# Do you see Classical becoming more popular?



## mud (May 17, 2012)

I mostly hear otherwise, but I recently read this opinion from a few years ago which sounded interesting.



> In 1980, Classical music represented 20% of global music sales. In 2000, Classical had plummeted to just 2% of global music sales. What happened? Did all those people suddenly lose their taste for classical music? Or is something else going on?
> 
> At an online record label I run, we sell six different genres of music, ranging from Ambient to Classical to Death Metal and World Music. Yet Classical represents a whopping 42% of our sales. Even more intriguingly, only 9% of the visitors to our music site click on "classical" as the genre they're interested in, yet almost half of them end up buying classical music. What's going on here?


There also seems to be a lot of Classical music represented on video hosting sites...


----------



## Iforgotmypassword (May 16, 2011)

What label is that? I'd love to get my death metal and ambient in the same place as my classical and world music haha


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

The thing about classical music is, a lot of people like it; they just don't know they do. I can see it becoming more popular if more people become aware of what it can do for/to them. 

For example, how many people in the general population knew about the prelude from Bach's first cello suite before the West Wing came on? Yet it's so well known now that it was played at Steve Jobs' funeral. 

Well, I'm preaching to the choir here.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Last year, in the U.S. more money was spent by people attending all classical music live events than the total spent by people attending pro sports events.

Yep, it is on the up and up.

Much of the traffic must be an aging population, 'baby-boomers' who have come to realize, along with their allegiance to the pop music of their generation, a real taste for live classical music.

For the rest, media exposure like no one could have imagined in the earlier part of the 20th century has certainly increased interest. You might 'try' some classical in the privacy of your home, looking around on YouTube, where you may never have purchased a classical CD before.

A lot of its being popular is around the 'established' and most popular of the classical repertoire, a Beethoven, Mozart, Brahms symphony, the 'more accessible' 20th century composers like Aaron Copland or Ralph Vaughan-Wlliams. 

The back to basic tonality of some within the minimalist category is also perhaps possible as an agent; people who perceive older classical music as 'stuffy' can relate to a John Adams orchestral piece, or music of Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Gavin Bryars, et alia.

The surge of newcomers does not mean, at all, that many of them might have delved into chamber music of any sort, are familiar with the Beethoven Quartets, Mozart Quintets, Brahms piano quartets or any of the rest of the canon of that literature.

But certainly, consumption of classical, whether it is CD's of the more popular old classical, concert attendances, opera attendance, is way up.


----------



## Stargazer (Nov 9, 2011)

Manxfeeder said:


> The thing about classical music is, a lot of people like it; they just don't know they do. I can see it becoming more popular if more people become aware of what it can do for/to them.
> 
> For example, how many people in the general population knew about the prelude from Bach's first cello suite before the West Wing came on? Yet it's so well known now that it was played at Steve Jobs' funeral.
> 
> Well, I'm preaching to the choir here.


I strongly agree with this. Back in the day, before I had really listened to and explored classical music, I "thought" I hated it. I saw it as something boring that old people listen to, and I thought that all of it was basically replications of Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" (since that's always what came to mind when I thought of classical lol). However today now that I've listened to and explored quite a bit of it, I'd say I'm downright obsessed with it lol. Plus I've been trying to 'convert' some of my friends/family lol, so far they haven't said a bad word about any of the music I've exposed them to!

The thing is, you don't hear it on the radio, you don't hear much of it on T.V., so the only way the general public is exposed to it is if they either actively seek it out (which to be fair most people won't do...why seek out something you know nothing about and have an innate feeling you dislike?), or have friends/family expose them to it. Of course with that said, if classical music DID catapult to the mainstream and started being played on the radio/T.V., the debate then becomes, would it compromise the quality and integrity of the newer works being created? Because in our modern-day world the music business is no longer about quality or art, it's almost purely about making profits so they produce what sells.


----------



## humanbean (Mar 5, 2011)

Yes: thanks to all of the free music available due to lack of copyright "enforcement." I have a feeling more and more of the younger generations that currently p2p, torrent, etc. music are giving classical a chance, despite not being introduced to it as a child. And you also have thousands of youtube videos (still technically "illegal"), that allow people to easily share their favorite classical works thus further increasing interest.

Classical will ALWAYS have an older audience that purchases cds and box sets, so I don't seem the harm in this at all. It probably doesn't even cause a noticeable dent in sales either, considering many of these filesharers probably would have never been introduced to classical without the pirated music in the first place.

Just my theory.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

perhaps the older people like to buy physical copies of music and old people listen to classical music. so it went ahead of the sales of the kiddies music which they were buying online.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Iforgotmypassword said:


> What label is that? I'd love to get my death metal and ambient in the same place as my classical and world music haha


Yeah, kind of unusual but I think most labels that are also music retailers try to compete with other retailers who have such a wide variety.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

humanbean said:


> Yes: thanks to all of the free music available due to lack of copyright "enforcement." I have a feeling more and more of the younger generations that currently p2p, torrent, etc. music are giving classical a chance, despite not being introduced to it as a child. And you also have thousands of youtube videos (still technically "illegal"), that allow people to easily share their favorite classical works thus further increasing interest.
> 
> Classical will ALWAYS have an older audience that purchases cds and box sets, so I don't seem the harm in this at all. It probably doesn't even cause a noticeable dent in sales either, considering many of these filesharers probably would have never been introduced to classical without the pirated music in the first place.
> 
> Just my theory.


