# beginners



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

One of my wife's friends is a classical music fan. She (the friend) grew up in a relatively wealthy family and got exposed to a lot of western culture, from film to literature to theater to opera and classical music, and that kind of thing has at least as much cultural clout in Korea as it does in the United States. When all of us get together, she enjoys discussing these things with me, and my wife (and perhaps others) feels left out, but also humiliated because she has the idea that this kind of knowledge is what ought to be known by a classy person.

For several years she's been playing catch-up, reading lots of classic novels, watching lots of classic films, reading books on opera and watching opera and ballet, and so on. Her goal is to participate in conversations like the ones her friend and I have without embarrassment, without a sense of inferiority. When she knows what she's talking about, she really enjoys those conversations, and when she doesn't know, she fears public humiliation and doesn't enjoy them.

The issue under discussion here is, how much scorn do we have for people like my wife? Of course she enjoys classical music, or at least some of it, so that's not the issue - although she enjoys Andrea Bocelli and Chopin and the New Year's Concert of the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra as much as or more than she enjoys Wagner's _Tristan und Isolde_, and she has no tolerance at all for anything like Crumb's _Black Angels_. The truth is, she enjoys a lot of New Age and pop music more than she enjoys most classical music. But still, she basically enjoys classical music. So that's not the issue.

The issue is, how much do we scorn someone who is unapologetically, without obfuscation or denial, trying to learn about classical music (or other "elite" culture) in order to participate in classy conversations? How much do we scorn upward mobility?

Of course I was in a similar place two decades ago, but I always had - or at least had heartfelt pretensions to having - a deeper intellectual interest in elite culture, not only classical music but philosophy, literature, science, whatever. And probably even more importantly, I enjoy novelty (Crumb's _Black Angels_, Jackson Pollock) and I have a very low tolerance for sentimentality (Andrea Bocelli, Thomas Kinkade). So I have at least some of the keys to the kingdom. But even in my case, I continue to consciously prioritize the most famous things, reading Goethe and Dostoyevsky and Shakespeare before J. K. Rowling or Dan Brown, exploring the music of Lennie Tristano and Johnny Cash and Wagner before Melody Gardot or Toby Keith or Hans Zimmer. In part that's because of prejudices that suggest to me what I'm likely to enjoy, but on a subconscious level at least in part it's probably also because of the self-image that I have, the image of myself I'm trying to create for social display. So whatever scorn my wife deserves, I figure I deserve some considerable fraction of it as well.

Preemptively, I don't mind admitting that I and especially my wife are doing it wrong. Sure, of course, undeniably we ought to acknowledge the great experts and their inevitable, permanent, inherent superiority to us. And therefore of course it is morally wrong and fully reprehensible for us not to just wander through life randomly, encountering whatever we happen to encounter, liking or not liking it as we happen to, disregarding the existence of all other people and their opinions, regardless of their relationships to us. Most of all, most of all, urgently and importantly, we ought not to have dared to assault the cultural bulwarks of our betters. For that there can be no forgiveness, except perhaps in the life to come.

But really, dropping the fun for a moment, the point is, there are a lot of people out there in the world who do not know or care about Carter or Czerny or Zelenka or Agricola, but want to know about Beethoven and Bach and Mozart because they're famous and, in a certain way, sort of cool. Some of those guys probably made fun of us when we weren't appreciating their rock 'n roll or hip hop or pink flamingo lawn art, so maybe they've got something justly coming to them. But right or wrong, a lot of these dudes and dudettes of the world can't tell Whitacre from Puccini, can't tell Dan Brown from Umberto Eco, enjoy Pachelbel's Canon without knowing what a canon is. They might not so much enjoy something by Haydn, Bruckner, or Stockhausen. Or anything else at all by Pachelbel. Maybe they recognize our/your superiority, or maybe they don't. But I'm wondering seriously, how much scorn does our community have for them?

I guess a lot of responses will focus on how much scorn we ought or ought not to have, and that's fine of course, but at the moment I'm most interested in description than prescription or proscription.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Your exposition seems pretty clear to me, though it describes a social environment immeasurably distant from mine. I will go away shortly to make room for them that's in the know; I'll just report my impression that much of the social 'tension' you describe seems related to _face_. My severely limited experience with that concept indicates that face is only vaguely understood in the West. Maybe you have lived in Korea so long that you have become somewhat 'orientalized'?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

I have no scorn.

Maybe if someone can demonstrate to me that the thoughts and emotions experienced by someone who loves the music of, say, One Direction are objectively less valid than those I experience when listening to, say, Mahler, I might change my mind.

Actually I might question your use of the term _upwardly_ mobile. I'd argue that mobility's the thing; the direction of it is in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Your exposition seems pretty clear to me, though it describes a social environment immeasurably distant from mine. I will go away shortly to make room for them that's in the know; I'll just report my impression that much of the social 'tension' you describe seems related to _face_. My severely limited experience with that concept indicates that face is only vaguely understood in the West. Maybe you have lived in Korea so long that you have become somewhat 'orientalized'?


I've long thought the idea of "face" or "saving face" was a misunderstanding of Asian culture - perhaps one more example of "othering" the kind of thing that we don't want to acknowledge in ourselves, perhaps "orientalism" in Said's sense. But anyway, it's just the same pride/shame/status that we all know about. Sure, sixty years ago "they" felt shame or pride in a set of things that didn't entirely overlap with the set of things we felt shame or pride about it; and, sure, expressions of shame or pride vary somewhat across cultures. For example, Asians are much more up front about bribery than North Americans are; they could easily analyze our behavior during bribery as us trying to save face. It's just ordinary human shame/pride, expressed somewhat different in various contexts.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I don't personally have (consciously) any scorn at all for those who are learning or taking tentative steps, and the last thing I want to do is alienate someone by ostentatious shows of "superiority" in my familiarity with the repertoire. There are many famous pieces I don't know well, or at all, myself.

I've been giving a friend a classical "best-of" collection recently, because he wanted it. I decided that I should start by giving him all of the most famous/popular pieces, so I went straight to one of those massive compilations, but instead of just giving him the single movements, I tried, as often as possible, to give him the whole works they came from. Of course, he'll put everything on shuffle anyway, but that's fine. So long as it's all there so I can rest easier.

However, I think the best people to reply to this thread would be those who consider themselves beginners. How do they feel the community treats them?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

There is nothing to scorn there, other than anyone going so far to learn to be conversant in something they are not much or at all interested in, simply to be socially accepted or to socially impress, _is_, imho, something to be scorned.

That social dynamic as already mentioned is not just an Asian dynamic, though even to Westerners playing that same pretentious game the weight put on the Asian dynamic seems more than extreme.

The class thing and knowledge of / consumption of culture, if it is known that habit / pursuit is less than earnest and sincere, is a heavy demotion in your social status in the states -- makes of you a shallow climber

There are plenty of people who regularly sit in the dress circle who may enjoy the music a bit who are there primarily to be seen by the other upper crust segment of society who regularly subscribe as well.

Some are there only to be seen, some don't care much, find it pleasant, and it also puts them in and on that scene.

There is another type, the ones who don't care for it at all but think or know it is good to support it nonetheless. During the Kennedy presidency, with his advocacy of the fine and fine performing arts, few knew that President Kennedy had little or no interest in that area of entertainment at all. (It may have been Mrs. Kennedy who urged him to support those things, convincing him it was "important.")

As an American, I would have been much happier to hear that when those guests of yours were over, and you and they were discussing Chopin or Bruckner, etc. that your wife, maybe after having set water on for tea, came back in the room and said,

"My husband just loves the classical music. I find some of it pleasant, but some of the more modern music he plays makes me want to run into the next room and bury my head under a pillow. I like traditional Korean folk music, The Rolling Stones, Fleetwood Mack, Blur, Nine Inch Nails, The Spice Girls, Roy Orbison, Johnny Cash, Dolly Parton and Patsy Kline, and when he does listen to his music, I tease him all the time that he's just a culture snob."

That, to me, is major face gain _and_ mega points.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Not knowing about something should not be a sign of inferiority or a reason for humiliation. We can't possibly know about everything. Indeed, people who _seem_ to know about everything can be annoying.

Your wife is already way ahead of 98% of the other people in the world and should feel no humiliation whatsoever, nor should anyone at any level of understanding or knowledge. I was ("was" being the key word here) married to person who ridiculed culture and me in particular when she felt she didn't fit in, and she couldn't stand it when I used words of greater than two syllables, thinking I was doing it on purpose to mock her. That person had a lot of issues to work out, but I wasn't going to change my ways or talk down to her. That would be the real insult, I think. Not that I am any kind of cultural guru by any stretch. It's all relative.

On the other hand, I am often now in the company of a person who is not interested in computers or the internet and so is not too knowledgeable of them. In a group of people when we get to talking about Facebook or YouTube or whatever and I notice her looking a little bored, I do try to change the subject at some point. That is not the same as talking down to someone. It is being a polite socially sensitive person.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I have no scorn.
> 
> Maybe if someone can demonstrate to me that the thoughts and emotions experienced by someone who loves the music of, say, One Direction are objectively less valid than those I experience when listening to, say, Mahler, I might change my mind.
> 
> Actually I might question your use of the term _upwardly_ mobile. I'd argue that mobility's the thing; the direction of it is in the eye of the beholder.


Or "the eyes of the beholders."

In my own personal ontology, there are "social facts." They're not the same as ordinary facts, like whether 1373 is prime or the molecular structure of DNA. Social facts are things like "Barack Obama is the President of the USA." (Not necessarily "should be" but "is.") That is a fact only because essentially all sane people with the relevant information agree that it is true. A collectively held belief is a kind of fact. There is a kind of objectivity to them.

A few years ago I read about a survey taken asking people something like, "If you had to meet someone in New York City on a certain date, but you didn't know when or where you were supposed to meet, where would you go to meet them?" From a certain point of view there could be no correct or incorrect answer. But a huge majority of people gave the answer of noon at the clocks in Grand Central, and therefore that is actually the only correct answer.

That gets us to complicated things. Perhaps some social facts are true in certain social groups but not true in other groups. And so on. There's all kinds of great stuff to think about.

I'd argue that in our society - the globalized Western culture familiar with wine, beer, Coke, and bottled water - the superiority of certain things is so widely recognized that it is a kind of social fact. We can maintain that a pink flamingo yard ornament is just as prestigious as Michelangelo's _Pieta_, or that Royal Crown Cola is just as prestigious as Macallan Scotch whiskey, or that a Big Mac is just as prestigious as a California roll, but we'll usually find ourselves alone in these arguments, and afterward our behavior will probably betray our real beliefs anyway. A thing is prestigious precisely and solely because it is widely recognized as prestigious. These are "social facts," and there is a kind of objectivity to them. And it is in this sense that Beethoven, or classical music generally, is prestigious in our society.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> There is nothing to scorn there, other than anyone going so far to learn to be conversant in something they are not much or at all interested in, simply to be socially accepted or to socially impress, _is_, imho, something to be scorned.


I didn't ask whether the ignorance was to be scorned; I asked whether the social ambition was. I appreciate your answer (in spite of its confusing beginning about "nothing to scorn there") for its honesty!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

If it's not too late, I want to emphasize that I'm not asking about our scorn for beginners in general, but our scorn for people who, as they explore classical music, are largely concerned with social acceptance or social status.

As I put it originally, "The issue is, how much do we scorn someone who is unapologetically, without obfuscation or denial, trying to learn about classical music (or other "elite" culture) in order to participate in classy conversations? How much do we scorn upward mobility?"

And, "a lot of people out there in the world... want to know about Beethoven and Bach and Mozart because they're famous and, in a certain way, sort of cool.... [H]ow much scorn does our community have for them?"


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

I had a colleague who used to tell experts in a field different from ours, "Assume we have complete ignorance and perfect intelligence." In other words we know nothing but can learn anything. We wanted them to start at the beginning and leave nothing out (at least as a first approximation). I have always loved being on both sides of that situation - the expert and the newbie. Learning and teaching are two of my favorite activities. Scorn, whether given or felt, poisons the relationship between learning and teaching. I consider it almost a crime to deliver scorn to someone who actively seeks knowledge. 

It would be wonderful if no one ever felt hesitant about asking what they think may be a stupid question (or better to view no questions as stupid). Given human nature, that won't happen, but when those with knowledge share it joyously, there's less to fear from those who do not yet possess that knowledge.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> Or "the eyes of the beholders."
> 
> In my own personal ontology, there are "social facts." They're not the same as ordinary facts, like whether 1373 is prime or the molecular structure of DNA. Social facts are things like "Barack Obama is the President of the USA." (Not necessarily "should be" but "is.") That is a fact only because essentially all sane people with the relevant information agree that it is true. A collectively held belief is a kind of fact. There is a kind of objectivity to them.
> 
> ...


Which is nonetheless about the worst reason to ACQUIRE Beethoven if in all other ways it is of no interest to you. Then, it is truly just an acquisition, and another item in storage which is just more useless "Stuff."

There are more than enough of the recognized iconic things one can go for in which the pursuant has a genuine interest or genuinely cares about that one does not have to choose music, or art, to get that pretentious leg up sought after.

If the pursuit to acquire is genuine, it is no longer pretentious.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I had a colleague who used to tell experts in a field different from ours, "Assume we have complete ignorance and perfect intelligence."


I like that saying very much. I'll remember it!



mmsbls said:


> I consider it almost a crime to deliver scorn to someone who actively seeks knowledge.


Do you feel this way regardless of the person's reason for seeking knowledge?


----------



## Joris (Jan 13, 2013)

I don't really have scorn...But there's this guy in college who sometimes during lecture would véry demonstratively flip a 'literary canon' book out of his bag, hardly reads anything in it, and puts it demonstratively on the table. Look at me i'm so intellectual. 

But as far as music goes I rather feel 'guilt', that I should inform people about good music. 

