic pieces difficult to comprehend and become enaged in. TV (at least in North America) rarely shows classical music performances anymore.

Other possibilities - it seems old and out of style, and something only your parents like. For many, it's hard to be cool with your friends while talking about your favorite symphony. 

There are probably many more.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

There are reasons, but they are not going to be stated here.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The static of pop culture squelches other art forms. Not to mention the decline in education. And I don't believe classical music is something only parents listen to. Not my parents or grandparents. They liked Andy Williams, Bing Crosby, etc... But every family is different.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Today's American mass music steals like crazy from Steve Reich, so this may be, at this point, a solution looking for a problem.


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

It's unlikely that one will appreciate fine cuisine after being fed a diet of McDonald's practically since birth.
Gresham's Law states that bad currency drives out good.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Richard8655 said:


> Some of my thinking is classical music doesn't feel relevant to this generation brought up in a world of mass entertainment. It doesn't speak to today's problems and concerns on an emotional level. There are fewer classical music radio stations these days, and those often play opera and modernistic pieces difficult to comprehend and become enaged in. TV (at least in North America) rarely shows classical music performances anymore.
> 
> Other possibilities - it seems old and out of style, and something only your parents like. For many, it's hard to be cool with your friends while talking about your favorite symphony.


I think these are both part of the story. But it's not just young people avoiding Classical. You say "...something only your parents like," but few of their parents aren't listening to Classical.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Another reason, they just aren't into it. 

Some people are made for music and some just want to dance.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

I dont get to the Opera or The Concert as often as I would like but when I do, there are young people there. 
I could say that not many people I actually know like Classical Music but its always been that way, and the music is still there!
I think it seems sometimes that Its disappearing from public conciousness, but if it is, whose buying all those Orchestral and Opera CD's and Downloads from Amazon. It cant be just us old farts...


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

One way to approach this question is looking at why people don't attemp to get into classical on their own in their teens or adulthood. Another way is to look at what should have been different in their growing up environment for them to become classical music fans.

Regarding this second aspect of the question, I'd say that very many people would listen to classical in their adulthood if they had grown up amid it from their earliest years.

Regarding the first aspect of the question, you could speculate it has something to do with how busy these people are, peer pressure, what the education system is like or has become, their IQ, how conformist they are or are not, and so on.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

Richard8655 said:


> I don't know if this has been brought up here before, but I thought I'd pose this question as it seems like a complex issue with many answers. According to statistics, classical music is on the decline and largely ignored by millenials and younger generations.


This issue has been brought up many times.

It depends. From the discussions here this seems to be a problem in the U. S. In other parts of the world is seems to be doing OK and in parts of Asia it is growing. And there are still regions in the U. S. where it is doing well.

Here in Washington we have the service bands (Navy, Marine, Air Force and Army). They stage many performances and they are free. The members of the ensemble are world class musicians. I was at a Marine Chamber Orchestra concert where I overheard a member say, "My God, they are as good as Orpheus."

I attended a recital of the US Navy Band Chamber Players. They performed a very diverse program from Baroque to contemporary. The recital hall was packed standing room and they were turning away people. There were many young couples who brought their children.

The National Symphony hired a marketing firm to determine what they could do to increase attendance. There was an article about it in the Washington Post. I could not find it but I will keep looking. They found the problems with attendance were rather mundane.

The first problem is that it is difficult to get to the Kennedy Center. It is ½ mile walk from the nearest subway station (Foggy Bottom). Difficult for a person with a disability like myself. Kennedy Center does operate shuttle buses but they can be very crowded. One can park at the Kennedy Center but it is expensive.

The second problem is that it is expensive to go to the Kennedy Center. Along with the parking and the cafeteria it can be very expensive.

George Mason University has a nice performance center. They bring in several orchestras a year. It is easy to get to and the parking is only $5. If one is up to walking it is free. These concerts draw very good crowds.

It appears that whether there are problems depends on where you live.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

In my experience, people ignore classical music due to their inverted snobbery. This is the music of the toffs, of the privileged elite, "not for the likes of us," etc. These class prejudices are so deeply ingrained that few people get as far as actually listening to classical music and making their own mind up.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

I think it's mainly a question of experience, of being exposed to CM in the first place, I believe mine was the last generation to have it as part of my general education at school (1950s).


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Speaking for myself, I never ignored it, I was merely never exposed to it. I was even in band since 5th grade all through public school, but the stuff played in school band, although orchestral, is certainly _not_ classical. So for me it was never a matter of avoiding it so much as just never having it brought to my attention. It was actually the idea that exists in our culture of classical music as "cerebral", "difficult", or "complex" that made me one day decide to check it out. Whether that stereotype is true or not (I think it really depends on exactly what examples you're comparing) I ended up getting really into it, on my own. Well, a few websites such as this one did help.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

I think the word "avoidance" is too strong. Like Dedalus said, it's about exposure. Kids are more likely to be exposed to whatever's popular at the time. Since pop is everywhere, it's very easy to discover songs and artists and stuff. Classical requires a bit more active work to discover if you are a complete newbie.

And there is a bit of a veil of stereotypes that keep people away from classical, as Winterreisender mentioned, that continue to "other" it as music for "other" people; white, rich, intelligent, stuffy, old, boring people. And of course that sounds dumb, all stereotypes of music fans are dumb, like generalizing what kind of people like metal, or rap. But metal and rap are common enough and loud enough in our culture that the stereotypes for those music genre don't deter new listeners as much as presuppositions about classical might.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

manyene said:


> I think it's mainly a question of experience, of being exposed to CM in the first place, I believe mine was the last generation to have it as part of my general education at school (1950s).


Nah! In the 70's at the Comprehensive School I attended, Classical music was covered in music lessons. Even electronic music, Berio, Ilhan Mimaroglu ect. Of course most of the class were in turn bemused by the former and amused by the latter.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2016)

Badinerie said:


> Nah! In the 70's at the Comprehensive School I attended, Classical music was covered in music lessons. Even electronic music, Berio, Ilhan Mimaroglu ect. Of course most of the class were in turn bemused by the former and amused by the latter.


Indeed. 1970s high school music lessons MEANT classical music.


----------



## silvereye (Mar 2, 2016)

It's a complicated question. I'm 32yo and have always enjoyed classical music. But that is probably because I grew up with the piano and my father went through a period of buying "best-of" classical cd's when I was a young blank canvas. I recently attended a performance and dragged my girlfriend along. We must have been in an extremely small minority... maybe 5% of the crowd were under 40.

I think the main problem is attention spans. While classical music can provide good background sounds, in order to really appreciate it you have to sit down and be swept away by the interweaving rhythms and melodies. There is a "skill" in appreciating it. I'm no pretentious prude, I can see the value in more accessible modern music - or songs where 90% of the craft is put into the texture/sound rather than any actual moving melodic progression (gasp I like some Kanye West songs).

Another problem is people can't get past the sound/texture of music in an unfamiliar genre. When I listen I try and strip back and ignore (to an extent) any of the fashions or window dressings of a songs time period. A true music lover has to listen deeper to the structure and dynamics of a song. For instance the other day I was listening to Beethoven and was imaging how it would sound with an Aphex Twin electronic sound and the results in my brain were quite impressive - I'm sure many younger muso's would like it if I could somehow make the conversion. People just can't see past the surface level "sound" of the genre they are familiar with imo.

Also it's not just young people. Besides film scores I'd bet that not many people <60 listen to classical music. I'm sure your chance of listening to it goes up with age but it is still fairly niche. Oh well more for me 

Just my two cents. This question inspired me to sign up here.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

silvereye said:


> I think the main problem is attention spans. While classical music can provide good background sounds in order to really appreciate it you have to sit down and be swept away in the interweaving rhythms and melodies. There is a "skill" in appreciating it. I'm no pretentious prude, I can see the value in more accessible modern music - or songs where 90% of the craft is put into the texture/sound rather than any actual moving melodic progression (gasp I like some Kanye West songs).


I don´t think the attention span is that much of a problem. People are listening to full albums of pop music and there are also a lot of classical music that is as short as any pop song.


----------



## silvereye (Mar 2, 2016)

Sloe said:


> I don´t think the attention span is that much of a problem. People are listening to full albums of pop music...


_Some_ people are listening to full pop albums, and those people would probably be the best candidates for classical music. And then how do you define "attention", it's not simply having the time to listen to a fun album, classical music requires time _and_ attention... almost a meditative type of attention.

It's a bit sad nowadays... even my more music loving friends hardly ever sit and study an album in its entirety anymore - digital downloads and custom playlists are partly to blame?

But yeah maybe attention spans are not the main problem. It could be more to do with the unfamiliarity I detailed in the later paragraphs.



Sloe said:


> ...and there are also a lot of classical music that is as short as any pop song.


Don't you need a certain amount of time to get acclimatised to any new genre? especially classical music? People will warm to those familiar tunes they've heard on movies a lot faster (Blue Danube etc).

All the pomp and cornyness in a lot of classical music may turn them off too. I do prefer the melancholy stuff personally... unless a joyous song is absolutely remarkable.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2016)

All I can say is that as a music teacher in a major western European country, the conservatoires and music faculties here continue to pump out 100s of graduates every year, and it seems this will be a continuing trend. I'm pretty sure it's the same in most European and northern hemisphere countries. Ergo, the _recent generations_ _*I*_ frequent embrace wholeheartedly classical music. I really am not at all worried about this issue.


