# The future of classical music!



## Spawnofsatan (Aug 5, 2016)

Hi there

What are the views of the people on Talkclassical about the future of classical music? 
Do you believe that all the greatest music has been written and that everyone should give up wasting their time? 
Or... Do you (like me), believe that technology is the beginning of new musical innovations and we have only scratched the surface of musical possibly?

I'm quite fascinated because I like music of all eras but find it to be a downer to state that "that's it" or "everything good has already been written"

Thank you and I hope to hear your views!


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> Do you believe that all the greatest music has been written and that everyone should give up wasting their time?


I'm agnostic on this point.



Spawnofsatan said:


> Or... Do you (like me), believe that technology is the beginning of new musical innovations and we have only scratched the surface of musical possibly?


I'm quite certain, however, that nobody who thinks "we have only scratched the surface" is ever going to be a great composer, still less somebody who's actually more interested in technology than music (which is anybody who things "technology is the beginning of new musical innovations"). Great artists are pessimistic declinists.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Great artists are pessimistic declinists.


Pretty bold use of "are" there, or is that "just an opinion"?


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

I'm optimistic, and (but?) I'm probably younger than most of the posters here.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Adam Weber said:


> Pretty bold use of "are" there, or is that "just an opinion"?


No, it's a fact


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Adam Weber said:


> I'm optimistic, and (but?) I'm probably younger than most of the posters here.


I'm too old to be young and too young to be taken seriously (31 years old).


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> No, it's a fact


Huh, interesting to know.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

I know, right? ..


----------



## BoggyB (May 6, 2016)

The great journey of classical music (early > baroque > classical > romantic > C20) is over, and all we get now is scraps, mainly in the form of film scores and video game music. But you mentioned technology in the OP, and as a transhumanist, I predict that AI will unleash a new world of neo-olden classical music.


----------



## Spawnofsatan (Aug 5, 2016)

Think about technological, musical, social, political, scientific etc. Developments that have happened in the last 100 years, it seems pathetic in the art world for that all to go to waste by simply denying our advancements, the fact that we have to tools to take us forward (if I'm making sense). 
On a side note, a computer can now auto generate music in the style of Mozart (Or anything really) in a matter of seconds. How can't that be seen as a doorway? Everyone seems to see it as the closing off of human expression.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Spawnofsatan said:


> Do you believe that all the greatest music has been written and that everyone should give up wasting their time?


Yes, I believe that all the greatest music has already been written. I also believe the best investment of time for a modern classical musician or listener is to keep alive what has already been created.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> Think about technological, musical, social, political, scientific etc. Developments that have happened in the last 100 years, it seems pathetic in the art world for that all to go to waste by simply denying our advancements, the fact that we have to tools to take us forward (if I'm making sense).


"Forward" to what?

In any case, important artists of course continue to take advantage of technological advancements. Yet somehow their work never seems to be what techno-utopians want: 






Spawnofsatan said:


> On a side note, a computer can now auto generate music in the style of Mozart (Or anything really) in a matter of seconds.


Maybe one day somebody will invent a computer capable of teaching some people the difference between Mozart at his greatest and what they think is "music in the style of Mozart."



Spawnofsatan said:


> Everyone seems to see it as the closing off of human expression.


It's nothing so interesting. It's a not even a distraction, but merely an excuse for people who don't want to deal with the humanities anyway.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Spawnofsatan said:


> Hi there
> 
> What are the views of the people on Talkclassical about the future of classical music?
> Do you believe that all the greatest music has been written and that everyone should give up wasting their time?
> ...


I don't believe that 'we've only scratched the surface', because who can know?

But I don't think that the greatest music has been written. I think there will be someone in the future whose musical compositions will be dazzling. In the meantime, let all living composers revel in their art.

Without a faith in creativity, nothing will be possible.

Great thread - hope it steers clear of argy-bargy.

PS - Just noticed your user name. Eek!  Usually I give Satan a wide berth!


----------



## Spawnofsatan (Aug 5, 2016)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Yes, I believe that all the greatest music has already been written. I also believe the best investment of time for a modern classical musician or listener is to keep alive what has already been created.


That statement just brings to mind a nihilistic and Dystopian picture of the human race dying out slowly into extinction, depressing thought!


----------



## Spawnofsatan (Aug 5, 2016)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> "Forward" to what?
> 
> In any case, important artists of course continue to take advantage of technological advancements. Yet somehow their work never seems to be what techno-utopians want:
> 
> ...


I don't know what you're trying to say by "Techno-utopians" but I see it (still as it's becoming a bigger part of the world internationally eg computers) as the tool that separates us from most pre-60s composers. 
I believe that we as a human race are for the most part unaware of the implications of what technology can do for us through art. It shouldn't be the alpha and omega of the creation of art but it's a tool, both for Composition and for study.

My point with Mozart is that there is something wrong (I don't know what) with our perspective over music over the past if we can create such sophisticated machinery that can do such a thing, why can't that technology be seen not as a shortcut but as a doorway into new musical aesthetics or worlds?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Spawnofsatan said:


> That statement just brings to mind a nihilistic and Dystopian picture of the human race dying out slowly into extinction, depressing thought!


That depends on the way you look at it. Think of all the musical treasures that we already have for our enjoyment


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> What are the views of the people on Talkclassical about the future of classical music?
> Or... Do you (like me), believe that technology is the beginning of new musical innovations and we have only scratched the surface of musical possibly?


My opinion after sufing through many genres, being Classical the last one, is that the geniouses of our time do not compose for CM, that they are masters of technique with computer programmed music, and that WE all should embrace totally Score composers as the present form of Classical music.

There is Modern Classical, yes, but it is so similar to Ambient that comparing the silent and tender scores of A Winged Victory for the Sullen with Beethoven's Violin Concerto is surrealistic. I do think that one of the characteristics CM is most proud of, even if it is Chamber music, is the complexity of the scores and the soundscape that they achieve.

Soundtrack scores can be a step down, ok, because a theme is repeated many times thoughout the work, but it is the Classical sub-genre that nowadays is getting most of the popular and financial recognition.

It is a matter of a fact that John Williams should be considered a Classical composer for consensus, no matter how much I dislike his melodies. But as a matter of technology, since 2008 scores have become to blend better with computerized sounds. Tron Legacy OST by Daft Punk, Interstellar and The Dark Knight are three examples.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> My point with Mozart is that there is something wrong (I don't know what) with our perspective over music over the past if we can create such sophisticated machinery that can do such a thing


No there isn't.

There is something wrong with the perspective of people who think that the ability to make a computer do what any competent hack has been able to do ever since Mozart set the example - to write something that could be mistaken for a lost mediocre work by the master - tells us anything at all about Don Giovanni. But people who think like that never had anything to offer art anyway, so except for making them newly annoyingly smug in their benightedness, there's nothing newly wrong at all.



Spawnofsatan said:


> why can't that technology be seen not as a shortcut but as a doorway into new musical aesthetics or worlds?


Technology can be a short cut for people who are actually interested in making art, but no technology is going to make decent artists out of people whose only real interest in art is in annexing its prestige to computer programming (it's always computer programming; mechanical engineers are too smart for that).

I notice you don't say anything about the recording I linked to.


----------



## Spawnofsatan (Aug 5, 2016)

SiegendesLicht said:


> That depends on the way you look at it. Think of all the musical treasures that we already have for our enjoyment


I have a large music collection, I love music past and present. But I think that by closing ourselves out from the massive innovations we have to help us, it's a self-imposed exile for art. Or a crucifixion of human expression (sorry for the graphic imagery)
The future offers more hope than the whole past combined, we just need to realise it and take advantage!!


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> That statement just brings to mind a nihilistic and Dystopian picture of the human race dying out slowly into extinction, depressing thought!


But let it go:- it will one day be found
With other relics of 'a former world,'
When this world shall be former, underground,
Thrown topsy-turvy, twisted, crisp'd, and curl'd,
Baked, fried, or burnt, turn'd inside-out, or drown'd,
Like all the worlds before, which have been hurl'd
First out of, and then back again to chaos,
The superstratum which will overlay us.

So Cuvier says; - and then shall come again
Unto the new creation, rising out
From our old crash, some mystic, ancient strain
Of things destroy'd and left in airy doubt:
Like to the notions we now entertain
Of Titans, giants, fellows of about
Some hundred feet in height, not to say miles,
And mammoths, and your winged crocodiles.