We should be aware that the 'guilt' we might feel can also be an affirmation of the self (let met teach you...), or the need for 'followers' of our own self!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Which is nonetheless about the worst reason to ACQUIRE Beethoven if in all other ways it is of no interest to you. Then, it is truly just an acquisition, and another item in storage which is just more useless "Stuff."
> 
> There are more than enough of the recognized iconic things one can go for in which the pursuant has a genuine interest or genuinely cares about that one does not have to choose music, or art, to get that pretentious leg up sought after.
> 
> If the pursuit to acquire is genuine, it is no longer pretentious.


What I see here is that we need strategy. In order to be most effectively pretentious, we have to disguise our motives. In this, it is merely analogous to nearly all or perhaps even all human social interactions.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

If their reasons are for reasons other than genuine appreciation for the music, they're no worse off than they were before. And at least exposure to the music might actually lead to appreciation. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

And anyway, their reasons shouldn't have any effect on how other people choose to experience music, so I don't see the harm (and thus there is no need for scorn).


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Also consider: We teach children things that we know are good for them, although they might not attain full appreciation until later in life (if at all). So maybe when people seek out classic pieces of music, literature, art, etc., they're doing the same thing, but in an autodidactic way. Seems reasonable to me. I've done this sort of thing myself, and I expect to do more of it in the future.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

apricissimus said:


> If their reasons are for reasons other than genuine appreciation for the music, they're no worse off than they were before. And at least exposure to the music might actually lead to appreciation. That doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.
> 
> And anyway, their reasons shouldn't have ant effect on how other people choose to experience music, so I don't see the harm (and thus there is no need for scorn).


OK! Thank you!

I really appreciate this answer, because now we can have a discussion here. Your answer is almost precisely the opposite of PetrB's answer. If I've understood both of you, he passionately scorns the social ambition, regardless of its results; while you feel no scorn at all for the ambition, and hope it results in appreciation.

Now what I'd like to dig into here is - why? What are the differences between you (and people like you) and PetrB (and people like PetrB) that lead to such different attitudes?

I suspect this is a fundamental issue that has a lot to do with our attitudes toward other musical issues, such as our attitudes toward the idea of a canon of works, toward famous or popular recordings, toward famous or popular performers, toward famous or popular composers, toward crossover music, etc. etc. etc. So I'm really looking forward to digging into it!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

If you go to the opera at Dallas or Glyndebourne you will hear plenty of the people you cite.
I always remember a very upper class chap at Glyndebourne in a box asking his wife what was "on",Zauberfloete she said."Good tunes is it?" was his comment.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I wouldn't feel scorn for someone who wants to move in different circles & is therefore learning about classical music so long as they admitted they were learning. If they start 'putting things on', pretending to knowledge they don't have, or to an enthusiasm they don't feel, it does seem like hypocrisy. I'm not sure I'd feel scorn, but I certainly wouldn't respect the behaviour. 

'Social climbing' is natural to human beings and can be a spur to excellence but the downsides are pluming oneself on superiority to others, losing sympathy for them, and being a snob - not very attractive traits. But I'm sure your wife wouldn't do that, and is a very charming person who basically wants to fit in. I think she should relax, and stop post-morteming these conversations. She does enjoy classical music and she wants to know more. That should be enough to make her acceptable in classical music circles. 

More than acceptable, since people are only too happy to share their knowledge with others, as I have myself found, since joining TalkClassical. 

PS - I am *so* pleased that your gender seems established as male now, Science - though still puzzled as to why the shoe?


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2013)

science said:


> she has the idea that this kind of knowledge is what ought to be known by a classy person.


Get rid of this idea.

There. Game over.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

some guy said:


> Get rid of this idea.
> 
> There. Game over.


Ooooh, you caught me in a mistake. I should have said, "Like most people, she...."

From there we get to stuff I've already said.



science said:


> In my own personal ontology, there are "social facts." They're not the same as ordinary facts, like whether 1373 is prime or the molecular structure of DNA. Social facts are things like "Barack Obama is the President of the USA." (Not necessarily "should be" but "is.") That is a fact only because essentially all sane people with the relevant information agree that it is true. A collectively held belief is a kind of fact. There is a kind of objectivity to them.
> 
> A few years ago I read about a survey taken asking people something like, "If you had to meet someone in New York City on a certain date, but you didn't know when or where you were supposed to meet, where would you go to meet them?" From a certain point of view there could be no correct or incorrect answer. But a huge majority of people gave the answer of noon at the clocks in Grand Central, and therefore that is actually the only correct answer.
> 
> ...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ingenue said:


> I wouldn't feel scorn for someone who wants to move in different circles & is therefore learning about classical music so long as they admitted they were learning. If they start 'putting things on', pretending to knowledge they don't have, or to an enthusiasm they don't feel, it does seem like hypocrisy. I'm not sure I'd feel scorn, but I certainly wouldn't respect the behaviour.
> 
> 'Social climbing' is natural to human beings and can be a spur to excellence but the downsides are pluming oneself on superiority to others, losing sympathy for them, and being a snob - not very attractive traits. But I'm sure your wife wouldn't do that, and is a very charming person who basically wants to fit in. I think she should relax, and stop post-morteming these conversations. She does enjoy classical music and she wants to know more. That should be enough to make her acceptable in classical music circles.
> 
> ...


Loved your answer enough to explain the shoe thing.

It represents the shallow, crass materialism of which I am suspected because of my lack of religious belief. I hope to confirm theists' worst suspicions about me. Also, it matches my hot pink Ferrari stretch limo, which has a shallow jacuzzi in the back. I usually fill the jacuzzi with a very expensive brand of rosé champagne and at least four or five Victoria's Secret models in special lingerie made of $100 bills and diamonds. We listen only to baroque works performed on period instruments, so this post is relevant to music.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I didn't ask whether the ignorance was to be scorned; I asked whether the social ambition was. I appreciate your answer (in spite of its confusing beginning about "nothing to scorn there") for its honesty!


"There is nothing to scorn there, other than anyone going so far to learn to be conversant in something they are not much or at all interested in, simply to be socially accepted or to socially impress, is, imho, something to be scorned."

Did you get hung up halfway through this first sentence, which addresses that very question?


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

No scorn at all. People enter into classical music in all kinds of ways, including but not limited to

- There was a piano in the house and mom decided the kids should have lessons
- Got a ride in a friend's car and her dad had the classical radio station on
- Liked a movie score, friend said it reminded him of Holst, so I looked up Holst and that was just the beginning
- Wanted to learn guitar to impress girls
- Had to take music appreciation to meet a college requirement
- Parent or sibling was always practicing a musical instrument at home or listening to classical music
- Introduced to classical music through some other activity (dance, theatre, figure skating, worked at restaurant where classical music was played)

We all start from where we are. 

Of course, I hope your wife will get "hooked" on classical music and learn to love it for its own sake, because classical music is awesome.

How did other people meet classical music for the first time? (For me it was a combination of "parent practicing," "parent listening," and "other activity" (dance))


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> What I see here is that we need strategy. In order to be most effectively pretentious, we have to disguise our motives. In this, it is merely analogous to nearly all or perhaps even all human social interactions.


Yes, though why one would go even further to have the strategy to hide the shallow motives is truly beyond me. Pretension is pretension. Even in a rigid society, going to the opera is usually not a barrier to being promoted (at work at least), and socially, well I'm getting a feeling you want for both you and your wife to buy in... that buying in to be accepted by others playing the false and pretentious game. The goal is beyond my conception, what I can conceive of it seems repellently not desirable.

Remember, the majority of those you might hope to impress and be accepted by are complete fakes. What a goal!

But strategy in the game _is_ literally scheming, pretending, a lot of one-upping while pretending to be "nice." And just about all things people in certain social sectors, east and west, seem to do, because they have bought the entire premise _wholesale as important_ -- the motivation about, and the goal, all to me nasty, and weirdly surreal.

Once there, they've all arrived, and no one knows who or what they are anymore, and often the one who played the game, even cynically and at a remove, ultimately becomes affected / infected, and no longer knows who they are either.

This is a lot, and a lot of energy, to support -- like a lie, it takes making up and remembering more lies, exponentially increasing in number, to support. It has to be -- think about it -- both exhausting and depleting.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

science said:


> Preemptively, I don't mind admitting that I and especially my wife are doing it wrong. Sure, of course, undeniably we ought to acknowledge the great experts and their inevitable, permanent, inherent superiority to us. And therefore of course it is morally wrong and fully reprehensible for us not to just wander through life randomly, encountering whatever we happen to encounter, liking or not liking it as we happen to, disregarding the existence of all other people and their opinions, regardless of their relationships to us. Most of all, most of all, urgently and importantly, we ought not to have dared to assault the cultural bulwarks of our betters. For that there can be no forgiveness, except perhaps in the life to come.


People who disregard the general social status of something are not randomly wandering, for when other people cease being their guide, they enlist advertisement (or rather, it enlists them). I know plenty of people whose cultural background I'm almost entirely aware of and can even predict because I have seen the exact same things advertised and propagated during my lifetime. It becomes monotonous to speak to ten people who all listen almost solely to _One Direction_ and all love _Harry Potter_, you know? Why can't I just enter a random classroom and expect diversity? Where are the Wagnerites, the punk-lovers, the solo-piano repertoire connoisseurs, the minimalist experts, the film score divas, the metal-heads, the medieval music appreciators, the musical reciters? What joyful and varied conversation we'd have then! It is because instead of researching all that is out there, they take for granted what is handed to them.. A far worse fate than testing and searching until you've found something you really like - and whether that's metal or classical, I don't care. I would gladly take the passionate metal-head over the classical listener that listens only because he feels he has to, despite the fact that I like the music the latter listens to more.



Ingenue said:


> PS - I am *so* pleased that your gender seems established as male now, Science - though still puzzled as to why the shoe?


Well, the fact that he has a wife does not furnish one with sufficient information to deduce that he is a male, though admittedly it makes it significantly more likely - or am I overlooking something here?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

^ ^
_PetrB_, I suspect that if you have been trained, or have trained yourself in the practice, it is routine and not particularly tiring. I'm also guessing that in some societies the motives aren't shallow, but both the goal and practice are considered acceptable procedure. The face _is_ the reality of social standing. There is in fact a certain validity in 'measuring' a person by his skill in creating and maintaining face.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2013)

I have lived in the U.S. most of my life. A couple of brief stints in Europe. Lots of travelling.

Nowhere have I ever gone where classical music has any prestige at all. Liking it, however, can get you scorned almost everywhere. Or maybe just derided.

It may at some point been prestigious, even in the U.S. Maybe in very small pockets in the U.S. Not any more.

It's tolerated at best.

Well, whatever. Maybe in Korea it has more prestige. Either way, organizing your life around what will impress people who are probably not worth impressing in the first place seems a very sad and futile way of doing business. I can think of no valid reason for listening to classical music aside from "it's good to listen to." And if, for you, it's not good, then by all that's holy listen to something else.

Looking for scorn everywhere seems a singularly futile business as well. If you work your own pathology right, you can find scorn almost everywhere you look. Question is, how much of it is real? Question is, why should *any* of it, real or imagined, have any sort of effect on how you live?

If I had organized my tastes to account for any of the scorn I've ever perceived in my life, there is nothing that I now do that I would have ever done. I wouldn't like ballet, for sure! Nor classical music generally. Avant garde? Fuggidaboudit. (Especially the "obscure" ones. Wow. Scornworthy.) I wouldn't read any of the books I like or go to any of the museums I love. I for sure would never travel outside the good old U.S.A.

Here's what you do with scorn. You ignore it. Most of it's probably all your own imagination. What's not is not worth losing even a second's sleep over.

Truly.

And if you don't take my advice, I will have nothing but scorn for you. :lol:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> OK! Thank you!
> 
> I really appreciate this answer, because now we can have a discussion here. Your answer is almost precisely the opposite of PetrB's answer. If I've understood both of you, he passionately scorns the social ambition, regardless of its results; while you feel no scorn at all for the ambition, and hope it results in appreciation.
> 
> ...


I was simply brought up to respect people, social conventions which were_ meaningful_, to respect the differences in peoples taste, their take on religion, etc. What was also inculcated was good breeding and manners never should have any truck with shallow false pretenses, which I consider, as framed, the "social ambition" motivation of learning about classical music as a crying shame.

I was 'dragged about' to the theater, the symphony, art museums, the archeological institute, _never once with a feeling I was in any way obliged to answer questions on it later, have any opinion on it one way or the other,_, or that art was important, or socially important.

These things were shown because they might stimulate my imagination, may be something, full focus, slight interest, which could be sources of enjoyment for me then and possibly through the rest of my years. All of this was by way of a non-obligatory introduction: if I wanted to return to any of it, I could, if I didn't, I did not have to -- nor was their any dynamic of being expected to, or to continue merely in order to please my parents.

I was sent to Dalcroze Eurhythmics sessions around the age of four and a half. As per the other things to which I was introduced, those classes and later, private lessons, I was told I would 'do this' once but could stop at any time I was not interested or did not care for it. It was all "exposure," and I'm certain for my benefit -- and a lot of it happened to take. I'm speaking about being four, five, six years old when all this took place. At six, I was shunted off to piano lessons, same thing, didn't ask, just sent, again knowing that if I did not find interest or like it, it could stop by my just saying so. Knowing my parents very well, there was no attachment to any of them about prepping me for a later adult social standing.

The other is that argument most westerners have been taught to fear, loathe, beware of and revile, "The ends justify the means." There is a sub-agenda in bringing people to those arts, crafts, disciplines. Guess what... many a four year old who trusts their parents implicitly still picks up on less than full-frontal honesty.

All through reading your posts on this question, I sensed a real desire to upgrade the social status of your wife because of a shallow motivation to appear "more cultured" -- You, your wife, anyone, can be more cultured by not going for pursuits the prime goal of which is to buy into a false construct to appear more cultured.

Your approach, through a motivation to upgrade your social status, is to me an extremely negative one.