----------



## silvereye (Mar 2, 2016)

^^ Yeah I'm not worried that classical music will stop being played and appreciated by music lovers. But could it be a little worrying that performances won't sell out as easily?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

silvereye said:


> _Some_
> Don't you need a certain amount of time to get acclimatised to any new genre? especially classical music? People will warm to those familiar tunes they've heard on movies a lot faster (Blue Danube etc).
> 
> All the pomp and cornyness in a lot of classical music may turn them off too. I do prefer the melancholy stuff personally... unless a joyous song is absolutely remarkable.


In fact not. Usually I either like something immediately or I don´t.
Considering cornyness people like Katy Perry.


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

silvereye said:


> Besides film scores I'd bet that not many people <60 listen to classical music. I'm sure your chance of listening to it goes up with age but it is still fairly niche.


I've noticed that people 60 and up were raised on rock and roll, and they fork out the big bucks for the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, and Elton John tours. The ones I know aren't turning to classical; they study classic rock and seem to consider it their art form.


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2016)

silvereye said:


> ^^ Yeah I'm not worried that classical music will stop being played and appreciated by music lovers. *But could it be a little worrying that performances won't sell out as easily?*


Hello Silvereye. The classical and contemporary music concerts I've been attending these last 20 years or so have generally had near full-houses. Again (at the risk of exposing a dodgy partisanship), I don't see much to worry about.


----------



## silvereye (Mar 2, 2016)

Sloe said:


> In fact not. Usually I either like something immediately or I don´t.
> Considering cornyness people like Katy Perry.


You talking about new classical music to your ears? Well of course because you're already into classical.

Or are you saying you either instantly like/dislike a new genre less familiar to you? That seems like a self-fullfiling prophecy. All the genres you immediately disliked could have later impressed you after continued effort. For me that was Hip-hop, I never really appreciated the artistry and musical credibility until I marinated in Kendrick Lamars latest effort.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

My popularity on Facebook greatly suffers from all my postings about classical music. My Facebook wall has become a personal diary of my favorite pieces on YouTube. Now that I am in Spain and am involuntarily having pictures taken of me at outings with student friends, I get lots more likes. I experimented by asking my friends on Facebook if they preferred Mozart of Beethoven in a status. More people answered than I might have expected, but not many. Even friends who like music only talk about silly stuff on facebook, or politics(gag). But I think a few party photos of me undid some of my rreputation...annoyingly.


----------



## silvereye (Mar 2, 2016)

TalkingHead said:


> Hello Silvereye. The classical and contemporary music concerts I've been attending these last 20 years or so have generally had near full-houses. Again (at the risk of exposing a dodgy partisanship), I don't see much to worry about.


Yeah it's the same with my limited experience. Always full-houses.

What I'm saying is that most of house is full of 50+ people. When I'm 66 in 2050 there will be less demand unless new people get into classical who are not showing interest at my age now (at least in my city).

Mind you populations are so huge that even if a tiny fraction like classical music then there will be a niche market that can fill venues.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

silvereye said:


> _Some_ people are listening to full pop albums, and those people would probably be the best candidates for classical music. And then how do you define "attention", it's not simply having the time to listen to a fun album, classical music requires time _and_ attention... almost a meditative type of attention.


Back in the olden days, people weren't exactly highly attentive at Classical and opera performances. Maybe that's part of the problem: expecting young people to sit meditatively for music. Jazz went through this problem a bit as it transitioned from club dance music to stuff you were supposed to sit and sip your drink to. Though at least they had drinks.

I think one of the main issues is, why should they listen to Classical?

They are usually quite happy with what they currently listen to. 
All the usual snarking about Justin Bieber and Beyonce notwithstanding, there's a very wide variety of pop available to them.
They probably don't have much interest in helping to keep alive the cultural tradition of Classical.
They don't see and adult world that listens to Classical, that they would want to advance into.
Listening to Classical probably won't impress anyone, peer or adult (as it might have in the olden days).

ADD: I personally would like for them to listen to Classical, but can't imagine anyone feeling a need to listen to CM because I want them to.


----------



## silvereye (Mar 2, 2016)

^^^ good points, yeah why would they when they have that smaller musical hole filled.

I guess some of us get bored of genres quicker and need as many as possible to feel stimulated. I think there is also a strong historical component to enjoying classical music (and music through the ages in general).


----------



## Guest (Mar 2, 2016)

silvereye said:


> Yeah it's the same with my limited experience. Always full-houses.
> 
> *What I'm saying is that most of house is full of 50+ people.* When I'm 66 in 2050 there will be less demand unless new people get into classical who are not showing interest at my age now (at least in my city).
> 
> Mind you populations are so huge that even if a tiny fraction like classical music then there will be a niche market that can fill venues.


And what I'm saying (about the contemporary repertoire and regular festivals I attend) is that the average age of the audience is under 35.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

silvereye said:


> ^^^ good points, yeah why would they when they have that smaller musical hole filled.
> 
> I guess some of us get bored of genres quicker and need as many as possible to feel stimulated. I think there is also a strong historical component to enjoying classical music (and music through the ages in general).


Maybe there's some sort of selection bias involved here on my part, but pretty much everyone I've known has felt there's a scarcity of really good music. Basically, they're willing to become classical music buffs, but don't because it takes too much effort, and it takes too much exploration and too much self-improvement as a listener. And they may not even believe that after putting in enough effort they can start enjoying something that just bored them at first.

Also, they may not have much of a need to find new music, because other aspects of their lives provide enough content: work, sports, TV, books, video games, whatever. A hole that is only a musical hole isn't much of a hole.

You need to keep in mind that the brain isn't very malleable anymore after childhood, and developing a deep relationship with a sophisticated form of music requires a lot more effort for the average person at that point than the near spontaneous evolution that occurs in childhood.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

Lack of exposure isn't an excuse, in my opinion. I've known people who have had a musical education since the age of four, people who practice their instruments for hours a day, but who would never actually put on a piece of classical music for enjoyment and who are completely clueless about classical music aside from the pieces their music teacher has shown them. In fact, these same people listen to all the usual lowest-common-denominator chart acts for pleasure. This is a mystery that still baffles me to this day.


----------



## brucknerian (Dec 27, 2013)

Having a number of friends in the 18-25 bracket (29 myself) I can offer my perspective on this.

I don't thing it's the case that classical music isn't for young people. Among my friends, it ranges from occasional concert going to regular, enthusiastic concert going, to being a career classical musician. Almost no one I know has ever said anything disparaging about classical.

That said, practically everyone listens to other types of music as well, and, more or less, is involved in other scenes.

I think classical has become less central to people's musical lives and conception of music. It's now "just another option" rather than being THE option. It's not spoken of as superior or inferior to other kinds of music or music scenes.


----------



## affettuoso (Mar 1, 2016)

I think it's only natural for the popular music genre(s) to shift over time, and liking popular music -- liking it best, even -- doesn't preclude liking classical. But things like exposure, intimidation (if we're talking 11th century to present, that's a lot of ground to cover!), etc, can play a part. I don't know that an entire generation or generation_s_ deliberately avoids it, though.

Maybe it's been happy circumstance, but most people I've known in my life have had some interest in classical music -- but there's different levels, you know: some of them didn't know they liked classical until I gave them a piece to listen to, some of them will enjoy a piano concerto or aria but couldn't identify the composer, some of them burst into "Ein Mädchen oder Weibchen" when the subject of opera comes up, some of them are studying or composing for the genre, etc.

Having said all that, I'd of course love to see the genre grow. Always room for that.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

brucknerian said:


> Having a number of friends in the 18-25 bracket (29 myself) I can offer my perspective on this.
> 
> I don't thing it's the case that classical music isn't for young people. Among my friends, it ranges from occasional concert going to regular, enthusiastic concert going, to being a career classical musician. Almost no one I know has ever said anything disparaging about classical.


It depends on the folks one hangs around with. I remember the time when I was a late teenager and young adult. Not one of my friends ever listened to classical music; I didn't either. We never talked about or mentioned it; it was as if classical music didn't exist.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I have been reading the many fine posts. 'TalkingHead' made some interesting observations that go along with many of my experiences.

I am going to reiterate a point I was trying to make. I am an amateur musician from Fairfax County Virginia, a suburb of Washington, DC. I have decades of experience performing and working with community music ensembles. There is no way my musical experiences can be applicable to the music scene in Vienna, Austria or Fairbanks, Alaska. Lady Gaga may be more popular but based on my experiences classical music seems to be doing OK in Fairfax, VA.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Richard8655 said:


> I don't know if this has been brought up here before, but I thought I'd pose this question as it seems like a complex issue with many answers. According to statistics, classical music is on the decline and largely ignored by millenials and younger generations.
> 
> Some of my thinking is classical music doesn't feel relevant to this generation brought up in a world of mass entertainment. It doesn't speak to today's problems and concerns on an emotional level. There are fewer classical music radio stations these days, and those often play opera and modernistic pieces difficult to comprehend and become enaged in. TV (at least in North America) rarely shows classical music performances anymore.
> 
> ...


Who do you mean by recent generations ?
If I may ask ?


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Pugg said:


> Who do you mean by recent generations ?
> If I may ask ?


People coming of age later, i.e., younger audiences vs. older. An example given was the millenial generation.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Most likely because popular music is much more accessible and identifiable by my generation of music listeners and art / composed music. It's the reason why movies are more popular than theater and the opera or even reading the novel of the same story. It's all about instant access and gratification, instead of artistic and cultured sensibilities. Nothing necessarily wrong with that.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

TalkingHead said:


> All I can say is that as a music teacher in a major western European country, the conservatoires and music faculties here continue to pump out 100s of graduates every year, and it seems this will be a continuing trend. I'm pretty sure it's the same in most European and northern hemisphere countries. Ergo, the _recent generations_ _*I*_ frequent embrace wholeheartedly classical music. I really am not at all worried about this issue.