Think if then George the Fourth should be dug up!
How the new worldlings of the then new East
Will wonder where such animals could sup!
(For they themselves will be but of the least:
Even worlds miscarry, when too oft they pup,
And every new creation hath decreased
In size, from overworking the material -
Men are but maggots of some huge Earth's burial.)

- Byron


----------



## Spawnofsatan (Aug 5, 2016)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> No there isn't.
> 
> There is something wrong with the perspective of people who think that the ability to make a computer do what any competent hack has been able to do ever since Mozart set the example - to write something that could be mistaken for a lost mediocre work by the master - tells us anything at all about Don Giovanni. But people who think like that never had anything to offer art anyway, so except for making them newly annoyingly smug in their benightedness, there's nothing newly wrong at all.
> 
> ...


You're missing the point completely.
A computer being able to replicate Mozart is only scraping the surface of what is possible. I get the suggestion of lazy composers though, though it's far from my point:

Technology is a *tool*, composing is an art. In the age we are living in, we are underestimating the power of computers and technology and what it can do for us. 
Art is made up of inspiration and knowledge from a variety of sources. With technology, it can be put on its head (so to speak) to open new doors. Technology alone will not be sufficient, but it's an underestimated tool that will be very important to creating innovations far beyond our 21st century comprehensions.

Grisey isn't a bad composer, I have a few vinyls in my collection. The whole "spectralist" thing feels a little dishonest to me though, when it is barely doing much different to Varese or Webern. The element of sound as a focus in music already gained prominence in the early 20th century, it's not something that is brand new, but it's a start.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Yes, I believe that all the greatest music has already been written. I also believe the best investment of time for a modern classical musician or listener is to keep alive what has already been created.


I say amen to this :angel:


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> You're missing the point completely.
> A computer being able to replicate Mozart is only scraping the surface of what is possible.


It's not even that. Scraping the surface would be something. A computer being able to uncreatively imitate Mozart is nothing.



Spawnofsatan said:


> I get the suggestion of lazy composers though


I didn't say anything about lazy composers.



Spawnofsatan said:


> The whole "spectralist" thing feels a little dishonest to me though, when it is barely doing much different to Varese or Webern. The element of sound as a focus in music already gained prominence in the early 20th century, it's not something that is brand new, but it's a start.


"Barely doing much different" is what conservatives always say when presented with something actually new.


----------



## Spawnofsatan (Aug 5, 2016)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> It's not even that. Scraping the surface would be something. A computer being able to uncreatively imitate Mozart is nothing.
> 
> I didn't say anything about lazy composers.
> 
> "Barely doing much different" is what conservatives always say when presented with something actually new.


You're not even trying to have a conversation here, you are simply now going back and fourth over Mozart.

If you can't get my point that a computer replicating Mozart (which was unthinkable at one point) is insignificant to the power composers have with modern technology, therefore innovative composers using technology are going to do things unimaginable, then you are wasting my time with your nihilism.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

I think some people are suffering from a failure of imagination. There are a few points I want to make. One is that excluding the sun blowing up or humans killing ourselves off in any number of ways, the future of human society (which is like... 6-10K years old?) will be a lot longer than the past.

Another point is just how much AI has developed recently. A perfect example is the game of Go. For years the best Chess players have been computers, but Go for the longest time eluded creators of AI. The game of Go is too intuitive, to creative, there are too many options (more game possibilities than there are atoms in the universe--a lot more). However, recently Alpha Go defeated Lee Sedol 4-1 in a 5 game match, and it seems that once again the the human brain is no longer the superior instrument. AI is developing at a very fast rate, and even if it wasn't, as I said, unless we kill ourselves off, we have a LOT of future to come.

So a program designed to make music like Mozart isn't as good as Mozart--yet. I don't know where people get the idea that the human brain is the pinnacle of genius in the universe. There might be more intelligent and creative aliens, and we might very likely create more intelligent and creative AI someday. Maybe in 10 years, maybe in 100, maybe in 1000. It's pretty much inevitable that computers will eventually outclass any human being's ability to create art.

I'm also with whoever mentioned transhumanism. I'm a transhumanist (as much as you can be one since the technology isn't there yet) and I think it's also inevitable that we'll someday come to a full understanding of the human brain and human consciousness (again even if it takes 1000 years) such that we will be able to augment our brains in any number of ways to make us smarter, happier, and more creative.

To those who think there is some slippery invisible ghosty soul floating around in our bodies my arguments aren't likely to be convincing. But given materialism (for which there is abundant evidence), there is nothing special about the human brain at this particular time in our evolutionary history. So the idea that the best music in either direction on the timeline falls in some 400 or so span randomly in the middle strikes me as highly unlikely.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

This is slightly related - I do believe that classical music is becoming more and more of a niche market and there may be a point where it may no longer be viable for companies to release new material (I think there will always be a market for back-catalogue). At the moment the decline is minimal according to Naxos co-founder Klaus Heymann but the bigger companies are more concerned. That sounds rather pessimistic but it's not solely confined to classical music. Nearly all genres are experiencing problems.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Spawnofsatan said:


> Hi there
> 
> What are the views of the people on Talkclassical about the future of classical music?


It needs to find an audience to survive. We've moved on from church music through patrons into an era where composers have to sell both themselves and their music. There's no point being a starving artist in a garret. You have to find a (paying) audience.



Spawnofsatan said:


> Do you believe that all the greatest music has been written and that everyone should give up wasting their time?


There's been a lot of great music written and a lot of not so good stuff. There's probably something brilliant just around the corner. The trouble is the audience. There's just so much really good old stuff out there that the new is facing some very stiff competition.



Spawnofsatan said:


> Or... Do you (like me), believe that technology is the beginning of new musical innovations and we have only scratched the surface of musical possibly?


Yes and no. Technology is a tool. It will not generate new ideas. In some ways the siren call of midi and score writing packages is a distraction. Composers need to have an innate understanding of sound and how to score it.

I don't think that we have made even a scratch on the surface of musical possibility. Somebody put up a Concerto Grosso in the style of Corelli, based on songs of The Beatles on current listening. I mentioned it to a HIP friend of mine who remarked : "Used to have them on a Naxos cd. The Concerto Grosso may be in the style of Corelli, but the playing in this recording definitely doesn't conform to current understanding of historical performance practice."

It's a balance between what the composer writes and how people play it. It's not just the score, it's also performance practices and they're changing all the time.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

I neither believe that this is the best of all times for music nor that music has been declining on the whole in the last few years/decades/centuries. This tradition shows no signs of coming to a stop, but I do agree that there are some trends that strike me as problematic.

The first, and this is something that bothers me about contemporary culture in general, is a lack of historical awareness that borders on the ahistorical. People respond to everything as if it were in the present, and seem to have no idea what it would mean to engage with something as being from the past.

The second is that postromanticism generally seems tied to a vague pseudo-tonality that offers neither the force and drive of common practice tonality nor the expanded possibilities of 20th century idioms.

The engagement with pop culture is fine only if you have something to say about it. Just taking a club beat and sticking it under an orchestra is neither insightful nor particularly interesting.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> You're not even trying to have a conversation here, you are simply now going back and fourth over Mozart.


I'm not going "back and forth," I'm repeating my point, that being (again):



Spawnofsatan said:


> If you can't get my point that a computer replicating Mozart (which was unthinkable at one point) is insignificant to the power composers have with modern technology


It's not insignificant, it's irrelevant. i.e. There's no good reason to mention it at all.



Spawnofsatan said:


> therefore innovative composers using technology are going to do things unimaginable


And yet, when presented with an example of a composer using new technology to actually do something original, you don't like it.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

I am concerned, or I may not be reading well, the harshness of the confrontation of those users who manifest to have enough with the classical compositions done to date, and those like Spawnofsatan and me that really believe in what technology can bring to the future of music. 
I stopped abruply my last post here because I was called out, but I would continue it if you asked me. I am seeing here lots of predictions, suppositions about what is going to happen in the future, but I see no one is bringing proof based on the present.

This is why I bring here a current Post Dubstep composer and producer called Burial, really famous in Alternative electronic forums, and IMO today's Mozart. His scores are incredibly well crafted, textured, produced with digital computer programs. My best example to keep silent whoever calls Classical music as 'Art music', and to discuss new technologies as marvellous tools.


















Another matter of discussion about why the past is better than the future is that ways of listening to music have changed, and I am sure I am not the first one to say it. Firstly, recordings in the 20th century began to challenge concerts as a mean of listening. Then people started to listen to music in cars or even walking, which has caused a huge peril to two genres in particular: Classical and Jazz, which do not follow a regular rythm or intensity to match the walking pace. New geniuses compose for these kind of listeners and they will keep doing that. Audiophiles have rised as a music tribe because there was not digital music in 192kbps before to be against for. And once again, completely dangerous to Classical and Jazz genres that rely on real instruments whereas computer made music looses less quality in this format.

