# "Why Classical Music Is Still Relevant" etc. etc.



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I've seen numerous articles similar to the thread title, "Why Classical Is Still Relevant" advocating on behalf of Classical Music, pleading to non-Classical listeners that it still matters and isn't just for certain kinds of people. My question is, does Classical need "saving" in the sense that its importance needs to be explained to people who only think of elitism and snobbery when they think of Classical? (there's a reason why Mozart of Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_ is used to portray snobby/elitist nobility or aristocrats in film and TV) I appreciate advocating Classical music but does 19th and 18th century philosophy need an advocate? Do I need to explain the importance of Immanuel Kant to you? Fine art is another example, do I need to explain the importance of Picasso, Thomas Hart Benton, Michelangelo or the poetry of Goethe and the prose of Dickens and Twain? For some puzzling reason, Classical music which is just as much of an art as literature or fine art, needs to saved and has a negative stigma of elitism.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

Doesn't it need to be saved for economic reasons (record labels and orchestras and players need their $$$ to survive and any improvement in classical fans is appreciated)?

But to convince non-fans, I don't thing arguing that its "relevant" is a good idea, because that suggests that classical is some boring elitist thing with cultural "relevance". The best we can do is be encouraging.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

SeptimalTritone said:


> Doesn't it need to be saved for economic reasons (record labels and orchestras and players need their $$$ to survive and any improvement in classical fans is appreciated)?
> 
> But to convince non-fans, I don't thing arguing that its "relevant" is a good idea, because that suggests that classical is some boring elitist thing with cultural "relevance". The best we can do is be encouraging.


Absolutely, I do think that it needs to be saved for economic reasons, to pay orchestra musicians, directors, conductors, etc. To make CDs and keep the performances going year-round, you name it. I agree with that completely. I suppose that in order to do that, more people do need to be convinced that it's relevant and not elitist. I just think that's a bit unfortunate.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

If you need to _explain_ the importance of classical music and other fine arts to anyone grown-up (children obviously need leading and explaining), the explanation will most likely be lost on them, so I would not bother. Better spend one's time introducing to classical music someone who does understand the importance of sheer beauty, but does not know where to start.

Also, there is nothing wrong with elitism inasmuch as it means aiming for perfection, for the highest and the best. Mediocrity is much worse.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Most people just aren't very interested in music, the same as they're not very interested in literature. How often do you hear of someone who has actually read a novel by Dickens unless it was forced on them at school?

Maybe in America it's different and there are tons of people who would listen to classical music if it weren't for its reputation of elitism, but as an European living in a modern democratic society I always considered that sort of awareness of what is elitist and what isn't very odd. Like, who cares? It's not the 18th century anymore.

At least here, classical music needs people who keep saying that it's the best music in the world. Why else would anybody be interested in putting effort into exploring it and appreciating it? If it's all just apples and oranges, why would anybody care about classical music? If it doesn't have inherent superior value, why bother defending it at all? And if it does, why attempt defending it through lies? I personally don't like a defense based on deception. I myself would never have bothered with classical music if I hadn't lived in a culture that valued it above other kinds of music. I'm glad I did bother with it, because I slowly learned to appreciate it more and more, and it really does contain the best music in the world.


----------



## SeptimalTritone (Jul 7, 2014)

I don't know about "relevant" and I suppose that that term might be missing the mark. I don't listen to classical because it's "relevant": I listen to it because I like it! I'm surprised you use that term, could you link an article or explain your thoughts on what that term even means?

Further... saying literature or other art is relevant is not going to convince people to read them. Genuine interest will. So again, I would be careful about promoting classical by saying it's relevant.

Unfortunately the evil mastermind listening to classical while petting his cat... yeah.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chordalrock said:


> Most people just aren't very interested in music, the same as they're not very interested in literature. How often do you hear of someone who has actually read a novel by Dickens unless it was forced on them at school?
> 
> Maybe in America it's different and there are tons of people who would listen to classical music if it weren't for its reputation of elitism, but as an European living in a modern democratic society I always considered that sort of awareness of what is elitist and what isn't very odd. Like, who cares? It's not the 18th century anymore.
> 
> At least here, classical music needs people who keep saying that it's the best music in the world. Why else would anybody be interested in putting effort into exploring it and appreciating it? If it's all just apples and oranges, why would anybody care about classical music? If it doesn't have inherent superior value, why bother defending it at all? And if it does, why attempt defending it through lies? I personally don't like a defense based on deception. I myself would never have bothered with classical music if I hadn't lived in a culture that valued it above other kinds of music. I'm glad I did bother with it, because I slowly learned to appreciate it more and more, and it really does contain the best music in the world.


Meh, I will grant that it's part of a tradition with high intellectual aims, one that cultivates people. But I think we're being pretty ethnocentric here. There are similarly great traditions elsewhere.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I doubt its effectiveness. I've simply ceased ever talking about it with most people -- there's no room for it whatsoever. They aren't open to it in the slightest. It's that boring stuff for old people, and that's that. Classical can't compete with the marketing other kinds of music receive. If these same people had been hearing it on the Radio and on Television all the time I'm certain they would see its virtues. I'ts only prejudice -- I know this: they simply don't even take the time to listen. It's never an informed decision of distaste. 

But what's there to do?


----------



## CypressWillow (Apr 2, 2013)

I think to kids raised on McDonalds, the allure of fine food is just lost. 
In the same way, to kids who've heard only gangsta rap, the allure of Schubert is incomprehensible.
Yet every now and then, like a lotus emerging from a stagnant swamp to bloom above its roots, a person becomes receptive to more subtle beauty than what they've been exposed to thus far. How rare and lovely to find and encourage such a soul.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

To elaborate on my first post, I do think it justly needs saving economically and culturally, but it seems to me that Classical music is in this position in the first place *because* of its negative stigmas and connotations. We're in a 21st century culture where Classical music is elitist and not on the same level of importance as the other arts.

Just type in "Why classical music is relevant" in Google and you'll see a wide array of articles, sites asking this question. Plus, there's the book, "Why Classical Music Still Matters" by Lawrence Kramer. There is no true equivalent for the other arts. Fine Art is relevant and there is no need for a book to tell people that, same for literature, etc. etc. Literature explaining the importance of literature? A book explaining the importance of books :lol:


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Cheyenne said:


> I doubt its effectiveness. I've simply ceased ever talking about it with most people -- there's no room for it whatsoever. They aren't open to it in the slightest. It's that boring stuff for old people, and that's that. Classical can't compete with the marketing other kinds of music receive. If these same people had been hearing it on the Radio and on Television all the time I'm certain they would see its virtues. I'ts only prejudice -- I know this: they simply don't even take the time to listen. It's never an informed decision of distaste.
> 
> But what's there to do?


Honestly guys, how do you engage with the general attitude of this modern culture? Having been involved in education and discussed this with several family members who teach, I've come to the conclusion that three different critical thinking courses should be prepared for elementary, junior, and high school. What I mean by critical thinking in this context is basic recognition of fallacies, how to establish that something is right without referring back to "well so and so said", etc.

There seems to be a general lack of interest in critically engaging anything, a general lack of self discipline and rigor in thinking.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Literature explaining the importance of literature? A book explaining the importance of books :lol:


Actually, it's often questioned what the importance of literature is, especially fiction. 'Art' in general -- the term is poisonous to many -- is a little lost on a lot of people today, it seems. There's just their daily lives and "entertainment".

What classical music would need to clear its name of the negative connotations is marketing -- but that can't happen. Classical Music was generally made to be listened to in long sittings, whereas pop music is specifically manufactured with the intent of marketing it. It couldn't possibly win.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> Meh, I will grant that it's part of a tradition with high intellectual aims, one that cultivates people. But I think we're being pretty ethnocentric here. There are similarly great traditions elsewhere.


Yeah, well, I'm not aware of any other musical tradition that is based on composition and the idea that the composition itself is important as music and should be as interesting musically as possible and stand on its own. Classical Indian music, for example, is improvised music. There's no room there for grand structures of carefully thought out polyphony and what not. It's a tradition perpetually in a state of infancy because nobody apparently takes the music seriously enough that they would put actual effort into coming up with it and notate it down. It never evolves because it doesn't have a history of compositions that the newer composers would strive to emulate and improve on and compete with.

I know that sounds harsh and perhaps ignorant but I think it's the truth. I'm sure I could also disfavorably compare other classical traditions to European classical music but I can tell just by listening to the music that they're not traditions that should be taken seriously as competitors, and apparently nobody else thinks so either as they are marginalised even in their own countries while Mozart, Bach and Beethoven have become popular among the musical elite across the globe and in every modern culture.