I would say in your world of conservatoires and music teaching environment, it would seem everyone loves classical music. Of course. But if you step out of that space and into a more typical students' world, that kind of enthusiasm might not be anywhere near what you'd expect.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

brucknerian said:


> I think classical has become less central to people's musical lives and conception of music. It's now "just another option" rather than being THE option. It's not spoken of as superior or inferior to other kinds of music or music scenes.


People seem very reluctant to mention class as a factor, but it surely is a significant one. I don't think many people generally have ever been interested in classical music in of itself, but as it was part of higher culture it was transmitted downwards from the elites. There was an expectation that if one wished to aspire upwards socially, an awareness of classical music was part of the deal. It's been several decades since that was the case, though. So yes, classical music is no longer THE option, the music you have to listen to to show how sophisticated you are.


----------



## Guest (Mar 3, 2016)

starthrower said:


> The static of pop culture squelches other art forms. Not to mention the decline in education.


What decline?



manyene said:


> I think it's mainly a question of experience, of being exposed to CM in the first place, I believe mine was the last generation to have it as part of my general education at school (1950s).


Music is still a compulsory subject in the UK until age 14. Whilst the content selected is down to the teachers, my experience suggests that classical remains a significant part of the music selected for sharing with children.

What seems to be missing from the analysis is any significant evidence supporting any of the suggestions. There seem first to be assumptions about 'the people' who do/don't listen; about the music itself and the features that make it attractive or unattractive to a particular audience; about the decline of civilisation as we know it.

So, let me join in and offer no evidence for my theory that in this age of mass communication, it's just so much easier to be judgemental about our friends, neighbours, communities (especially those we don't belong to) and the world at large. Before TV, radio and the internet, we knew about only those societies we lived in. So the idea that 'people these days only want instant gratification' is based on an assumption that in the olden days, 'people were happier with deferred gratification'. Can this be shown to be the case?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Nereffid said:


> People seem very reluctant to mention class as a factor, but it surely is a significant one. I don't think many people generally have ever been interested in classical music in of itself, but as it was part of higher culture it was transmitted downwards from the elites. There was an expectation that if one wished to aspire upwards socially, an awareness of classical music was part of the deal. It's been several decades since that was the case, though. So yes, classical music is no longer THE option, the music you have to listen to to show how sophisticated you are.


I have never seen classical as part of an elitist culture but it is certainly a fact that most adherents of classical music come from among people whose interest also includes other aspects of the arts - literature and art - i.e. the educated middle classes.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> What decline?
> 
> Music is still a compulsory subject in the UK until age 14. Whilst the content selected is down to the teachers, my experience suggests that classical remains a significant part of the music selected for sharing with children.
> 
> ...


I certainly don't think in the 'olden days' that the working classes went to concerts of Beethoven and Brahms or sat through Wagner's operas. More people hear classical music now than ever they did through the enormous advance of electronic media. As for schools, classical was certainly the main subject when I was at school but the vast majority of my friends preferred pop music. In fact I still remember being the object of derision for being seen with an EP record of Horowitz playing Liszt's Hungarian Rhapsody no 2. Nothing much has changed except schools are now teaching a variety of musical tastes. After all, who are we to say that only classical should be heard?


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> Lack of exposure isn't an excuse, in my opinion. I've known people who have had a musical education since the age of four, people who practice their instruments for hours a day, but who would never actually put on a piece of classical music for enjoyment and who are completely clueless about classical music aside from the pieces their music teacher has shown them. In fact, these same people listen to all the usual lowest-common-denominator chart acts for pleasure. *This is a mystery that still baffles me to this day*.


It shouldn't baffle you as it is a matter of tastes and choices. My son has had a thorough musical education and is actually a professional musician but he simply does not like classical music any more than I like the sort of music he plays. I can assure you what he plays takes endless practice both with instrument and electronics and computer. It's not right or wrong - simply a matter of taste and choice. We really have to stop looking down on people who's tastes differ from our own.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

One reason is probably that many people simply don't care for instrumental music, and also dislike classical singing styles. To many, human voice makes music much more expressive, emotional and easier to relate to. Classical singing on the other hand is correctly perceived as "unnatural" and "irritating".


----------



## schigolch (Jun 26, 2011)

What do we mean by "recent generations"?.

I was born in the 1960s, and I was attending musical school since early childhood. Outside this environment (where there were indeed many people loving classical music), most of the other people I met in my life were pretty indifferent to classical music. Even when I attended college, I also discovered that, outside a relatively small minority of enthusiastic guys and girls, most people were also not interested in classical music.

I don't think the situation is now any different.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I have never seen classical as part of an elitist culture but it is certainly a fact that most adherents of classical music come from among people whose interest also includes other aspects of the arts - literature and art - i.e. the educated middle classes.


I would draw a distinction between the existence of "elites" (my word) and "elitist culture". Classical music throughout its history has been supported by those in power or otherwise high-up in society - the aristocracy and the Church in particular, and also the educated middle classes (though there weren't so many of them in the past). I wouldn't necessarily call it an "elitist culture", because the point was that high culture was something ennobling, into which the lower orders could be welcomed (as long as they kept to the ground rules, I suppose).


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

DavidA said:


> I certainly don't think in the 'olden days' that the working classes went to concerts of Beethoven and Brahms or sat through Wagner's operas.


Yes, I was just wondering, for example, how many of the millions of people affected by the War of the Spanish Succession ever got a chance to hear Handel's Utrecht Te Deum and Jubilate. Or had even heard of Handel, for that matter.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

schigolch said:


> What do we mean by "recent generations"?.
> 
> I was born in the 1960s, and I was attending musical school since early childhood. Outside this environment (where there were indeed many people loving classical music), most of the other people I met in my life were pretty indifferent to classical music. Even when I attended college, I also discovered that, outside a relatively small minority of enthusiastic guys and girls, most people were also not interested in classical music.
> 
> I don't think the situation is now any different.


As a child of the 50s I second this. My parents did not play classical music at home (no-one in the wider family did), no-one in my circles at the university did either, and I did not get interested in it myself until the mid 80s, because of three triggers:

- decline of pop/rock at the time
- a few advocates of CM at work
- the start of CD's


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Dim7 said:


> One reason is probably that many people simply don't care for instrumental music, and also dislike classical singing styles. To many, human voice makes music much more expressive, emotional and easier to relate to. Classical singing on the other hand is correctly perceived as "unnatural" and "irritating".


Yes, although I am puzzled by the number of people who would rather listen to a film score or dubstep, and seem to view this as the center of the instrumental music world.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Just to add to what a few have said here. I find people often perceive classical music as some form of intellectual snobbery. When asked why not give it a go, I hear responses like "I haven't studied it" or "it hasn't been explained to me". It amazes me that some feel they have to take music appreciation courses to like it, and can't just spontaneously listen and decide at the moment of first hearing.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Let me explain: tap, tap, tap. This indicates the attention span of all Americans after 1980.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I was just looking around YouTube and I found this "neighborhood" of videos that had
this type of very popular dance music phenomena that is happening now. It consisted
of one person being up on stage in front of perhaps ten to twenty thousand people.
The person onstage did not do anything but DJ and dance. The crowd "danced" in place and
were very excited. These videos had I believe like 20 million hits in about a month.
I think that's part of your answer, a lot of younger people like things like this for their
"music."


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." H. L. Mencken (?Maybe?)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

H. L. Mencken it was, although sometimes misattributed to P. T. Barnum.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Why do current generations shy away from Classical Music? 

chronically short attention-span induced by our commercial/soundbite/texting/fast-food culture.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

20centrfuge said:


> Why do current generations shy away from Classical Music?
> 
> chronically short attention-span induced by our commercial/soundbite/texting/fast-food culture.


So you're saying classical music requires an attention span? What's wrong with music that doesn't require an attention span? Are you saying this music is inferior?


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

Klassic said:


> Let me explain: tap, tap, tap. This indicates the attention span of all Americans after 1980.


So close! Just one more tap, and they'd be ready for Webern. Or Beethoven


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> One reason is probably that many people simply don't care for instrumental music, and also dislike classical singing styles. To many, human voice makes music much more expressive, emotional and easier to relate to. Classical singing on the other hand is incorrectly perceived as "unnatural" and "irritating".


I think this is the main reason.
Also other reasons young people don´t want to hear classical music is they don´t like to hear the instruments. When I was a teenager those in my age liked to listen to punk, hard rock and hard core music. They wanted to hear music when lots of drums and loud electric guitars. This is what young people like to hear.


----------



## 20centrfuge (Apr 13, 2007)

Klassic said:


> So you're saying classical music requires an attention span? What's wrong with music that doesn't require an attention span? Are you saying this music is inferior?


Not sure if you are being serious or not, but for the sake of argument - I am not saying that short attention span music is necessarily inferior to music that requires an attention span, simply that classical music DOES require a longer attention span.

And, of course, my personal preference is for classical music!


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

20centrfuge said:


> Not sure if you are being serious or not, but for the sake of argument - I am not saying that short attention span music is necessarily inferior to music that requires an attention span, simply that classical music DOES require a longer attention span.
> 
> And, of course, my personal preference is for classical music!