I repeat that the modern classical trend is only an Ambient music rise that includes computer generated, classical-like sounds, and this genre was key to me to familiarise with Classical Music. CM can still rely on their complex style, also including 20th century compositions to rob the hearts of listeners, but as the scores, they need to manage the inclusion of digital instruments and sounds into their recordings and explore how this can happen in live concerts. Alternative music groups have already done it and have stopped using "real" batteries to promote synths and square tables where to create new precussions.

To put things forward and be clear: Classical music has a future... together with many other genres as artistic as them, NEVER above all. Classical composers can adapt to the new times but there is no point trying to figure out how to recover all the prestige that has been lost.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> That depends on the way you look at it. Think of all the musical treasures that we already have for our enjoyment


The problem with this is, someone easily could have said the same thing in 1830. We have Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, not to mention Handel, Vivaldi, Monteverdi, Palestrina, etc. All these great musical treasures to tend to, that should be our focus from now on. Who needs anything new?


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Dedalus said:


> I think some people are suffering from a failure of imagination. There are a few points I want to make. One is that excluding the sun blowing up or humans killing ourselves off in any number of ways, the future of human society (which is like... 6-10K years old?) will be a lot longer than the past.


Yup. Which means that a bare handful of the people who have lived up to this point in history will eat all of the rest of us and be the only ones remembered at all - in the same way that Homer is already the last living pre-Classical Greek.



Dedalus said:


> I don't know where people get the idea that the human brain is the pinnacle of genius in the universe.


Same place they get the concept of "genius": The human brain.



Dedalus said:


> There might be more intelligent and creative aliens, and we might very likely create more intelligent and creative AI someday.


There might be a God and a second coming too. Whether any of these hypotheticals is of more than passing interest is a question of culture.



Dedalus said:


> It's pretty much inevitable that computers will eventually outclass any human being's ability to create art.


I'm pretty sure (okay, actually entirely sure) that what sentences like this always actually mean is: "Computer geeks are better than art snobs."


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> The problem with this is, someone easily could have said the same thing in 1830. We have Bach, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, not to mention Handel, Vivaldi, Monteverdi, Palestrina, etc. All these great musical treasures to tend to, that should be our focus from now on. Who needs anything new?


People _did_ say things like that in 1830. And in 1890 too, when Brahms was wringing his hands about the death of the tradition.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Granate said:


> I repeat that the modern classical trend is only an Ambient music rise that includes computer generated, classical-like sounds


Ambient music is a popularization of La Monte Young.



Granate said:


> To put things forward and be clear: Classical music has a future... together with many other genres as artistic as them, NEVER above all. Classical composers can adapt to the new times but there is no point trying to figure out how to recover all the prestige that has been lost.


They don't have to recover anything, they just have to wait. Mass entertainment is parasitic. After it exhausts the possibilities of some ideas stolen from high art, it gets stuck nostalgically reviving itself, until somebody can't stand it any more and steals some new ones.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Mahlerian said:


> People _did_ say things like that in 1830. And in 1890 too, when Brahms was wringing his hands about the death of the tradition.


Well, he was right.


----------



## Granate (Jun 25, 2016)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> They don't have to recover anything, they just have to wait.


To a Dystopian world where there is no electricity to manage to listen or compose digital music, and then rich people would attend concerts and peasants would have to stick to the minstrels that come on the way?



Hildadam Bingor said:


> Mass entertainment is parasitic. After it exhausts the possibilities of some ideas stolen from high art, it gets stuck nostalgically reviving itself, until somebody can't stand it any more and steals some new ones.


Regarding parasitic: I have nothing against borrowing ideas as long as the final product is better than the original, and of course, it is mentioned. Science respects this premise and Pop is the science of music. 
Put internet, and mass culture in the 19th century and keep only the Classical genre. The same great composers we know today will rise and all their fans and copycats will be forgotten. This actually defines the last fifty years of the 20th century and pretty much the 21st. With mass comsumption comes mass knowledge and mass compostion as everyone is sharing their knowledge more and more. Mahler read German poetry, and little could he do without Bruckner. In today's world, all artists take influences or they are actually psycos and live in a hole.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Yup. Which means that a bare handful of the people who have lived up to this point in history will eat all of the rest of us and be the only ones remembered at all - in the same way that Homer is already the last living pre-Classical Greek.


Of course, just one of the few of the possible billions or quintillions of people that will be remembered or whatever.



Hildadam Bingor said:


> Same place they get the concept of "genius": The human brain.


My point is exactly that the only reason we think the human brain is the greatest instrument of calculation, creativity and such is just because we haven't discovered anything greater yet. It's a heuristic, and any number of plausible possibilities exist in which there are persons better than us at any given thing.



> There might be a God and a second coming too. Whether any of these hypotheticals is of more than passing interest is a question of culture.
> 
> I'm pretty sure (okay, actually entirely sure) that what sentences like this always actually mean is: "Computer geeks are better than art snobs."


That's not at all where I'm coming from. I really just see it as philosophically unlikely that the best point in music is such a narrow space in time. It's really a matter how you see the human race's longevity. If you think we will survive anything like the time the dinosaurs lasted then I don't see how you can think the best music ever was made in such a small span of time. If you think we'll kill ourselves, ok fine, maybe we will, or a comet will hit us, but then it hardly matters.

But to come back to Earth for a second. During our lives, yeah, I think new interesting classical music is possible. Humans are amazing fonts of creativity, and if when we try something hard enough we succeed.


----------



## Davila (Aug 4, 2016)

Good music will always find a way to the surface, no matter where or when. I believe the music of the future will be very different from the music of the past, but that's not to say it will get any better or worse.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Granate said:


> To a Dystopian world where there is no electricity to manage to listen or compose digital music, and then rich people would attend concerts


You... know they make recordings of classical music, right?



Granate said:


> and peasants would have to stick to the minstrels that come on the way?


Peasants don't listen to Burial.



Granate said:


> Regarding parasitic: I have nothing against borrowing ideas as long as the final product is better than the original, and of course, it is mentioned. Science respects this premise


If art had the same citation standards as the sciences, the entire profession would be in jail.



Granate said:


> and Pop is the science of music.


I consider this pleading my case.

(For the record, pop is in fact the consumer products of music.)



Granate said:


> With mass comsumption comes mass knowledge and mass compostion as everyone is sharing their knowledge more and more.


All superficial knowledge is interchangeable in terms of artistic value, and profound knowledge of anything is as rare as ever, so that's irrelevant.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Dedalus said:


> My point is exactly that the only reason we think the human brain is the greatest instrument of calculation, creativity and such is just because we haven't discovered anything greater yet.


Yeah and by the same logic we doubt the existence of God because He hasn't confirmed it for us yet. Lots of arguments from absence on the market these days.



Dedalus said:


> I really just see it as philosophically unlikely that the best point in music is such a narrow space in time.


 It is, of course, exactly as likely at this time as at any other.

Unless Hesse was right and humans are actually going to lose the ability to be artistically creative. Then we've already had all the chances we were ever going to have.



Dedalus said:


> if when we try something hard enough we succeed.


I think that's what Metacomet told his troops at the beginning of King Philip's War.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Yeah and by the same logic we doubt the existence of God because He hasn't confirmed it for us yet. Lots of arguments from absence on the market these days.


If god was real he would totally nullify my point, since he'd be a better thinker than us. Everything I argue kind of hinges on the point that there is no theistic god.



> Unless Hesse was right and humans are actually going to lose the ability to be artistically creative. Then we've already had all the chances we were ever going to have.


I don't know who Hesse is, but I think it's absurd to think humans have suddenly lost the ability to be creative. It's literally a part of our DNA.



> I think that's what Metacomet told his troops at the beginning of King Philip's War.





> I really don't know anything about that. Anyway, I think technology will be imperative in the future of music!


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Dedalus said:


> I don't know who Hesse is, but I think it's absurd to think humans have suddenly lost the ability to be creative.


Not generically creative, artistically creative. I don't think it's at all impossible that people may decide art doesn't actually mean anything and stop bothering with it.



Dedalus said:


> I really don't know anything about that.