P.S. Someone mentioned the importance of childhood culture. I think music is unique in that you can affect people's taste a lot by making them listen to certain kinds of music in early childhood. You can't make kids read Kafka and expect them to become more sophisticated readers, but if you make children listen to classical music from birth to 5 years or old or so, I think most of them would develop a lot more sophisticated taste than they would otherwise.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Chordalrock said:


> Yeah, well, I'm not aware of any other musical tradition that is based on composition and the idea that the composition itself is important as music and should be as interesting musically as possible and stand on its own. Classical Indian music, for example, is improvised music. There's no room there for grand structures of carefully thought out polyphony and what not. It's a tradition perpetually in a state of infancy because nobody apparently takes the music seriously enough that they would put actual effort into coming up with it and notate it down. It never evolves because it doesn't have a history of compositions that the newer composers would strive to emulate and improve on and compete with.
> 
> I know that sounds harsh and perhaps ignorant but I think it's the truth. I'm sure I could also disfavorably compare other classical traditions to European classical music but I can tell just by listening to the music that they're not traditions that should be taken seriously as competitors, and apparently nobody else thinks so either as they are marginalised even in their own countries while Mozart, Bach and Beethoven have become popular among the musical elite across the globe and in every modern culture.
> 
> P.S. Someone mentioned the importance of childhood culture. I think music is unique in that you can affect people's taste a lot by making them listen to certain kinds of music in early childhood. You can't make kids read Kafka and expect them to become more sophisticated readers, but if you make children listen to classical music from birth to 5 years or old or so, I think most of them would develop a lot more sophisticated taste than they would otherwise.


Dude I'm sorry, but that's incredibly ignorant. They take their music plenty seriously. See post 3 from classical trivia: http://www.talkclassical.com/33602-classical-trivia.html#post703997


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

For me classical music brings out feelings and just plain awe that no other art form can. So for me, it will always be relevant. I don't see why I would have to justify this to anyone else and I don't and won't.
It also keeps me honest because I know if I ever get sent to jail, it will be all-Rap, all the time!


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

I listen to music -- classical music, jazz, and other genres -- because I enjoy it. From my point of view, we don't need to & shouldn't make any "arguments" for music, or for art in general.

If people want it, they will seek it out. If someone asks me why I'm drawn to music (classical or otherwise), I'm very happy to explain. I love talking about music, writing about music, thinking about music. Because I ENJOY it.

But I think we're playing a losing game whenever we try to "sell" music -- ESPECIALLY if we think our team is somehow intrinsically better than others: _This_ type of music is "better" than _That_; _A_ is "more important" than _B_. ...Ugh! I have NO interest in that. It's a turn-off -- and I LOVE this stuff. Imagine how it affects outsiders. It keeps them away in droves.

I don't want to sell music; I want to share it.

The only thing that's worth a damn is how it makes you feel. Explain that.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> Honestly guys, how do you engage with the general attitude of this modern culture? Having been involved in education and discussed this with several family members who teach, I've come to the conclusion that three different critical thinking courses should be prepared for elementary, junior, and high school. What I mean by critical thinking in this context is basic recognition of fallacies, how to establish that something is right without referring back to "well so and so said", etc.
> 
> There seems to be a general lack of interest in critically engaging anything, a general lack of self discipline and rigor in thinking.


Luke, I'm a teacher and wrestle with these matters every day with college-level students. College faculty teach critical thinking all the time and in many, many different disciplines: history, literature, philosophy, all the sciences, communications/media, information technology, political science, economics -- you name it. And you can't teach it just once within any single course or any single discipline. It's ongoing and multi-faceted. Critical thinking habits come slowly. Critical thinking is central to the mission of every university that I know. (Go read their mission statements; read their self-descriptions of their "core curriculum" or "general education" programs). It can be taught -- and is taught -- to some degree at the high school level. But real critical thinking only begins to be possible when people reach the age of 18 and takes off rapidly from there. It is best taught in a multi-faceted way. For instance, some students (and adults) acquire critical thinking skills in certain sciences but can also be completely oblivious to critical thinking in literature or politics. At the everyday practical level, getting students to think critically is hard work. But it can be done. There are moments when I teach my freshmen and am continually surprised how hard they find the basics of thinking, how little effort they are initially willing to put into writing, into researching, for that matter, into reading. And yet, miracles do happen. Education does actually take place. By the end of the semester, they are at a whole new level. And when they come up to you at graduation, then they _get_ it. Even more, years later, after graduation.

As for the focus of this thread, I have said repeatedly on such threads as this one: the power of education should never be underestimated. I must say that I'm more discouraged by negatives expressed on threads around here -- the throwing-up of hands, the handwringing, the saying 'it's impossible.' Yes, there are all sorts of counter-forces in the culture that are unhelpful. Anyone who teaches knows precisely how formidable those counter-forces are. But education does actually work -- if we give it a chance. The arts can be taught. Music can be taught. Students are, for the most part, genuinely curious. Every able teacher I know knows how to bring alive the domain of the intellectual life which they specialize in--whether it be scientific, literary, artistic, historical, philosophical, political, legal, medical, whatever. And all of us also appreciate that we don't just teach our discipline and we don't just teach when we are in the classroom.

If you don't think education works, go and check out the "What books are you currently reading?" thread. There TC forum members are returning to books that they read in college, or to interests first sparked by what they studied in college. Look how often they mention -- 'this is something I read years ago in college.' College certainly gives people skills for their life and their work, how to _earn_ their living. But it also probably just as importantly equips them for how best to _spend_ their money-- and some of that is on the arts (music, film, theater, literature). College teachers are in the catalyzing business. You can't possibly teach them everything students need to know. You give them essentials, but at least as important is igniting their interests and teaching them how to teach themselves. Also all that critical thinking stuff.

I say all of this because along the way a lot of us -- and not just those in the music department -- teach students about classical music. We do it directly only on occasion. But often the most effective is the indirect, the catalyzing, the mentioning-in-passing. Classical music is not for everybody, just as the visual arts are not for everybody. Some get some things better. But we all expect a certain minimum in cultural literacy across the whole spectrum -- otherwise, one isn't educated. That said, I've got a lot of students who like to come and discuss music of all kinds. Their natural curiosity can be sparked. And they do eventually make it their own.

Students don't discourage me, nor do the counter-forces in the culture. I do get discouraged when those with profound knowledge of the arts give up passing on what they know and what they love.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

CypressWillow said:


> I think to kids raised on McDonalds, the allure of fine food is just lost.
> In the same way, to kids who've heard only gangsta rap, the allure of Schubert is incomprehensible.
> Yet every now and then, like a lotus emerging from a stagnant swamp to bloom above its roots, a person becomes receptive to more subtle beauty than what they've been exposed to thus far. How rare and lovely to find and encourage such a soul.


That is succinct and lovely, and hits home. The CypressWillow has caused the Wooduck, who was once such a Lotus, to shed a little tear.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Alypius said:


> Luke, I'm a teacher and wrestle with these matters every day with college-level students. College faculty teach critical thinking all the time and in many, many different disciplines: history, literature, philosophy, all the sciences, communications/media, information technology, political science, economics -- you name it. And you can't teach it just once within any single course or any single discipline. It's ongoing and multi-faceted. Critical thinking habits come slowly. Critical thinking is central to the mission of every university that I know. (Go read their mission statements; read their self-descriptions of their "core curriculum" or "general education" programs). It can be taught -- and is taught -- to some degree at the high school level. But real critical thinking only begins to be possible when people reach the age of 18 and takes off rapidly from there. It is best taught in a multi-faceted way. For instance, some students (and adults) acquire critical thinking skills in certain sciences but be oblivious to critical thinking in literature or politics. At the everyday practical level, getting students to think critically is hard work. But it can be done. There are moments when I teach my freshmen and am continually surprised how hard they find the basics of thinking, how little effort they are initially willing to put into writing, into researching, for that matter, into reading. And yet, miracles do happen. Education does actually take place. By the end of the semester, they are at a whole new level. And when they come up to you at graduation, then they _get_ it. Even more, years later, after graduation.
> 
> As for the focus of this thread, I have said repeatedly on such threads as this one: the power of education should never be underestimated. I must say that I'm more discouraged by negatives expressed on threads around here -- the throwing-up of hands, the handwringing, the saying 'it's impossible.' Yes, there are all sorts of counter-forces in the culture that are unhelpful. Anyone who teaches knows precisely how formidable those counter-forces are. But education does actually work -- if we give it a chance. The arts can be taught. Music can be taught. Students are, for the most part, genuinely curious. Every able teacher I know knows how to bring alive the domain of the intellectual life which they specialize in--whether it be scientific, literary, artistic, historical, philosophical, political, legal, medical, whatever. And all of us also appreciate that we don't just teach our discipline and we don't just teach when we are in the classroom.
> 
> ...