I was kinda joking but only because I would say, in so many cases, it does make it inferior. At some point I think we need to bite the bullet.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

arpeggio said:


> "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people." H. L. Mencken (?Maybe?)


We can actually see this with the popularity of a current political party there.


----------



## Kivimees (Feb 16, 2013)

Maybe youngsters are put off at the idea of having to dress up to go to a classical concert when they would rather "dress down".


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Kivimees said:


> Maybe youngsters are put off at the idea of having to dress up to go to a classical concert when they would rather "dress down".


Exactly right. This is where the perceived snobbism come in. I think summer outdoor concerts where people come informally and bring blankets, picnic baskets, wine, etc. helps this problem and opens the door.


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Let me offer another serious reason: classical composers do not appear to be the true rebels they are. Instead, they appear to be conformists, but those of us who listen to classical music know that some of the most rebellious and non-conformist music in the world is in the field of classical music. We need to let the younger generation know just how radical some of these composers really are... a few names come to mind: 

Schoenberg 
Schnittke
Ligeti
Lutosławski
Webern 

I know lots of people on this thread can name more.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: So many negative stigmas: music for nerds, the asocial, the losers, mad scientists, crazy rapists and murderers.

Hollywood perpetrates the above stereotypes in its films. Did Mozart seem normal to you in Amadeus?

Whenever there is a film about a pervert or sadist, you can bet classical music is playing in the background.

Way back in days of yesteryear, I dated a gal and she asked me what was my favorite music. When I told her, she replyed with passionate venom at ffff volume, "I HATE CLASSICAL MUSIC!!" I never experienced anything like it. Yes. She appeared to be very sociable, with a lot of friends, wore bikinis to the beach, very "hip". Just like the majority of her age group. To her classical music was "solitary confinement" music. She would probably rather have died than be associated with it.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

hpowders said:


> OP: So many negative stigmas: music for nerds, the asocial, the losers, mad scientists, crazy rapists and murderers.
> 
> Hollywood perpetrates the above stereotypes in its films. Did Mozart seem normal to you in Amadeus?
> 
> ...


About the film thing: spot on. It's rare to see classical in a film that isn't associated with the bad guys. Then again, the recent Mission Impossible had an extensive scene at the opera that was more neutral, and one of the main good guys loved opera, so perhaps the tides are turning

As for your story, I've experienced the same thing, but only once. Then again, it was back in high school, so who knows how maturity levels are different now, but with most of my friends were indifferent about classical. A few, who were in orchestra or band or theater, liked classical, but one friend told me she HATED it. In fact, she's the only person in my life who's ever said they've HATED classical. Interesting.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Cosmos said:


> About the film thing: spot on. It's rare to see classical in a film that isn't associated with the bad guys.


For the most part I agree. The one major exception I see is Stanley Kubrick's use of classical music in his films. It was almost always uplifting and inspiring and added a level of emotion that otherwise would be lacking. To me, Barry Lyndon and 2001 are good examples.


----------



## Robert Eckert (Mar 3, 2016)

Western Civilization is in decline in all areas of culture. The MS media has destroyed an appreciation for the truly exceptional and wonderous. Recent generations have been dumbed down, and now demand inane vulgarity and stupidity, which is not at all what good music presents. Need I continue?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

Robert Eckert said:


> Western Civilization is in decline in all areas of culture. The MS media has destroyed an appreciation for the truly exceptional and wonderous. Recent generations have been dumbed down, and now demand inane vulgarity and stupidity, which is not at all what good music presents. Need I continue?


Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as Western _Civilization_.


----------



## Robert Eckert (Mar 3, 2016)

Oh! 
Then can we then expand your view to learn that there is no such thing as "Any Civilization"?
That all is relative?
That there is really nothing good or bad...but thinking makes it so?
Please get real.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

It has a lot to domwith attention span, people are so used to simplistic music that they just don't often see how something requiring consentration to listen to could possibly be any better. They also lack exposure, and also knowledge of music, so that many of them will find it hard to identify different melodies in a contrapuntal section or follow a chord progression or form. Another thing is that I have had a lot of people tell others I like Mozart and Beethoven, in which I usually chip in and say, well actually, I prefer Verdi and Liszt, along with Bruckner, Brahms... and so on. A lot of people seem to be only familiar with, Beethoven, Mozart or Chopin and maybe the fact that certain composers' music is usually used so much more may hinder the amount of people listening, since there are many other great composers who are just simply not as well known who people may aquire more of a liking to.

I am however, happy to report, some of my friends have finally started to respond to some classical music, in the form of Maria Callas.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Klassic said:


> Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as Western _Civilization_.


I relish breaking to you, that you need to look up the definition of civilization.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Personally I don't think there is any danger of absolute music dying off. This type of music has a way of finding people, perhaps not as many people as gutter fare pop or hip/hop but whose loss is it certainly not those of us who appreciate absolute music. 

What I mean by finding people is this; I was born to a typical middle class American family and grew up in the 90's. All through my time at school and college I never really met anyone who loves this music as much as me (except you folks here at TC of course, God bless you) but any time I've ever been to a concert or recital I see a few handfuls of people in my age group. Anyway I suppose what I'm trying to say is let the music decide who is worthy of being called. Yes try to turn people you know on to it but only the individual can decide if they enjoy something enough to begin an exploration of it. 

Besides who wants a slew of rap and pop music fans extolling the virtues of "classical" as the other great genre of music, that would sully such a pristine reputation. :devil:


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

hpowders said:


> OP: So many negative stigmas: music for nerds, the asocial, the losers, mad scientists, crazy rapists and murderers.
> 
> Hollywood perpetrates the above stereotypes in its films. Did Mozart seem normal to you in Amadeus?
> 
> Whenever there is a film about a pervert or sadist, you can bet classical music is playing in the background.


Not always hp, as Richie8655 pointed out some classy film makers know how to use it... Oh and here's an example of the other side of the "crazy, pervert" coin... (it starts at 2:22)


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Klassic said:


> Let me offer another serious reason: classical composers do not appear to be the true rebels they are. Instead, they appear to be conformists, but those of us who listen to classical music know that some of the most rebellious and non-conformist music in the world is in the field of classical music. We need to let the younger generation know just how radical some of these composers really are... a few names come to mind:
> 
> Schoenberg
> Schnittke
> ...


On the contrary, I would list those composers as making classical music even less accessible to young people or people new to classical music. Being radical is not in and of itself enough to attract new classical music listeners.

Most young people are more interested in the various categories of popular music these days, some of it less melodic than others, but melody still, for the most part, is a common denominator whether it is Taylor Swift, Rhianna or Adele. Those on this forum who continue to perpetrate the myth that Schoenberg can be a gateway to classical music for this group are, for the most part, kidding themselves.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DaveM said:


> On the contrary, I would list those composers as making classical music even less accessible to young people or people new to classical music. Being radical is not in and off itself enough to attract new classical music listeners.
> 
> Most young people are more interested in the various categories of popular music these days, some of it less melodic than others, but melody still, for the most part, is a common denominator whether it is Taylor Swift, Rhianna or Adele. Those on this forum who continue to perpetrate the myth that Schoenberg can be a gateway to classical music for this group are, for the most part, kidding themselves.


But Schoenberg's music is entirely made up of melody (a few things, like Farben, aside). How is it contradictory to what you've said?

I'd agree that Schoenberg is unlikely to draw in the pop crowd, but because of a lack of literal repetition and an unfamiliar language, not because of a lack of melody.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

DaveM said:


> On the contrary, I would list those composers as making classical music even less accessible to young people or people new to classical music. Being radical is not in and off itself enough to attract new classical music listeners.
> 
> Most young people are more interested in the various categories of popular music these days, some of it less melodic than others, but melody still, for the most part, is a common denominator whether it is Taylor Swift, Rhianna or Adele. Those on this forum who continue to perpetrate the myth that Schoenberg can be a gateway to classical music for this group are, for the most part, kidding themselves.


Of course most young people (and older people too) aren't interested in Schoenberg and the like, just like they aren't interested in any other classical composer. But it's interesting that, as I and many others here have noticed, at Modern and Contemporary classical concerts, the vast majority of the people in attendance are young, much younger than the average concertgoers to, say, a Tchaikovsky concert. Make of that what you will.
(I do think that "Being radical" is not what attracts most people to the music of Schoenberg, Ligeti, Webern, etc. anymore than that of older radicals like Beethoven, Wagner, etc.)

Aaand Schoenberg _is_ melodic. Yes, even 12-tone Schoenberg.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Because hip-hop booty-twerk-lover junkies are the dominant musicians of the world right now!

Let's see this from another aspect. Until 70s there exist strong use of acoustic instruments in most genres. Violin, Trumpet, Trombone, Flute, Piano. But since 80s it began to use Electronic instruments and x-bass stuff in many genres. So now people only have heard the Electronic Age of music and anything instrumental is weird, old and boring to them. They haven't heard enough instrumental works to find similarity between them and classic music, therefore get attracted to CM.

But we also have movie music, that steals any potential fan from CM to movie music!

I need to listen to some awesome 70s music again!


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Arsakes said:


> Because hip-hop booty-twerk-lover junkies are the dominant musicians of the world right now!


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

^Kill it with fire!

Let me add that, the early stuff my family had (Mozart, Beethoven, J.Strauss II, Bach, selection of the best, etc.) and Star Wars music made me interested in CM. Without them I doubt I could be a serious fan.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Klassic said:


> Hate to break it to you, but there is no such thing as Western _Civilization_.