There is a semantic difference apart from "exposing children, or anyone, to culture" in a way of its being Ars Gratia Artis vs. a motivation, part or entire, about social standing. I find the latter shallow, vulgar if you will, the former about personal edification with the only possible intent and result to simply enrich. They can be exclusive of one another. I think they should be.

The arts are for everybody, no class issues, status, attached. It is that very other 'this upper crust' attitude -- even unstated but palpable, which exactly turns so many off upon their introduction to the arts.

I can imagine, from a conditioning and thoughts influenced by a radically different environment than that of my personal experience above stated, that another take, such as your postulation in that last paragraph (highlighted in green), is entirely possible as another persons reality.

To me, it seems like a bizarre construct and makes, literally, no sense, and I think it damn near insupportable no matter what 'proofs' you may bring to it. I think it reflects most on some of your personal conditioning or hang-ups more than it says anything else, perhaps those experiences could lead someone to think those thoughts as to the 'musical' and other 'issues' there stated. Again, the thought, the postulation of what might be, to me personally, is completely alien.

P.s. having re-read my childhood introductions, and the matter of fact of all that being provided, starting then and continuing all through adulthood, my piano, conservatory studies, etc. Is not a boast -- I am well aware of the Kismet of my circumstance, every ones arrival and landing here, or there, which parents is a matter of a roll of the roulette wheel. Others have and had other circumstances. I have to say I think I was beyond merely fortunate, and I think who, or who does not get similar circumstances is somewhat of a cosmic crap-shoot, a roll of the dice.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> PS - I am *so* pleased that your gender seems established as male now, Science - though still puzzled as to why the shoe?


Hey, let a guy have a fetish or two which he does not (and should not) have to explain!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> ^ ^
> _PetrB_, I suspect that if you have been trained, or have trained yourself in the practice, it is routine and not particularly tiring. I'm also guessing that in some societies the motives aren't shallow, but both the goal and practice are considered acceptable procedure. The face _is_ the reality of social standing. There is in fact a certain validity in 'measuring' a person by his skill in creating and maintaining face.


Natural grace and dignity are sooooo much easier to learn, find, be: there is far less effort, and there's nothing to work at or worry about 'keeping it up.'

"Be yourself. Everyone else is taken" ~ Oscar Wilde


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

I think it's important to listen to the music I like, eat the foods I like, enjoy the activities and hobbies that I like, wear the clothes I like, read the books - you get the picture. 
I care not at all what others think of my taste. 
Nor would I, even for a moment, entertain the idea of forcing myself to go on a 'quest' to fit in with someone else's idea of what is 'classy,' (whatever classy is.) If I had a life partner who could mentor me in an area in which I wished to grow, that would be fantastic. Trying to bring me 'up' to his level? Pfooey!


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

If one is 'social climbing' just to be on the make, and posing to do it, that's not an admirable thing. But if you find yourself among people of a different social class and you like their cultured, gracious approach, and you want to know more of what they like so much and what you yourself rather like - that's more understandable. Human life and motivation are complex. 

I come from the North of England, where we 'call a spade a spade' and social pretence is frowned on; honesty is all. But when I went to Durham University, I found myself suddenly among Southerners (Durham is often third choice after Oxford/Cambridge) who were more cultivated and 'middle class' than I was. At first I reacted by 'calling a spade a bl**dy trowel' (as they say) and more or less singing the Red Flag in their ear at every opportunity; but then I began to see that they were very nice, courteous people, and it was I who was the obnoxious one. I don't think I have ever pretended to know more than I do, even in the classroom; but I did eventually try to fit in a little more.

PS @Cheyenne - I did say 'gender *seems* to be established as male!


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2013)

*A Miracle Has Occurred*



some guy said:


> I have lived in the U.S. most of my life. A couple of brief stints in Europe. Lots of travelling.
> 
> Nowhere have I ever gone where classical music has any prestige at all. Liking it, however, can get you scorned almost everywhere. Or maybe just derided.
> 
> ...


I consider it a rare and perhaps auspicious occasion when I absolutely 100% completely agree with Some Guy, who has very different views from mine concerning new music, keeping an open mind, etc. @Science, if nothing else, this thread has impressed me with the great underlying unity of humanity.

Maybe I need to drink tonight to celebrate.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2013)

BPS, sometime tonight around 21:00PDT I will be lifting a glass to you.

Cheers!!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Let's back up a bit.

Some of the responses state or seem to imply that we don't actually attribute any cultural prestige to classical music. I simply don't believe that, and I don't even believe that any of us actually believes it either. Granted, social status is complex, and expressions of it are sometimes difficult to figure out; but none of us can, in deepest honesty with ourselves and each other, deny that classical music has a very, very strong association with elite status.

That creates the opportunity for someone to "use" it solely or in part for its status. I use the example of my wife and her friend because for me this phenomenon is easier to recognize outside of the community of people for whom classical music is more a passion than an interest. In the wider culture it is probably enough to appreciate Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, Ravel's Bolero, the Strauss family waltzes. That will be universally recognized as a gigantic step up from top-40 pop music, whatever teen sensation is hot, rap, new country.

But at least among us there is a distinction between that kind of middle-brow classical music and serious classical music, and our scorn for the former and the people who enjoy it is obvious to me. I remember perfectly the reaction last year when I asked-on behalf of my wife-whether the Vienna New Year's concert could be seen on-line. I understand perfectly well the significance of adjectives like "fluffy" and "inconsequential" and "predictable" to describe the music of the Strauss family or Eric Whitacre. I understand perfectly why we enjoy telling stories about people who call a classical radio station requesting Taco Bell's Canon. I remember the Andre Rieu thread. All of these are straightforward expressions of scorn. People will deny that, as I know, but no one can deny that and retain the slightest, slimmest, tiniest little bit of credibility.

What interests me is not only that we insult - admittedly, sometimes in quasi-subtle ways - the taste and perhaps the ignorance of people who enjoy new country or Pachelbel's Canon but that in doing so we are obviously promoting a social hierarchy. In spite of that, or rather, because of that, we require that people either do not ascend that hierarchy, or that they do so as if on accident; we require people to appreciate our music - "serious" classical music - without expressing any social ambitions. We express _even greater scorn_ for the social ambition than for middle-brow or low-brow taste.

That interests me. I suspect that this latter scorn is as strategic as the former scorn. I suspect that most of us understand perfectly well that this is so, and that few of us are going to admit it. In order to avoid that, we're suddenly insisting ever-so-piously that we don't scorn anyone's taste in music, denying ever-so-seriously that classical music is recognized as an elite musical tradition.

Admitting that you have a problem is the first step, right?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

science, first I suggest losing the terms *scorn* and *classy conversations*. And, please do not keep your wife at arm's length in any way. She, anyone, will learn at their own pace and comfort level. Q & A's need to be exchanged freely, with no strings attached.

High Society perceptions of olden days are out the window. No more. Finished. Gone. If anyone's still hanging around people who think classical music, horses, dogs, cats, art, golf, wine, money, boats, anything, is the be all and end all, it's time to rethink and restore. Run, don't walk, away from such people.

Be well, my friend. :tiphat:


----------



## Yardrax (Apr 29, 2013)

As a probably autistic (Still to be confirmed) child I remember the bullies at my school taunting me for not listening to any kind of popular music and remarking a couple of times 'So what do you like, Beethoven then?' in a pretty obviously mocking tone. Funnily enough, I didn't even listen to much Beethoven, or classical music of any kind back then. Nowadays I might even claim Ludvig Van as my favourite composer. But I digress, it certainly wasn't helpful on my school playground to listen to classical music, or even look like you might listen to classical music, if you wanted to climb the social ranks. Something to think about.


----------



## SottoVoce (Jul 29, 2011)

There's nothing wrong with being interested in classical music because of his social and intellectual culture; this might not be the case now, since we tend to lift up things in our culture that shouldn't be lifted up, but the cultural prestige is not something artifically made in order to bring people, but an effect on the importance and seriousness of the music, and thus the respect it gets for one who understands it and appreciates it. Cultural and social prestige is, and should not be, the end of listening to the music; you shouldn't listen to it just becauses it makes you more cultured. But the fact that classical music, albiet much less so now, is both respected culturally and socially is a big factor on why many people seem at first to take interest in it; I know that's why I did when I was a young child. As Charles Rosen said, "A love of classical music is only partially a natural response to hearing the works performed, it also must come about by a decision to listen carefully, to pay close attention, a decision inevitably motivated by the cultural and social prestige of the art."

That being said, I won't look down on someone who can't tell the difference between Bach and Whitacre, but it doesn't mean that I don't think it is an acceptable thing. I will always disagree with someone who says that Bjork matches up the Beethoven String Quartet, and won't see them as a person whose tastes are very interesting, even though they are being sincere. This does not mean that I think they are bad people, merely that I think they do not have a refined taste, at least yet. This isn't because the social prestige is much higher than the other; it is because I think, with a Kantian claim, that it is better and more valuable music, even if many more people listen to Bjork rather than Beethoven. I think there is a tendency in our cultural thought to be an artistic judgment on social rather than aesthetic criteria; what is more important in more peoples' lives than what is truly better than the other. I don't care if people don't care about Carter or Boulez or Beethoven, just like I don't care if people don't care what Kant or Aristotle or Plato said; I still think what these people are important, no matter how many people care to take part in it. I don't think the answers to these questions have been any different; both classical music and traditional philosophy has always been in the minority, and although due to mass media and more social inter-connectivity, it is much easier to feel content to be in the minority without getting the brand of elitist, I still think it's important. Spinoza's rather cliched last remark in the Ethics is: "Yeah, my system is difficult and not many people will follow it, but isn't anything else? Why would the real answer to life's questions be for the minority rather than the majority?" Again, this minority isn't a social one; the higher, capitalist class, both in the present and for the past 200 years has been suspicious of intellectualism, especially in the United States.

I don't think this stuff requires any defending; I don't think JK Rowling or Whitacre gives a hoot if some snobbish kid from New England thinks their art is bad. I think the real thing that requires defending is the difficult pleasures; there hasn't been a century when philosophy has been constantly questioned on his relevancy; the only reason science has escaped this trap is because it helps people make money and, quite rightly, contributes to increased living standards. But living standards isn't a end, it's a mean to an end. Shelley died at 35, but he probably lived a more fulfilling life than most of us. Us living longer doesn't mean anything if there is nothing to life for; it is a way of living longer. Frankly, I don't think life would be much worth it without Florence and Love and an appreciation of nature and family and what great people have said and valued in the past. Maybe I'm one of the crazy ones. Harold Bloom says that this is fundamentally an intellectual difference; either you believe in the importance in what the greatest minds of the past have said, or you don't. Another great quote by him: “... one doesn't want to read badly any more than live badly, since time will not relent. I don't know that we owe God or nature a death, but nature will collect anyway, and we certainly owe mediocrity nothing, whatever collectivity it purports to advance or at least represent.”


I may have strayed far away from the topic with my silly ramblings, or may have not answered the question at all. But this is a question that I've thought about a lot, and I think it may be the same question that you're tackling with. It's a quesiton that's been important to the survival of culture and the intellectual life for the past 50 years, and I think it is one that needs to be arrested with if culture has any change of surviving our age. I'm not saying our age is any different; it seems that high culture, except in the 18th century when popular demand for difficult work hits its peak, has always been in it's death throes, but it does seem that it is a little more accepted now, especially among the "educated", to see intellectual and cultural thought as a elitist trifle, both from the Left, who would rather be funding poverty, and the Right, who would rather not be doing much of any funding. I think Wittgenstein and Russell saw this great changes, which is why Wittgenstein said in the 50s that he had witnessed the extreme degregation of the human spirit. But I think it was Nietzsche most of all that predicted this "cultural relativism" for a lack of a better phrase; he said that "The Last man's main characteristic is that he has forgotten the quality of contempt". The great critic of modernism that he was, he saw this change. I think it's still a liveable change, but I think it's one it tackles with. But we still live with eachother, you know.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Vaneyes said:


> science, first I suggest losing the terms *scorn* and *classy conversations*. And, please do not keep your wife at arm's length in any way. She, anyone, will learn at their own pace and comfort level. Q & A's need to be exchanged freely, with no strings attached.
> 
> High Society perceptions of olden days are out the window. No more. Finished. Gone. If anyone's still hanging around people who think classical music, horses, dogs, cats, art, golf, wine, money, boats, anything, is the be all and end all, it's time to rethink and restore. Run, don't walk, away from such people.
> 
> Be well, my friend. :tiphat:


My wife and I are cool. I love her very much and have the deepest respect for her, and she knows that and feels the same way about me.