Of course a lot of people don't go to college. IMHO, there is a place for critical thinking, most importantly there is a place for it in high school. But what I really meant was general critical thinking, the idea of self discipline and discernment in any context, basic rules of logic. I can see all of these academic applications that you're talking about but in my opinion it is just as important if not more important that people learn general life applications of logic. There is a world of difference between just being smart and actually having your thoughts ordered.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Chordalrock said:


> P.S. Someone mentioned the importance of childhood culture. I think music is unique in that you can affect people's taste a lot by making them listen to certain kinds of music in early childhood. You can't make kids read Kafka and expect them to become more sophisticated readers, but if you make children listen to classical music from birth to 5 years or old or so, I think most of them would develop a lot more sophisticated taste than they would otherwise.


I think that has something to do with this:



hpowders said:


> For me classical music brings out feelings and just plain awe that no other art form can.


One of the myths about classical music is that it should be appreciated on a purely intellectual level, that you always need to process it mentally, not only immediately _feel_ it. I think it is rather the other way around: classical music is the most immediately emotionally appealing form of art, you do not necessarily have to do any mental processing in order to be awe-struck with its beauty.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

^^^And I don't know why something so obvious needs to be explained to anybody. If they can't feel it, it's simply not my problem. I don't have to justify my love to anybody nor attempt to explain the sensitive to the insensitive.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> One of the myths about classical music is that it should be appreciated on a purely intellectual level, that you always need to process it mentally, not only immediately _feel_ it. I think it is rather the other way around: classical music is the most immediately emotionally appealing form of art, you do not necessarily have to do any mental processing in order to be awe-struck with its beauty.


But the problem is that your mindset is worlds away from a lot of people out there who don't like classical music. Lots of guys think it's downright effeminate to listen to something "beautiful". It may be working on even a subconscious level but we really do have 18th and 19th century philosophy clashing with postmodernism here.


----------



## JACE (Jul 18, 2014)

Alypius said:


> Students don't discourage me, nor do the counter-forces in the culture. I do get discouraged when those with profound knowledge of the arts give up passing on what they know and what they love.


Yes!!!

Last summer, I'm at a neighborhood party. Everybody's outside in a neighbor's backyard. Kids are running around, hot dogs are on the grill. I'm talking with friends, standing around, cutting up. Turns out that the father of one of my neighbors is in town, and I discover that he's a former high school music teacher. So we begin talking music. He's a trumpeter, so we're happily talking away. Music, music, music. Time flies.

When the retired teacher leaves, I turn to my friends -- a few of whom really LOVE music, but only popular music (particularly rock). My neighbors say something like: "You guys were talking about that brainy stuff. That music is hard work."

They think jazz and classical are _dry_ and _intellectual_. They see them as music existing in some other, museum-like sphere, apart from everyday life.

So I tell them that jazz and classical are no different than any other form of music. Jazz and classical get a bad rap; they're misunderstood. You just have to stick your head in and LISTEN. There is no fundamental difference between Coltrane, Beethoven, and Jimi Hendrix. It is all music.

But they don't believe me.

I think there's a profound false perception that art music is like "eating your vegetables"; it's good for you if you like brainy pursuits or intellectual exercises. And I think this is the biggest barrier to bringing in more people who just might enjoy it.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> But the problem is that your mindset is worlds away from a lot of people out there who don't like classical music. Lots of guys think it's downright effeminate to listen to something "beautiful". It may be working on even a subconscious level but we really do have 18th and 19th century philosophy clashing with postmodernism here.


Who cares what anyone else thinks? I sacrificed my teenager social life for music. I wouldn't change anything if given the chance to go back. We all realize we are different from mainstream people.

I also love small dogs. If that makes me effeminate in their eyes, so be it.

As the songs say, *I'VE GOT TO BE ME!!* and *I"LL DO IT MY WAY!!*


----------



## TravisTouchdown (Aug 17, 2014)

I'm getting close to 35y old, and I've yet to find a life situation where arguing changes anything. 

Money will decline.
Opera houses will close.

The direction is pop music, and no argument is gonna change that. I can see pop songs increasingly arranged with classical instruments as an attempt to catch up with failing audiences. 

Opera will only survive in miniscule size as a curiosity for those who enjoy clicheed, pretty irrelevant storylines. Musical theatre will take over more and more. Opera is less "Trouble in Tahiti" and more "Die Zauberflöte" People attend to see "good oldies." There is no market for new opera, as there is no interest in that style of singing or type of music. Not catchy enuff. Tiresome with no verse-bridge-chorus structure. 

Opera is for those in love of highly professional karaoke singers doing infinite reruns.


----------



## TravisTouchdown (Aug 17, 2014)

Cheyenne said:


> I'ts only prejudice -- I know this: they simply don't even take the time to listen. It's never an informed decision of distaste.
> 
> But what's there to do?


I think you are partly wrong.

How long do you need to realize you don't like e.g dubstep? How many minutes would you need to listen to a synth wobble before deciding whether it sounds horrible or great?

We humans will always have an information deficit. It is impossible to read every book before deciding whether it is worth reading in the first place. We need some heuristic.

I've heard classical music in school, I've heard classical music on youtube, I've bought classical music, I've had classical as well as pop records available since I was a little brat. I don't buy into that "uninformed" crap. I inform myself of whatever I like. Why have I always enjoyed pop music more than classical music when it doesn't come down to availability?

I think the McDonald's analogy is good and logical. McDonalds uses a lot of sugar and salt in conjunction. We can't get enough of sugar and salt, and it takes a spark to get an interest in making food yourself and enjoying good cooking to discover finer nuances.

Pop music just sounds so great, production is great, instruments are exciting, the whole package, so finer things like messa di voce, timbre, etc gets lost (also due to using microphones), and people judge a good singer by the money note. It doesn't take huge skills in a specific instrument to create a pop song. The it-factor stems from something else. Huge skill doesn't necessarily create a great song, but listening to a lot of great songs can serve as inspiration to listen more closely for huge skill.

Unfortunately, the transition between more mundane, formulaic pop songs and top-notch classical music is huge, because there is so little blend. If there was more use of head voice like in sia- chandelier or more use of opera style overdrive singing - people would search for more of that specifically.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

It seems to me that love of any art form is an elective affinity. The individual makes the decision that the investment of time and effort and even money are amply recouped through the pleasure they afford. Few people strike me as truly passionate about any art form. A great majority follow what their peers and the mass-media promote and never outgrow this. At 50 they are still drinking Budweiser and listening almost exclusively to "classic rock"... Journey, Led Zeppelin, etc... the same stuff they followed as teenagers. A music teacher I worked with suggested that his goal wasn't to make his students love classical music or jazz. Rather, his aim was to motivate the students into exploring the various alternatives to the latest hits which their peers and the media hoist upon them. It didn't matter to him whether they explored and fell in love with the blues, bluegrass, jazz, classical or rock... only that they recognized a world beyond that which others imposed upon them. Once the desire for knowledge and the experience of art beyond what one has inherited has been awakened, there is no telling where it may lead. 

I grew up listening to country and pop. I began to explore what existed in pop/rock beyond what the Top-40 and my peers were following. This led me to many older groups... eventually to jazz & classical... but also to the blues, bluegrass, folk, as well as the music of other non-Western traditions.

Personally I feel classical music... like any other artistic form... will remain relevant as long as there are those artists and those in the audience who passionately believe it to be so.


----------



## Mesenkomaha (Jun 24, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> Most people just aren't very interested in music, the same as they're not very interested in literature. How often do you hear of someone who has actually read a novel by Dickens unless it was forced on them at school?
> 
> Maybe in America it's different


No, in America it is far worse.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Whatever is taught, where ever it may be taught, the word _*relevant*_ as deployed in trying to educate people about classical music -- or any of the fine arts -- has been anathema to me since it first started to be a popular buzzword for this kind of thing, ca. the 1960's.