It existed... then this happened:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Fugue Meister said:


> Not always hp, as Richie8655 pointed out some classy film makers know how to use it... Oh and here's an example of the other side of the "crazy, pervert" coin... (it starts at 2:22)


Okay, but that is dismally rare. What is really needed is for some of the mainstream folks' acting idols to come out and talk up classical music as great stuff, with recommended listenings, but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

hpowders said:


> Hollywood perpetrates the above stereotypes in its films. Did Mozart seem normal to you in Amadeus?


Just to add. I didn't think Mozart was cast negatively in Amadeus, but rather the opposite. Even though very quirky (and selfish), he was portrayed as sympathetic and a musical genius. Salieri attested to that. And with his gorgeous music in the background throughout, this was reaffirmed.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Richard8655 said:


> Just to add. I didn't think Mozart was cast negatively in Amadeus, but rather the opposite. Even though very quirky (and selfish), he was portrayed as sympathetic and a musical genius. Salieri attested to that. And with his gorgeous music in the background throughout, this was reaffirmed.


Well I'm not really disagreeing with you here but I completely see Hp's point the "quirk" was a totally over the top in "Amadeus"(but I still love that film).


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Fugue Meister said:


> Well I'm not really disagreeing with you here but I completely see Hp's point the "quirk" was a totally over the top in "Amadeus"(but I still love that film).


Yes good point and for sure. Many would never get past that "quirkiness" and make a negative judgement from there.


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

Indeed.. the ultra conservative part of me is totally with Salieri in that film, Mozart was a "giggling, dirty minded creature".


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mahlerian said:


> But Schoenberg's music is entirely made up of melody (a few things, like Farben, aside). How is it contradictory to what you've said?
> 
> I'd agree that Schoenberg is unlikely to draw in the pop crowd, but because of a lack of literal repetition and an unfamiliar language, not because of a lack of melody.


I know you keep saying it and I'm sure you hear something that resonates with you, but it categorically is not traditional, accessible melody as we know it and to infer otherwise is disingenuous. And I'm not denying the fact Schoenburg (et al) has a following, but it is never going to be particularly influential compared to tonal classical music. (And you know what I mean so please don't give me the tonal vs atonal wordsmithing.)

You're right that it is an unfamiliar language and that is true because there is not familiar melody.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

DaveM said:


> I know you keep saying it and I'm sure you hear something that resonates with you, but it categorically is not traditional, accessible melody as we know it and to infer otherwise is disingenuous. And I'm not denying the fact Schoenburg (et al) has a following, but it is never going to be particularly influential compared to tonal classical music. (And you know what I mean so please don't give me the tonal vs atonal wordsmithing.)
> 
> You're right that it is an unfamiliar language and that is true because there is not familiar melody.


But is "accessible" that important in this situation? Beethoven and Verdi and others are accessible and well-known and have a pretty poor track record of attracting new listeners to classical music.

You've got to remember that classical isn't going to poach people who listen to top 40. It will get people who are looking to actively get into something different. I know plenty of smart artsy people who don't know much about classical - they could be the classical listeners of the future. Beethoven 9 and La Traviata aren't speaking to these people, but they do respond to Stravinsky, Debussy, Bartok, Prokofiev and more modern stuff

So why stick with the track that isn't working?


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

DaveM said:


> On the contrary, I would list those composers as making classical music even less accessible to young people or people new to classical music.


I hate to say it, but this is exactly what a fundamentalist would say. Allow Schoenberg and the like (Schnittke, Ligeti, Lutosławski, Webern) to be free... in contrast to what came before these composers are rebels. Many more should be added, Stravinsky and others...


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

DaveM said:


> And I'm not denying the fact Schoenburg (et al) has a following, but it is never going to be particularly influential compared to tonal classical music.


Well, classical minimalism is more influential on today's popular music than any older "tonal" classical music.

And Schönberg (and/or Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen) is an important influence on minimalism, which reacts against him by going all the way in the opposite direction. Maybe the most important classical influence - other candidates: Stravinsky, John Cage.

So actually Schönberg is currently more influential than Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or whoever.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Richard8655 said:


> Just to add. I didn't think Mozart was cast negatively in Amadeus, but rather the opposite. Even though very quirky (and selfish), he was portrayed as sympathetic and a musical genius. Salieri attested to that. And with his gorgeous music in the background throughout, this was reaffirmed.


What about the stupid laugh they gave him?


----------



## Fugue Meister (Jul 5, 2014)

hpowders said:


> What about the stupid laugh they gave him?


I for one really loved that stupid laugh. Still see your point but loved the laugh especially that last one that leads into the credits.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

hpowders said:


> What about the stupid laugh they gave him?


It was stupid, agree. But to many (I know you might not agree) it was sort of endearing and gave him a unique personality. Kind of like Einstein with that hair or Truman Capote with that weird voice. And it made the movie more entertaining. At least that's how I saw it in my (maybe twisted) view.

Edit add: I think throughout history geniuses always had some faults, foibles, or personality defects. Another aspect is if Mozart came across as the normal, average, every day man of the time, how much of a less interesting movie would that be? We all root for the guy who has some defect but with noble intentions.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

dgee said:


> But is "accessible" that important in this situation? Beethoven and Verdi and others are accessible and well-known and have a pretty poor track record of attracting new listeners to classical music.


How do you know? If we accept for the moment the premise of the OP that the millennials and younger generation is not being attracted to classical music, then it is a major leap to blame it on Beethoven and Verdi. It is an even greater leap to promote the premise that the way to attract that demographic is to inform them that the music of Schoenberg et al is rebellious, non-conformist and radical which is what I originally responded to.



> You've got to remember that classical isn't going to poach people who listen to top 40. It will get people who are looking to actively get into something different. I know plenty of smart artsy people who don't know much about classical - they could be the classical listeners of the future. Beethoven 9 and La Traviata aren't speaking to these people, but they do respond to Stravinsky, Debussy, Bartok, Prokofiev and more modern stuff.


Again, how do you know? I've heard that perpetrated in another thread going on at the moment (although, again, Schoenberg is the name being commonly mentioned). No one is calling anybody on it so it starts to be accepted as gospel.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Klassic said:


> I hate to say it, but this is exactly what a fundamentalist would say. Allow Schoenberg and the like (Schnittke, Ligeti, Lutosławski, Webern) to be free... in contrast to what came before these composers are rebels. Many more should be added, Stravinsky and others...


Nobody is shackling Schoenberg et al. If that category of classical music was as popular as the cadre on this forum infers that it is, then we would be seeing more evidence of it. I can tell you this. If I take 10 millennials off the street and play them the first movement of the moonlight sonata or the first movement of the Eroica or almost any Chopin prelude up against any Schoenberg work you can come up with, I would bet good money on the former winning by a landslide.

Fwiw: I see an interesting phenomenon in popular and all sub-categories these days. There is much less melody than as we knew it in the 60s to the 90s. Pure rap is more often more beat than melody. There is a lot of repetition and much less ingenuity in song construction. And then, along comes Adele with her first album in several years and it breaks records in sales and cuts across the millennial and younger generations. Why? Because, IMO, in the end, accessible melody and fleshed out lyrics still resonates with the masses.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Well, classical minimalism is more influential on today's popular music than any older "tonal" classical music.
> 
> And Schönberg (and/or Webern, Boulez, Stockhausen) is an important influence on minimalism, which reacts against him by going all the way in the opposite direction. Maybe the most important classical influence - other candidates: Stravinsky, John Cage.
> 
> So actually Schönberg is currently more influential than Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, or whoever.


Stating such things as truisms does not make them fact. That last statement is fanciful at the very least, but if it makes you feel better to believe it then knock yourself out.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

A lot of rap is constructed with far more musical ingenuity than Adele's records. As for "fleshed out lyrics," are you kidding? Kendrick Lamar writes fleshed out lyrics, maybe. Adele writes vignettes.

Of course, melody is doing fine in popular music, with no help needed from Adele in particular - who doesn't really sing distinct tunes in the sense of Mozart, Verdi, Gershwin, and the Beatles anyway; she always stays close to soul formulas - most of it currently written or co-written by Swedes.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

DaveM said:


> That last statement is fanciful at the very least, but if it makes you feel better to believe it then knock yourself out.


If calling it fanciful makes you feel better, then... well actually I don't care.

The Beatles are also currently more influential than Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven. Greatness and influence at a particular moment aren't the same thing. Schönberg is dead, Beethoven is deader. Deal with it.


----------



## fluteman (Dec 7, 2015)

I think the main reason was mentioned early on in this thread, and several times thereafter: education. How interested are most KTDs in Shakespeare? Chaucer? Proust? Rilke? Pound? Braque? Klee? Titian? Vermeer? Balanchine? Those educated in the arts early on, and yes, dragged to museums and concerts, develop a certain appreciation of the arts as adults, even if it doesn't become their highest priority. Otherwise, most do not.
edit: KTDs = Kids Today


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Harold in Columbia said:


> ...Adele in particular - who doesn't really sing distinct tunes in the sense of Mozart, Verdi, Gershwin, and the Beatles anyway; she always stays close to soul formulas...


Though, on the other hand, sometimes she and her co-writers steal a hook from Philip Glass:


----------



## Robert Eckert (Mar 3, 2016)

DaveM said:


> I know you keep saying it and I'm sure you hear something that resonates with you, but it categorically is not traditional, accessible melody as we know it and to infer otherwise is disingenuous. And I'm not denying the fact Schoenburg (et al) has a following, but it is never going to be particularly influential compared to tonal classical music. (And you know what I mean so please don't give me the tonal vs atonal wordsmithing.)
> 
> You're right that it is an unfamiliar language and that is true because there is not familiar melody.