I am starting to doubt whether cds and box sets will be around much longer. I also see that YouTube has removed many of the channels which hosted unauthorized classical broadcasts. I thought those would be around longer than the channels with recordings and static images, but then there's the whole dvd and online tv scene. There is also a variety of amateur and professional musicians who promote themselves, and the creative commons art and music, which is perfectly legal, not to mention fair-use (in some countries), which is a gray area.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

I am always surprised that classical crossover is popular. It's like the worst of both worlds.


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Never was popular, never will be popular.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I skim read the article you posted, mud, and in it he talks of people wanting variety, incl. young people. He mentions film score writers and Vivaldi in the same paragraph. I don't know if it's crossover, but light classical has boosted sales in this general area. Andre Rieu has been a huge seller. Crossover is not all hogwash or low grade, there's a lot of non-classical artists performing with our orchestras here in Australia, it's becoming a kind of phenomenon, attracting young people. Aussie Tim Minchin is one such musician, he is a pianist, songwriter and comedian, he played to sell out shows in UK and Australia last year. He's based in the UK now, I think his upcoming show at Royal Albert Hall has sold out months in advance. His double album _Tim Minchin with the Heritage Orchestra _(of Manchester, UK) has sold well for a small label. He's kind of cult, and there's many others in his wake.

The only way classical will survive in a big way is if it adapts to what the broad audience wants. It doesn't shut out so called serious music, but let's face it, composers for film like John Williams, Ennio Morricone and Howard Shore have kept classical music in the news, in the public eye, kept it real. Everyone knows their famous themes. I am what the article writer descibes, I'd call myself eclectic. I see little or no boundary between so called high and low art. A good number of composers and musicians have been thinking like this for ages.

So I think it's time we did a bit of redefinition of what is classical music. Maybe even not pin it down, not shut things out. Not do the usual highbrow lowbrow false dichotomy. I for one think Minchin's work is superb. Matches any serious classical composer today. So too film composers and writers of musical theatre & light classical. I don't have any problem with people enjoying these things, they're good music, basically. & that's where you'll find cd sales and concert attendance going up, I'd say is likely. That's what I'm seeing on the ground here, but I like all types of classical & listen to it regularly (except opera, which is more of a one off thing, once in a while for me).

So, imo the redefined types of classical music - a broad definition - are already becoming popular. The updating to 21st century and beyond is already happening. As for the old way, what I call the _highbrow_ and kind of exclusionist way, it's going to die out sooner or later. Good riddance to that, and we have a brand new day for a more eclectic classical music landscape, in touch with realities of now, not 1962 or 1912 or 1812 or whatever.

Not many will agree with me (not preaching to the converted, I think) but who cares.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

It's just a wonder that classical music remains a popularity based industry even though it is still around because it has much more depth than that (the intrinsic quality which separates it from pop music). You'd think people would make the connection and look within the genre instead of being content with a spoon feeding of pureed mash ups.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mud said:


> It's just a wonder that classical music remains a popularity based industry even though it is still around because it has much more depth than that (the intrinsic quality which separates it from pop music). You'd think people would make the connection and look within the genre instead of being content with a spoon feeding of pureed mash ups.


Man, the examples I gave, eg. Tim Minchin and those film composers, are not like what you describe.

Fact is, that the landscape of classical is changing beneath the feet of the highbrows, whether they like it or not. It's been going on as far back as when Haydn did concerts in LOndon (late 18th century) for the emerging mercantile and intellectual classes there. Aristocracy - eg. exclusivity in audience - was already on the wane then, and it's been a trend since.

Same as with Henry Wood establishing the Prom concerts in London, around 1900 (or late 19th cent.?). The bourgeois - same as Haydn audience, but they were getting bigger - where becoming dominant, had already been. Also, his aim was to open classical up to the masses, even to less well to do people.

But what's changed? What is popular now, in terms of repertoire and format, has changed since 1900. But things like Howard Shore conducting his Lord Of the Rings soundtracks with symphony orchestras all over the world, to packed houses, these things are changing the landscape, just as Wood and Haydn were in their times.

Can't tell the future but if you want to buy your operas and symphonies, and I want to buy my chamber music or contemporary classical, etc. (or go to concerts of that), there's no such thing as a free lunch. It's got to be subsidised by something commercially viable. Highbrow is no longer as commercially viable as it used to be, as these newly emerging things. Also, it's subsidised by non-classical, that's the profitable area of the major music labels.