Yes, well, people tend not to know much about a king whose entire nation is killed by its enemies.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Not generically creative, artistically creative. I don't think it's at all impossible that people may decide art doesn't actually mean anything and stop bothering with it.
> 
> Yes, well, people tend not to know much about a king whose entire nation is killed by its enemies.


Just because I don't know something doesn't at all affect my point. It's not impossible that people will decide art doesn't mean anything and stop bothering with it. That's absolutely within the realm of possibility. But it hasn't happened yet, nor does it seem like it's going to happen any time soon.

We love art, of all kinds. And there are those of us who love to create art. and there will always exist those who love to create art. There is absolutely nothing to worry about.

Edit: I considered editing this very much, but I'm drunk. I'll just let it stay. I'm just spitballing anyway, I could be wrong, I don't know. But this is what I think!


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Dedalus said:


> Just because I don't know something doesn't at all affect my point.


I'd never say otherwise. My point in mentioning King Philip's War was that, under some circumstances, it doesn't matter how hard people try. They're doomed anyway.


----------



## Judith (Nov 11, 2015)

I hope it does survive, but I think the attitude of young people is that it is for the older generation. We need to spread the message to them that it's not, it is for everyone. Doesn't matter what age they are!!


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Gosh, why is everyone on this forum so nihilistic? It's depressing.

"I don't like contemporary music" =/ "humankind has lost the ability to be creative"/"this is the downfall of western civilization," etc, etc.

Jeez, guys... 

I'm just gonna say it. I love contemporary classical music. I love minimalism, I love spectralism, I love polystylism, I love atonal music, I love it all.

I think classical music's fine. I think it's better than fine. If you disagree, _cite something_. Because all these opinions are getting tiresome.

:tiphat:


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Adam Weber said:


> "I don't like contemporary music" =/ "humankind has lost the ability to be creative"/"this is the downfall of western civilization," etc, etc.


I never said I don't like contemporary music. Also the downfall of western civilization already happened.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2016)

I try to make a point,hopefully I wil succeed.I am not going to talk about music but the changing world we live in.First of all I think that people are layzy.We enjoy amusement and the business world is gonna deliver it to us.I like to give one exampel.
The technicians are busy to develop a sexmachine,a robot wich wil give us what we desire.
Some people may be horrified by the idea but it is foreseen that it will be a normal thing in 50 years.
What we think as normal is shifting. The farmaceutical industry will deliver us a golden drug wich wil give us "Paradise" in an instant.
What will be the meaning of art,or is men lost in his own image?
In a way it will be the religions task to warn us for this superficial life happy as it may be.
Don't think that I am pessimistic,I try to describe what lies ahead.( IMHO)
What is the future of classical music?


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Traverso said:


> I try to make a point,hopefully I wil succeed.I am not going to talk about music but the changing world we live in.First of all I think that people are layzy.We enjoy amusement and the business world is gonna deliver it to us.I like to give one exampel.
> The technicians are busy to develop a sexmachine,a robot wich wil give us what we desire.
> Some people may be horrified by the idea but it is foreseen that it will be a normal thing in 50 years.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

There _is_ really good contemporary classical music that's been written in the 2010's. I would suspect that the near future would be a continuation of this kind of music: one that combines novel instrumental techniques and live electronic hardware, and a contemplative balance between sound, silence, and rhythm, to create penetrating musical structures.

I don't think it lacks an awareness of history: it evolved out of the tape music of the 50's by Schaeffer, Henry, Varese, Stockhausen, and others, which for obvious reasons has no direct historical precedent, although one could argue that the essential importance of percussion and timbre in general in Webern's highly sparse pieces for orchestra or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring foreshadowed this music in spirit.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2016)

Hildadam Bingor said:


>


Well.thats a vimeo with vision.we can laugh about it but it is humanity in decay or am I only condemm it by today standarts.


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Apparently asking for citations was too much...


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I dare someone to select any contemporary classical work made in the last 10 years, and champion it _right now_. I mean today. Because literally you could change the fate of that composition 100 years from now, by making people aware of it, talking about it, promoting its public performance. A single person can change the fate of a piece of music.

Is this real? Yes, _it actually happened._ I've read stories of that happening 100 years ago, a _single _person bringing a young composition from Europe to America, performing it often, and teaching it to students, and that's how it all began. Nobody else had any idea of this work's existence until that person began to share it, and now everyone in that field knows it _today_. Doesn't even matter if it's a "good" piece! Who cares what that means! Helps if there's more than one person, but if you're an influential person, that's all it takes to make an ordinary piece extraordinary for many people. It takes people paying it forward.


----------



## Spawnofsatan (Aug 5, 2016)

I really like that sentiment.
Show how much you appreciate the Past's accomplishments by caring about the futures accomplishments, the music that is new now will be music of the past to our grandkids' grandchildren!


----------



## Spawnofsatan (Aug 5, 2016)

To clarify the response I got from someone, 
If a computer can replicate Mozart using only a few megabytes, then what can it do with terrabytes and scientific/mathematical calculations, combined with human ideas, concepts and interventions?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Spawnofsatan said:


> To clarify the response I got from someone,
> If a computer can replicate Mozart using only a few megabytes, then what can it do with terrabytes and scientific/mathematical calculations, combined with human ideas, concepts and interventions?


A fine thought. Computer Aided Composing and Arranging. The only downside is the acronym.


----------



## Xenakiboy (May 8, 2016)

I certainly don't see the future to be bleak and hopeless, I see some benefits in computers to help with things beyond our measly comprehension.
Old man Iannis and that crazy man Stockhausen have an insight into the future for sure, moving onwards is a positive thing yes!! :tiphat:


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

As Schoenberg himself said, there's still great music to be written in C major.

As of now, computer composed music, like computer written novels, may be listenable/readable -- but they won't tell us anything about being human beings, which is what Great Art does. (And, though I can't see into the future, I seriously doubt it ever will.)


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MarkW said:


> As Schoenberg himself said, there's still great music to be written in C major.


Also attributed to Prokofiev: "There are still so many beautiful things to be said in C major."


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> To clarify the response I got from someone,
> If a computer can replicate Mozart using only a few megabytes, then what can it do with terrabytes and scientific/mathematical calculations, combined with human ideas, concepts and interventions?


 A computer can't "replicate" Mozart - that implies the computer writing an original composition as good as the C minor piano concerto, Figaro, the quintet in C major, or whatever, that could be mistaken for the work of Mozart. Writing something that could be mistaken for mediocre Mozart isn't a creative achievement at all, so the ability to make a computer do that says nothing one way or the other about the possibility of making a computer be creative in the future. You're just multiplying zero by bigger and bigger numbers.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> I really like that sentiment.
> Show how much you appreciate the Past's accomplishments by caring about the futures accomplishments, the music that is new now will be music of the past to our grandkids' grandchildren!


All music is music of the past. Educating people by playing it to them, helping them appreciate it and getting them to spread the word is the way forward. This year the children I teach have been listening to Beethoven, Mozart, Gershwin, jazz, sea shanties, Stan Rogers, the Saltarello, Scottish traditional music, Jean Michel Jarre, Kraftwerk, the Stones Roses, The Skids, Jethro Tull, Queen, Van Halen, Buckethead (lots of Buckethead), Crippled Black Phoenix, Pineapple Thief, White Buffalo, within Temptation, Santana, Dream Theater, Art of Noise, New Order, The Smiths, me playing songs on the guitar (and singing them badly) and acapella music There is so much to appreciate in most forms of music..


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

Oops, I left out Steve Reich and Tchaikovsky, there. In fact we created our own Chinese Dance, based on a ballet performance we watched on YouTube, as part of our Chinese New Year topic. My P2 class adored it.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> A computer can't "replicate" Mozart - that implies the computer writing an original composition as good as the C minor piano concerto, Figaro, the quintet in C major, or whatever, that could be mistaken for the work of Mozart. Writing something that could be mistaken for mediocre Mozart isn't a creative achievement at all, so the ability to make a computer do that says nothing one way or the other about the possibility of making a computer be creative in the future. You're just multiplying zero by bigger and bigger numbers.


What's the zero we're multiplying numbers by? Is it intellect, information processing, creativity? Since we exist these things are possible in our physical reality. Just kind of a fact that atoms in certain configurations are capable of things we call intellect, creativity, jealousy, love, etc. Is it possible to replicate these things, or even copy entire brains onto another substrate (like a digital one) well nobody knows. Anyways, I've already said my main point which is I just find it incredibly unlikely that the best music was made during a relatively small span of time and will never more be surpassed. That claim doesn't even sound pessimistic or nihilistic to me it just sounds absurd.