Jazz music presents a similar contrast, with composers and improvisations like that of Pat Metheny and Bill Evans being melodic fountains, and Cecil Taylor or Ornette Coleman presenting discordant composition that are often very difficult to listen to. An appreciation for the less melodic may indeed depend on a listener's tolerance for agitation.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

DaveM said:


> How do you know? If we accept for the moment the premise of the OP that the millennials and younger generation is not being attracted to classical music, then it is a major leap to blame it on Beethoven and Verdi. It is an even greater leap to promote the premise that the way to attract that demographic is to inform them that the music of Schoenberg et al is rebellious, non-conformist and radical which what I originally responded to.


Oh, I don't believe that latter premise at all, but if you promise people classical music that sounds like archetypal classical music that most people are already pretty familiar with and tell them that this is what they should like, where they should start, aren't you just giving them stuff they already know they're not into? I'd tasted sushi and didn't like it, but it wasn't until I got taken to a yakatori restaurant that I started to think there was something interesting about Japanese food - and now I'll even eat sushi every now and then

About attracting smart, curious people as the classical listeners of the future, I just think that has more going for it than trying to lure someone who hums along to Katy Perry in the car on their morning commute. I wonder many on this forum start as an uncritical pop listener who suddenly found Tchaikovsky? However, you offer the former group something a bit different to sink their teeth into and you'll be surprised what happens. And this is a thing I've noted with friends AND being involved in programming and governance of several music organisations


----------



## Klassic (Dec 19, 2015)

DaveM said:


> If I take 10 millennials off the street and play them the first movement of the moonlight sonata or the first movement of the Eroica or almost any Chopin prelude up against any Schoenberg work you can come up with, I would bet good money on the former winning by a landslide.


I didn't know millennials were actually judging things this way. I always thought they just moved with the popular social emphasis.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Klassic said:


> I didn't know millennials were actually judging things this way. I always thought they just moved with the popular social emphasis.


You're wrong then aren't you?


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2016)

Klassic said:


> I was kinda joking but only because I would say, in so many cases, it does make it inferior. At some point I think we need to bite the bullet.


Do we? What bullet?



Kivimees said:


> Maybe youngsters are put off at the idea of having to dress up to go to a classical concert when they would rather "dress down".


Maybe, and maybe your smiley suggests you're joking, but just to be clear, I've never had to 'dress up' to go to a classical concert - nor did I see anyone else there 'dressed up'.



Robert Eckert said:


> Western Civilization is in decline in all areas of culture. The MS media has destroyed an appreciation for the truly exceptional and wonderous. Recent generations have been dumbed down, and now demand inane vulgarity and stupidity, which is not at all what good music presents. Need I continue?


These are the kinds of sweeping generalisations about the state of the world I was alluding to in my previous post (#42).



Burroughs said:


> It has a lot to domwith attention span, people are so used to simplistic music that they just don't often see how something requiring consentration to listen to could possibly be any better. They also lack exposure, and also knowledge of music, so that many of them will find it hard to identify different melodies in a contrapuntal section or follow a chord progression or form.


Here's another one about some generalised 'they' as if all 'younger generations' are all the same.

Nevertheless, I've found proof, proof I tell you, that it's all true.

View attachment 82123


http://seatsmart.com/blog/lyric-intelligence/

Mind you, I lost interest in reading this after my short attention span failed.



dgee said:


> You've got to remember that classical isn't going to poach people who listen to top 40. It will get people who are looking to actively get into something different.


You need to work on your Venn diagrams, dgee, so you'll find that there exists a group that overlaps between the two you've just described...I know, because I belong to it...

...
...

It's kind of quiet and lonely in here though!


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> A lot of rap is constructed with far more musical ingenuity than Adele's records. As for "fleshed out lyrics," are you kidding? Kendrick Lamar writes fleshed out lyrics, maybe. Adele writes vignettes.


Well, that doesn't address the fact that Adele has been outselling most other artists popular, rap or hip-hop, whatever. That said, you obviously are not very familiar with Adele's music (and btw, I am familiar with Lamar's). I'm disappointed in you because it turns out that your taste is not better than that of everyone else as you stated in a recent thread.


> Of course, melody is doing fine in popular music, with no help needed from Adele in particular - who doesn't really sing distinct tunes in the sense of Mozart, Verdi, Gershwin, and the Beatles anyway;


What's that got to do with anything. Btw, since when did the Beatles get mixed in with Mozart, Verdi and Gershwin.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

Coming back into this discussion at a much later stage, it's surprising how often a question of attention span has come up in this thread . I'm sure that it is not related to levels of intelligence, as so many pessimists who say 'civilisation' is on the way down seem to be assuming .It is rather the pace of life in the 21st-century. A recent television programme exposed a typical middle-class British family to a variety of lifestyles from the 1950s onwards, and this was the message that came up very strongly. We are surrounded by gadgets and have to do a lot of things very quickly: hence mobile phones, computer games et cetera. Arguably the 'song' that lasts 3 to 4 minutes has become the norm just as Beethoven's Ninth Symphony became the norm for the length of the CD as developed by Sony many years ago. 

A Mahler symphony lasting 70 to 80 minutes has thus become a real test for many listeners, requiring a big input in time and concentration. Maybe it is unfortunate but perhaps it is just a fact of life for the majority of listeners. In the same way, the size of the book reading public has steadily declined, with occasional exceptions when something like '50 shades of Grey' or Harry Potter hit the bookshelves.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

DaveM said:


> That said, you obviously are not very familiar with Adele's music (and btw, I am familiar with Lamar's).


Pro tip: Foregoing contractions doesn't make bluster sound better.

What's obvious is that you're trying to use current pop music as a stick to beat the classical music that scares you, but you don't actually know or care much about current pop music. (Richard Taruskin has this problem too, but of course he does it much more slickly than you.)



DaveM said:


> I'm disappointed in you because it turns out that your taste is not better than that of everyone else as you stated in a recent thread.


Man, that line really bothers you, for some reason. (I'd already forgotten I said it, though of course it's true.)


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

manyene said:


> Coming back into this discussion at a much later stage, it's surprising how often a question of attention span has come up in this thread . I'm sure that it is not related to levels of intelligence, as so many pessimists who say 'civilisation' is on the way down seem to be assuming .It is rather the pace of life in the 21st-century. A recent television programme exposed a typical middle-class British family to a variety of lifestyles from the 1950s onwards, and this was the message that came up very strongly. We are surrounded by gadgets and have to do a lot of things very quickly: hence mobile phones, computer games et cetera. Arguably the 'song' that lasts 3 to 4 minutes has become the norm just as Beethoven's Ninth Symphony became the norm for the length of the CD as developed by Sony many years ago.
> 
> A Mahler symphony lasting 70 to 80 minutes has thus become a real test for many listeners, requiring a big input in time and concentration. Maybe it is unfortunate but perhaps it is just a fact of life for the majority of listeners. In the same way, the size of the book reading public has steadily declined, with occasional exceptions when something like '50 shades of Grey' or Harry Potter hit the bookshelves.


I'm inclined to think the "attention span" argument is a red herring. As you rightly point out the pace of life has changed. For all we know, the typical medieval peasant or 19th-century factory worker had terrible attention spans too - but there was nothing to distract them from their long hours of scraping together a living.
Moreover, haven't movies been tending to get longer in recent years? And isn't "binge watching" now a thing? Surely not signs of limited attention spans.
And I don't think we even have to go outside this thread to find people who are fine with a Mahler symphony or Wagner opera but would balk at 5 minutes of minimalism.
It's not about "attention span", it's about _what people want to pay attention to_.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Moreover, haven't movies been tending to get longer in recent years? And isn't "binge watching" now a thing? Surely not signs of limited attention spans.


Good point.



Nereffid said:


> It's not about "attention span", it's about _what people want to pay attention to_.


Yup.

It's amazing to me that hardly anybody seems to think it's strange to ask why more people today don't listen to _common practice period_ music, because that's what these conversations always seem to mostly be about. Might as well ask why more people in Mozart's time didn't listen to Marenzio.

As for the "classical music" being written today, I'd say the pertinent question is not why it isn't more popular, but rather why it's so segregated from the popular forms. Mozart specialized in both popular operas and chamber music for connoisseurs, but nobody today specializes in both pop music and "classical music."

A lot of people say popular music and high music have been brought back together today, after a period of alienation from each other in the middle of the 20th century, but if anything it may be the other way around. At least the '50s had Leonard Bernstein writing both Broadway hits and some pretty good concert music.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Good point.
> 
> Yup.
> 
> ...


Well the minimalists (whom you kind of hate, right?) achieved pretty significant crossover.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

DaveM said:


> If I take 10 millennials off the street and play them the first movement of the moonlight sonata or the first movement of the Eroica or almost any Chopin prelude up against any Schoenberg work you can come up with, I would bet good money on the former winning by a landslide.


This is probably true, but the vast majority of those millennials will never pay for a classical record or concert. Of the smaller subset who might, or who already do, Schoenberg will do much, much better.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> Moreover, haven't movies been tending to get longer in recent years? And isn't "binge watching" now a thing? Surely not signs of limited attention spans.


Yeah, point well taken. But I think there's a difference. Movies these days are packed with violence and visual effects all extremely fast paced. Classical music is contemplative, relatively slow, and requires your own visualization and inner emotional connection. There's no eye candy to grab the primitive part of the brain. So I do think attention span applies to art forms like classical music and not so much to current popular movies.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

isorhythm said:


> Well the minimalists (whom you kind of hate, right?) achieved pretty significant crossover.