So you need to compromise, sure. Do you want total death, classical to wither on the vine or survive? I am like some people I personally know, I like both serious and lighter classical musics and beyond. I see little distinction. I like variety. That's what the article mentioned, people want variety. Not just the old meat, potatoes and gravy diet of yesteryear. It's use by date is now over.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

I don't think so, like I said, people are not aware of the genre's depth while they are sitting on an inflated plastic raft. The modern classical phenomena are generated no differently than songs from pop music's formula. My point being that if this is all there was to classical, it would be indistinguishable from pop music. Referring to anything more substantial as highbrow is only a popularity based reference which is keeping it from being perceived as natural and beautiful, which is its fundamental distinction from modern pop music. The crossover classics do not result in people crossing over into classical music, or the genre would phase itself out. It's more of a barrier than a bridge in that respect.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

You're just making cliches, imo. _Inflated plastic raft _is very imaginative but doesn't really address what I'm saying. I mean I know people who trained in music and go to these things, eg. the concerts with film music like_ Lord of the Rings_. Film composers like John Williams have been praised by the likes of Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman. I can go on.

But have it your way. Your way is classical music dying because you can't compromise. I don't even see it as compromise, but as change. Change that's already occuring, whether you like it or not.

It's like a person faced with either the choice of amputating a gangrenous leg or dying. It's a serious thing, but I think most people would choose to live in some way, without a leg, rather than die.

But anyway, *you win the argument*. People who don't like what you may like or value are stupid idiotic lowbrows with no taste whatsoever they don't know what music is if it hit them in the face blah blah blah...


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

You are projecting this notion of us having an argument onto me. I was just making an observation based on my own insight. The point of this topic was that classical music is apparently more popular than ever and is not dying out. I think that is evident when you look at the selection out there.

I am simply baffled that, at the same time, we have this alternate reality of fluff, like the hair bands of rock and roll, being considered the cutting edge of classical music. I think it's funny actually.


----------



## NightHawk (Nov 3, 2011)

I know that many people do not buy classical because they don't know what to buy. They are discouraged by such nomenclature as String Quartet in F major, Op. 18, No. 1 even though they most likely know that Beethoven is a legendary composer. So, instead of being unhappy with a purchase they go with what they know. It is a matter of education from the earliest years, I believe. Unfortunately, inspiring music appreciation teachers are rare.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

mud said:


> I am always surprised that classical crossover is popular. It's like the worst of both worlds.


LOL oh LOL... There is a quotable quote if I ever saw one. If you want credit for it, put your name to it now


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

mud said:


> You are projecting this notion of us having an argument onto me. I was just making an observation based on my own insight. The point of this topic was that classical music is apparently more popular than ever and is not dying out. I think that is evident when you look at the selection out there.


Well okay then. Sorry I got emotional. You are new here and I think it's better if I pull back.

But how I read the article you posted is the guy saying things like film music, also Vivaldi's four seasons, and old Renaissance church music are becoming popular with younger people. Also that dj's in say hip hop or techno etc. are sampling classical and that how it's exposed to young people, so they gravitate towards it.

So what I read is that, as he says, people want diversity.

In my own experience, that's what I want. I like many types of classical and beyond. I don't care for high or low art distinctions.

The big sellers he's talking about, I bet it's things like film scores, maybe for the older folks it's Andre Rieu (he's huge among that demographic, but many of those people aren't into serious music), also crossover, warhorses like Vivaldi, stuff they've heard in films or in samples in non-classical (eg. church music, there is beginning to be trend, it's been going for a while, to have acoustic instruments and choirs in rock, pop, etc.).

That's what I'm saying, I see these things coming together as good, that's it. The mass selling things subsidise the things that don't sell that big, but have a place in classical landscape as I call it.



> ...
> I am simply baffled that, at the same time, we have this alternate reality of fluff, like the hair bands of rock and roll, being considered the cutting edge of classical music. I think it's funny actually.


It's not what I'm saying. It's your labels and judgements. BUt I've said enough about that, let's leave it there. A good deal of rockers, old and young, where classically trained from a young age. They just went another way. I don't like pop either but I'm not gonna talk about something I hardly know. However I think the pop of days past, like Michael Jackson, he was pretty good.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

As posted by Sid James
*"The only way classical will survive in a big way is if it adapts to what the broad audience wants."*

I could not be more violently in disagreement with that if I tried. To read that people think that way infuriates me.
Those pop performer as soloist with orchestra generally draw a one-time audience, the headliner often commands more than a really good and known classical performer, that drains the budget of the performing orchestra, and it is a spiral for financial disaster, any flash returns du soir plunged into the negative due to fishing for a potentially 000.001% new repeat business audience for the 'normal classical fare. It begs that classical composers and performers 'dumb it down for the plebes,' as it were.

Rethink that, do, please. It is a formula for the erosion of the quality that, I would hope, draws you to go to classical concerts.

There has never been any real stigma on 'light classical' but in a way, you are advocating that ALL classical become light classical. Perhaps you are, at heart, more a light classical fan than a hard-core classical fan.

*"... let's face it, composers for film like John Williams, Ennio Morricone and Howard Shore have kept classical music in the news." *-- my only reaction to this one, not dissing those composer's craft, is twofold -- this is someone out of touch with the complete classical music scene and business, and, well... _"You've GOT to be kidding."_


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well okay then. Sorry I got emotional. You are new here and I think it's better if I pull back.
> 
> But how I read the article you posted is the guy saying things like film music, also Vivaldi's four seasons, and old Renaissance church music are becoming popular with younger people. Also that dj's in say hip hop or techno etc. are sampling classical and that how it's exposed to young people, so they gravitate towards it.
> 
> ...