A complete side note: what do people think about the violin octet, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violin_octet ? I heard about it on the radio but don't know any pieces composed for it. This strikes me as a way in which new technology has changed what is possible therefore allowing new kinds of art to be made. Not exactly THAT new or anything, but you know.. relatively.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

We can't say all the greatest classical music has been written already . This is 2016 , still early in the 21st century , so there's absolutely no way to predict what the future will bring . 
Stravinsky's Rite of Spring was premiered 103 years ago, only 16 years after the death of Brahms. 
He COULD have lived to the age of 80 and beyond, so he COULD have heard Le Sacre ! He was born in 1833 . I have no idea what he would have thought of it . He would probably have had heart failure !
Saint-Saens , who was two years younger, DID live long enough to hear Le Sacre , and it was beyond shocking to him. Now it's a staple of orchestras everywhere .


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

So much music has already been written that has yet to be assimilated into the listening public's consciousness, or regularly programmed in concert halls and radio playlists. In time the moldy figs will die off and future generations will embrace more of this music and keep it alive. And more will be written. 

I'm sure many people alive in 1900 thought all the great music had already been written. And some believed everything had already been invented, and there was no more need for the patent office.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

I cannot think of any future for any music, and for classical music in particular. I mean, future as in true innovation. Of course, people will play music most likely forever, and they may even think it's new, but they are just reinventing the wheel. So the practical future for classical is to be a cherished relic. That's fine for me, I like to live in the past anyways. I don't much like the present day.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

I predict a major pendulum shift away from current orthodoxies about "absolute" music, and towards intensified experimentation with narrative, mimetic effects, and coding (including perhaps of "languages"). 

And if I'm wrong ... just wait a little longer :lol:


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Dedalus said:


> Anyways, I've already said my main point which is I just find it incredibly unlikely that the best music was made during a relatively small span of time and will never more be surpassed. That claim doesn't even sound pessimistic or nihilistic to me it just sounds absurd.


Absurd? I don't think so. As far as classical music is concerned, there will never be an era that can replicate the output of the mid 17th century, 18th, 19th century and early 20th century. In Europe and subsequently Russia, it was _the_ music. There was practically no other form of music that competed for the music-listening public's attention. There was support for composers and performers that grew during that period, a support that compared to that era doesn't not even remotely exist today.

There is absolutely no evidence that classical music as it exists after the end of the Romantic era (perhaps 1910-20) can compare to the aforementioned 'golden' era. In fact, evidence against that premise would be the fact that orchestras can exist playing programs that emphasize pre-1920 classical music; they cannot exist emphasizing post 1920 classical music. Likewise, by far the majority of classical recordings sold over the last 75 years have been of pre 1920 music.

The above is not meant to denigrate post 1920 classical music per se; it has its supporters and deserves to be respected. There are definitely composers of the last 100 years who have composed quality music. However, there is a tendency for some posters in threads like this to attempt to rewrite history. I'm sorry to rain on their parade, but in the field of classical music, there is never going to be another era that includes a Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Wagner, Brahms, Tchaikovsky or Mahler. Most (note that I didn't say all) of the composers of the last 100 years can't come close to replicating the output of that era.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Anxiety over innovation and the future of music is a preoccupation - I'm tempted to say a mental disorder - of modern Western society. In some traditional cultures art develops but gradually, remaining essentially unchanged, for hundreds of years, an artist is esteemed who can comprehend the spirit and master the craft of his forebears, and he is appreciated for revealing his own personality in only the subtlest of ways. Actually, art isn't about his personality at all. Another modern disorder.

Creating art is not like inventing a better vacuum cleaner. There is no urgency about doing something new or "going beyond" the past.

When I was young I naturally speculated and talked about where music was going. After more than half a century of watching the "isms" fly by at an ever-accelerating pace, I don't give a fig what comes next. I have more than enough music to listen to already, and plenty of music from past decades and centuries speaks to and for me as much as anything anyone could write today.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> ...the output of the mid 17th century, 18th, 19th century and early 20th century. In Europe and subsequently Russia, it was _the_ music. There was practically no other form of music that competed for the music-listening public's attention.


There never is. "Classical" is whatever people still remember after 200 years, excluding folk music. Thus The Beggar's Opera and Orpheus in the Underworld are now "classical," while everybody at the time knew they weren't the same kind of music as Handel and Wagner.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> . In some traditional cultures art develops but gradually, remaining essentially unchanged, for hundreds of years


No, that's just something people think when they aren't familiar with enough examples to be able to tell the difference (sometimes of course simply because the surviving record is patchy).


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> There never is.


Yes there is (unless I'm totally missing your point). We now have all the various forms of popular music, country music, jazz, rap, hip-hop and all their sub-categories competing for the public's attention and interest. And all of these can be recorded. In the pre-1920 era, classical music was the prevailing (or at the very least,_ a_ prevailing) form of music. It is no where close to that now.

An additional problem for classical music of today (not mentioned in my post above) is its splintering into multiple forms (the 'isms' as some say), some of which are accessible to the common man, some of which are nothing short of bizarre. Unfortunately, if someone was trying to develop an interest in classical music today and their first exposure was some of the stuff appearing on YouTube under the guise of classical music, IMO, they would be repelled.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Yes there is (unless I'm totally missing your point). We now have all the various forms of popular music, country music, jazz, rap, hip-hop and all their sub-categories competing for the public's attention and interest.


There's always been popular music. (As long as there have been cities, anyway.) After it stops being popular, we re-classify it as a kind of classical music.



DaveM said:


> An additional problem for classical music of today (not mentioned in my post above) is its splintering into multiple forms (the 'isms' as some say), some of which are accessible to the common man, some of which are nothing short of bizarre. Unfortunately, if someone was trying to develop an interest in classical music today and their first exposure was some of the stuff appearing on YouTube under the guise of classical music, IMO, they would be repelled.


I think that's really yesterday's problem, not today's.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> There's always been popular music. (As long as there have been cities, anyway.) After it stops being popular, we re-classify it as a kind of classical music.


Throwing out random statements without examples doesn't prove anything. Popular and other forms of music that have increasingly preoccupied the public's attention as general interest in classical music has relatively diminished starting in the 1960s-1970s have nothing comparable in the pre 1920 era. These forms of music that compete for the attention of the general music-listening public are not going to turn into a form of classical music and the premise that that they are somehow going to is just silliness.



> I think that's really yesterday's problem, not today's.


Based on what? What classical music of today is making the genre more accessible to people? In what way, is classical music not more splintered than its ever been?


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Throwing out random statements without examples doesn't prove anything.


I started by giving you two examples!

("Thus The Beggar's Opera and Orpheus in the Underworld are now "classical," while everybody at the time knew they weren't the same kind of music as Handel and Wagner.")



DaveM said:


> Popular and other forms of music that have increasingly preoccupied the public's attention as general interest in classical music has relatively diminished starting in the 1960s-1970s have nothing comparable in the pre 1920 era.


Yeah they do. What's actually new is the tendency toward specialization BY MUSICIANS that began in the 19th century - i.e. Mozart's "Non piu andrai" served about the same function in its time and place as "FourFiveSeconds" serves in ours, and his symphonies served about the same function in their time and place as Saariaho's concert pieces serve in ours - but he did both, while musicians today practically always do only one or the other. Or, if we say Mozart is to great to be considered a representative example of anything, then repeat the same point, but illustrated by, let's say, Pergolesi - "Lo conosco" AND his Stabat mater.



DaveM said:


> These forms of music that compete for the attention of the general music-listening public are not going to turn into a form of classical music and the premise that that they are somehow going to is just silliness.


You're going to see it happen, you know. Heck, you already are: Opera companies programming Broadway musicals has already become normal (and not just Show Boat & West Side Story or even Rodgers & Hammerstein & Sondheim any more, but, like, Evita). Jazz manages to keep pretending it's different by fetishizing improvisation, but lies rarely last forever.



DaveM said:


> Based on what? What classical music of today is making the genre more accessible to people? In what way, is classical music not more splintered than its ever been?


America's unofficial composer laureate 15 years ago was the genuinely very difficult Elliott Carter. Now it's either John Coolidge or John Luther Adams, who aren't difficult at all. Yeah, SOME sad people are still going to scream that they're un-listenably difficult, but SOME people are always going to do that - did for Mendelssohn, Dvorak - name a beloved melodist, it happened to them too.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Good point, Hildadam Bingor. :tiphat: ^^^^

Certainly early music has become part of the classical canon when often it was actually popular music in its day.