I don't know about "the be all and end all," but if I ran away from people who attribute status to various kinds of music, pets, hobbies, beverages, possessions - I'd run away from nearly everyone. Perhaps I could take up with some monks somewhere. But that's not necessary! I enjoy city life and social life very much. I only advocate that we be a bit more honest about things. Of course that's a strategy too!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SottoVoce said:


> There's nothing wrong with being interested in classical music because of his social and intellectual culture; this might not be the case now, since we tend to lift up things in our culture that shouldn't be lifted up, but the cultural prestige is not something artifically made in order to bring people, but an effect on the importance and seriousness of the music, and thus the respect it gets for one who understands it and appreciates it. Cultural and social prestige is, and should not be, the end of listening to the music; you shouldn't listen to it just becauses it makes you more cultured. But the fact that classical music, albiet much less so now, is both respected culturally and socially is a big factor on why many people seem at first to take interest in it; I know that's why I did when I was a young child. As Charles Rosen said, "A love of classical music is only partially a natural response to hearing the works performed, it also must come about by a decision to listen carefully, to pay close attention, a decision inevitably motivated by the cultural and social prestige of the art."
> 
> That being said, I won't look down on someone who can't tell the difference between Bach and Whitacre, but it doesn't mean that I don't think it is an acceptable thing. I will always disagree with someone who says that Bjork matches up the Beethoven String Quartet, and won't see them as a person whose tastes are very interesting, even though they are being sincere. This does not mean that I think they are bad people, merely that I think they do not have a refined taste, at least yet. This isn't because the social prestige is much higher than the other; it is because I think, with a Kantian claim, that it is better and more valuable music, even if many more people listen to Bjork rather than Beethoven. I think there is a tendency in our cultural thought to be an artistic judgment on social rather than aesthetic criteria; what is more important in more peoples' lives than what is truly better than the other. I don't care if people don't care about Carter or Boulez or Beethoven, just like I don't care if people don't care what Kant or Aristotle or Plato said; I still think what these people are important, no matter how many people care to take part in it. I don't think the answers to these questions have been any different; both classical music and traditional philosophy has always been in the minority, and although due to mass media and more social inter-connectivity, it is much easier to feel content to be in the minority without getting the brand of elitist, I still think it's important. Spinoza's rather cliched last remark in the Ethics is: "Yeah, my system is difficult and not many people will follow it, but isn't anything else? Why would the real answer to life's questions be for the minority rather than the majority?" Again, this minority isn't a social one; the higher, capitalist class, both in the present and for the past 200 years has been suspicious of intellectualism, especially in the United States.
> 
> I don't think this stuff requires any defending; I don't think JK Rowling or Whitacre gives a hoot if some snobbish kid from New England thinks their art is bad. I think the real thing that requires defending is the difficult pleasures; there hasn't been a century when philosophy has been constantly questioned on his relevancy; the only reason science has escaped this trap is because it helps people make money and, quite rightly, contributes to increased living standards. But living standards isn't a end, it's a mean to an end. Shelley died at 35, but he probably lived a more fulfilling life than most of us. Us living longer doesn't mean anything if there is nothing to life for; it is a way of living longer. Frankly, I don't think life would be much worth it without Florence and Love and an appreciation of nature and family and what great people have said and valued in the past. Maybe I'm one of the crazy ones. Harold Bloom says that this is fundamentally an intellectual difference; either you believe in the importance in what the greatest minds of the past have said, or you don't. Another great quote by him: "... one doesn't want to read badly any more than live badly, since time will not relent. I don't know that we owe God or nature a death, but nature will collect anyway, and we certainly owe mediocrity nothing, whatever collectivity it purports to advance or at least represent."


Beautiful post, Sotto Voce! You just became one of my favorite people here. Absolutely lovely. (Bloom has of course been supported by nothing but the generosity of the capitalist elite, who in my personal experience even recognize him as a defender of their interests.)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Yardrax said:


> As a probably autistic (Still to be confirmed) child I remember the bullies at my school taunting me for not listening to any kind of popular music and remarking a couple of times 'So what do you like, Beethoven then?' in a pretty obviously mocking tone. Funnily enough, I didn't even listen to much Beethoven, or classical music of any kind back then. Nowadays I might even claim Ludvig Van as my favourite composer. But I digress, it certainly wasn't helpful on my school playground to listen to classical music, or even look like you might listen to classical music, if you wanted to climb the social ranks. Something to think about.


What lends status on elementary or middle school playgrounds is rarely going to be the same thing that lends status in a discussion among grown-ups in a coffee shop in Manhattan.

But at every age, you have to understand that pretensions or the appearance of pretensions will be mocked. No one in my family mocks my brother for going to the University of Wyoming - they mock me for going to Yale. That doesn't mean that in fact UWyo is more prestigious than Yale. It means that they recognize the prestige of Yale, but they don't want me to act like I own it. In precisely the same way, for precisely the same reasons, no one is going to mock him for listening to Toby Keith, but they will mock me for listening to Beethoven.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

science said:


> When she knows what she's talking about, she really enjoys those conversations, and when she doesn't know, she fears public humiliation and doesn't enjoy them.
> 
> The issue under discussion here is, *how much* scorn do we have for people like my wife?


are you worried about what the TC population thinks about your wife or what her more knowledgeable friend thinks about her?

my guess on the amount of scorn is ~ 2 inches, give or take.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> ^ ^
> _PetrB_, I suspect that if you have been trained, or have trained yourself in the practice, it is routine and not particularly tiring. I'm also guessing that in some societies the motives aren't shallow, but both the goal and practice are considered acceptable procedure. The face _is_ the reality of social standing. There is in fact a certain validity in 'measuring' a person by his skill in creating and maintaining face.


So bizarre.
People can and do "get used to" anything!

I'd rather play checkers with my cat, if the animal ever decides to bestow its wisdom upon me and teach me the game, that is.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> What lends status on elementary or middle school playgrounds is rarely going to be the same thing that lends status in a discussion among grown-ups in a coffee shop in Manhattan.
> 
> But at every age, you have to understand that pretensions or the appearance of pretensions will be mocked. No one in my family mocks my brother for going to the University of Wyoming - they mock me for going to Yale. That doesn't mean that in fact UWyo is more prestigious than Yale. It means that they recognize the prestige of Yale, but they don't want me to act like I own it. In precisely the same way, for precisely the same reasons, no one is going to mock him for listening to Toby Keith, but they will mock me for listening to Beethoven.


Whoa! You come from an entire family of elitist snobs, then. No Wonder you have such complicated thoughts and such deep issues about this. And that is where you can begin to make it stop. Said at these comments, "Oh My God my entire family are the most extreme of elitist snobs!"

If the family speaks freely making those kind of jokes in front of others in your presence, you say, "Oh My God my entire family are the most extreme of elitist snobs! I hope you will forgive them."

The whole dynamic is not rare. In classical music that sort of snobbery is most often found coming _from fans_, not the performers, teachers, composers -- among whom there will inevitably be a few (hey, they''re people) -- but a far greater contingent of those snobs are from that large majority of the 3% (that percent of the population who listen to classical) who are the fan base. Those are more the ones who act like the so called upper crust and who condescend to those who know less.

Nothing like the nouvelle arrive game players, the most motivated, and likely, to pull that ladder right up behind them.

That brings me back to getting into that circle for the wrong reason -- they're pretenders, and will say and do awful things to keep others from perhaps being a bettor actor -- or the real thing -- and taking their place in the hierarchy. That social status pursuit, that's a bitch goddess who makes people not nice.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> Whoa! You come from an entire family of elitist snobs, then. No Wonder you have such complicated thoughts and such deep issues about this. And that is where you can begin to make it stop. Said at these comments, "Oh My God my entire family are the most extreme of elitist snobs!"
> 
> If the family speaks freely making those kind of jokes in front of others in your presence, you say, "Oh My God my entire family are the most extreme of elitist snobs! I hope you will forgive them."
> 
> ...


Dude, my family is ********, not elitist at all. How in the glorious world did you get "elitist" out of using humor to puncture elitist pretension?

"Oh My God my entire family are the most extreme of elitist snobs! I hope you will forgive them." If that isn't the most elitist, snobby thing I could say, what would be? Can you top that?


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> Dude, my family is ********, not elitist at all. How in the glorious world did you get "elitist" out of using humor to puncture elitist pretension?
> 
> "Oh My God my entire family are the most extreme of elitist snobs! I hope you will forgive them." If that isn't the most elitist, snobby thing I could say, what would be? Can you top that?


Dude! It is the FLIP SIDE OF THE SAME COIN. There is no withholding a genetic chip for one "class" and one divinely meted out for the other. In saying that to your family when they are being snobs, you are merely calling a spade a spade.

I think your hidebound acceptance and self-consciousness of your family's supposed social station has you utterly blindsided to the fact that anyone from any 'class' can be a complete snob.

Your family, when they act like that, are being inverse snobs of the highest water, exactly as attitudinal, condescending and "YOU ARE NOT US AND DON'T YOU FORGET IT" as all the (perceived by you) elitist snobbery which you think comes from 'above' -- that very elitist snobbery you are so bemoaning.

Make no mistake about it, I'm sure the family dynamic has it that they are as genuinely proud of you as they are equally envious: the latter a requisite component which must be present when people impulsively must put you down in order to feel better about themselves. _That is what snobbery is all about_ -- debasing another in order to feel you have confirmed yourself as "elevated." (that is unless the Hokey Pokey is really what it is _all_ about.

I feel I must take you to task on your misperception of my (and others) 'rating' of lighter classical music fare. This is not about me, but I am very aware I triggered that reaction you had, as a perfect manifestation of that elitism and snobbery you claim to be the victim of -- or so I perceive it.

Light music is known as light music, unashamedly, including by the composers who make it. Top to bottom amongst the "officiandi" the best of it is recognized for the excellence of its craft, its effectiveness, the high level of both talent and technique which went into its being. Quick analogy -- A Cordon Bleu pastry chef who graduated with the highest honors gets the same recognition as a Cordon Bleu Chef who graduated with the highest honors who prepares entrees. There is no dispute that one makes desserts -- of the highest quality, and the other makes entrees of the highest quality.

Again, those who pooh-pooh Johann Strauss Junior waltzes are mainly the fans of classical music, not musicians active in the trade, who know good work when the hear it, period. It would be JUST INSANE, however, to say that dessert is not dessert, and that entrees are not more 'substantial' food. _[[That something weighs in as more substantial is a natural (I think) and globally universal, and agreed upon, value system.]]_

That is not saying the quality, or intent and content of dessert should be made out to be lesser as to its artfulness or quality. I'm certain you get the distinction. Ergo, just as when inquiring about great food, even the greatest fan of all great food might first start talking about entrees, and maybe even forget to mention that stellar and beautifully made masterly array of pastries on the cart. Inquiring about food, most people will reflexively start with talking about the entrees. There is no 'class distinction,' nor social stigma, about liking desserts.

Okay, just to live up to your expectations, shouldn't it be, "Dude my family ARE ********?" 

P.s. Got one for you, about Harvard, _which is just a stone's throw from Yale_....

A freshman at Harvard, a *******, while walking across one of the quads, stops a sophomore and asks him, "Where is the library at?" The upper classman says, "Never end a sentence with a preposition." The ******* freshman says, "Alright. Where is the library at, [email protected]@hole?"


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

PetrB said:


> Dude! It is the FLIP SIDE OF THE SAME COIN. There is no genetic chip for one "class" and one divinely meted out for the other.


Yes, exactly! That's why I was querying science's use of "upwardly" mobile.

I remember years ago on (I think) BBC there was a documentary where much-despised Tory cabinet member Michael Portillo spent a week taking the place of a single mother in a council flat and trying to look after the kids using just the dole. Not surprisingly he found such a life difficult, and the program was making a commendable point about poverty and how politicians can be far too removed from the people their policies affect. But there was one point where, as Portillo and the mother talked, she said "This is real life, Michael!" and I'm afraid all I could think was, isn't Michael Portillo's life real?

And when SottoVoce says, above,


> Frankly, I don't think life would be much worth it without Florence and Love and an appreciation of nature and family and what great people have said and valued in the past.


I just want to hear someone say


> Frankly, I don't think life would be much worth it without EastEnders and Status Quo and an appreciation of football and family and nights out in the pub with me mates.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

To be frank, I don't believe you guys, and I don't think you believe yourselves either. There is no one in our culture who really believes that country music has as much class as classical music. Of course the country music subculture embraces its identity without shame, but deep down we all know where things stand.

Just as we all know where things stand vis-a-vis, say, Ravel's _Bolero_ and Stockhausen's _Stimmung_.

I understand that perhaps we shouldn't have these attitudes, but we do. It's not me or my family, it's not Appalachia or the Ivy League, it is western culture as a whole, Davos culture, CNN culture, Hollywood, Madison Avenue. We all know exactly where things stand - even when our own particular status-strategy requires pretending not to know.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> To be frank, I don't believe you guys, and I don't think you believe yourselves either. There is no one in our culture who really believes that country music has as much class as classical music. Of course the country music subculture embraces its identity without shame, but deep down we all know where things stand.
> 
> Just as we all know where things stand vis-a-vis, say, Ravel's _Bolero_ and Stockhausen's _Stimmung_.
> 
> I understand that perhaps we shouldn't have these attitudes, but we do. It's not me or my family, it's not Appalachia or the Ivy League, it is western culture as a whole, Davos culture, CNN culture, Hollywood, Madison Avenue. We all know exactly where things stand - even when our own particular status-strategy requires pretending not to know.


Divide, and conquer. You've not only accepted that, but embraced it with a vehemence as one who has been both divided and conquered, I think, beyond the comprehension of anyone who has participated in this thread.

"I understand that perhaps we shouldn't have these attitudes, but we do."
Attitudes are thoughts; Feelings are thoughts. Thoughts can be changed by simply thinking another thought, or revising the existing thought. Ditto, emotions.

I am afraid, and feeling compassion for, a man who seems to me to be completely terrified to simply be himself.

You not only can only begin from where you are, you have to approve yourself, as where you are, before you can go anywhere else, or further in any direction.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Knowledge is, as I stated before, a greater end than prestige. The problem to me is not that people listen to waltzes (even cynic H.L. Mencken said that there was something 'irresistibly charming' about a waltz) and so forth, but that it is often only because they don't know what else is out there: who does not know people that listened to waltzes for hours on end until they were introduced to Mozart and co? However, practical experience and exposure ease the soul, and as I've learned, there is an interest in classical music in many people that is rarely expanded upon merely because it is difficult to comprehend and seen as socially pretentious. Film music and video game music are so great because they demystify orchestral music as something incomprehensibly and prestigious; but what has not been solved is the difficulty of getting 'into' classical music, because the tools for investigating any other kind of music fail miserably when looking into classical music. Let's all work towards making it open and understandable! - and who cares if somebody listens to some waltzes on the side?

Do I feel more prestigious than people who listen to One Direction? Yes.. Yes. And you know why? Because they probably have barely heard any music from before 1980 - and that's really a problem. Again: not what it is, but how one came to it. If they could say in honesty that they had listened to a Beethoven symphony once, and found it dreadfully dull, I would change my view quickly. They simply don't, at all, and that is only because of reverse social prestige: they don't want to get into something that's pretentious. It haunts me too sometimes, I must say, for, given my age, it is indeed less prestigious instead of more to listen to classical music and read (at all, that is) and so forth. I rarely lie about it, but certainly I must hold it back first and only let the truth slowly unfold later, so that little damage is done..