_Relevent_ almost always implies something will be horridly off the mark and horribly condescending in the then decided upon approach to educate, for example a lauded 'imaginative' approach to getting kids into classical by having them write an essay on "what Beethoven's Facebook Page would say," or other such complete turn-off irrelevancies 

With all the hue and cry about classical dying (there are real financial problems in many of the world's orchestras and opera houses) I have yet to see or hear anything about that statistical number of 3% of the population who listen to classical music changing its number, i.e. in reality, we are now in an age of 'leave no child (one) behind,' and that includes, I guess, all of a sudden being concerned about getting _the other 97% of the world population_ on the classical music / fine arts bandwagon.

Me, I can not see more than 3% of the world population, educated or not, first to third world, etc. being any more prone to dive into the fine arts than they ever have been.

Trying to flog fine art, no matter how well thought out the teaching / propaganda plans, is like trying to sell someone who has no experience of a classical education on the value of a classical education, i.e. that has very real and high value, but it is a composite of intangibles, with only abstracts to put in the brochure.... Those without the classical education just can not see what those values are -- after all, an education is so you get trained in a vocation so you can step out of school and into a good-salaried job, so what would you want a classical education for? It is nearly the same trying to convince people not into fine art that fine art has immeasurable value.

Currently, with so many free or low-cost venues where so much classical, from early medieval to the latest contemporary work, is readily available to so many, at their leisure, and in the privacy of their own space, at the time of their choosing, I think that more people than ever before are listening to a bit, or more, of classical. It has become very difficult to avoid not falling into, or not opening the door, for those who are curious. This is the opposite of the naysayer / doomsayer sets.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I suppose its difficult for classical music to shake off its elitist aura, since it did, of course, begin as an elitist pasttime of the clergy and nobility many centuries ago. It's been democratized, like out societies, and nowadays, most orchestras, at least in Europe, are People's Orchestras, so to speak, because they're publically funded.

But music has diversified so much. Classical music's just one of many, and one with a rather small audience. God knows if it can survive as its own kind. Sometimes, it doesn't seem very likely to me.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Andreas said:


> I suppose its difficult for classical music to shake off its elitist aura, since it did, of course, begin as an elitist pasttime of the clergy and nobility many centuries ago. It's been democratized, like out societies, and nowadays, most orchestras, at least in Europe, are People's Orchestras, so to speak, because they're publically funded.
> 
> But music has diversified so much. Classical music's just one of many, and one with a rather small audience. God knows if it can survive as its own kind. Sometimes, it doesn't seem very likely to me.


Woah, that was your 666th post.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> Woah, that was your 666th post.


Good heavens!


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Is classical music still relevant?

Was classical music _ever_ relevant?

I'm sure if there was a TC forum in 13th-century France they'd be bemoaning the fact that 97 percent of the population just doesn't seem at all interested in organum.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Andreas said:


> But music has diversified so much. Classical music's just one of many, and one with a rather small audience. God knows if it can survive as its own kind. Sometimes, it doesn't seem very likely to me.


I think a time may come soon when we may have to defend our culture and our way of life, including music, with the force of arms, not with words, if we want to assure that it survives into the next century. And there are not many people willing to do that.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think a time may come soon when we may have to defend our culture and our way of life, including music, with the force of arms, not with words, if we want to assure that it survives into the next century. And there are not many people willing to do that.


Something something something... dark side... something something something... complete...


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think a time may come soon when we may have to defend our culture and our way of life, including music, with the force of arms, not with words, if we want to assure that it survives into the next century. And there are not many people willing to do that.


Culture and the force of arms? I suppose they can live side by side, but they can't go hand in hand.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Andreas said:


> Culture and the force of arms? I suppose they can live side by side, but they can't go hand in hand.


That is a typical idealistic European attitude, and it would be very good if everyone in the world thought like this. Not all people do though, in fact most of the world believe just the other way.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> Whoa, that was your 666th post.


Well... "Whoa!" Those of us with neolithic nomadic desert tribal superstitions intact can now breathe easy until his 999th post, then.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think a time may come soon when we may have to defend our culture and our way of life, including music, with the force of arms, not with words, if we want to assure that it survives into the next century. And there are not many people willing to do that.


When our rulers take away our freedoms, the last thing they're going to take is entertainment.

Bread and circuses.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

So long as our so-called western societies exist, there will always be plenty of demand for classical music, both old and new. Even though its a niche genre, there is a lot of money involved in it. Also, the aura and myth that surrounds the Old Masters will always produce new, ambitious artists. In that way, classical music has managed to create its own sustaining power, its own life support system. The plays of Sophocles, Shakespeare, Ibsen and Beckett guarantee that there will always be theatre. Same with music.
As to whether its relevant, hardly any art really is, in a way. Entertainment is indispensible for societies. Yet art that does not quite so easily fall into this category is a kind of sideshow many people can do without. However, much of the entertainment art forms are informed and influenced by less popular works of art, so that traces of it do have wide reach and relevance.
I know people who have never been to an art gallery or a museum, have never read a book, never listened to classical music, never seen a play. They get by just well, since they usually have more important things to do and worry about than art (raising kids, etc.).


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Andreas said:


> I know people who have never been to an art gallery or a museum, have never read a book, never listened to classical music, never seen a play.


Aha - I get a bit interested in this. People who have done none of those things (and some who have), can now still be conscientious consumer of the arts and really care and love what they consume at a spiritually and intellectually satisfying level because pop music (or non-classical if you like), grapic novels/comic books, "design" art and other non-fine art, video games, film, tv and other forms of art previously considered low are now "high culture" and have the same sort of cachet that classical music used to (still does? dunno) along with the virtue of being current and widely shared with peers.

There's no more high ground for classical so stop going on about it. It's just music (or a night out, for that matter). But one thing's for sure, and this is my second bugbear, there's no "it's either Britney Spears or Mozart" - that is bunk. There'll always be some people who'll care about what music/art they consume and others who don't. Now you can listen to alt-country or Nigerian funksoul or smmooooovvvve jazzzz or the latest world/house mash-up from your district and you're being a mature, classy listener - back in the day you'd just go to the symphony or opera from your 34th birthday onwards and grit your teeth and network and listen to Verdi and Beethoven until you started to enjoy it. Different times now

So is classical music relevant? Yes, to what might be a growing classical community - but it's gonna need careful tending and some leadership and not just doubling down on what people from times past used to like. Get some fun and some NOW into the concert hall FFS

Rant over


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Andreas said:


> they usually have more important things to do and worry about than art (raising kids, etc.).


There is little that is more important than appreciating beauty ... *especially* in a busy life


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

hpowders said:


> ^^^And I don't know why something so obvious needs to be explained to anybody. If they can't feel it, it's simply not my problem. I don't have to justify my love to anybody nor attempt to explain the sensitive to the insensitive.


its a pity there isn't a "Has hit the nail on the head" button as well as a 'like' one :tiphat:


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Lukecash12 said:


> But the problem is that your mindset is worlds away from a lot of people out there who don't like classical music. Lots of guys think it's downright effeminate to listen to something "beautiful".


What an awful place you must live in if you are correct (or you mix with the wrong people)! What hope for poetry ... or sculpture ... or painting ... or the beauty of the stars ... or the smile of small children ... or ..... Oh heck, just look for beauty wherever you see it


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Headphone Hermit said:


> What an awful place you must live in if you are correct (or you mix with the wrong people)! What hope for poetry ... or sculpture ... or painting ... or the beauty of the stars ... or the smile of small children ... or ..... Oh heck, just look for beauty wherever you see it
> 
> View attachment 49287


Welcome to the ghetto bruh, there are gunshots every week where I live.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> But the problem is that your mindset is worlds away from a lot of people out there who don't like classical music. Lots of guys think it's downright effeminate to listen to something "beautiful". It may be working on even a subconscious level but we really do have 18th and 19th century philosophy clashing with postmodernism here.


Lots of the same guys appreciate beauty in other things: women for example, or the great outdoors. There is plenty of music written with these things in mind. There is also classical music that is nowhere near "effeminate". The Wagnerian epos is the first thing that comes to mind (does not listening to Siegfried's funeral music make you want to do something highly crazy, heroic and dangerous? I am a woman, and it does have precisely that effect on me) but there are others as well. I don't think there is a man in the world that does not seek beauty in some form, only some are deprived of it in their lives, and some have been taught by the modern culture to deny it or call it by a different name.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Lots of the same guys appreciate beauty in other things: women for example, or the great outdoors. There is plenty of music written with these things in mind. There is also classical music that is nowhere near "effeminate". The Wagnerian epos is the first thing that comes to mind (does not listening to Siegfried's funeral music make you want to do something highly crazy, heroic and dangerous? I am a woman, and it does have precisely that effect on me) but there are others as well. I don't think there is a man in the world that does not seek beauty in some form, only some are deprived of it in their lives, and some have been taught by the modern culture to deny it or call it by a different name.