Still, I can't see Victorian parlour ballads becoming Classical Music. Or Music Hall Songs. 

So - 'it depends'.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Ingélou said:


> Still, I can't see Victorian parlour ballads becoming Classical Music.


Haven't they sort of already? I mean, okay, I guess Stephen Foster still isn't quite considered a "classical composer" in the same sense as Schumann, but classical vocalists perform his songs A LOT, and unlike when they perform Gershwin, Irving Berlin, or whoever from the American Songbook, the way they perform Foster is considered totally idiomatic.

And then, 18th French romances - Martini's "Plaisir d'amour," Rousseau's "Je perdue mon serviteur" - are now definitely considered "classical music" and nothing else, and they're obviously to their generation exactly what music like Foster's to the Victorians.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Yeah they do. What's actually new is the tendency toward specialization BY MUSICIANS that began in the 19th century - i.e. Mozart's "Non piu andrai" served about the same function in its time and place as "FourFiveSeconds" serves in ours, and his symphonies served about the same function in their time and place as Saariaho's concert pieces serve in ours - but he did both, while musicians today practically always do only one or the other. Or, if we say Mozart is to great to be considered a representative example of anything, then repeat the same point, but illustrated by, let's say, Pergolesi - "Lo conosco" AND his Stabat mater.


The premise that these examples serve 'the same function in their time and place as [such and such] serve in ours' is a gross generalization with no basis in fact.



> You're going to see it happen, you know. Heck, you already are: Opera companies programming Broadway musicals has already become normal (and not just Show Boat & West Side Story or even Rodgers & Hammerstein & Sondheim any more, but, like, Evita). Jazz manages to keep pretending it's different by fetishizing improvisation, but lies rarely last forever.


The Broadway musicals mentioned still remain as classics, but they don't represent in any way, shape or form the juggernaut of the popular, rock, country, rap, hip-hop etc. that developed starting in the mid 20th century and command the attention of the listening public today. To even raise that as an example of 'popular' forms of music becoming the new 'classical' is evidence of how spurious the argument is.



> America's unofficial composer laureate 15 years ago was the genuinely very difficult Elliott Carter. Now it's either John Coolidge or John Luther Adams, who aren't difficult at all. Yeah, SOME sad people are still going to scream that they're un-listenably difficult, but SOME people are always going to do that - did for Mendelssohn, Dvorak - name a beloved melodist, it happened to them too.


This is the type of argument that is thrown out there on this forum and seems to rarely be questioned, but IMO it is nothing more than a smoke-screen. During the the classical period of the mid-17th to the very early 20th century, there was always active discussion and criticism of 'new' composers that arrived on the scene and represented some form of new direction, but for the composers that are now household names of that period, the criticism was relatively short-lived and acceptance was proven with the test of time.

There is no indication that contemporary composers are undergoing anywhere near the experience of composers such as Mendelssohn and Dvorak. The latter were part of an era during which classical music was extremely popular. Today, contemporary classical music occupies a very narrow niche and a very narrow segment of the public's interest and very little of the music that contemporary classical music composers are creating shows little evidence of changing that, regardless of the outcries to the contrary of a relatively vocal segment on this forum.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> The premise that these examples serve 'the same function in their time and place as [such and such] serve in ours' is a gross generalization with no basis in fact.


This as opposed to the above quoted sentence, which is of course a model of scholarly rigor.

What point do you even think you're making here? You're not denying that Mozart wrote songs and that they were popular.



DaveM said:


> The Broadway musicals mentioned still remain as classics, but they don't represent in any way, shape or form the juggernaut of the popular, rock, country, rap, hip-hop etc. that developed starting in the mid 20th century and command the attention of the listening public today.


Yeah cuz they're older.

Though rock ain't much of juggernaut any more. Heck, Wicked, Frozen, and Hamilton each had a bigger cultural impact than any rock album since... I don't even know, at least since OK Computer. Granted, all three of those musicals suck lemons, but impact is impact. (And if you want to you can say Frozen's a Disney movie and Hamilton is dorky hip hop, but there's no rationalization for Wicked.)



DaveM said:


> To even raise that as an example of 'popular' forms of music becoming the new 'classical' is evidence of how spurious the argument is.


Uh no it isn't, at all. Maybe you just don't realize how big Broadway used to be. (And to some extent never stopped being. Like I said, it's outlived rock!)



DaveM said:


> During the the classical period of the mid-17th to the very early 20th century, there was always active discussion and criticism of 'new' composers that arrived on the scene and represented some form of new direction


There was active discussion of Rossini, Donizetti, and Verdi. And Wagner to some extent, among the more intellectual crowd, after he turned himself into a religion. Something like Schumann's Neue Zeitschrift, on the other hand, had less readership per capita than Alex Ross' column in the New Yorker today.



DaveM said:


> but for the composers that are now household names of that period, the criticism was relatively short-lived and acceptance was proven with the test of time.
> 
> There is no indication that contemporary composers are undergoing anywhere near the experience of composers such as Mendelssohn and Dvorak.


Yeah there is. Philip Glass is already a household name and Terry Riley and Steve Reich is like 9/10 of the way there - star popular musicians hype them, movie and tv composers steal from them, indie popular musicians ditto.

And then the fourth of the minimalist Big Four has less name recognition, but popular music fans have been enjoying his ideas ever since the Velvet Underground.



DaveM said:


> Today, contemporary classical music occupies a very narrow niche and a very narrow segment of the public's interest and very little of the music that contemporary classical music composers are creating shows little evidence of changing that, regardless of the outcries to the contrary of a relatively vocal segment on this forum.


I think you're trying to convince yourself that you aren't missing anything.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Though rock ain't much of juggernaut any more. Heck, Wicked, Frozen, and Hamilton each had a bigger cultural impact than any rock album since... I don't even know, at least since OK Computer. Granted, all three of those musicals suck lemons, but impact is impact. (And if you want to you can say Frozen's a Disney movie and Hamilton is dorky hip hop, but there's no rationalization for Wicked.)


Better go do some research on what the most popular genres of music are: According to the Nielsen 2014 report: Most popular genres: Rock 29%, R&B/HipHop 17.2%, Pop 14.9%, Country 11.2%. Classical and Jazz were just 1.4%. Broadway plays/musicals such as Wicked and Hamilton and movies such as Frozen certainly cause their own buzz, but they eventually end up as a blip on the radar screen compared to those other forms of music I mentioned.

And why did you select out Rock for special mention? Did you conveniently forget about pop, rap/hiphop and country?



> There was active discussion of Rossini, Donizetti, and Verdi. And Wagner to some extent, among the more intellectual crowd, after he turned himself into a religion. Something like Schumann's Neue Zeitschrift, on the other hand, had less readership per capita than Alex Ross' column in the New Yorker today.


And Rossini, Donizetti, Verdi and Wagner before long were accepted by the opera-going populace. Comparing readership of a period of a German publication of circa 1835-43 to that of present-day New York with the major differences in both population and means of reaching the target audience is just, well, desperation time!



> Yeah there is. Philip Glass is already a household name and Terry Riley and Steve Reich is like 9/10 of the way there - star popular musicians hype them, movie and tv composers steal from them, indie popular musicians ditto. And then the fourth of the minimalist Big Four has less name recognition, but popular music fans have been enjoying his ideas ever since the Velvet Underground.


By any measure, they are household names to a very narrow niche. As stated above, as of 2014, classical music occupied less than 1.5% of popularity of all the genres and only a small segment of that is occupied by Glass, Riley, Reich or any other 'contemporary' composers you may wish to mention.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

I really do not know. I have seen this topic beaten to death here and other music forums for years.

My impression is that the classical music is dying crowd is an American phenomenon. It appears to me that classical music scene is still going strong in Europe and Asia. Why? I do not know.

I have been involved with community groups my entire life. It seems that the state of classical music here in the States is tied to the economy. When the economy is doing well, the groups I play with do well. When the economy is doing badly we struggle to keep going.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

More of the old popularity = quality, of course. Better to remind people that Classical music in general appeals to a narrow niche. But popularity isn't really what this thread is about, is it?


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think each generation starts from zero. Of course, there are many things that have already been figured out, but even those "givens" can be re-thought from scratch, as if we discovered them ourselves. Art and music are not refrigeration or television; they are thought pursuits, so, as they are not "hardware," they can easily be refigured, copied, and applied to different things in different circumstances. The possibilities go up exponentially very quickly. We will not get bored.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

arpeggio said:


> I really do not know. I have seen this topic beaten to death here and other music forums beaten to death here for years.
> 
> My impression is that the classical music is dying crowd is an American phenomenon. It appears to me that classical music scene is still going strong in Europe and Asia. Why? I do not know.
> 
> I have been involved with community groups my entire life. It seems that the state of classical music here in the States is tied to the economy. When the economy is doing well, the groups I play with do well. When the economy is doing badly we struggle to keep going.