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

We're stuck here: I've described the status hierarchy that exists, and you're repeatedly admonishing me to pretend it doesn't. Being myself means being interested in facts and accurate descriptions of reality rather than agreeing with your ideology or promoting one of my own. If you want to meta-analyze it, you can say that's my strategy. That's fair. But within the realm of music in society I'm far, far, far more interested in accurate description than in telling people what they ought to do, or in what others have to tell me that I ought to do. 

Returning to topic, it seems to me very clearly established by this thread that we (the classical music community) scorn social ambition far more intensely than we scorn ignorance or disagreeing tastes. That's interesting to me. I'm not sure I expected this. So now I want to dig in: why do we have this particular scorn? I suspect that scorn is defensive most of the time. If it is this time, what are we defending?

(Edit: sorry Cheyenne, I hadn't seen your post when I wrote this post. This one is responding to PetrB and I'll respond to you later!)


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

science said:


> (Edit: sorry Cheyenne, I hadn't seen your post when I wrote this post. This one is responding to PetrB and I'll respond to you later!)


I was already trying desperately to see how your response was connected to mine :lol:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Cheyenne said:


> Knowledge is, as I stated before, a greater end than prestige. The problem to me is not that people listen to waltzes (even cynic H.L. Mencken said that there was something 'irresistibly charming' about a waltz) and so forth, but that it is often only because they don't know what else is out there: who does not know people that listened to waltzes for hours on end until they were introduced to Mozart and co? However, practical experience and exposure ease the soul, and as I've learned, there is an interest in classical music in many people that is rarely expanded upon merely because it is difficult to comprehend and seen as socially pretentious. Film music and video game music are so great because they demystify orchestral music as something incomprehensibly and prestigious; but what has not been solved is the difficulty of getting 'into' classical music, because the tools for investigating any other kind of music fail miserably when looking into classical music. Let's all work towards making it open and understandable! - and who cares if somebody listens to some waltzes on the side?
> 
> Do I feel more prestigious than people who listen to One Direction? Yes.. Yes. And you know why? Because they probably have barely heard any music from before 1980 - and that's really a problem. Again: not what it is, but how one came to it. If they could say in honesty that they had listened to a Beethoven symphony once, and found it dreadfully dull, I would change my view quickly. They simply don't, at all, and that is only because of reverse social prestige: they don't want to get into something that's pretentious. It haunts me too sometimes, I must say, for, given my age, it is indeed less prestigious instead of more to listen to classical music and read (at all, that is) and so forth. I rarely lie about it, but certainly I must hold it back first and only let the truth slowly unfold later, so that little damage is done..


I have a lot of thoughts on a couple of really interesting points in your post that I wanted to respond to, but on my cell phone I can't type so easily and my wife was giving me dirty looks for not paying attention to dinner conversation.... but now I'm home and free to respond.

The idea that the prestige of classical music makes it daunting to some people: Good point. I think some of the confusion about my claims in this thread arises from this, and I should have addressed it before.

Anti-pretentiousness is what I'd label "a democratic attitude." The classical music tradition retains a lot of its aristocratic values and attitudes - even when it became the music of the upwardly mobile bourgeoisie, it was emphatically not the music of the proletariat. It never became that either; they had their own "folk" musical traditions, and in time they adopted blues, rock, pop, rap, and so on.

But because classical music is still recognized as an aristocratic or elite tradition, it can be intimidating: here's a key point: no one wants to fail at trying to get above themselves. If you're going to climb, you'd better be sure you can succeed, because it'd be far better to remain in your station than to return a failure. Essentially, to climb and fail is to fall. And therefore classical music can be daunting.

So I love the idea of film music and video game music as more accessible entryways to the tradition. If our goal is to spread the love of classical music - I'm not sure we all actually do share this goal, but I know that a lot of us do or claim to - a good strategy would be to demystify it, as you aptly put it. The old middle-brow tradition was a good thing in that sense, and it's too bad that Reiner and Bernstein haven't found successors. Of course the audience moved on, so to some degree it's not any musician's fault, it's just cultural change. Now, in addition to film and video game music, we have crossover, which has certainly helped in a financial sense. The success of the "Les Mis" movie might suggest, maybe, perhaps, that film-operas might have a slightly better chance than we've realized so far....

Anyway, I've been disclaiming ideology, but I guess I have been promoting one and reflecting on your post made me realize it: my ideology is that it's ok. I really don't care how or why people get into classical music. Maybe I have a politician's principles: I'm willing to tell them anything they want to hear if it opens them to the music. (BTW, in the beginning of this thread I used my wife and her friend as an example, and I'm not thinking of them now, but just of people in general.) I'm willing to fully accept that a lot of people listen to various traditions of music to be cool, to demonstrate or assert their membership in a group, etc., and I don't mind at all that at least some (if not most, if not all) classical music listeners do so as well. In my mind, their goals are as legitimate as anyone's.

So we've got to be a tricky zen judo double-move: to let some people use classical music to (try to) enhance their social status without allowing the in-crowd to scorn them, and at the same time to demystify the tradition so that it can be accessed without risk to one's current status. In an institutional, realpolitik sense this is probably impossible, but it may be the correct prescription anyway.

Like you, I think of myself as valuing knowledge above all: I'm a learner and a teacher and it's just who I am, and exploring classical music is an aspect of that for me. That's why I'm more interested in learning about the states-of-affairs (especially in history) than in promoting the community's ideologies. Of course if I met myself I'd say, "Hey buddy, that's probably also a social strategy. Your infant-self or child-self probably got a sense that he was good at that kind of thing and could get praise for it, and that's probably why you adopted this strategy and became who you are today."

Well, so be it. We have to accept this kind of thing about ourselves: we are a social species, we care deeply what the people around us think of us, it's not a bad thing, it's just a human thing, and it's ok. Sure, for peace of mind, some of us probably need to relax a bit and choose more loyal friends rather than trying to impress people who won't be impressed, and accept our station as good enough. Especially, we probably need to stop spending money acquiring possessions that promise (though the brilliant, carefully and scientifically constructed lies of marketing) to give us more status - that crap never delivers on its promises because that's almost never how status actually works, but to pay for it too many of us are wasting real hours, real days, real years of our short, precious lives in horrible jobs. The solution to such problems isn't to try to turn ourselves into solipsistic anti-social hermits - we can't do that anyway because we're stuck with the human nature our ancestors' evolution has given us - but to craft more effective and satisfying strategies.

This gets to a point I've considered raising with PetrB a few times, and I hope he reads it here: he seems to treat the human psyche as if it had exactly either one or two layers: an authentic inner core, perhaps covered by a second layer of inauthenticity. All we need to do, in this view, if we want to present our authentic selves to the world, is strip off a mask. It's simply a matter of courage. Unfortunately I think the problem is far, far more complex than that. I think of an idea that came from Rilke if I remember correctly, about trying to take off that mask, clawing at it, trying to peel it off his face, only to realize that he was actually rending his face. I find that moving illustration of the fact that we're so, so much more complex than just "an authentic self" with something like "a mask." We are our masks, they are a part of who we are, and any time we say to the world, "Here is my authentic self, unadorned, for you to love or reject as you happen to choose," we are simply adopting a particular sort of mask. This isn't to deny that authenticity is a great goal or that dishonesty is evil, but it is to insist that the struggle to be honest and authentic is in fact much more complex than our common discourse admits.

Regarding music in particular: absolutely, like what you like, love what you love, hate what you hate, meh what you meh, whatever. But let's discard the pretensions to aesthetic solipsism, pretending that our tastes are created de novo in the encounter of sound waves with our eardrums. Physically there is no sound in a vacuum, socially there is no music in a vacuum.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Let me just get this thought down before I leave for the day:

There's two attitudes we need to consider.
1. Classical music is prestigious.
2. Classical music is _perceived to be_ prestigious. In other words, people who have no interest whatsoever in classical music nevertheless, for whatever reason, believe that it's something to be publicly funded and that it's something that the "better" people (whatever that might mean) do in their spare time. AFAIC, _that's_ "our culture" (inasmuch as "we", whoever we are, have a single culture...). Because, prestigious or no, it's not _popular_, and surely what's popular in a culture counts as a significant part of that culture too? So maybe the vast majority of people regard classical music as prestigious, but the vast majority of _them_ still don't care enough to ever want to become familiar with it. It's lip service at best.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Let me just get this thought down before I leave for the day:
> 
> There's two attitudes we need to consider.
> 1. Classical music is prestigious.
> 2. Classical music is _perceived to be_ prestigious. In other words, people who have no interest whatsoever in classical music nevertheless, for whatever reason, believe that it's something to be publicly funded and that it's something that the "better" people (whatever that might mean) do in their spare time. AFAIC, _that's_ "our culture" (inasmuch as "we", whoever we are, have a single culture...). Because, prestigious or no, it's not _popular_, and surely what's popular in a culture counts as a significant part of that culture too? So maybe the vast majority of people regard classical music as prestigious, but the vast majority of _them_ still don't care enough to ever want to become familiar with it. It's lip service at best.


I wouldn't have brought in public funding, which raises a lot of other issues. Nor "lip service," which you probably meant as just a casual metaphor but from my POV at least it might not bear closer analysis.

But it seems to me you're right that even though most people aren't interested in actively becoming the kind of people who like classical music, they do recognize (implicitly, if not explicitly) the prestige of classical music. I'd agree that most people don't make a connection between "prestigious" and "ought to do."

I'd add that they might even make the opposite leap, suspecting people who (claim to) enjoy classical music of doing it for its prestige rather than for the music itself. Of course that dichotomy is problematic, but the idea is obvious enough, and is probably one of the main sources of resentment and suspicion.

Perhaps a good analogy is law. Perhaps identifying as a listener of classical music is like practicing law: undeniably prestigious, and also hard to do in part because of barriers constructed by insiders, and therefore we're always going to question the motives and character of the people who do it. And perhaps some "nice" people avoid it for those reasons. It gets something like the opposite of lip-service, in part precisely because of its prestige.

I don't have confidence in that analogy, but I'd like to work on it a bit more.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

OK, it turns out I haven't left for the day, yet.

The thing that puzzles me here is, if "we're always going to question the motives and character of the people who do it", then how can it be "undeniably prestigious"? Surely if classical music is _actually_ prestigious then a listener would automatically garner at least some degree of respect or admiration.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> OK, it turns out I haven't left for the day, yet.
> 
> The thing that puzzles me here is, if "we're always going to question the motives and character of the people who do it", then how can it be "undeniably prestigious"? Surely if classical music is _actually_ prestigious then a listener would automatically garner at least some degree of respect or admiration.


Yeah, some degree. Probably not so much that no one will question your motives. It's a dog-eat-dog world, status-wise. People question what you wear, how you talk, how you decorate your home, the food you eat, the drinks you drink, etc. Probably nothing is going to get you so much status that no one questions your motives.

The causation or logic runs from "potential prestige" to "questioning."


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I have it easy. I enjoy the arts for what it does for my humanity. I don't give a flying frick about status. I love the arts.

The arts are for real people, not millionaires and ladies in mink.


----------



## Guest (Jun 23, 2013)

science said:


> To be frank, I don't believe you guys, and I don't think you believe yourselves either. There is no one in our culture who really believes that country music has as much class as classical music. Of course the country music subculture embraces its identity without shame, but deep down we all know where things stand.
> 
> Just as we all know where things stand vis-a-vis, say, Ravel's _Bolero_ and Stockhausen's _Stimmung_.
> 
> I understand that perhaps we shouldn't have these attitudes, but we do. It's not me or my family, it's not Appalachia or the Ivy League, it is western culture as a whole, Davos culture, CNN culture, Hollywood, Madison Avenue. We all know exactly where things stand - even when our own particular status-strategy requires pretending not to know.


I think we live in a complex society where there are many virtues which are considered admirable - monetary success, professional accomplishment, plenitude of deep friendships, cultural with-it-ness, independence of spirit, fun personality, and yes even knowledge of the liberal arts (including classical music). No doubt I'm forgetting quite a few.

Knowledge of classical music does have some social caché, at least amongst some people (and I'm thinking here of more senior members of a typical church congregation), but perhaps the majority of people don't care. Interest in horse dressage also has social caché, but I certainly won't lose any sleep over my ignorance.

There is more to life than immersing yourself in the "great works" of the past, which I consider something akin to cultural navel-gazing. (I'm not trying to be anti-intellectual, but there are plenty of other fields of knowledge and experience to explore, as well as plenty of other virtues to hone).

It follows that not everyone will prioritize engagement with the great works of the past as highly as you do. Shame and scorn are only really possible in relation to something you or someone around you cares deeply about. If you don't care you are immune.

By the way, it is a clever rhetorical trick to argue that people who disagree with some of your points are only just pretending to disagree (with some psychological motivation or another). Maybe they really do think differently?!

Now we both know that you agree with me - don't bother pretending otherwise. :lol:


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

BPS said:


> [...]
> There is more to life than immersing yourself in the "great works" of the past, which I consider something akin to cultural naval-gazing.
> [...]


Finally, something I understand! "Cultural naval gazing" may well be common in The Maritimes, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you mean to say navel.

[Ah, it's great to get int the flow of the conversation.]


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BPS said:


> I think we live in a complex society where there are many virtues which are considered admirable - monetary success, professional accomplishment, plenitude of deep friendships, cultural with-it-ness, independence of spirit, fun personality, and yes even knowledge of the liberal arts (including classical music). No doubt I'm forgetting quite a few.
> 
> Knowledge of classical music does have some social caché, at least amongst some people (and I'm thinking here of more senior members of a typical church congregation), but perhaps the majority of people don't care. Interest in horse dressage also has social caché, but I certainly won't lose any sleep over my ignorance.
> 
> ...