Where I live, classical music and "high art" in general is considered effeminate. But yeah, they think some stuff is pretty "dope" or "swag" though.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

To be honest I'm more concerned about CM fans who hate atonality and see no value in it. It makes the audience for contemporary CM even smaller.

As for CM itself, I reckon it actually gets more valuable and more precious as time progresses, because it is neglected by many, and there is so much crap that pales in comparison. As long as it is beautiful there will always be people to recognise that beauty and preserve it. Its not like there are gangs going around burning scores and killing classical musicians. The fact that people are concerned that it will lose relevance shows only that they either have little faith in the human race or they have little faith in the power of beautiful music itself.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Jobis said:


> burning scores


Well, there was a Boulez-burning in Texas a few years ago. A guy used the internet to solicit as many Boulez CDs, scores, and books as could be donated, and burned them all. For some reason, Boulez didn't seem to care much.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, there was a Boulez-burning in Texas a few years ago. A guy used the internet to solicit as many Boulez CDs, scores, and books as could be donated, and burned them all. For some reason, Boulez didn't seem to care much.


Do you have a link to a story about it? That's just hilarious. (Or am I missing some kind of joke?)


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Cheyenne said:


> Do you have a link to a story about it? That's just hilarious. (Or am I missing some kind of joke?)


http://ronsen.org/boulez/

No reaction from Boulez, of course, though I'm sure if he was told about it he would find it kind of amusing.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> http://ronsen.org/boulez/
> 
> No reaction from Boulez, of course, though I'm sure if he was told about it he would find it kind of amusing.


You never said it was a musical performance. That's even quirkier.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> You never said it was a musical performance. That's even quirkier.


Kind of a Cagean happening event. Pictures are available on the site!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> http://ronsen.org/boulez/
> 
> Mahlerian: No reaction from Boulez, of course, though I'm sure if he was told about it he would find it kind of amusing.


From the aforementioned article:



> In 1971, composer and conductor Pierre Boulez declared
> 
> "all art of the past must be destroyed."
> 
> The destruction of over 100 Pierre Boulez LPs, CDs, tapes and books occurred on Feburary 28, 2005 at the Church of the Friendly Ghost in Austin, Texas. The material was not simply destroyed, but used in a diverse array of creative methods of sound production by Rick Reed (turntable, electronics), Brent Fariss (turntable, electronics), Alex Keller (CD players, electronics, torch), Nick Hennies (recitation, snare drum) and Josh Ronsen (turntable, electronics, microwave oven, garden shears, mastered hammer, lighter, electric drill, movement). The result was a unique art event the world will never experience again. That night, the past was destroyed, the future ignored and the present focused upon amongst friends ready to embrace the world.


So it wasn't destruction after all.

It was "performance art". . . . . . . that, or the bottom of a liquor bottle.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> Well, there was a Boulez-burning in Texas a few years ago. A guy used the internet to solicit as many Boulez CDs, scores, and books as could be donated, and burned them all. For some reason, Boulez didn't seem to care much.


When I hear something like this, or similar skirt-clutching about contemporary music, I wonder if these people would like to listen to some Xenakis or Lachenmann or something way yuckier than pretty and slick Boulez ;-)

Edit: I see it was a funtime event. Above comment still stands


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Marschallin Blair said:


> From the aforementioned article:
> 
> So it wasn't destruction after all.
> 
> It was "performance art". . . . . . . that, or the bottom of a liquor bottle.


Same difference for some. Makes me wonder: just how many composers were alcoholics?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I'm sure if there was a TC forum in 13th-century France they'd be bemoaning the fact that 97 percent of the population just doesn't seem at all interested in organum.

In what way would the opinions of that 97% have been "relevant" at all?

Is the relevancy of Art really to be measured in terms of numbers? The Twilight novels and movies sold by the millions, thus they are relevant to our culture... and the future?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I'm sure if there was a TC forum in 13th-century France they'd be bemoaning the fact that 97 percent of the population just doesn't seem at all interested in organum.
> 
> In what way would the opinions of that 97% have been "relevant" at all?
> 
> Is the relevancy of Art really to be measured in terms of numbers? The Twilight novels and movies sold by the millions, thus they are relevant to our culture... and the future?


The opinions of that 97% are relevant because they make up 97%. Other people exist. Popular opinion often prevails. After all, we knew the earth wasn't flat over a thousand years before that was common knowledge.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

To be honest I'm more concerned about CM fans who hate atonality and see no value in it. It makes the audience for contemporary CM even smaller.

One could argue just the reverse and suggest that atonality has resulted in a smaller audience for Classical Music. One might suggest the same in the real of the visual arts arguing that abstraction was a death knell in the popularity of Modern/Contemporary Art.

The reality is that Classical Music fans owe nothing to atonality or any other ism. The arts continually evolve and many new art movements have been born of a rejection or dismissal of the work of the artists' predecessors.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The opinions of that 97% are relevant because they make up 97%. Other people exist. Popular opinion often prevails. After all, we knew the earth wasn't flat over a thousand years before that was common knowledge.

That is surely a rather naive thought... whether applied to the arts or politics. Value or relevance in the arts has absolutely nothing to do with popularity.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> The opinions of that 97% are relevant because they make up 97%. Other people exist. Popular opinion often prevails. After all, we knew the earth wasn't flat over a thousand years before that was common knowledge.
> 
> That is surely a rather naive thought... whether applied to the arts or politics. Value or relevance in the arts has absolutely nothing to do with popularity.


Value and relevance aren't something to be conflated here, though, are they? Our opinions only affect a limited group of people.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> One could argue just the reverse and suggest that atonality has resulted in a smaller audience for Classical Music. One might suggest the same in the real of the visual arts arguing that abstraction was a death knell in the popularity of Modern/Contemporary Art.


The fact that this has been argued is no proof of validity. The fact that it continues to be argued by way of repeated assertion in the face of any evidence to the contrary makes it into an absurdity.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> After all, we knew the earth wasn't flat over a thousand years before that was common knowledge.


A very long time ago, indeed! Eratosthenes, 3rd century BC, was "the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by applying a measuring system using stades, or the length of stadia during that time period. His calculation was remarkably accurate." Within about 10%, I seem to remember. Quite a clever fellow.


----------



## Jobis (Jun 13, 2013)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> To be honest I'm more concerned about CM fans who hate atonality and see no value in it. It makes the audience for contemporary CM even smaller.
> 
> One could argue just the reverse and suggest that atonality has resulted in a smaller audience for Classical Music. One might suggest the same in the real of the visual arts arguing that abstraction was a death knell in the popularity of Modern/Contemporary Art.
> 
> The reality is that Classical Music fans owe nothing to atonality or any other ism. The arts continually evolve and many new art movements have been born of a rejection or dismissal of the work of the artists' predecessors.


You're not obliged to like it, but it concerns me that many people don't. I wish everyone appreciated it the way I do, and understood that the two umbrella groups of 'atonal' and 'tonal' music fans do not have totally incompatible views. (How many fans of atonal music do you see deriding and scorning tonal CM, as opposed to the other way around?).

As for the idea of dismissal; on the contrary! Has love for music of the past ever been so great as it is now? Beethoven didn't idolise J S Bach the way many modernists do, nor did Wagner feel strongly indebted to Monteverdi, though i'm sure a lot of contemporary composers do. How else would you explain the phenomenon of neo-classicism if modernism (or post-modernism or whatever you want to call it) didn't rejoice in music history, far from rejecting it.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> The fact that this has been argued is no proof of validity. The fact that it continues to be argued by way of repeated assertion in the face of any evidence to the contrary makes it into an absurdity.


Well, let me assert it once more. It seems very apparent that atonal music enjoys VERY limited listenership, at least among fans of orchestral music. People will trot out one or two works (like Berg's Violin Concerto) to prove the contrary, but even those are rare at concerts and even rarer on classical radio, where the programming really defines the heart of the listenership.

The fact is, most listeners prefer tonal music, and OLD tonal music at that. You'll hear Bartok and Shostakovich occasionally, but they wrote little atonal music.