There will be a large, worldwide catastrophic event, and then all that will change. You will understand, then.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Broadway plays/musicals such as Wicked and Hamilton and movies such as Frozen certainly cause their own buzz, but they eventually end up as a blip on the radar screen compared to those other forms of music I mentioned.


Why, because you say so? You start the clock in the '60s - okay, the songs from Fiddler on the Roof are as well and widely remembered as any country songs from that time. (As for more niche things - the Stephen Sondheim cult, oh god, you don't even want to KNOW...)



DaveM said:


> And Rossini, Donizetti, Verdi and Wagner before long were accepted by the opera-going populace.


You seem to be missing the point. Rossini and especially Donizetti and Verdi were writing popular music. Wagner was writing Ernste Musik - and he never did become all that accepted. Even now he's much less popular than Verdi, and that's fighting over a tiny pie, which is all musicians as old as them ever get to fight over.



DaveM said:


> Hildadam Bingor said:
> 
> 
> > Something like Schumann's Neue Zeitschrift, on the other hand, had less readership per capita than Alex Ross' column in the New Yorker today.
> ...


Personally, I'd say desperation is rather indicated by something like - just an example off the top of my head here - being too rushed to read the thing you're replying to. But that's just me!



DaveM said:


> By any measure, they are household names to a very narrow niche.


Yeah, and by any measure, while a lot of people at one point cared about Donizetti arias, only a very narrow niche EVER cared about Brahms symphonies.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Why, because you say so? You start the clock in the '60s -


Addendum: I went with this for the sake of argument, but of course there's no good reason to start talking about mass entertainment then. Before there was the Beatles there was Elvis, before Elvis there was Sinatra, before there was Sinatra there was Crosby.


----------



## Reichstag aus LICHT (Oct 25, 2010)

KenOC said:


> Computer Aided Composing and Arranging. The only downside is the acronym.


During a rehearsal of a Mahler symphony with Lenny Bernstein, a member of the Vienna Philharmonic can be heard describing the work as "Scheissmusik". I believe this infamous incident can still be seen on DVD.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Personally, I'd say desperation is rather indicated by something like - just an example off the top of my head here - being too rushed to read the thing you're replying to. But that's just me!


I didn't miss the per capita, I ignored it, because so much of what you're saying is either not based on fact or is comparing apples with oranges.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> comparing apples with oranges.


This as opposed to comparing the production and consumption of music today with the production and consumption of music 100 or more years ago.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Reichstag aus LICHT said:


> During a rehearsal of a Mahler symphony with Lenny Bernstein, a member of the Vienna Philharmonic can be heard describing the work as "Scheissmusik". I believe this infamous incident can still be seen on DVD.


"Scheissmusik" is German for "masterpiece", as we all know.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> "Scheissmusik" is German for "masterpiece", as we all know.


Like this rite? 



 [Ummm, NSWF I guess?]


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Like this rite?
> 
> 
> 
> [Ummm, NSWF I guess?]


A lovely piece and lyrics  I didn't know Mozart was into rimming ...


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> There was active discussion of Rossini, Donizetti, and Verdi. And Wagner to some extent, among the more intellectual crowd, after he turned himself into a religion. Something like Schumann's Neue Zeitschrift, on the other hand, had less readership per capita than Alex Ross' column in the New Yorker today.





DaveM said:


> And Rossini, Donizetti, Verdi and Wagner before long were accepted by the opera-going populace. Comparing readership of a period of a German publication of circa 1835-43 to that of present-day New York with the major differences in both population and means of reaching the target audience is just, well, desperation time!


Take the time sometime to educate yourself on what affects readership per capita. In order to have 'per capita' mean anything as far as popularity and/or relative importance is concerned you have to be comparing apples with apples.

First of all, Schumann's Neue Zeitschrift was a publication that was a 19th century composer's critique of the music of other 18th century composers (initially there were 3 pianists as co-editors, but for various reasons, Schumann for the most part acted as the sole editor). The content of the publication and the readership can hardly be compared with the Alex Ross New Yorker column. In fact, the attempt at any comparison between the two is nothing short of ridiculous.

Second, when you have a modern publication with the ability to access a large population using modern methods to reach its readership (the New Yorker has over 1 million subscribers) vs a relatively small publication aimed at a relatively narrow readership in 1835-43 in Leipzig Germany, PER CAPITA COMPARISONS ARE MEANINGLESS and best ignored.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> a relatively small publication aimed at a relatively narrow readership


My point exactly.

You can't, on the one hand, claim there was


DaveM said:


> active discussion and criticism of 'new' composers


 not just of popular forms like Italian opera, but of what was then called "serious music," while on the other hand admitting that barely anybody read even the most prominent publication on that subject.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Ingélou said:


> Certainly early music has become part of the classical canon when often it was actually popular music in its day.
> 
> Still, I can't see Victorian parlour ballads becoming Classical Music. Or Music Hall Songs.


There's a great bit in the new _Star Trek_ movie - uh, SPOILER ALERT! - where the Beastie Boys' _Sabotage_ is played very loudly, prompting Dr McCoy to ask "Is that... _classical music_?"

(and FWIW, the distance in years between _The Beggar's Opera_ (as mentioned by Harold) and _Sabotage_ is approximately the distance between _Sabotage_ and the setting of _Star Trek: Beyond_.)


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Nereffid said:


> There's a great bit in the new _Star Trek_ movie - uh, SPOILER ALERT! - where the Beastie Boys' _Sabotage_ is played very loudly, prompting Dr McCoy to ask "Is that... _classical music_?"


Rip off alert! 




And I think there's some movie or book or something from the '60s where somebody makes casual reference to "classical music like Mozart and the Beatles" or something like that. Anyway, I know that Philip K. Dick makes casual reference to Tolkien as classic literature alongside Shakespeare and so on, somewhere (Ubik, maybe?). So, the point is, this is something a lot of people have thought of.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Adam Weber said:


> Gosh, why is everyone on this forum so nihilistic? It's depressing.
> 
> "I don't like contemporary music" =/ "humankind has lost the ability to be creative"/"this is the downfall of western civilization," etc, etc.
> 
> Jeez, guys...


That is not nihilism, that is looking reality in the face.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is not nihilism, that is looking reality in the face.


Truth can be hurtful, alas, that's live.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Pugg said:


> Truth can be hurtful, alas, that's live.


As long as we have music for consolation, all is well


----------



## Adam Weber (Apr 9, 2015)

Pugg said:


> Truth can be hurtful, alas, that's live.


That's why I prefer the studio recording.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

SiegendesLicht said:


> That is not nihilism, that is looking reality in the face.


 No comment.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> You can't, on the one hand, claim there was not just of popular forms like Italian opera, but of what was then called "serious music," while on the other hand admitting that barely anybody read even the most prominent publication on that subject.


Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that barely anybody read Schumann's publication and you know it. The fact is that the publication was popular with its target audience. And the main point, which you are apparently unaware of, is that Schumann's literary critiques were very influential during that time. In fact, Steven Isserlis of Gramophone has said that "_Schumann was perhaps the most influential - and certainly the most perceptive - critic of his day. In fact, his background was literary rather than musical..."_


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> The fact is that the publication was popular with its target audience.


It's "relatively narrow readership" [your words!] audience... *whispers* that's what contemporary classical music is popular with.



DaveM said:


> And the main point, which you are apparently unaware of, is that Schumann's literary critiques were very influential during that time.


Influence? Forget criticism - the MUSICAL influence of Young and Riley is ALL OVER the last 40 years of rock.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> A lovely piece and lyrics  I didn't know Mozart was into rimming ...


He has a disc full of "naughty" songs .


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Influence? Forget criticism - the MUSICAL influence of Young and Riley is ALL OVER the last 40 years of rock.


Er, Um, okay.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Er, Um, okay.


Okay, so now I'm thinking you aren't even interested in rock - don't know who John Cale, Can, and Brian Eno are - you just want an excuse to not learn about contemporary classical.


----------



## MysticCompose (Aug 6, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> Hi there
> 
> What are the views of the people on Talkclassical about the future of classical music?
> Do you believe that all the greatest music has been written and that everyone should give up wasting their time?
> ...