"My" labels and judgements are defined by the industry. I am making personal observations based on them, because they are nuances and niches which exist and are sensationalized. This is pertinent to the topic, because it is a kind of paradox of popularity in classical music, as I described.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I'll be watching with interest, to see if the geezer niche can still be counted on.

View attachment 5109


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

PetrB said:


> As posted by Sid James
> *"The only way classical will survive in a big way is if it adapts to what the broad audience wants."*
> 
> I could not be more violently in disagreement with that if I tried. To read that people think that way infuriates me.
> Those pop performer as soloist with orchestra generally draw a one-time audience, the headliner often commands more than a really good and known classical performer, that drains the budget of the performing orchestra, and it is a spiral for financial disaster, any flash returns du soir plunged into the negative due to fishing for a potentially 000.001% new repeat business audience for the 'normal classical fare. It begs that classical composers and performers 'dumb it down for the plebes,' as it were.


Dumbing it down as such is what I was talking about when saying that crossover is more of a barrier than a bridge. I think the public image of the classical genre is obscured by performers and composers being put out there like brand names, rather than the music itself being emphasized, which probably limits its potential for rediscovery as a more accomplished and diverse entity in itself than what has been passed off to replace it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

PetrB said:


> As posted by Sid James
> *"The only way classical will survive in a big way is if it adapts to what the broad audience wants."*
> 
> I could not be more violently in disagreement with that if I tried. To read that people think that way infuriates me.
> Those pop performer as soloist with orchestra generally draw a one-time audience, the headliner often commands more than a really good and known classical performer, that drains the budget of the performing orchestra, and it is a spiral for financial disaster, any flash returns du soir plunged into the negative due to fishing for a potentially 000.001% new repeat business audience for the 'normal classical fare. It begs that classical composers and performers 'dumb it down for the plebes,' as it were.


Well, that's what Haydn was doing. That's what Henry Wood was doing. After 1945, with the economic boom in the West, subsidisation of the arts, it opened up to a whole lot of new people. But now there are new challenges. The ageing members of the traditional classical audience will not be around forever.

Classical music has always changed and adapted to the times. That's my basic point here. Maybe I should've acted as a small target and said less about things popular here, eg. Tim Minchin, or Burt Bacharach or Ennio Morricone who recently came here to conduct their own music with our orchestras. It may be no what you want, but it's what a lot of people want and like. Of course, it's not mutually exclusive with _serious_ music. & of course I have my bias, everyone does if they admit it.



> ...
> Rethink that, do, please. It is a formula for the erosion of the quality that, I would hope, draws you to go to classical concerts.
> 
> There has never been any real stigma on 'light classical' but in a way, you are advocating that ALL classical become light classical. Perhaps you are, at heart, more a light classical fan than a hard-core classical fan.


I didn't say all classical should become light music, or film music, or stage musicals. What I'm saying is that I don't see a difference in terms of quality, they're just for different purposes.

In the late 19th century, even up to 1945, orchestras played many types of things, from eg. a light overture, then maybe an aria or two (could be light or more serious), then a big Germanic warhorse. Light was mixed with serious. That was the point of Henry Wood's Prom concerts, and he also put in composers of that time. There was a mix of things. What I'm saying is that there is still that mix, it's good to still have that kind of mix. It's happening already anyway. The Berlin PHilharmonic in their HD broadcasts and at the movies here last year, they played in one of them Nino Rota's score for_ La Strada _(the suite was a concert item). They also played some Takemitsu. In the days of Maestro von Karajan, I don't think he would have touched stuff like that, seriously.

The walls are slowly coming down, even the once ultra conservative Berlin Phil. Of course when they came here, they didn't play Rota but the same old same old things. The HD broadcasts had more interesting rep than their live concerts here, no joke. Maybe the audience of the live concerts where all moneyed people and greys, or mainly, for the HD of course it would have been cheaper.



> ...
> *"... let's face it, composers for film like John Williams, Ennio Morricone and Howard Shore have kept classical music in the news." *-- my only reaction to this one, not dissing those composer's craft, is twofold -- this is someone out of touch with the complete classical music scene and business, and, well... _"You've GOT to be kidding."_


Nope, I know some musicians here, they like that stuff. As I said, doesn't mean they don't like their Bach or whatever as well. Some of them don't like Stockhausen or Elliott Carter and like John Williams or Howard Shore more. So what? Let's get rid of dichotomies and stereotypes. They don't fit my exerience and reality basically. Or not fully.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Vaneyes said:


> I'll be watching with interest, to see if the geezer niche can still be counted on.
> 
> View attachment 5109


I prefer the music for babies niche, what the geezers are really going for.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

It seems to me that instrumental music has gradually become more significant in popular music which might make classical music, which is largely instrumental, easier to get into. Pop music from the 50s particularly became a guitar based medium with a singer. There has always been instrumental popular music such as big band, but people like Elvis and The Beatles pushed that out. Only since the 80s with the rise of electronic dance music (EDM) has instrumental really begun to grow again. Genres like house music, dubstep, chillout, post rock are usually long and sweeping works that share more in common with a symphonic movement than a three minute pop song. I always thought one of the most popular modern classical works, Gorecki's 3rd symphony sounds a lot like a slowed down trance single.