Yes, I already made that point myself in this discussion (and yes, I kind of hate them, especially Reich and Glass, but that means exactly as much as Debussy's kind of hating Wagner - it doesn't make the fact of them go away). But you said it yourself: It's crossover success. They don't make pop records.

Brian Eno is maybe the closest thing we have to a native of both worlds. But then, his maybe-they-count-as-classical works such as _Music for Airports_ and _Thursday Afternoon_ (and even the maybe very best one, _Discreet Music_, which is also maybe not coincidentally his very first) aren't nearly as good as his pop music (in which category I include _Another Green World_).


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

DaveM said:


> I know you keep saying it and I'm sure you hear something that resonates with you, but it categorically is not traditional, accessible melody as we know it and to infer otherwise is disingenuous.


By any definition I'm aware of (aside from ad hoc ones designed to keep Schoenberg out), his melodies are melodies. The other words you've added on are meaningless in this discussion unless you give them some specific import.



DaveM said:


> And I'm not denying the fact Schoenburg (et al) has a following, but it is never going to be particularly influential compared to tonal classical music. (And you know what I mean so please don't give me the tonal vs atonal wordsmithing.)
> 
> You're right that it is an unfamiliar language and that is true because there is not familiar melody.


No, it's true because of the harmony. The melody itself is extremely traditional in nature.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

How many millennials do people know?


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Stirling said:


> How many millennials do people know?


I guess this didn't hold up after all: "There are reasons, but they are not going to be stated here."


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

DaveM said:


> Nobody is shackling Schoenberg et al. If that category of classical music was as popular as the cadre on this forum infers that it is, then we would be seeing more evidence of it. I can tell you this. If I take 10 millennials off the street and play them the first movement of the moonlight sonata or the first movement of the Eroica or almost any Chopin prelude up against any Schoenberg work you can come up with, I would bet good money on the former winning by a landslide.
> 
> Fwiw: I see an interesting phenomenon in popular and all sub-categories these days. There is much less melody than as we knew it in the 60s to the 90s. Pure rap is more often more beat than melody. There is a lot of repetition and much less ingenuity in song construction. And* then, along comes Adele with her first album in several years and it breaks records in sales and cuts across the millennial and younger generations. Why? Because, IMO, in the end, accessible melody and fleshed out lyrics still resonates with the masses.*


I've no evidence for it (other than than that my mum is a big fan) but I reckon the success of Adele's watered down sixties 'soul' (a misnomer if there ever was one) is due mostly to the grey pound. Surely those of us not yet on the verge of senility can find something with a bit more vivacity and 'oomph' to listen to, whatever genre we prefer. I certainly don't detect much melody in her dirgey ramblings, and while her diction is so awful that it's difficult to make out much of the words, I don't think that such lines as 'I'm sorry for breaking your heart' will establish her as one of the great lyricists. It's truly depressing to see someone with so little vocal or writing talent acclaimed as a phenomenon, even on here.  It's the ultimate music for people who don't like music, and there's no point evangelising to those folks.

Just had to get that off my chest.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

DaveM said:


> Well, that doesn't address the fact that Adele has been outselling most other artists popular, rap or hip-hop, whatever. That said, you obviously are not very familiar with Adele's music (and btw, I am familiar with Lamar's). I'm disappointed in you because it turns out that your taste is not better than that of everyone else as you stated in a recent thread.
> 
> What's that got to do with anything. Btw, since when did the Beatles get mixed in with Mozart, Verdi and Gershwin.


Several reviewers of time did.


----------



## Stirling (Nov 18, 2015)

The are not, but people have are going to talk about what they are not going to say anyway. (tip to Mozart in the Jungle)


----------



## Guest (Mar 4, 2016)

Lol we're actually talking about Adele.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Harold in Columbia said:


> Pro tip: Foregoing contractions doesn't make bluster sound better.
> 
> What's obvious is that you're trying to use current pop music as a stick to beat the classical music that scares you, but you don't actually know or care much about current pop music. (Richard Taruskin has this problem too, but of course he does it much more slickly than you.)
> 
> Man, that line really bothers you, for some reason. (I'd already forgotten I said it, though of course it's true [that your taste is better than everyone else's].)


One Pro tip deserves another: Typically, there's an inverse relationship between one's proclamation of superiority and the truth of it.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Ok gentlemen, easy does it. You both make good points and have valid perspectives.


----------



## Zhdanov (Feb 16, 2016)

Richard8655 said:


> According to statistics, classical music is on the decline and largely ignored by millenials and younger generations.


should have waited till they grew up and only then do stats research.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Figleaf said:


> It's the ultimate music for people who don't like music...


Adele is good at what she does - roughly speaking, Dusty Springfield's music sung by an angrier Elaine Paige - but at the same time, this is deliciously true.



DaveM said:


> One Pro tip deserves another: Typically, there's an inverse relationship between one's proclamation of superiority and the truth of it.


Pro tip from an actual pro:

I'm really a rare thing,
Such a fair thing,
I can't keep still!
I'm bursting with pride
And I just couldn't keep it inside
If I tried



Richard8655 said:


> Ok gentlemen, easy does it. You both make good points and have valid perspectives.


No, just me.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Stirling said:


> How many millennials do people know?


Certainly all of them are below 16 years old!

About them these might be right:

- They do most of their studies and homeworks with tablets. I'm shocked that in some schools they don't even use Notebooks and Pen(cil)s. Not Surprisingly they study less than 60-90s kids.

- Like a large percentage of current Internet users they become "casual" for being part of casual Internet groups. They play casual video games, they listen to casual music, read short superficial quotes instead of reading books, and their ideas will be casual. 
^ I hardly can see any redemption for them, for being too much attached to their tablets and smartphones.

- Most of them are brats (too much soft parenting) and/or know-it-all (thanks to Google)

- They might be more pervert than 60-90s kids, because of easier access to the Internet

...

Based on my observations


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

That's very true (as I write and send this from my iPad).


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Arsakes said:


> Certainly all of them are below 16 years old!
> 
> About them these might be right:
> 
> ...


Nothing against the observations, except those aren't millennial. The millennial generation has different definitions, but the most consistent agreement is that it's of those born during the 80s and 90s. So, millennials aren't 16 or under, they're in their 20s [my age group]. The 16 and younger you describe I think are called Generation Z or something lazy

Edit: semantics aside, traits of Gen Z that you mention can also be found in Millennials


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Stirling said:


> How many millennials do people know?


Haha, well, I'm a millennial, and so are all of my friends. And most of my cousins.


----------



## Guest (Mar 5, 2016)

Millennial...is that like a free radical?


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Cosmos said:


> Nothing against the observations, except those aren't millennial. The millennial generation has different definitions, but the most consistent agreement is that it's of those born during the 80s and 90s. So, millennials aren't 16 or under, they're in their 20s [my age group]. The 16 and younger you describe I think are called Generation Z or something lazy
> 
> Edit: semantics aside, traits of Gen Z that you mention can also be found in Millennials


No, that's not true!... I'm a proud late 80s born that had a 90s kid life. I'm not in the same group as 2000s borns!
But, yes, those Generation Z are the weirdest and creepiest. We still have some principles, but they're the ultimate product of the Internet!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Arsakes said:


> Because hip-hop booty-twerk-lover junkies are the dominant musicians of the world right now!


I would say most young people that listen to hip-hop are immigrants.
Young Europeans listen mostly to rock music.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Cosmos said:


> Nothing against the observations, except those aren't millennial. The millennial generation has different definitions, but the most consistent agreement is that it's of those born during the 80s and 90s. So, millennials aren't 16 or under, they're in their 20s [my age group]. The 16 and younger you describe I think are called Generation Z or something lazy
> 
> Edit: semantics aside, traits of Gen Z that you mention can also be found in Millennials


Good post. I've always found it odd that people generalise about 'millenials' when they were born over the space of two decades, and a period of rapid social and technological change as well. Most people younger than me (born 1977) but older than my son (born 2001) fall into that 'millenial' category, which makes it possibly a little too broad to be useful.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Good post. I've always found it odd that people generalise about 'millenials' when they were born over the space of two decades, and a period of rapid social and technological change as well. Most people younger than me (born 1977) but older than my son (born 2001) fall into that 'millenial' category, which makes it possibly a little too broad to be useful.


Exactly, that rapid social and tech change shows through whenever there are generalizations about the values and characteristics of this generation. Just the decade one is born in is not good enough to assume their world views; you have to take social/economic position, location, and culture into consideration


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I just got one term wrong, the rest of my post was true.

But I can add that the 80s borns are morally, physically and socially better than 90s borns and 90s borns are better than GEN Z or whatever you call them. It's just getting worse every decade.

There are many reasons: Fast food addiction, weak parenting, SJWs, tablets and smart phones, worse social groups, etc.
But I don't have time to explain more right now.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

kids these days, amirite?


----------



## Guest (Mar 6, 2016)

Sometimes I suspect they might just be avoiding classical music fans.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

The rewards aren't nearly quick enough. Plus, it's way too stiff and formal. Why is everyone wearing a damn suit?!


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Blake said:


> The rewards aren't nearly quick enough. Plus, it's way too stiff and formal. Why is everyone wearing a damn suit?!


This is why I'm a fan of informal summer outdoor concerts. Blanket, picnic basket, and some wine. Except lately what used to be symphonies on past programs are now Tony Bennett, Franki Valli & the Four Seasan, and Duran Duran. Can't win!