As long as these timeless instruments exist there will always be new classical music, and I believe innovative as well. All the good stuff hasn't been spoken for.

As for technology, I think music has a long (if not limitless) ways to go. Just maybe not with classical music, because I tend to believe genres of music have their inceptions from the instruments that play them (in general). Rock, Hip Hop, Metal, Counry, indie artist music trying to be weird, and even blues I would still lump together under pop music due to their common foundation. You can't throw a viola into a hip hop song and call it classical, but you know what I'm trying to convey.

Electronic music excites me a lot. To me it's the next best thing to classical music because of it's infinite nature. There's no end to different sounds, tones, effects, etcetera that's achievable through tech like that.

What I'm worried about is the loss of through-composition. The more we hear the simplified standard catch song structure that's so prevalent today, the more that gets nailed inside our creative thought process, and the farther away we get. It will be difficult to get back once all is forgotten.

There might be less and less people carrying the torch. But all it could take is a few new magnificent beings to bring that touch back to life.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Given the concerns raised in this recent study:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ight-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse

Classical music may continue to have a future, but not in the way most imagine.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Ralfy said:


> Given the concerns raised in this recent study:
> 
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ight-new-research-shows-were-nearing-collapse
> 
> Classical music may continue to have a future, but not in the way most imagine.


Then again in a 100 years time we all be gone .


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> Okay, so now I'm thinking you aren't even interested in rock - don't know who John Cale, Can, and Brian Eno are - you just want an excuse to not learn about contemporary classical.


Earth to DaveM: Why on God's green earth are you trying to reason with Harold?


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Earth to DaveM: Why on God's green earth are you trying to reason with Harold?


I don't know what that means, but regardless, let's just remind ourselves of what happened here:

1. I say Young and Riley are important influences on rock for the last 40 years.

2. DaveM posts a laughy face.

3. I ask DaveM if he knows who John Cale, Can, and Brian Eno are.

4. DaveM changes the subject.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Hildadam Bingor said:


> I don't know what that means, but regardless, let's just remind ourselves of what happened here:
> 
> 1. I say Young and Riley are important influences on rock for the last 40 years.
> 
> ...


5. Harold presumes to psych out DavidM, who recognizes this as a Haroldian tactic and ends up talking to himself.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Some comments were deleted from the thread. Please make comments on the thread topic, _The future of classical music!_, rather than other posters.


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

Woodduck said:


> 5. Harold presumes to psych out DavidM, who recognizes this as a Haroldian tactic and ends up talking to himself.


No, that's all things I said to DaveM and things he said to me. "[P]resumes to psych out" - how? By talking by bout specific rock musicians instead "rock" as an abstract concept?


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

mmsbls said:


> Please make comments on the thread topic, _The future of classical music!_, rather than other posters.


Future of classical music: The last two western powers decline into irrelevance - America because of political dysfunction, Germany because they have no kids - China or India or somebody takes over the world, the last few hundred years of western history are regarded as a footnote in world history, nobody cares about any western composer after Beethoven, and the next big thing comes out of Tajikistan or somewhere.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2016)

Spawnofsatan said:


> Do you believe that all the greatest music has been written and that everyone should give up wasting their time?


Since Shakespeare has already written all the greatest plays, the playwrights can all step away from their pens as there's no future in it. 

Of course music has a future, and it matters not a jot if it does or does not resemble the music of Bach, Bartok, Bo Diddly, The Beatles, Bjork or anyone else whose name begins with nay other letter past or present. For as long as people want to compose and play, and for as long as people are prepared to listen and pay, music has a future.

Unless you take a view of music which resembles a view of science which says that since Newton and Einstein were the greatest scientific geniuses ever, no other scientist need bother.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2016)

DaveM said:


> Earth to DaveM: Why on God's green earth are you trying to reason with Harold?


Who's Harold ?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Of course music has a future, and it matters not a jot if it does or does not resemble the music of Bach, Bartok, Bo Diddly, The Beatles, Bjork or anyone else...


Very wise words, though some will find them difficult.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

MacLeod said:


> Who's Harold ?


Harold in Italy?


----------



## arnerich (Aug 19, 2016)

A universally accepted future for music doesn't exist. I'm a pianist and composer and I represent _a_ future for classical music. I simply try to compose the best music I can and if it resonates with others than hopefully they'll subscribe to my YouTube channel! And really that's what it's all about, like minded individuals finding each other (online or otherwise) and sharing in the enjoyment of music. This has always been and will continue to play the most significant role in shaping future music. I invite you to check out some of my works, thanks for listening!

Etude in G major, Allegro Giocoso





Variations on a theme of Scriabin





Double Fugue in e flat minor 





Chaconne on "To Make You Feel My Love"


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Classical music will be alright, see how the debate keeps going, that's a very good sign.


----------



## helenora (Sep 13, 2015)

Pugg said:


> Classical music will be alright, see how the debate keeps going, that's a very good sign.


with all my respect to your opinion, Pugg, I must admit that what we see on this forum is just one tiny part of world society...what I want to say is that there are some societies, cultures where people barely know what classical music is or they just know one or two names usually associated with classical music without actually have listened to music by these composers...and these people aren't concerned with that huge gap in their knowledge, they aren't aware of their ignorance as I would call it.....and there are many of them.

classical music still remains a phenomenon of western culture and if people from other cultures learn it , still they are very few of them compared with the majority of people not accepting, not understanding it.....

but well, ok, if we speak about nearest future within one hundred years, well, then it's all right


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Classical music will do just fine. My professor said over the last thirty years for example, she has seen ever more study, research, performance and recording of classical music from the 16th to 19th centuries. People are ever more interested in old music from centuries before.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Classical music will do just fine. My professor said over the last thirty years for example, she has seen ever more study, research, performance and recording of classical music from the 16th to 19th centuries. People are ever more interested in old music from centuries before.


I agree completely with what your professor has said, but I'm curious about the timeframe. Did she explicitly exclude the 20th (and 21st) century? If so, do you know why? Companies like Naxos certainly record an enormous amount of modern and contemporary music.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

Classical Music will thrive, especially with the gift of wonderful conductors.
*Congratulations to Andris Nelsons! Gramophone 2016 Orchestral Music Winner

*


----------



## Hildadam Bingor (May 7, 2016)

JosefinaHW said:


> Classical Music will thrive, especially with the gift of wonderful conductors.


I dunno, seems to me classical music was doing better when Beethoven and Schubert were still writing new music and what we now think of as "conductors" hadn't been invented yet.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

What does "thrive" actually refer to? Concert going? Listening to CDs at home?

It's too easy to sit home and enjoy a CD of one's favorite music minus the distractions of attending a live concert. Therefore I expect live concert going attendance to continue to dwindle into eventual nothingness.

I see no equivalent of a giant B-12 shot all of a sudden catalyzing all these pop/rap music fans into classical music lovers anytime soon.

Therefore over the next 50 years, our ilk will dwindle into a select group of home listeners.

The glass is half empty, sorry to say.


----------



## JosefinaHW (Nov 21, 2015)

hpowders said:


> What does "thrive" actually refer to? Concert going? Listening to CDs at home?
> 
> It's too easy to sit home and enjoy a CD of one's favorite music minus the distractions of attending a live concert. Therefore I expect live concert going attendance to continue to dwindle into eventual nothingness.
> 
> ...


:HPowders: At this moment MY cup runneth over at seeing you back on the forum, if only for the moment. I hope you enjoyed your vacation. If worse comes to worse re/ CM in the USA then I'm just going to trust that it will be carried by the funds of those in Europe and Asia. In the meantime I will continue to support it via subscriptions to periodicals, orchestras (donating the tickets to their box offices), buying CDs, books, etc... I'm grateful for the European and Asian enthusiasm


----------



## raiatea (Mar 23, 2017)

I have read an article in an english music magazine some time ago about the future of classical music
(technology in live concert, money of performers...) but I can't remember which magazine (Classical Music, Gramophone...?).
Could someone help me find it again ?

Thanks


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

ArtMusic said:


> Classical music will do just fine. My professor said over the last thirty years for example, she has seen ever more study, research, performance and recording of classical music from the 16th to 19th centuries. People are ever more interested in old music from centuries before.


I sincerely would hope so. At the the academic level yes, but I see no evidence of the general public having increased interest in classical music. American public television doesn't even broadcast serious concerts anymore as it did in the past. Maybe André Rieu at Christmas and New Years time, but that seems to be the limit of mass audience taste and tolerance for classical music these days..


----------