The accessibility factor, you can get most classical you ever want on youtube instantly, no need to find a concert hall, is certainly helping, but the fact that modern classical is influenced by late 20thC music is also changing the industry. Will it drag Mozart and Bach along with it or will classical and modern classical split more decisively, many classical fans think classical ended in the 1920s anyway.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Its popularity as a developing artform may have ended, although some composers have contributed equally beautiful classical music since the 1920s without becoming as famous for it. There seems to be so much in existence though that recreating it is more significant now than refining or redefining it. People are currently able to compare and contrast the music enough to know that it has been perfected, and is not getting better by trial and error; that is my concept of it anyway.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

The site the guy in your quote talked about, mud, has a list of classical things available for download. I guess it must be their popular list, things people have been buying a lot. I've posted that below and invite people to comment in light of what I was saying.

http://magnatune.com/genres/classical/

I don't know these recordings or performers (from a quick browse), some of the composers I do know of course (eg. Bach). Looks like they aren't buying Beethoven cycles or _The Ring_, etc. It looks like compilations. Too _lowbrow_ for some here, maybe? Just had enough of everything I say being negated. Waste of time basically.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Well I wasn't negating your discussion, just clarifying my own. They have a creative commons setup where members can share the music they buy, publicly on their own sites or channels, if they want their collection of favorite art to become more popular, kind of like a renewable fishing license.

I have actually come across members who shared their music on blogs (which is how I found the site). I presume that is covered by their creative commons agreement.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I think that's a very good idea. I think we are talking of different things, as _quack_ kind of said. The digital revolution is a different ballgame from concerts and cd's in hard copy. They are again not mutually exclusive, but it may well be that trends online are more advanced, at the cutting edge (eg. more sales of classical, but each selling site will have different focus, clientele, demographic, etc.).


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Personally, I think my timing in taking up a classical music collection was perfect, because most of the great recordings I have were not produced any sooner. This fact alone speaks to its present popularity.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Stargazer said:


> I strongly agree with this. Back in the day, before I had really listened to and explored classical music, I "thought" I hated it. I saw it as something boring that old people listen to, and I thought that all of it was basically replications of Wagner's "Ride of the Valkyries" (since that's always what came to mind when I thought of classical lol). However today now that I've listened to and explored quite a bit of it, I'd say I'm downright obsessed with it lol. Plus I've been trying to 'convert' some of my friends/family lol, so far they haven't said a bad word about any of the music I've exposed them to!
> 
> The thing is, you don't hear it on the radio, you don't hear much of it on T.V., so the only way the general public is exposed to it is if they either actively seek it out (which to be fair most people won't do...why seek out something you know nothing about and have an innate feeling you dislike?), or have friends/family expose them to it. Of course with that said, if classical music DID catapult to the mainstream and started being played on the radio/T.V., the debate then becomes, would it compromise the quality and integrity of the newer works being created? Because in our modern-day world the music business is no longer about quality or art, it's almost purely about making profits so they produce what sells.


In the UK we have two national radio stations that specialise in classical music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Stargazer said:


> ...
> The thing is, you don't hear it on the radio, you don't hear much of it on T.V., so the only way the general public is exposed to it is if they either actively seek it out (which to be fair most people won't do...why seek out something you know nothing about and have an innate feeling you dislike?), or have friends/family expose them to it. Of course with that said, if classical music DID catapult to the mainstream and started being played on the radio/T.V., the debate then becomes, would it compromise the quality and integrity of the newer works being created? Because in our modern-day world the music business is no longer about quality or art, it's almost purely about making profits so they produce what sells.


I agreed with your first paragraph but this one I quoted I'm so so about. I think classical has always been a business, basically. Don't forget the big names get heaps of money while most classical musicians, well around here anyway, would be happy to get that amount in like a year. I'm talking of guys like Itzhak Perlman who gets $75,000 USD last time I checked for one concerto concert appearance. So it's not only Andre Rieu who rakes in a lot of cash. But I like both these violinists, btw. I'm just using them as examples.


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

Stargazer said:


> Of course with that said, if classical music DID catapult to the mainstream and started being played on the radio/T.V., the debate then becomes, would it compromise the quality and integrity of the newer works being created? Because in our modern-day world the music business is no longer about quality or art, it's almost purely about making profits so they produce what sells.


I think the big picture goal of the music industry (among others) is to have computers generate all media, which is why its quality is steadily declining. They are conditioning customers to consume an algorithm. What else woud explain the undoing of human individuality and creativity? I am tuning out.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ...classical music dying because you can't compromise. I don't even see it as compromise, but as change. Change that's already occuring, whether you like it or not.
> ....
> It's like a person faced with either the choice of amputating a gangrenous leg or dying. It's a serious thing, but I think most people would choose to live in some way, without a leg, rather than die.
> 
> But anyway, *you win the argument*. People who don't like what you may like or value are stupid idiotic lowbrows with no taste whatsoever they don't know what music is if it hit them in the face blah blah blah...


Wow - you overreacted more than I did. My overreaction being the catalyst, so an apology for that flare here offered.