All good points!



BPS said:


> By the way, it is a clever rhetorical trick to argue that people who disagree with some of your points are only just pretending to disagree (with some psychological motivation or another). Maybe they really do think differently?!
> 
> Now we both know that you agree with me - don't bother pretending otherwise. :lol:


I don't! You're right!

I do feel bad about making that claim, but I really can't believe anyone from North America or Europe or the globalized west (~the Davos Culture, the CNN culture) would deny that classical music is (almost universally seen as) prestigious. Actually I began the thread assuming that we all agreed about that based on my experiences in threads with titles like "what do people say when they find out you listen to classical music." In those threads, pretty much everyone out of high school has agreed that classical music is more prestigious than most other musical traditions.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> ...
> Anyway, I've been disclaiming ideology, but I guess I have been promoting one and reflecting on your post made me realize it: my ideology is that it's ok. I really don't care how or why people get into classical music. ....


I don't care either. Classical music needs all the support it can get. In 2009, with the Global Financial Crisis hitting USA hard, some orchestras there hit the wall. Of course, that was partly because of inefficient economic/business management of those outfits in the first place. Now we got this phenomenon spreading. Orchestras in other parts of the world are finding it harder and harder to survive. So basically, we got to support what we got of the classical music industry (dare I say industry?) while its still here. All the in-fighting continues and we might not have anything left.

I remember one memory as a child vividly. I went to a classical concert and there, in the audience I saw a workman in his work clothes. Probably just came off a building site nearby in the city, had not time to go back home in the suburbs and shower and put on more appropriate clothes etc. There he was in his singlet with paint marks, but I could remember he was nodding his head to the beat, really enjoying the music! & all around him where just classical music listeners of the usual variety, in formal or neat casual.

My point is to welcome what we'd maybe call 'beginners' like that. I don't know its long ago and I'm making some assumptions. The workman could have been a seasoned listener. But what I'm saying is an open attitude is best. Get rid of the elitism and become more accepting of diversity of listeners, diversity of tastes. I see us as having not much choice, otherwise classical will bite the dust. Make it into an elite cultural ghetto and it will die. But I got no specific solutions to this problem other than that I think openess and acceptance will always beat snobbism, elitism and building of enclaves and cliques.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Well I have defended things like those, most recently ERic Whitacre. Main thing I learnt is *not to go on a thread solely to diss a composer (and maybe by implication, his fans)*. I don't see it as good form, basically.


I apologize in advance, but that statement of yours I highlighted bold is what I address, and that part I find kindergarten-like / protect everyone's feelings / politically correct -- to an alarming extreme.

That particular thread was "No Eric Whitacre thread, _Really?_" The implied question "Why Not" implicit. People then said what they thought of the music, both positive and negative in clear terms, including assessments of the music which made some think the composer did not merit a dedicated thread. _End of Story._

IF that had been an announced group, or fan club, the only reason to join and then say you didn't care for it or think much of it, or worse, lambast into it as terrible, then that would be to rudely and clearly set out to diss the composer and hurt the fan's feelings.

The first, as it is in the thread, is free statements of opinion. 
The second, joining a fan group to diss and be hurtful, is a negative psychological condition.

The thread was not any such fan club format. Participants just said what they thought of Whitacre's music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> Just as we all know where things stand vis-a-vis, say, Ravel's _Bolero_ and Stockhausen's _Stimmung_.


Indeed we do. Well, most of us do.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I don't understand how we can insult a composer or a composition without insulting its fans. It's not a matter of saying, "Hey, I just don't like it because my tastes favor A and B and C, and this work doesn't have A, B, C." It's a matter of saying, "This music is bad. I'm objectively correct to say so. It's not a matter of taste, it's an objective matter. My correctness about this shows my superiority. People who like this music are inferior." The moment you declare your opinions matters of objective knowledge, you're insulting the people who disagree with you. Your only options are to do both or neither. 

I further don't understand how we could say that kind of thing and then also say there is no social status at stake.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

^ ^

You have too much 'we' in there, white man.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> It's a matter of saying, "This music is bad. I'm objectively correct to say so. It's not a matter of taste, it's an objective matter. My correctness about this shows my superiority. People who like this music are inferior."


Well, of course! And your point is...? :devil:


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

science said:


> I don't understand how we can insult a composer or a composition without insulting its fans. It's not a matter of saying, "Hey, I just don't like it because my tastes favor A and B and C, and this work doesn't have A, B, C." It's a matter of saying, "This music is bad. I'm objectively correct to say so. It's not a matter of taste, it's an objective matter. My correctness about this shows my superiority. People who like this music are inferior." The moment you declare your opinions matters of objective knowledge, you're insulting the people who disagree with you. Your only options are to do both or neither.
> 
> I further don't understand how we could say that kind of thing and then also say there is no social status at stake.


It doesn't at ALL say any of those projected thoughts as you've put them. Those boyo, are ALL YOU, your pathology, your formed thoughts, your personal reactions. It is not the music, or the other consumers or non-consumers.

If a qualified personal statement that someone finds a work or composer's work vapid _can be logically equated_ to become "AN INSULT" to either the composer and / or the composer's fans, something is seriously wrong in the arena of logic.

You are loaded for bear with things on your screen _which are projections_, layer upon layer of them, to the point where I am completely jaw-droppingly astounded, thinking there is no helping you get away from those thoughts, feelings and this theme.

And yes, _what do you mean *we*, white man?_


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

More relevant to the topic perhaps what I'd add to what I said in this post:
http://www.talkclassical.com/26301-beginners-5.html#post482153

Is that orchestras are now embracing the beginners. I have been to several performances where the conductor addresses the audience with a microphone and talks about the works to be played. People, or many people, don't read the program. Orchestras are accepting this fact. & I as a more intermediate level listener always get something out of these talks.

Of course there's also pre concert talks but many people don't have time to attend those - add that to the concert itself (2 or more hours) and its a long night. So thats why they are accomodating to today's new breed of listeners, who don't have the time. They do the talk as part of the concert, but its not that long.

The orchestras are also trying to develop classical concerts with a sense of fun and to have more of a human element. The other is concerts for toddlers and young children are still being done, to get the next generation into music. You know, not all people have heard things Beethoven's 5th, or not all of it, or not more than one recording of it, or not live. So what orchestras are doing is trying to embrace newbies and I think that's good. It goes back to what I was saying, if this is not done, classical music can risk dying. If it doesn't maintain and develop an audience it doesn't have a very rosy future, does it?

So things are changing and they do validate to an extent the kind of listener Science talks of - the beginner or newbie. Think about it, so many of us where in this boat, I can still remember the first concerts I went to which where family concerts. Britten's A Young Person's Guide to the Orchestra taught me many things then (eg. the sections of the orchestra, the concept of a theme, the way it all comes together at the end in that magnificent fugue) and that kind of thing is what needs to be continued - and not only for children but for adult 'newbies' too!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

From the mid 1950's until around 2007, your local orchestra was funded by the federal government as a division of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. 

Having looked that up, I realized your local scene as far as keeping, bringing in audiences is in its infancy. I'm sure as much that is known about how to go about this, there have been and will be bumps along the way, and this 'n' that tried until something which works and connects to the local populace really takes hold and is successful.

Your post reminded me that the local orchestra where I grew up has a long-standing stand on its own history, though as you say the economic crunch, as affecting the arts, is everywhere.

That orchestra has had a long-standing and running program of sending a handful of players, a quartet, say of winds or strings, or a mix, into the local primary schools where they give very intimate, casual demonstrations, both playing music, talking with the "beginners" and letting the students get hands-on experience trying, at least, to get sounds out of the instruments. There is free dialogue, the students are encouraged to ask questions, and it has proven to have a very good effect.

I recall now also 'youth concerts' -- to which oceans of primary school students bussed in to fill Symphony hall during part of the school day, and full orchestral concerts, with a bit of talk from the podium, then the pieces performed.

What I specifically recall of that programming is I think a very brilliant approach, and one I have not heard of as being in your experience. By careful consideration, good pedagogy vs. pedantry, both classical and lighter classical were on those programs, which included sometimes current movie score music of the day.

Those were in educational programming, for 'Children.' I think symphonies should do more of this in their attempts to get beginner adults into the hall. Wisely and correctly chosen, an older classical piece on a program with a John Williams film score suite does not detract from either... and that avoids the instant polarized separation of those genres. 

I do not advocate doing the same on regular 'classical' subscription series, but pops concerts in the states used to, still do, follow that format. The mix - up of genre based on carefully intelligent programming choices.

It works.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

PetrB said:


> It doesn't at ALL say any of those projected thoughts as you've put them. Those boyo, are ALL YOU, your pathology, your formed thoughts, your personal reactions. It is not the music, or the other consumers or non-consumers.
> 
> If a qualified personal statement that someone finds a work or composer's work vapid _can be logically equated_ to become "AN INSULT" to either the composer and / or the composer's fans, something is seriously wrong in the arena of logic.
> 
> ...


Let's say you're explaining why you don't like "light" classical music. If you say, "It's vapid, fluffy, etc. That's not good music." you're judging the music as if objectively. You're speaking from on high, as an omniscient judge of taste. You're judging the music, not stating an opinion. You're judging people who enjoy the music, not as having different tastes than you but as having inferior taste. This isn't something I'm projecting onto your statements. It's inherent, and it's hard for me to believe you don't intend them fully consciously.

But if you say something like, "I like music that isn't almost uniformly cheerful, that has more development, that expresses a wider variety of emotion, that has more surprising harmonies and more complex structures," or things along those lines - now you're just explaining why you don't like the music. You're describing rather than condemning the music, you're expressing your preferences without insulting people with different preferences. You could even say something like, "I don't regard complex structures as inherently superior to simple ones, but I happen to enjoy them more."

I think you can see the difference. The second one might still offend people who don't want to hear their music analyzed, but in that case they would be projecting the judgment rather than understanding you accurately. In the first case, though, someone who is offended is offended because they understood you and your intentions accurately. (The second case, by the way, is not only inoffensive but far, far more _interesting_.)

The first one is also blatantly a status strategy. Denying that it's a status strategy is another status strategy. It's not like this is some super-subtle thing that fools everyone. Everyone understands what's at stake, and that's why the discussions get hot. The more "on high objective" the expression, the more blatant the claim, the hotter the resulting discussion.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> The first one is also blatantly a status strategy. Denying that it's a status strategy is another status strategy. It's not like this is some super-subtle thing that fools everyone.


Science, I'm not sure where you're coming from or why. A famous man once said that there are only three things that motivate males: Wealth, power, and the love of beautiful women. All three boil down to status. As Darwin might say, "What else is there?"


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

bigshot said:


> I have it easy. I enjoy the arts for what it does for my humanity. I don't give a flying frick about status. I love the arts.
> 
> The arts are for real people, not millionaires and ladies in mink.


Status isn't only about millionaires and mink. It's about what your family thinks of you, what your neighbors think of you, what your coworkers think of you. I don't know who interacts with you in your real life (not online), but if they stop liking and respecting you, you'll give much more than your flying fricks.

This is nothing to be ashamed of. It's natural. Horses care about their status. Wolves care about their status. Orcas care about their status. Chimps care about their status. Humans do too. In fact, outside of extreme emergency situations we care about it more than we care about food or shelter.

I know of course that we're not supposed to be conscious of it - we're usually not even if we try to be. When I read the news, there is no part of my consciousness thinking, "Hey, knowing and caring about Syria is going to raise me in the esteem of certain people whose opinions of me matter to me." Consciously, I'm only thinking, "Wow, this is interesting, complex, and I want to know what's going on." But then, very little of whatever is going on in my head is conscious. Once someone says, "Don't you think this interest is in part motivated by a desire to impress certain people?" I will have to say either, "I don't know," or "Yes, I suppose it probably is." I might even recall a time when someone turned to me in conversation and said something like, "What are the Alawites?" And then I would see that yes, building up knowledge about the world is a status strategy. That doesn't make it bad. It certainly doesn't mean I ought to stop building up knowledge about the world. But it does mean that I can't honestly say something like, "I don't give a flying frick about status. I [merely] love knowledge."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Science, I'm not sure where you're coming from or why. A famous man once said that there are only three things that motivate males: Wealth, power, and the love of beautiful women. All three boil down to status. As Darwin might say, "What else is there?"


That's exactly where I'm coming from!

Well, I might question the word "love."


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Well, of course! And your point is...? :devil:


I'm sorry, KenOC, I hadn't seen you here in so long I'd forgotten.

In your case, you would be perfectly correct of course. As would I be. It's the rest of....

Well, I'd better be very clear at this point that I'm joking because I once got a warning for making a joke like this!

So never mind the rest of them. What I mean is that you and I, but especially I, really do have the right to judge music objectively, because of our, and especially my, superior sensitivity. What can I say? If you've got it, you've got it. I've had it for years of course, which only reinforces my unique qualifications. KenOC, I'm not sure when you got it, so there are some questions there.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> Let's say you're explaining why you don't like "light" classical music. If you say, "It's vapid, fluffy, etc. That's not good music." you're judging the music as if objectively. You're speaking from on high, as an omniscient judge of taste. You're judging the music, not stating an opinion. You're judging people who enjoy the music, not as having different tastes than you but as having inferior taste. This isn't something I'm projecting onto your statements. It's inherent, and it's hard for me to believe you don't intend them fully consciously.
> 
> But if you say something like, "I like music that isn't almost uniformly cheerful, that has more development, that expresses a wider variety of emotion, that has more surprising harmonies and more complex structures," or things along those lines - now you're just explaining why you don't like the music. You're describing rather than condemning the music, you're expressing your preferences without insulting people with different preferences. You could even say something like, "I don't regard complex structures as inherently superior to simple ones, but I happen to enjoy them more."
> 
> ...