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Because we listen to the rap music that gives us the brain damage, with the hippin' and the hoppin' and the bippin' and the boppin' and we don't what the jazz is all about!

Just replace "jazz" with "classical" and you have your answer


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Because classical music requires effort and patience to get into and the current generation of western youngsters is spoiled and used to being spoonfed things that give instant gratification. They have short attention span, lack of focus and too much distraction. Also there is strong herd mentality. 
I know these are huge generalizations and all, but based on my own experience and observations I certainly get the impression there is some truth in this.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

Spoiled by what? An excess of lousy job prospects? Or, for those attending college, an overgenerous supply of crushing debt?


----------



## motoboy (May 19, 2008)

DeepR said:


> Because classical music requires effort and patience to get into and the current generation of western youngsters is spoiled and used to being spoonfed things that give instant gratification. They have short attention span, lack of focus and too much distraction. Also there is strong herd mentality.
> I know these are huge generalizations and all, but based on my own experience and observations I certainly get the impression there is some truth in this.


And every generation has said that since 1945. Not that they are wrong...


----------



## motoboy (May 19, 2008)

And in defense of the newest generation, my wife (32) and I (44) have just made friends with a 19 year old fellow. We were talking and I had to show her the cover from another post here of the Renee Fleming "Homage" album. My wife and I were gushing over it and he said "Wait, you like Mahler AND Klimt? Do I see a pattern here?" 
That's pretty erudite for a 19 year old. Or anyone, for that matter.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

motoboy said:


> And in defense of the newest generation, my wife (32) and I (44) have just made friends with a 19 year old fellow. We were talking and I had to show her the cover from another post here of the Renee Fleming "Homage" album. My wife and I were gushing over it and he said "Wait, you like Mahler AND Klimt? Do I see a pattern here?"
> That's pretty erudite for a 19 year old. Or anyone, for that matter.


That sounds great and pretty cool. But I wonder how representative that 19 year old is of his generation?


----------



## Classical Performances (Mar 8, 2016)

*Technology has pushed out musicianship, but there is hope! Here's why...*

I think to answer this question you have to go back in history and see what has led us to where we are today. Before the invention of radio, almost every house had a piano. Families would have to make their own music. If they wanted to enjoy music they had no choice but to make it themselves. Members of the family either played guitar, piano, would sing and so on. Once radio came along, especially staring in the 1920's, young people did not need to make their own music in order to enjoy it. Rather they could passively listen to it. They did not have to learn an instrument anymore in order to enjoy music. Also, the wild dancing, simplified music and early sexual revolution started pushing out classical music for the younger generation.

Let's skip ahead to the 1950's. At this time many young people still learned the piano and other instruments. My mother grew up in the 50's. Everyone in her family either played an instrument or sang along. The family would get together and play songs together and my grandfather would lead the family in this activity. This does not happen anymore in the vast majority of families as this is not very "cool".

Once TV, record players and now the internet came along, there has been even less a need to learn the classical instruments. Simplified electronic pop culture is aiding in destroying the appreciation of complex and beautiful music.

It's my supposition that technology has not only degraded music but also made interest in learning music less needed. However, we can, and we must, use technology to get people back interested in the Performing Arts. In fact, this is what we are doing right now in this forum.

I want to say that there is hope! I was in high school in the 1990's and 30% of my classmates played an instrument. I think many of these people, who are now adults, would enjoy orchestral music if they gave it a chance. But, they don't even think to give it a chance. Therefore, I believe it's important for us to, now and then, get the word out about orchestra, opera and ballet to those who are willing to give it a try.

One way that I am trying to do this is by starting a website, which one day, is going to be a massive listing of all Orchestra, Opera and Ballet performed in the United States. Please check out my hard work at http://www.classicalperformances.com and let me know what you think.

So far, New England has been populated with listings, especially the state of Massachusetts. Please "like" and share in social media.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Richard8655 said:


> That sounds great and pretty cool. But I wonder how representative that 19 year old is of his generation?


Not very, or else I'd have more friends...


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Arsakes said:


> I just got one term wrong, the rest of my post was true.
> 
> But I can add that the 80s borns are morally, physically and socially better than 90s borns and 90s borns are better than GEN Z or whatever you call them. It's just getting worse every decade.
> 
> ...


Methinks you can't explain, but platitudes and cliches are almost as good as explanations, right?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Richard8655 said:


> That sounds great and pretty cool. But I wonder how representative that 19 year old is of his generation?


About as representative as all the other members of his and other generations that some posters here are making stupid generalisations about.


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

http://www.novinky.cz/kultura/397317-pan-prstenu-porazil-nibelungy.html

(With Google translate you can read Czech)

The Czech Radio Orchestra had a full house with young people, during 'the battle between Lord of the Rings and Die Ring des Nibelungen' (orchestral parts). A pity that Wagner was played too un-involved, according to the commentary. Afterwards the public was asked to choose: they like Lord of the Rings more!


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

If you walk into a bar and want to get laid the worst pick-up line is I am a classical bassoonist. You tell people you play in a rock band. I lost it right after I started playing sax in a rock band when I was in college.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

CypressWillow said:


> It's unlikely that one will appreciate fine cuisine after being fed a diet of McDonald's practically since birth.
> Gresham's Law states that bad currency drives out good.


Succinct and to the point!


----------



## majlis (Jul 24, 2005)

Why? Because rock and his derivatives roted their brains.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

majlis said:


> Why? Because rock and his derivatives roted their brains.


True. Most of us were brought up with rock/pop all around us, yet we were able to free ourselves from those chains. Wonder how that happened?

Actually rock and pop can be good too, obviously, so maybe lack of exposure to all forms.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: Many folks aren't consciously trying to avoid classical music. They simply aren't even aware that it exists. Sad.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Richard8655 said:


> True. Most of us were brought up with rock/pop all around us, yet we were able to free ourselves from those chains. Wonder how that happened?


We got old and tired and our hearts couldn't take it any more. Now it's the Four Seasons, all day every day.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

hpowders said:


> OP: Many folks aren't consciously trying to avoid classical music. They simply aren't even aware that it exists. Sad.


I think that's very true. It is a matter of exposure, and people just stick with what they grew up with and what they then know. It is sad. But I noticed Europeans tend to be more eclectic in their music listening, unless that's changed (haven't been there in many years).


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

KenOC said:


> We got old and tired and our hearts couldn't take it any more. Now it's the Four Seasons, all day every day.


Frankie Valli or Antonio?


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Richard8655 said:


> True. Most of us were brought up with rock/pop all around us, yet we were able to free ourselves from those chains. Wonder how that happened?
> 
> Actually rock and pop can be good too, obviously, so maybe lack of exposure to all forms.


I'm glad you added that last part. The reasons is because I grew up listening to mostly rock, metal, and prog, and I don't see that music as chains holding me back in any way. I may not have known much (literally almost nothing) about classical music for most of my life, but that's not because of rock music, it's just because I was never exposed to it. Once I exposed myself to it on a whim, I found I liked it, and all the rock music in the world couldn't stop me from consuming it.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Dedalus said:


> I'm glad you added that last part. The reasons is because I grew up listening to mostly rock, metal, and prog, and I don't see that music as chains holding me back in any way. I may not have known much (literally almost nothing) about classical music for most of my life, but that's not because of rock music, it's just because I was never exposed to it. Once I exposed myself to it on a whim, I found I liked it, and all the rock music in the world couldn't stop me from consuming it.


Also a good point you make. It does come down to exposure - either unconsciously happened to you or voluntarily plunging into it out of curiosity, influence (a movie maybe), accidental concert attendance, friends, etc.

I was using "chains" a little sarcastically to a previous post. But I agree, all these forms of music can be of equal value and quality, although it is really all subjective and comes down to what you like, obviously. But then what is art and what isn't? The great human expression debate of the century.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

TxllxT said:


> http://www.novinky.cz/kultura/397317-pan-prstenu-porazil-nibelungy.html
> 
> (With Google translate you can read Czech)
> 
> The Czech Radio Orchestra had a full house with young people, during 'the battle between Lord of the Rings and Die Ring des Nibelungen' (orchestral parts). A pity that Wagner was played too un-involved, according to the commentary. Afterwards the public was asked to choose: they like Lord of the Rings more!


Goes to show what the public knows - nothing.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Morimur said:


> Goes to show what the public knows - nothing.


But they always win in the end.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

KenOC said:


> But they always win in the end.


Just as the : I am" holier than thou" classical bully's who _think_ the know it all .

Do not take this personal, please KenOC:tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Pugg said:


> Do not take this personal, please KenOC:tiphat:


Hardly. I was simply stating a fact, proven invariably by history. Not an opinion!


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

hpowders said:


> OP: Many folks aren't consciously trying to avoid classical music. They simply aren't even aware that it exists. Sad.


I told a girl that I like to listen to classical music and got asked if I like Bee Gees.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

Manxfeeder said:


> I've noticed that people 60 and up were raised on rock and roll, and they fork out the big bucks for the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney, and Elton John tours. The ones I know aren't turning to classical; they study classic rock and seem to consider it their art form.


I am a 40 year old who listens to classical music and would also fork out money for a chance to see Paul McCartney.


----------



## majlis (Jul 24, 2005)

I'm past 70s, and was raised on songs and ballads from the 40s., that were some of the most beautiful songs ever done. Compared with Porter, Gershwin, Rodgers..all the rock and roll and everything pass the 50s is just crap for me.


----------