The fact remains, a pop musician, a symphonic orchestration as accompaniment, is a pop performer who is performing pop music with an exceptionally large back-up band: it is not classical. LOTR remains a light bit of 'rubber-raft' inflated film music, the full length suite a cosmetic surgery executed upon a slight torso by three (count'em, three) expert film music composer / arrangers. Certainly it aims to and does entertain. It is a type of 'light' classical-like film music. That it is original but extremely derivative has it not holding my interest nor moving me in any way. It is a matter of a somewhat clinical definition of genre - best to withhold 'judgement' while at the same time best to define ingredients, and any mix thereof, if you want to know what you consume, and its overall nutritional value (for an individual, since it is not a biological necessity.) I'm not to rag on anyone because they prefer cake or a high-protein diet. _When it comes to music, it is all entertainment, just a matter of which sort._

There is plenty of blending and overlap of genre and consequentially beautiful, vital and interesting music which crosses several lines while it remains unique to its composer, and singular and 'classical,' The pop music + symphonic back up does not equate as classical. The original yet wholly derivative classical-like film music, even expanded, is not classical. It is a very different musical discourse, distinct enough on its own to de facto declare it another genre.

I have no problem, qualms or judgments about anyone who cares to consume one genre over another. Advocating substituting the lighter, more pop oriented or derivative classical-like film scores for the allegedly dead but actually vital new classical music instead? Outrage  Is it 'sacrilege' for that one hall in town which is appropriate for music, to have night to night a variety of musical genres of very different vibrations shaking its walls? No. Do either you or I wish for any venue to be an elitist "Festspielhaus" for only classical, only light classical, etc. I think 'we' would both very much protest if our town's one good music venue were designated as hallowed for one genre only.

There are _several generations of active contemporary classical composers_ who write aggressively tonal, 'populist' and fine contemporary classical music; John Adams, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, Gavin Bryars, Graham Fitkin, Nico Muhly, and many others. Their works are keenly sought after and solicited via commissions; they are often performed and generally well received. Fitkin's music is a fusion of Euro minimalist via his teacher Louis Andriessen, with elements of jazz, pop music, pop dance music, yet it remains, categorically, 'classical.' No music from any genre need be cutting edge innovative to be more than worthwhile, but there is an expectation that it be not so wholly derivative as so many film scores presently are.

John Williams remains a technically brilliant but highly derivative film composer, whose music can and does entertain many, and that work _is genuinely admired for its merits_ by many knowing professional musicians whose individual bailiwicks comprise a number of genres. His 'concert classical music' is marked by all the traits of his film scores, and is promoted as classical, but falls more into that genre of 'light classical.'

Anything wrong with light classical? Not a thing. But to think that Ferde Grofe's "Grand Canyon Suite" is of equal weight to John Adams' "Harmonium" - a later and wholly populist work, marks some differential where some need to distinguish 'value,' really is necessary if one is to discern any sort of quality at all. To abolish 'value' - i.e. critical assessment of worth, is very currently popular, politically correct, and like communism misapplied, rewards the talented master craftsman no more than the novice apprentice who has no talent, an original genius not distinguished from no more than a hack - I think we know where that all led to in even something as basic as the building of a brick wall - the master mason no longer bothered to maintain his self-standard, because there was neither job satisfaction, recognition for his merit, nor monetary reward. That applies to assessment of worth in the arts, regardless of genre.

In a somewhat similar dynamic, re: 'what is classical' and what is not. Different intentions, different content, from the very inception of a work in those two genres, differentiate them.

There seems to be a novice or less experienced public who have been led to believe and expect that composers not only should, but are socially 'obliged' to write to that audience's listening capacity, that the music be instantly accessible and readily understood. [It is also very fashionable to declare all cultures and arts of equal value: that is as wildly incorrect as it is an endemic wave of fashion. - I believe it is generational, generations younger than I.] This is the pure commercial formula for pop music, regardless of its exterior costume, cloth or cut. There are now people who truly think the popera singers are opera singers. The popera singers themselves would be the first to tell you they are not opera singers. 
[I recently saw a zine article, 'The top ten greatest opera singers' _{it must be true if it is in print on teh internetz, no? Everyone's opinion has equal weight, no?}_ The list had Pavarotti on it, the remaining 9 - out of ten - were all popera entertainers, trained singers none of whom have ever sung a full opera role in an opera production in their lives, and could not do so without its being severely damaging to their careers.]

I very much blame the current public's 'demand' for instant accessibility -- and the misconception of 'what is classical' -- on publicity managers in both the pop entertainment industry and the classical music industry. Some of the discredit must also go to the gullible symphony orchestra boards whom have hired and believe those agents, and similarly, the recording companies who are -- face it -- whorishly pandering by marketing slightly similar non-classical fare as classical.