I very much agree with your distinction between "this music is bad" and "I don't like this music", and I'll agree that in the first instance _at times_ there's a deliberate implied insult intended toward the people who like the music. Far more often, I'd say, there's an _unintended, inferrable_ insult, and whether that insult is inferred or not depends on who's listening. Those who are insulted are, I suppose, people concerned with status. For my part, if I hear vehement, opinion-as-fact criticism of some music I like, I just shrug it off. So I guess by your logic that's me asserting my superior status over the critic who thinks his opinion is a fact.

Which prompts me to say "You're very clever, young man, but it's status all the way down!" 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I very much agree with your distinction between "this music is bad" and "I don't like this music", and I'll agree that in the first instance _at times_ there's a deliberate implied insult intended toward the people who like the music. Far more often, I'd say, there's an _unintended, inferrable_ insult, and whether that insult is inferred or not depends on who's listening. Those who are insulted are, I suppose, people concerned with status. *For my part, if I hear vehement, opinion-as-fact criticism of some music I like, I just shrug it off. So I guess by your logic that's me asserting my superior status over the critic who thinks his opinion is a fact.*
> 
> Which prompts me to say "You're very clever, young man, but it's status all the way down!"
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down)


Ooooooh, I don't know. That's interesting. What is going on there?

Having thought about it for 30 seconds or so, I guess you're probably right. It's something like, "Who does this critic think he is?"

I think we're starting to get into more complex ground here. It's probably not the case that you feel particularly affirmed when a critic shares your judgment. Or do you? Do _we_? I'll turn this over.

The only time I can remember being very upset about someone's comments on music was when I asked about the Vienna New Year's Concert. In that case, I think what upset me so much was the fact that my wife was really looking forward to seeing it, she was going to enjoy it with a pure heart, and then when I asked about it people started insulting her in ways that might have provoked me to violence in person. There would definitely have been shouting, at least. There is probably an element of the caveman defending his cavewoman in there. (Truth is, when I think about that, I'm still angry enough about it to try to hurt someone.)

(Edit: Mostly I'm observing the modernist/traditionalist fights that go on here, and I don't have any skin in those games so I'm reflecting on them from the outside, and that's where I perceived the insults implicit in judgments. The recent Eric Whitacre thread is a good example. But now that I've thought about it, I do remember a few occasions where someone made sure I realized that in his opinion my interest in classical music is invalid. One of those "my way is the only way" folks. We're not talking about specific works, of which he and I would probably disagree little, but the basic approach to music. Of course it's easy to see the game being played there on both his part and mine. It's definitely analogous to the "your music stinks" games.)

I'll think about this some more. We might not be able to figure it out because there would be so much individual variation, so much complexity in strategies, and so much going on subconsciously.

For the most part, I'm more interested (within this thread) in our reactions (and the reasons behind them) to people who are straightforwardly motivated by the social significance of classical music. Seems to sort out something like 80/20 into people who despise that and people who accept it as a valid part of an interest in classical music, with evidently none of the latter feeling much passion about it and at least some of the former being very passionate about it.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> I think we're starting to get into more complex ground here. It's probably not the case that you feel particularly affirmed when a critic shares your judgment. Or do you? Do _we_? I'll turn this over.


Well, I feel to some degree affirmed when _anyone_ shares my judgment; someone I respect, more so. But I wouldn't see this as a social status thing as such. Then again, I simply don't look at things through the prism of social status anyway. I'm actually finding it tricky to articulate the sense of affirmation I'm talking about and _not_ make it sound like something to which you'd respond with "no, I think that _is_ a social status thing"! I'd say I'm not thinking "oh good, I measure up to this person's standard" but instead something like "oh good, this person and I share the same standard". So, yes, now I'm talking about in-groups which I guess means it _is_ a social status thing... I think ultimately this could be an "agree to disagree" situation because you and I are looking at the same thing through such different perspectives.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> Well, I feel to some degree affirmed when _anyone_ shares my judgment; someone I respect, more so. But I wouldn't see this as a social status thing as such. Then again, I simply don't look at things through the prism of social status anyway. I'm actually finding it tricky to articulate the sense of affirmation I'm talking about and _not_ make it sound like something to which you'd respond with "no, I think that _is_ a social status thing"! I'd say I'm not thinking "oh good, I measure up to this person's standard" but instead something like "oh good, this person and I share the same standard". So, yes, now I'm talking about in-groups which I guess means it _is_ a social status thing... I think ultimately this could be an "agree to disagree" situation because you and I are looking at the same thing through such different perspectives.


At this point, I don't think we're disagreeing! We're agreeing to agree, basically.

Maybe I could express things better - my way of thinking / writing seems to cause unnecessary misunderstandings sometimes, even when it seems obvious to me. Is there a better word than "status" for what I'm expressing? Is there a word or phrase that would've led us to this point sooner?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

science said:


> At this point, I don't think we're disagreeing! We're agreeing to agree, basically.
> 
> Maybe I could express things better - my way of thinking / writing seems to cause unnecessary misunderstandings sometimes, even when it seems obvious to me. Is there a better word than "status" for what I'm expressing? Is there a word or phrase that would've led us to this point sooner?


I don't think it's just a word thing. I think maybe the difference is that you're referring to social status and this is "how we are seen", while I view things internally and "how we see"?

So if I were to claim that classical music is inherently superior to all other music, then any desire I might have to appreciate classical music would, for me, be about making me better _compared with how I already see myself_ as opposed to better _compared with how others now see me, or compared with others who don't appreciate classical music_.

(But I don't make that claim. Honestly, the best explanation I can give for why I like listening to classical music is that I like the noises it makes.)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nereffid said:


> I don't think it's just a word thing. I think maybe the difference is that you're referring to social status and this is "how we are seen", while I view things internally and "how we see"?
> 
> So if I were to claim that classical music is inherently superior to all other music, then any desire I might have to appreciate classical music would, for me, be about making me better _compared with how I already see myself_ as opposed to better _compared with how others now see me, or compared with others who don't appreciate classical music_.
> 
> (But I don't make that claim. Honestly, the best explanation I can give for why I like listening to classical music is that I like the noises it makes.)


That second paragraph was hard for me to think through, and I want to give it more incubation time. But it seems like we're understanding each other. I definitely intended to approach it from a "larger culture" POV, but the discussion has often reverse-telescoped back into a discussion of the dynamics within the classical music subculture.

Just to avoid misunderstanding, I want to clarify that I also haven't made any claims about any kind of music being superior, only about the way it is (almost universally) seen in our culture(s). If we were in, say, 18th century Korea, we'd have a totally different POV.

(But I pick that example for a fun reason: there was music of the court, and there were folk musics. We [from our post-industrial ~Western POV] wouldn't feel the relative eliteness of the court music, but the courtiers of the time would have. In a sense the music was created for that purpose, to meet that need. So there are analogies....)


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

The questioning you are getting are not about whether status is valued, _science_; you are blowing smoke again. They are expressing disagreement with your notion that familiarity with classical music elevates status.

:cheers:


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The questioning you are getting are not about whether status is valued, _science_; you are blowing smoke again. They are expressing disagreement with your notion that familiarity with classical music elevates status.
> 
> :cheers:


You mean in my response to bigshot? I'm not sure what post you think is blowing smoke.

Anyway, like I said, I can't believe that anyone would think any kind of elite art tradition is completely dissociated from status.

BTW, if classical music isn't the primary prestige music of our culture, _then what is_?

I mean, serious jazz for instance has some pretty serious prestige at this point, especially within the musical community, but it's just not even close to being used to sell luxury cars or private schools or mutual funds. New Age Celtic-y music seems pretty cool to a lot of people, but you won't find a lot of Ivy League literature professors (thinking of the Harold Bloom reference) writing about Enya with awe the way that, say, Jaroslav Pelikan wrote of Bach.

No, the prestige musical tradition of our culture _as a whole_ continues to be classical music.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

science said:


> No, the prestige musical tradition of our culture _as a whole_ continues to be classical music.


I still think you are overstating your case. Only a very small percent (5%?) give a hoot about classical music. They may perceive themselves superior for that reason, but they do not define culture for the whole of society. A great many people simply ignore your cultural values, just as you are apparently ignoring theirs.

You are focused on confirming evidence that supports your values, while they are focused on confirming evidence which supports their values. Life in its plenitude offers enough confirming evidence to make us all fools.

Not to get too personal but back to your very first post, if you care so deeply about classical music that it colors your perception of social reality, then I can see how people around you who care less about classical music might get a little nervous! The perceived shame and scorn may be something you inadvertently project!

Somewhat off-topic, it always fascinates me how people who argue for an absolute, objective (or socially objective) standard of worthiness, once they feel they've established a toe-hold of credibility, then almost immediately use that position to argue or imply that Person X is obviously a member of the pantheon, when in fact Person X is a complete nobody. Even if there is an objective category of great works or great artists, membership in that category is highly debatable. Personally I find the whole mental concept not very helpful.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

science said:


> You mean in my response to bigshot? I'm not sure what post you think is blowing smoke.
> 
> Anyway, like I said, I can't believe that anyone would think any kind of elite art tradition is completely dissociated from status.
> 
> ...


The notion is evident in most of your responses. Re your second question, there is no prestige music in our culture, if by prestige you mean 'related to a social class'. Interest in _any_ sort of music is irrelevant. Social class is driven almost entirely by wealth, the only hedge being that the family must have been wealthy long enough to receive the 'class education' (only partly school related). Knowledge of classical music brings zero 'class points'.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> The notion is evident in most of your responses. Re your second question, there is no prestige music in our culture, if by prestige you mean 'related to a social class'. Interest in _any_ sort of music is irrelevant. Social class is driven almost entirely by wealth, the only hedge being that the family must have been wealthy long enough to receive the 'class education' (only partly school related). Knowledge of classical music brings zero 'class points'.


So, you think that if we, say, figure out the average income of the homes whose children play the violin, we will not find it higher than the average income of the families whose children play the guitar or trumpet? You think that public schools in rural Appalachia have orchestras similar to the private schools in the Northeast?

No. Way.

I teach these rich families. Violin lessons, cello lessons, ballet lessons all over the place. No banjo lessons, no b-boying academies. And that for the exact same reason they're taking SAT prep courses hoping to get into Ivy League schools: competition for prestige. This is not a thing I'm making up - there's an industry here. It's been here for _centuries_.

Of course the "wealth=class" equation is a little too simple even in our culture. You take a typical French literature prof and a typical NFL starting quarterback: neither of them are stupid people, they're both good at what they do, who makes more money is not an issue, but a whole lot of people - almost certainly including you - are going to find the professor "classier." Something there is making up for a lot of money.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BPS said:


> I still think you are overstating your case. Only a very small percent (5%?) give a hoot about classical music.


I don't think that's what matters. What matters is how it's perceived, not how many pursue it. After the age of 15 or so, popularity isn't prestige.



BPS said:


> Somewhat off-topic, it always fascinates me how people who argue for an absolute, objective (or socially objective) standard of worthiness, once they feel they've established a toe-hold of credibility, then almost immediately use that position to argue or imply that Person X is obviously a member of the pantheon, when in fact Person X is a complete nobody. Even if there is an objective category of great works or great artists, membership in that category is highly debatable. Personally I find the whole mental concept not very helpful.


I haven't noticed that. But in that case, maybe the reason they're arguing for an objective standard is as part of a strategy to argue for Person X's importance? People are clever, even when they're not trying!


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Jeez, how many wobbly bases can you argue from and still maintain an argument?

Never mind, I'm taking my ball and leaving.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

science said:


> Status isn't only about millionaires and mink. It's about what your family thinks of you, what your neighbors think of you, what your coworkers think of you.


I can guarantee you that knowledge of classical music hasn't done jack diddley for what anyone thinks of me, and it certainly hasn't upped my status on the social register! Zilch. Nada. Bupkis.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> What I mean is that you and I, but especially I, really do have the right to judge music objectively, because of our, and especially my, superior sensitivity. What can I say? If you've got it, you've got it. I've had it for years of course, which only reinforces my unique qualifications. KenOC, I'm not sure when you got it, so there are some questions there.


Science, I freely admit that your sensibilities are refined to an extraordinary degree. By comparison, I am an insensitive clod. But I'm an insensitive clod with a power of judgment that approaches the infallible. Some might even think that my opinions on music are objective truths. And those some, of course, would be quite correct.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

Science, your cultural zeal is impressive and consistent.

I know people that feel the same way as you, except they focus on healthy eating and living. They are worried how their physique compares to others, and they wonder about how much shame the rolly-pollies around them feel. Physical fitness, after all, has been recognized as important since at least the time of the Greeks.

I know other people that think exactly the way you are thinking about classical music, except they are deeply absorbed in religion, and they focus on the state of salvation of their own souls, their friends' souls, and the spiritual health of society as a whole. If someone around them does not share their sense of urgency of spiritual salvation, they simply can't believe that deep down inside there isn't a soul crying out for help.

There are lots of possible things that people may or may not care deeply about. For most people, knowledge of classical music is not one of them. If you don't care, the totem doesn't work.

Keep in mind that your personal circumstances are not exactly typical. The college admission process may be one of the very few situations in life where knowledge of classical music can be genuinely useful. 

Maybe I'm wrong, but based upon the near unanimous dissent you are getting even from within a classical music forum, I don't think your value system is representative of society as a whole.

When you are preaching to the choir and even the choir disagrees with you, maybe your message is a little off.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

..............................


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

KenOC, there can be only one:










My condolences.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

BPS said:


> Science, your cultural zeal is impressive and consistent.
> 
> There are lots of possible things that people may or may not care deeply about. For most people, knowledge of classical music is not one of them.
> 
> ...


What else is there to say? Nothing, I think.


----------



## julianoq (Jan 29, 2013)

This thread made me realize how Brazil is still poor concerning culture and education. I listen to classical music "seriously" for 7 months only and the only person that I know that I can talk about it is my violin teacher. Even if I am lucky enough to be middle-uper class here (and it is a very lucky thing to be, most people here is still poor) people just don't care for most cultural stuff.