Music is like any other evolutionary tree. It has many branches; some wither and die, others flourish are replace them. Our branch, so far as competing for resources in its environment, isn't doing much flourishing lately. I'm sure it will be around for a long time, but it may seldom show new leaves.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

KenOC said:


> Well, let me assert it once more. It seems very apparent that atonal music enjoys VERY limited listenership, at least among fans of orchestral music. People will trot out one or two works (like Berg's Violin Concerto) to prove the contrary, but even those are rare at concerts and even rarer on classical radio, where the programming really defines the heart of the listenership.
> 
> The fact is, most listeners prefer tonal music, and OLD tonal music at that. You'll hear Bartok and Shostakovich occasionally, but they wrote little atonal music.
> 
> Music is like any other evolutionary tree. It has many branches; some wither and die, others flourish are replace them. Our branch, so far as competing for resources in its environment, isn't doing much flourishing lately. I'm sure it will be around for a long time, but it may seldom show new leaves.


The vast majority of new classical music enjoys limited listenership, whether or not it has been maligned with the absurd and meaningless term atonal. When listeners who are not yet prejudiced against it are presented with "atonal" music in a context they understand, they can take to it as readily as any other kind.






The fact is that aside from Shostakovich, Britten, and Bartok, the majority of classical music post-1930 or so is a relative rarity in concert halls, no matter how accessible or immediately attractive. But it doesn't have to be that way. Audiences should not be condescended to and given only the warhorses, year in, year out.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

have you considered the link between popularity and the possibility that the music is just not any good ?


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It should also be up for consideration that most listeners just aren't that smart... If it's not already evident by the current mainstream.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> ...The fact is that aside from Shostakovich, Britten, and Bartok, the majority of classical music post-1930 or so is a relative rarity in concert halls, no matter how accessible or immediately attractive. But it doesn't have to be that way. Audiences should not be condescended to and given only the warhorses, year in, year out.


Of course, I was speaking of the way things *are*, not of how you or I might wish they were. You lay the situation to the fault of audiences, seemingly, but that's not really relevant.

If audiences are given the warhorses, year in and year out, I'd assume that's what they want. You would not?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

The fact that this has been argued is no proof of validity. The fact that it continues to be argued by way of repeated assertion in the face of any evidence to the contrary makes it into an absurdity.

How is it an absurdity? Do you truly believe that the extremes of Modernism... including atonality... contributed nothing to the disinterest that many feel toward Modern/Contemporary Classical Music? You know as well as anyone that there are more than a few talented musicians and composers who reject atonality... or accept it, but feel the need to head in alternative directions.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> It should also be up for consideration that most listeners just aren't that smart... If it's not already evident by the current mainstream.


I could argue that
but notice I'm not


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

echo said:


> I could argue that
> but notice I'm not


Good thing you pointed that out.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Mahlerian said:


> The vast majority of new classical music enjoys limited listenership, whether or not it has been maligned with the absurd and meaningless term atonal. When listeners who are not yet prejudiced against it are presented with "atonal" music in a context they understand, they can take to it as readily as any other kind.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yay! And let me add that the warhorses aren't exactly working to bring people to the concert hall or opera house and they certainly reinforce stuffy stereotypes about classical music being a museum piece that doesn't matter. It might be nice for some fans to always get what you expect - but remember that those expectations of getting "classical music that sounds like classical music" are also keeping people away in droves.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

fact is going to see Bach is not an edgy experience -- the music is -- but the scene is full of old people -- and everyone young knows 99% of old people have nothing to offer the world except politics


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

You're not obliged to like it, but it concerns me that many people don't. I wish everyone appreciated it way I do

Personally, I like some and dislike some. I also love medieval music and opera. Should it concern me that more classical music fans fail to see the merits of these forms? I suppose I wish more did share my admiration but I'm not certain what I can do about it and whether I should be concerned.

How many fans of atonal music do you see deriding and scorning tonal CM, as opposed to the other way around?

Quite honestly I have stumbled upon more that a few who take an attitude of superiority toward anyone disliking atonal music... or modern/contemporary avant garde music in general. I don't think we can make a fair analogy by pointing out that a majority of those who embrace atonality and the avant garde also love the great tonal music of the past. I suspect that a good many of those who dislike atonality or the extremes of the avant garde still find a good deal of modern/contemporary music they like. They merely differ as to which music they admire.

As for the idea of dismissal; on the contrary! Has love for music of the past ever been so great as it is now? Beethoven didn't idolise J S Bach the way many modernists do, nor did Wagner feel strongly indebted to Monteverdi, though i'm sure a lot of contemporary composers do. How else would you explain the phenomenon of neo-classicism if modernism (or post-modernism or whatever you want to call it) didn't rejoice in music history, far from rejecting it.

I was suggesting that there will always be those artists and those movements in the arts that reject the achievements of their recent predecessors and head off in a different direction. Within my own field of painting we might look at the Neo-Classical movement and its rejection of the Rococo. More recently we might look at Pop Art... which largely rejected the work of the Abstract Expressionism.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

echo said:


> fact is going to see Bach is not an edgy experience -- the music is -- but the scene is full of old people -- and everyone young knows 99% of old people have nothing to offer the world except politics


Well, you see... the fact that one is so admittedly concerned about an 'edgy scene' and image is a little proof that this one isn't too swift. But good thing we flood millions upon millions to artists like Ke$ha and Gaga. Brilliant!


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> A very long time ago, indeed! Eratosthenes, 3rd century BC, was "the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth, which he did by applying a measuring system using stades, or the length of stadia during that time period. His calculation was remarkably accurate." Within about 10%, I seem to remember. Quite a clever fellow.


It was closer so far as I can remember, supposedly less than a thousand miles off because he thought the earth was a perfect sphere. He's credited as one of the fathers of modern calculus.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Well, you see... the fact that one is so admittedly concerned about an 'edgy scene' and image is a little proof that this one isn't too swift. But good thing we flood millions upon millions to artists like Ke$ha and Gaga. Brilliant!


What I mean't by edgy, is the label of art is not debated in the classical scene by the audience the way it is in pop


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Well, let me assert it once more. It seems very apparent that atonal music enjoys VERY limited listenership, at least among fans of orchestral music. People will trot out one or two works (like Berg's Violin Concerto) to prove the contrary, but even those are rare at concerts and even rarer on classical radio, where the programming really defines the heart of the listenership.
> 
> The fact is, most listeners prefer tonal music, and OLD tonal music at that. You'll hear Bartok and Shostakovich occasionally, but they wrote little atonal music.
> 
> Music is like any other evolutionary tree. It has many branches; some wither and die, others flourish are replace them. Our branch, so far as competing for resources in its environment, isn't doing much flourishing lately. I'm sure it will be around for a long time, but it may seldom show new leaves.


We are an odd bunch at TC then, aren't we? There are a lot of people here who listen names like Cage, Cowell, Messaien, Xenakis, and Ligeti all the time.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Theu vast majority of new classical music enjoys limited listenership, whether or not it has been maligned with the absurd and meaningless term atonal. When listeners who are not yet prejudiced against it are presented with "atonal" music in a context they understand, they can take to it as readily as any other kind.

That strikes me as wishful thinking. I have brought Berg's Lyric Suite and Violin Concerto into my art studio for others... studio mates/artist friends to hear. Inevitability, after some ten minutes or so I get a slew of negative comments and jokes.

In many ways opera and classical vocal music in general... as well as older music... medieval and Renaissance are just as "challenging"... perhaps more so... but I have never gotten the same level of dislike.

Now certainly my experiences may not be taken as a universal proof... but I have honestly come across few... outside of those who passionately love classical music as a whole... who have embraced atonality as you suggest.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

echo said:


> What I mean't by edgy, is the label of art is not debated in the classical scene by the audience the way it is in pop


And that's very much due to the collective intelligence of said scenes.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Vesuvius said:


> And that's very much due to the collective intelligence of said scenes.


Meh, more to do with interests. I have a friend who memorizes serial numbers of planes and their components, but he only listens to pop music. Go figure.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> We are an odd bunch at TC then, aren't we? There are a lot of people here who listen names like Cage, Cowell, Messaien, Xenakis, and Ligeti all the time.


Yes, we are an odd bunch. Which is kind of the point.

BTW, Wiki has some interesting information on the error in Eratosthenes's estimate.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Lukecash12 said:


> Meh, more to do with interests. I have a friend who memorizes serial numbers of planes and their components, but he only listens to pop music. Go figure.


You know, it is possible to be smart in one aspect and silly in another....

Post type: And having a good memory isn't the sum-total of one's intelligence.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

KenOC said:


> Yes, we are an odd bunch. Which is kind of the point.
> 
> BTW, Wiki has some apparently good information on the error in Eratosthenes's estimate.