Not to sound the alarmist sirens, but I feel obliged to mention that advertising and PR in their post-1950's and beyond formats are a Titanic force shaping public opinion and, after several generations, a deep but unnatural part of our psychology - their tactical deploy is to APPEAL TO A SENSE OF EXCLUSIVITY AND ELITISM - it is the classic 'Divide and Conquer' strategy, manipulative upon the innate human insecurity of non-acceptance, isolation from our fellow beings. That exclusivity is often subtly and weirdly, illogically, cloaked in the guise of being, 'for the people, or populist.' Hmm, maybe there is such a thing as a 'false dichotomy'

This, I believe, accounts for the greater than ever polarization of people in their opinions o art, entertainment, both 'high' and 'low.' _One Must Be A Member Of An Exclusive Club to listen to_ dub-step, blues, light classical, hard-core avant garde classical, populist tonal contemporary classical, jazz, etc. _while somehow believing a populist plank and allowing for a complete lack of discernment, because everything is of equal value! Part of the cost of membership is to swear off the other genres as 'the enemy.'_ I'm sure some of my more 'elitist' colleagues would be surprised and bewildered that in my youtube assemblage of links, I've got some very raw field recordings of 'real people' southern traditional blues... about as base-line 'populist' as it gets. Ditto for that link of an Indonesian Village 'rite' where men, women, children and dogs all participate in the collective recitation and chanting of 'The Ramayana Monkey Chant.'

There, you and I, I know, do agree. Where we do not see eye to eye at all is in believing what I believe to be an utterly synthetic and manipulative call to arms to 'slip in' pop music as substitute for classical music, the latter often requiring a bit more attentiveness to get enjoyment from; the rationale for that pop music substitute is because, after all, classical music is sick and it needs a limb amputated to survive:-/ Great strategy to get people to hire unneeded doctors and sell unwarranted and ineffective medicines There, my esteemed colleague, I really believe you don't have the full picture, and that you have wholesale swallowed a synthetic bit of medicine, created to sell nothing but the medicine and a substituted and entirely different 'trendy product,' which in turn will leave you wanting -- due to the very nature of its brief shelf-life before it expires -- until that industry comes up with the next thing you believe you need to 'be happy.' That PR industry is greedy to make hay of it with no regard to the aesthetic value of what is being marketed or consumed, nor does it have any concern for the effect the thing sold has on the people to whom it is being marketed.

_Classical music, and contemporary classical music, is nowhere near having a slightly infected little toe, let alone a gangrenous limb. That is the impression sensationalist journalism and twitter comments -- typed in by amateurs -- now attached to 'news' articles, has whipped up. _

Because far too many now believe that is news, and the twitter and email comments and critiques from everyman _published as 'news'_ have lent it a false air as having some innate interest and legitimacy... we have an even more polarized public, and baffled promoters and audiences are another part of the problem as well. Those self-hyped irresponsible and highly unprofessional forces are about as valid, interesting and 'legitimate' as the phenomenon of flash fame and notoriety as spawned by folk of little or no interest, with no visible merits, as first exposed to the world via MTV's 'real world' series -- a Jersey Shore hysteria over the state of decay of classical music. Beyond skewed, it is synthetically created out of vapor and inherently not true.

If there comes a day, due to the success of that Titanic marketing force, when I am to accept and 'told to believe' the insipid pseudo jazz renderings of a Kenny G are of equal merit, and that should satisfy, engage, and move people as deeply as Thelonius Monk playing a piano solo, I will gladly recede into a state of retreat, and maintain contact with a few colleagues who do get more out of Mozart or Monk vs. Kenny G, Clint Mansell and the Rubber Raft of the inflated LOTR symphonic suites; that then will be my lot. When the waters recede after the temporary and insupportable synthetic flooding of the musical world precipitated by that PR machinery, I really believe my musical rafts, made of less temporal and shabby materials, will still be seaworthy. Watch that space for the dove returning to my raft with the olive twig in its beak....


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> Never was popular, never will be popular.


Popular enough is what it should be.
If C.Music obtains the popularity between 20%-30% of every country, it is in its true place in societies.

I think Radio and Certain video games and movies can attract people to Classic Music.
Also "free download websites" have had affected people to like classic music enormously!


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

In South Africa classical music fares badly because such a large proportion of our population have never been exposed to classical music of any sort. This is one of the many things for which I resent the old apartheid government who saw to it that black people received inferior education. Of course, now that the ANC is running the country the general standard of education is even worse. Formerly white schools received music education now no-one outside of private education does.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

moody said:


> In the UK we have two national radio stations that specialise in classical music.


If you want to hear music on one of the most outstanding classical FM stations on the planet, check out the free stream online WMFT.com. (98.7FM - originates from Chicago, Illinois; has a global audience!) I've heard complaints from British residents about how 'light' and 'chestnut popular' at least one of those two stations are.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

PetrB said:


> If you want to hear music on one of the most outstanding classical FM stations on the planet, check out the free stream online WMFT.com. (98.7FM - originates from Chicago, Illinois; has a global audience!) I've heard complaints from British residents about how 'light' and 'chestnut popular' at least one of those two stations are.


Yes, the one you are thinking of is Classic FM. But for many who join here it may well be useful as an introduction, it gets more serious in the evenings.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

I can identify 3 types of classical music:

- Hard classic: very serious, no compromise, often not very tonal and/or deep. e.g. dodecaphonics, Brahms, Hindemith, Wagner...etc
- Medium: Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky, 
- Quite light (corny, cheezy): Nut cracker, 2nd piano concerto by Rachmaninov, La Bohème

I would say that number 3 increased a lot, because the sales are better. In our society, money is the goal, money is the most important thing. We're living in a materialistic world. No God, no good things, just money!