Most people I know would pay $450.00 for a U2 concert, but not spend $50 for a São Paulo Symphony Orchestra concert because it is "boring and expensive". That's quite sad, really! I am happy that I have this boards to talk about and improve my knowledge :tiphat:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

BPS said:


> When you are preaching to the choir and even the choir disagrees with you, maybe your message is a little off.


I can think of other people, historical figures, to whom the same thing was said.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

You're not going to mention any of those figures, though, are you? Or explain how their experience justifies anything science has been saying.

That would be much more useful than a .


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> You're not going to mention any of those figures, though, are you? Or explain how their experience justifies anything science has been saying.
> 
> That would be much more useful than a .


I wouldn't think it would be necessary! But since you ask, a well-known example from history is Galileo. More recently and obscurely, Alfred Wegener.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

Or explain how they are germane to this conversation?

Galileo and Wegener are terrible examples of "preaching to the choir and even the choir disagrees."

They were preaching, both of them, to skeptics. And of course the skeptics were, um, skeptical.



KenOC said:


> I wouldn't think it would be necessary!


Nice try. (By which I mean, of course, "feeble attempt.")


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

science said:


> Do you feel this way regardless of the person's reason for seeking knowledge?


Sorry, I missed this question and since it was such a long time ago, here is the context. I said, "I consider it almost a crime to deliver scorn to someone who actively seeks knowledge." Yes, I feel that way regardless of the person's reason for seeking knowledge.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> Status isn't only about millionaires and mink. It's about what your family thinks of you, what your neighbors think of you, what your coworkers think of you. I don't know who interacts with you in your real life (not online), but if they stop liking and respecting you, you'll give much more than your flying fricks.
> ...


Well yes and those types of people, in terms of friends, acquaintances, colleagues, have kind of assumed that because I listen to classical, I don't listen to other things. Some of these listen to classical themselves, to greater or lesser degree. But here's the rub. When I talk about non classical things I like (say R&B) I sometimes get surprise from these people. The reaction that "you listen to classical...and you listen to R&B as well? Who would have thought?" So they're kind of putting me into a highbrow box, I don't think it elevates my social status but it does put me in a box with some people as a kind of highbrow when I don't feel to be that stereotype at all.

I remember there was a survey reported in some magazine here, and it said that most classical listeners are likely to be seen as intelligent by listeners of other musics. Pop listeners are seen as teens or tweens. I suppose rock n'roll is pretty mainstream. Don't remember what it said about genres like techno and hip hop but there are undoubtedly similar stereotypes attached to those.

So I can validate being put in a highbrow box due to saying I like classical out there in the real world. & in some people's eyes, they are kind of awed by that, and they elevate you into a position that may not be realistic. Maybe these thoughts are related in some way to this thread, the stereotyping of listeners of different genres. I for one like many genres but classical is my kind of home base.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Very interesting thread. One contentious issue is whether classical music can add cultural status. As far as I can tell, people seem to think the answer is obvious (both ways). I tend to agree with _science_ that classical music can add cultural status, but possibly only among certain subsets of society.



BPS said:


> I still think you are overstating your case. Only a very small percent (5%?) give a hoot about classical music. They may perceive themselves superior for that reason, but they do not define culture for the whole of society. A great many people simply ignore your cultural values, just as you are apparently ignoring theirs.


Cultural capital can be added in isolated societies that have values different from the main society. In general essentially everyone "values" money and appearance, but certain things add capital in parts of the much larger society. The fact that most people do not listen to classical music is irrelevant to the possibility of classical music adding to someone's cultural capital among specific people (e.g. in a university or among more wealthy people). I'm not sure if _science_ believes that liking classical music is viewed as a status symbol in all of society, but I strongly suspect that it is in some parts of society.

I did try to find papers that discussed the status of classical music. I didn't work very hard, but I found several papers that explicitly stated that classical music fairly recently had cultural status. The question is whether it still has significant status in today's society. One paper states, "the once unquestioned high cultural status of classical music has been reduced as society has changed." I assume that refers to society in general rather than subsets.

I don't think it's obvious one way or the other how much social status classical music currently gives listeners, but I would be shocked if the social capital were not a function of the particular subset of society.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BPS said:


> Science, your cultural zeal is impressive and consistent.
> 
> I know people that feel the same way as you, except they focus on healthy eating and living. They are worried how their physique compares to others, and they wonder about how much shame the rolly-pollies around them feel. Physical fitness, after all, has been recognized as important since at least the time of the Greeks.
> 
> ...


Actually, of course physical fitness increases social status, even if not as much as your acquaintances believe. Religion ordinarily does too, though in some corners of our culture it might even have become a liability. I certainly didn't mean to imply that classical music is the only thing that increases social status.

My ideas on this subject haven't been formed just based on college admissions, although since you've admitted that classical music helps in that case my next question would be, why does it help?

Perhaps not all, but a lot of our resistance to this idea is, I believe, based less on whether it is accurate or not and more on whether it compromises our own strategies. Them's fightin' words, but in this case I'm not preaching to the choir at all, I'm more like the atheist in church.

Of course I don't mind! I'm enjoying it, especially on the occasions when someone has pointed out something that has really made me think.


----------



## nightscape (Jun 22, 2013)

Science, it's good that your wife is gaining interest and hasn't been dissuaded from learning more. It can be off-putting for someone to be immersed into a situation containing the unknown. People generally fear things they don't understand, so you can either turn on a light or continue to wallow in the dark.

Classical music has this aura of being a staple of the so-called highbrow. But by talking about this way, people have made a stigma of separation and such a lot of folks feel they need an instruction manual or training before they can delve into the splendors of this type of music.

Complex orchestral music is so much more rewarding, I feel. There are so many more layers to peel back, and in this way it can certainly appeal to the more educated or more intellectual. But it's available for anyone who cares listen.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> They were preaching, both of them, to skeptics. And of course the skeptics were, um, skeptical.
> 
> Nice try. (By which I mean, of course, "feeble attempt.")


Certainly preaching to skeptics! As, it seems, Science is. I fail to see the difference, sorry. BTW no need for insults, I think.


----------



## Guest (Jun 24, 2013)

Sometimes analogy is helpful. This is what I'm hearing:

_I have a friend who's a fuzzie who feels left out when the conversation turns to mathematics because he can't keep up with the rest of us.

He tries to share my love of mathematics, and probably knows more about math than the average Joe, but still gets embarrassed when I start discussing strings with one of our friends. We're still friends, though.

My question is how much should those of us with mathematical literacy scorn those without? And how much should my friend be embarrassed because of his weakness in math?

Now I hear some of you saying that my friend shouldn't worry about it too much, that there's more to life than math, and that maybe my preoccupation with math is what's causing him to worry.

But you can't deny that society places a great deal of value on mathematical ability. And if you do deny it, I think that's some sort of coping strategy.
_
Am I missing something? How is this analogy inappropriate?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Certainly preaching to skeptics! As, it seems, Science is. I fail to see the difference, sorry. BTW no need for insults, I think.


I hope Galileo had as much fun as I'm having. We probably all already know that his father was one of Monteverdi's key supporters in the development of opera, but just in case we don't... it's worth noting that my father was one of the people involved in the development of fracking (hydrolic fracturing), so clearly Galileo and I have a lot in common.

Kidding aside, one of the people who has greatly influenced the way I think about these things, E. O. Wilson, may actually be the Galileo of our time. With the shaming and nonsense he suffered from leftists (whose heads were in the wrong places) evidently behind him, I thought his ideas had finally seeped pretty far into our cultural discourse at this point, through his writing but also writers like Steven Pinker and Matt Ridley and Richard Dawkins.

Bourdieu was mentioned to me in a kind PM, and it seems like perhaps he has influenced mmsbls as well. I haven't read Bourdieu but obviously I ought to soon. He seems to be more influential than Wilson! I don't know about him, but Wilson really is a hero of our times (not ironically, not in Lermontov's sense).


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BPS said:


> Sometimes analogy is helpful. This is what I'm hearing:
> 
> _I have a friend who's a fuzzie who feels left out when the conversation turns to mathematics because he can't keep up with the rest of us.
> 
> ...


It's not really that bad, but it could be improved.

One problem is that math isn't as central to human identity as music is. You don't see many cultures or subcultures defining themselves with mathematics. You often don't see states using mathematics to reinforce their legitimacy, or religions using mathematics to promote devotion. So it is much, much less pervasive. But at least on a smaller scale it is true that mathematical knowledge is generally respected in our culture, and that probably the main reason more people don't pursue it is that they expect that they'd fail if they tried, and they don't want that kind of humiliation.

Also, we probably need to humble ourselves a bit if we think Vivaldi is string theory.

And finally, I did emphatically not ask how much we _should_ scorn people who don't know about classical music. That's wrong in two ways. I asked how much we _do_ scorn the social/cultural ambition - not the ignorance but the ambition. That's a really uncharitable mistake to make! I guess you made it in good faith, but I hope it'll stop here.

So:

_I have a friend who feels left out when the conversation turns to mathematics because he can't keep up with the rest of us.

He tries to share my love of mathematics, and probably knows more about math than the average Joe, but still gets embarrassed when I start discussing Euclid and Euler with one of our friends. He wants to study math a bit more in order to participate in those conversations.

My question is how much do those of us who already talk about mathematics scorn those who want to learn about mathematics because they think it seems cool to do so?_

Again, and for emphasis: I'm not asking about our scorning ignorance of classical music, but our scorning the social motivation. And I'm definitely not asking how much we _should_ scorn anyone, but how much we _do_. I'm really surprised this latter clarification needed to be made!


----------



## Guest (Jun 25, 2013)

Thank you for the clarification. Maybe now I understand your question. 

I think your question is "How much do you personally scorn people who are interested in classical music primarily because they think it will bring them higher social status?"

Here's my answer. I don't scorn anyone, certainly not for such a minor foible. I think they're being a bit silly for various reasons, but that's not so unusual.

I apologize if I misunderstood your question. I'll step aside and let others answer.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

BPS said:


> Ok, so maybe now I understand your question. I think your question is "How much do you personally scorn people who are interested in classical music primarily because they think it will bring them higher social status?"
> 
> If I understand the question, here's my answer. I don't scorn anyone, certainly not for such a minor foible. I think they're being a bit silly for various reasons, but that's their business.
> 
> I apologize if I misunderstood your question. I'll step aside and let others answer.


Yes, that's exactly my question! Thanks for your answer!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

mmsbls said:


> Very interesting thread. One contentious issue is whether classical music can add cultural status. As far as I can tell, people seem to think the answer is obvious (both ways). I tend to agree with _science_ that classical music can add cultural status, but possibly only among certain subsets of society.
> 
> Cultural capital can be added in isolated societies that have values different from the main society. In general essentially everyone "values" money and appearance, but certain things add capital in parts of the much larger society. The fact that most people do not listen to classical music is irrelevant to the possibility of classical music adding to someone's cultural capital among specific people (e.g. in a university or among more wealthy people). I'm not sure if _science_ believes that liking classical music is viewed as a status symbol in all of society, but I strongly suspect that it is in some parts of society.
> 
> ...


Yes, I was going to make this point. It seems most of us (contributors to this thread) move in circles where liking classical music doesn't bring increased social status, and indeed some of us are dismissive of circles (such as science's, apparently) where it does.

Science, I think you'd be interested in Bourdieu's idea of symbolic power. From Wikipedia:


> The concept of symbolic power was first introduced by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu to account for the tacit almost unconscious modes of cultural/social domination occurring within the every-day social habits maintained over conscious subjects. Symbolic power accounts for discipline used against another to confirm that individual's placement in a social hierarchy.
> 
> Also referred to as "soft" power, symbolic power includes actions that have discriminatory or injurious meaning or implications, such as gender dominance and racism. Symbolic power maintains its effect through the mis-recognition of power relations situated in the social matrix of a given field. While symbolic power requires a dominator, it also requires the dominated to accept their position in the exchange of social value that occurs between them.
> 
> ... Bourdieu suggested that cultural roles are more dominant than economic forces in determining how hierarchies of power are situated and reproduced across societies. Status and economic capital are both necessary to maintain dominance in a system, rather than just ownership over the means of production alone. The idea that one could possess symbolic capital in addition and set apart from financial capital played a critical role in Bourdieu's analysis of hierarchies of power.


Also from Wikipedia, from the article on Bourdieu's "La Distinction":



> The aesthetic choices of a person create class fractions (class-based social groups) and actively distance one social class from the other social classes of a society. Hence, predispositions to certain kinds of food, music, and art are taught and instilled to children, which specific tastes then guide the children to their appropriate social positions. Therefore, self-selection to a class fraction is achieved by impelling the child's internalization of preferences for objects and behaviors suitable for him or her (as member of a given social class), and the development of an aversion towards the preferred objects and behaviors of the other social classes. In practice, when a man or a woman encounters the culture and the arts of another social class, he or she feels "disgust, provoked by horror, or visceral intolerance ('feeling sick') of the tastes of others."[3]
> 
> Therefore, "Taste" is an important example of cultural hegemony, of how class fractions are determined, not only by the possession of social capital and of economic capital, but by the possession of cultural capital, which is an insidious social mechanism that ensures the social reproduction and the cultural reproduction of the ruling class. Moreover, because a person is taught his or her tastes at an early age, and thus are deeply internalized, such social conditionings are very difficult to change, and thus tend to permanently identify a person as having originated in a certain social class, which then impedes upward social mobility. In that way, the cultural tastes of the dominant (ruling) class tend to dominate the tastes of the other social classes, thus forcing individual men and women of economically and culturally dominated classes to conform to certain aesthetic preferences, lest they risk societal disapproval by appearing to be crude, vulgar, and tasteless persons.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

KenOC said:


> Certainly preaching to skeptics! As, it seems, Science is. I fail to see the difference, sorry. BTW no need for insults, I think.


I was thinking how careful he'd been in the way he put his point!


----------