66 km off, that's pretty damned close.

Come to think of it, even amongst most other WCM appreciators I know personally there aren't many of them like those you find at TC. You don't really find an atmosphere like this elsewhere on the net either, people with such broad tastes in the WCM tradition.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> And that's very much due to the collective intelligence of said scenes.


it's about money -- bums on seats -- cash - don't bother failing to debate it - you are only a critic you are not in the same business


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Yay! And let me add that the warhorses aren't exactly working to bring people to the concert hall or opera house and they certainly reinforce stuffy stereotypes about classical music being a museum piece that doesn't matter. It might be nice for some fans to always get what you expect - but remember that those expectations of getting "classical music that sounds like classical music" are also keeping people away in droves.

Again, this sounds like wishful thinking. One doesn't find that an orchestra found their season poorly attended because they chose to feature unpopular composers such as Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and. Strauss.

As for the analogy to museums... I quite like museums myself. Rembrandt, Titian, Vermeer, Degas, Matisse... honestly I'd much rather see their paintings than anything by Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, or Joseph Beuys.

Perhaps both the museums and the orchestras aren't the best venues for the art and music of here and now.

Perhaps "Contemporary Classical" music IS lacking in relevance. I don't fully believe that... but I honestly do listen a lot more to other musical genre when choosing music of the last 50 years or so.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

echo said:


> it's about money -- bums on seats -- cash - don't bother failing to debate it - you are only a critic you are not in the same business


Whew, glad you pointed that out. I was beginning to think I had my own ideas or something.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Re warhorses: Some years ago, when I lived in Seattle, the symphony was experiencing one of its periodic cash crunches. Its response was to program a series of all-Beethoven concerts, all the symphonies plus some overtures. The hall was packed and they recovered financially somewhat.

Some may argue that a series of all-Schoenberg concerts would have served just as well, but whatever I was drinking would certainly come out my nose.


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> Whew, glad you pointed that out. I was beginning to think I had my own ideas or something.


well, put your own ideas on the table, please


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

echo said:


> well, put your own ideas on the table, please


I was certain that's exactly what I was doing. Hell, I've been mistaken again.... Good thing you're around, e!


----------



## echo (Aug 15, 2014)

Vesuvius said:


> I was certain that's exactly what I was doing. Hell, I've been mistaken again.... Good thing you're around, e!


ok so now back on topic -- you said you had you had your own ideas -- maybe I'm going blind, I looked through the thread but I couldn't find any - can you please help


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> That strikes me as wishful thinking. I have brought Berg's Lyric Suite and Violin Concerto into my art studio for others... studio mates/artist friends to hear. Inevitability, after some ten minutes or so I get a slew of negative comments and jokes.


But that's the thing. You aren't giving it any context, and you're comparing with listeners (however passive) who already have concrete expectations as to what is and isn't "right" in terms of Classical music. I do not believe that Berg is really any more difficult than Brahms, save for a culture that has made the idiom of the one familiar and the other alien.

You also continue to insist on "atonality". What is it?


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I've seen numerous articles similar to the thread title, "Why Classical Is Still Relevant" advocating on behalf of Classical Music, pleading to non-Classical listeners that it still matters and isn't just for certain kinds of people. My question is, does Classical need "saving" in the sense that its importance needs to be explained to people who only think of elitism and snobbery when they think of Classical? (there's a reason why Mozart of Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_ is used to portray snobby/elitist nobility or aristocrats in film and TV) I appreciate advocating Classical music but does 19th and 18th century philosophy need an advocate? Do I need to explain the importance of Immanuel Kant to you? Fine art is another example, do I need to explain the importance of Picasso, Thomas Hart Benton, Michelangelo or the poetry of Goethe and the prose of Dickens and Twain? For some puzzling reason, Classical music which is just as much of an art as literature or fine art, needs to saved and has a negative stigma of elitism.


I think music, art, literature are important and relevant. Of course there are other things in life too, as people have said there are competing things like the outdoors, sports, many other pursuits, interests and hobbies.

In terms of classical shedding its elite image, I don't think it will happen, but its similar how to certain sports are saddled with stereotypes that aren't helpful to their image (like football hooliganism, for example).

The way to deal with elitism is education. I think though that the basics have to be there for art and music appreciation to be possible. Our schools are increasingly turning out youth who are lucky to be able to read and write, let alone appreciate music and art. I am not advocating an education limited to the "three R's," and in any case there are links between the various disciplines. Its just that if we don't have fundamentals there, what hope is there to develop higher things (like critical thinking as people are discussing).

I agree with what Andreas says, that these days many people are struggling to make a basic living and support themselves and their families. The Western world is now plagued with issues like depression, diabetes, obesity and homelessness to an extent that wasn't the case before. As much as I care about art and culture, again we have to look at the fundamentals of society.

In terms of education to do specifically with music, we've got access to a plethora of materials for self education. I'm a great advocate of self directed lifelong learning. What composers and writers have said about music ties into this. I like Aaron Copland's writings on music, and one quote in particular is relevant to my argument: "When I speak of the gifted listener, I am thinking of the non-musician primarily, of the listener who intends to retain his amateur status."

That's how I see things, and it was the same with my parent's generation. They saw music as something engaging on many levels, and it doesn't depend on being an elite, its about where your interests lie. Listening to classical music isn't different from any other pastime, it has its challenges and can get increasingly involved and branch out in many directions, but the focus is that you're doing it for yourself. There are many reasons, but it all comes down to what you want to get out of it. I think that's the most important way in which that stuffy elite image can be shed - so many people get into classical in different ways. There are as many ways as there are different listeners, as evidenced by this forum.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> I think music, art, literature are important and relevant. Of course there are other things in life too, as people have said there are competing things like the outdoors, sports, many other pursuits, interests and hobbies.
> 
> In terms of classical shedding its elite image, I don't think it will happen, but its similar how to certain sports are saddled with stereotypes that aren't helpful to their image (like football hooliganism, for example).
> 
> ...


"The Western world is now plagued with issues like depression, diabetes, obesity and homelessness to an extent that wasn't the case before."

Hahahahahaha, really? Apparently your parents weren't around during the 30's and 40's, because if you take diabetes and obesity out of that sentence it sounds hilarious to people of my generation. I can remember my mother saying "air pudding" when I asked what there was to eat. And even during the Depression many people had a weathered old piano in their household. Western culture has just changed, that's all there is to it. There was a time when a man would stab another man for a can of beans, and who knows if either of them could read, _but if you sat either of them down to some Mozart they both would have said it was beautiful_.

You've been around for a while too, Sid. I think you're aware of this, that there were several generations where lots of people had classical instruments in the house. At my granddad's house we could smell cow **** outside by the barn while we played Lutheran hymns (mostly I remember playing "A Mighty Fortress is Our God") on his old Baldwin. No my friend, I don't think the economic situation has a whole lot to do with it. You can't tell me that when me, my dad, and my Papa all went hungry to have an education. We were literally hungry to learn.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I've always thought the idea of "relevance" in music is kind of... silly. Its like, this kind of music is relevant and this other kind isn't. Who says? What criteria do we decide this by? Who cares if some music is classified by stupid people as broadly "relevant", or "objectively relevant"? If a kind of music is relevant to you, that's all the importance in the world.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

BurningDesire said:


> I've always thought the idea of "relevance" in music is kind of... silly. Its like, this kind of music is relevant and this other kind isn't. Who says? What criteria do we decide this by? Who cares if some music is classified by stupid people as broadly "relevant", or "objectively relevant"? If a kind of music is relevant to you, that's all the importance in the world.


Yeah, what does relevance have to do with anything? Stlukes is all up in a tizzy because I'm pointing out how plainly irrelevant WCM has become. Well who cares? I love model T's too, heck I'm even part of a model T club, and they're plenty irrelevant. So are black and white tv's, old gas cans, vintage petrol pumps, old Victor bicycles, LP's of bluegrass, wooden cooking stoves and photographs from my granddad's farm in Oklahoma. They're all totally irrelevant to most people alive today and they mean the world to me.

This isn't the end of the world either folks. What if someday people just stop listening to this music? Well there are going to be all kinds of other things that are relevant for those people, wonderful, meaningful things. Things just change and that's okay.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Lukecash12 said:


> No my friend, I don't think the economic situation has a whole lot to do with it. You can't tell me that when me, my dad, and my Papa all went hungry to have an education. We were literally hungry to learn.