Martin...disappointed of humanity


----------



## mud (May 17, 2012)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> I can identify 3 types of classical music:
> 
> - Hard classic: very serious, no compromise, often not very tonal and/or deep. e.g. dodecaphonics, Brahms, Hindemith, Wagner...etc
> - Medium: Rachmaninov, Tchaikovsky,
> ...


What is the utility of categorizing classical with frivolous criteria (hard, medium, light)?

What about artistry (beauty, color, symmetry)? You seem to ignore that artistry is its redeeming quality (when it's good), regardless of its particular mode.

What makes you call it corny or cheezy? Do you subscribe to the stereotypes generated by people who have a monetary interest in putting it down, simply for being highly refined? Why do you collect it then?

That is the problem with popularity, like money, it has no soul, simply momentum.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

mud said:


> What is the utility of categorizing classical with frivolous criteria (hard, medium, light)?
> 
> What about artistry (beauty, color, symmetry)? You seem to ignore that artistry is its redeeming quality (when it's good), regardless of its particular mode.
> 
> ...


I can see that we are going to have lots of fun with you.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

What is the utility of categorizing classical with frivolous criteria (hard, medium, light)?

I am frivolous sometimes. I like to listen to Oscar Strauss once in a while...I like Chopin too...But not everything. I like Rachmaninov also, but I dislike his second concerto which music we have listened in romantic and "larmoyant"(*) movies.

(*) tearful.

It is just a theory. I know, on the other hand, that classifing is not good, it is impoverishing! But we were speaking about actual trends. And the actual situation seems clear for me. We talk about *DISPOSABLE* everything. Among these, disposable music. Since the Beatles and Elton John, no pop music lasts more than one or two months. the years 2000 are very hard. Money became so important...more important than God Himself. And when God is important is worse, we have extremists in middle East, Israel, etc. Religion is a bad drug. I started seriously listening to classical music since I was 6 years old, the first time I went with my mother to the Opera theatre (Teatro Colon in Argentina) to see La Bohème. I was amazed...and I still like this opera even if it has very cheezy moments. But I have evolved...I am very curious. When I was 12, my piano teacher introduced me to dodecaphonic music and at 14 I bought Lulu and Wozzeck. At 17 I travelled to Russia and I discovered this marvelous music...At 18 I travelled again to Russia...Not having enough...I just classified as an observer. If I could draw a grafic here I would say that really serious music (see my stupid classification again) decreased a lot, the second category decreased also and the third decreased less...We continue using light music for films. Walt Disney did it with Liszt (Hungarian rapsody), William Tell (Chevauchée (ride)), Nutcracker, Swan lake, etc.

To be followed by you

:tiphat:

Martin


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

I think we can agree that early music, especially Baroque music has definitely become more "popular" in the sense that increasing volumes of it is being studied and performed now than ever before in modern times, and I'm talking about relatively recent decades, post 1950s for example. This is definitely a good thing.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Just a thought or whatever. I kind of ranted too much before. Way too much. However, look at the top classical sellers on amazon (it's updated hourly). As of this minute, severel of Dietrich Fischer Dieskau's recordings are in the top 10 or 20 (obviously as he just died). But a lot in the top 10-20 are still kind of light classical, eg. _Il Divo_. That's what I was saying before. Things like light classical, compilations and film scores are the top sellers in what we loosely call _classical, _whether people here like it or not.

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Music-Classical/zgbs/music/85


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Just a thought or whatever. I kind of ranted too much before. Way too much. However, look at the top classical sellers on amazon (it's updated hourly). As of this minute, severel of Dietrich Fischer Dieskau's recordings are in the top 10 or 20 (obviously as he just died). But a lot in the top 10-20 are still kind of light classical, eg. _Il Divo_. That's what I was saying before. Things like light classical, compilations and film scores are the top sellers in what we loosely call _classical, _whether people here like it or not.


I saw Il Divo live when they were in South Africa, not the last time which was a recent concert, but the time before that - a few years ago - actually in 2007 I see from the review I did on the concert. http://www.artlink.co.za/news_article.htm?contentID=3092 I had a really good time at that concert. The only reason I did not attend that concert is that I was not invited to it.

Same with some of the other classical crossover artists like Andrea Bocelli who I saw in 2010. I did not write a review on that as my bum was on a seat which was paid for.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I think we can agree that early music, especially Baroque music has definitely become more "popular" in the sense that increasing volumes of it is being studied and performed now than ever before in modern times, and I'm talking about relatively recent decades, post 1950s for example. This is definitely a good thing.


I agree with you (how I couldn't agree with a so smart guy). I think it will be necessary to define *easiness*...Indeed, easier music seems to be more popular than difficult music. Do people like challenges? I would say they prefer video-games-challenges or money-making-challenges...But about literature and music, I.M.H.O. most people don't like challenges, they prefer to listen to easy music, to read easy books. I include myself sometimes when I refused to read James Joyce (*)...that I found quite difficult to read. In terms of music, I love challenges...Except electronic music that I don't enjoy very much.

(*) I guess I haven't even tried! Because of the comments I had.

Sdrager Tseb

Nitram


----------