Well said, my friend. We are today, in general, far richer than we have ever been before. It's an odd quirk of the brain that fails to recognize this.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> The fact is that aside from Shostakovich, Britten, and Bartok, the majority of classical music post-1930 or so is a relative rarity in concert halls, no matter how accessible or immediately attractive. But it doesn't have to be that way. Audiences should not be condescended to and given only the warhorses, year in, year out.


That's becaude music's a sensual art form, isn't it. By that I mean, one get's a kick out of experiencing a work repeatedly. This applies to all art forms to some extent. But its much more limited in literature, for instance. Imagine publishers bringing out several editions of The Complete Hemingway every year, just with slightly different fonts, or layout, or with commentary, but with an otherwise unaltered text. People would shake their head and go, What's this all about? Yet in classical music, every year we see new Beethoven symphony cycles. To know a piece of music is adding to its appeal. Whereas with novels, often people read them once, then they go on the shelf. It's like, I've read that, I know that, why would I wanna read it again? Granted, many people re-read their novels. But not nearly as many times as others re-listen (see, the term already makes no sense) to the Beethoven symphonies. Obviously, reading a novel is more time-consuming that listening to a symphony. But as I said, since the listening gives a sensual pleasure, it allows for more repetitions of the familiar without fatigue, hence leaving less room for wholly new things.


----------



## Guest (Aug 22, 2014)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I've seen numerous articles similar to the thread title, "Why Classical Is Still Relevant" advocating on behalf of Classical Music, pleading to non-Classical listeners that it still matters and isn't just for certain kinds of people. My question is, does Classical need "saving" in the sense that its importance needs to be explained to people who only think of elitism and snobbery when they think of Classical? (there's a reason why Mozart of Vivaldi's _Four Seasons_ is used to portray snobby/elitist nobility or aristocrats in film and TV) I appreciate advocating Classical music but does 19th and 18th century philosophy need an advocate? Do I need to explain the importance of Immanuel Kant to you? Fine art is another example, do I need to explain the importance of Picasso, Thomas Hart Benton, Michelangelo or the poetry of Goethe and the prose of Dickens and Twain? For some puzzling reason, Classical music which is just as much of an art as literature or fine art, needs to saved and has a negative stigma of elitism.


I think it's a waste of time even to worry that some out there have negative views about classical, never mind embark on a crusade to persuade them that they're wrong.

But, since you offer some rhetorical examples (Dickens, Michelangelo) I'd say that they can no more expect universal acceptance or relevance than Beethoven or Cage. You and I might both fervently believe that humanity is greatly enriched by the best of art, and that art is actually essential to our soul and the survival of mankind. The case still has to be made: it can never be assumed. Picasso is not self-evidently important.

However, if there are fans who wish to explain and persuade, one unwise tactic is to abuse other listeners and other genres: it's hardly likely to win anyone over.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Sid James said:


> I agree with what Andreas says, that these days many people are struggling to make a basic living and support themselves and their families. The Western world is now plagued with issues like depression, diabetes, obesity and homelessness to an extent that wasn't the case before. As much as I care about art and culture, again we have to look at the fundamentals of society.


Actually, my point was rather that there are people who don't engange in any kind of cultural activity because they don't care for them and have other priorities. There are those who struggle just to get by, but there are also those who simply aren't interested. Maybe because their interest has never been sparked by anyone or anything. But maybe also because they just cannot be bothered and prefer to concern themselves with other things. They're perfectly fine with Top 40 radio, made-for-TV movies, and tabloids. I grew up in such a household and was myself just like that for the longest time. So I speak with no animosity, especially as such people are usually the loveliest people there are.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Lukecash12 said:


> "The Western world is now plagued with issues like depression, diabetes, obesity and homelessness to an extent that wasn't the case before."
> 
> Hahahahahaha, really? Apparently your parents weren't around during the 30's and 40's, because if you take diabetes and obesity out of that sentence it sounds hilarious to people of my generation. I can remember my mother saying "air pudding" when I asked what there was to eat. And even during the Depression many people had a weathered old piano in their household. Western culture has just changed, that's all there is to it. There was a time when a man would stab another man for a can of beans, and who knows if either of them could read, _but if you sat either of them down to some Mozart they both would have said it was beautiful_.
> 
> You've been around for a while too, Sid. I think you're aware of this, that there were several generations where lots of people had classical instruments in the house. At my granddad's house we could smell cow **** outside by the barn while we played Lutheran hymns (mostly I remember playing "A Mighty Fortress is Our God") on his old Baldwin. No my friend, I don't think the economic situation has a whole lot to do with it. You can't tell me that when me, my dad, and my Papa all went hungry to have an education. We were literally hungry to learn.


You've hit the nail on the head, my friend. The Western world is now more prosperous than ever, has more free time than ever and is plagued rather more with boredom and indifference than ever. You are talking about you dad and granddad, only two generations earlier, but what about people in the time of the great composers, what about even the great composers themselves? _They_ went hungry far more often that even the poorest of their modern fellow coutrymen and were still able to create works of awesome beauty and inspiration. It's not obesity or diabetes that is the problem - how can each one of those keep you from enjoying music? - it is rather the spiritual sickness.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> You've hit the nail on the head, my friend. The Western world is now more prosperous than ever, has more free time than ever and is plagued rather more with boredom and indifference than ever. You are talking about you dad and granddad, only two generations earlier, but what about people in the time of the great composers, what about even the great composers themselves? _They_ went hungry far more often that even the poorest of their modern fellow coutrymen and were still able to create works of awesome beauty and inspiration. It's not obesity or diabetes that is the problem - how can each one of those keep you from enjoying music? - it is rather the spiritual sickness.


I totally agree with you up to the last sentence. See post 97. Everything has to die eventually and that isn't so bad. You and I are becoming increasingly irrelevant and that's just the way of things. WCM has been out of vogue for a couple of generations now, and soon enough all of it will be no different than Renaissance music.

I wonder how many people here can admit that, let's be charitable and not think of this in terms of listening time, but do they give serious attention to pre-Baroque music, let alone Baroque music? These recent polls from Fuguemeister seem to indicate that even amongst groups like ours the collective attention span is apparently only so long.

This is only natural, even we (a group versed in quite a breadth of music and really an exceptionally well educated group even compared to most classical lovers we meet from day to day, a pat on the back there folks this site rocks) have decided that Romantic music is apparently much more relevant than anything from the Baroque back in the Western classical tradition. *Are we spiritually sick because some of us don't even recognize how rewarding it is to listen to Handel's Rinaldo, Almira, or Scipione operas?* Is there something wrong when people say that Baroque music sounds emotionally sterile? No, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I'd be surprised if the fundamental sickness of humanity is stronger now than it was in the past. After all, we've _almost_ stopped stuff like beheading, which used to be the nice way of executing someone. We no longer torture cats for entertainment. We've even stopped slavery, for the most part.

A totally different issue is whether people like the music (art, food, etc.) that we think they should like. Mostly, they don't. This really might mean that they just have bad taste. Let us enjoy our finer things.

And so it is inevitable that classical music will not shed its elitist image. We _are_ elitist. It's not just an image that someone is projecting on us. We even sometimes want to call our music "art music," a concept that doesn't seem to mean anything except elite.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Andreas said:


> Actually, my point was rather that there are people who don't engange in any kind of cultural activity because they don't care for them and have other priorities. There are those who struggle just to get by, but there are also those who simply aren't interested. Maybe because their interest has never been sparked by anyone or anything. But maybe also because they just cannot be bothered and prefer to concern themselves with other things. They're perfectly fine with Top 40 radio, made-for-TV movies, and tabloids. I grew up in such a household and was myself just like that for the longest time. So I speak with no animosity, especially as such people are usually the loveliest people there are.


Thanks for clarifying that. It was this part of your previous post below (esp. the words I put in bold) I took the meaning that people have other more pressing things on their mind than music, art, etc.



Andreas said:


> ...
> As to whether its relevant, hardly any art really is, in a way. Entertainment is indispensible for societies. Yet art that does not quite so easily fall into this category is a kind of sideshow many people can do without. However, much of the entertainment art forms are informed and influenced by less popular works of art, so that traces of it do have wide reach and relevance.
> I know people who have never been to an art gallery or a museum, have never read a book, never listened to classical music, never seen a play. They get by just well, since *they usually have more important things to do and worry about than art (raising kids, etc.).*


--------------------------------------



Lukecash12 said:


> "The Western world is now plagued with issues like depression, diabetes, obesity and homelessness to an extent that wasn't the case before."
> 
> Hahahahahaha, really? Apparently your parents weren't around during the 30's and 40's, because if you take diabetes and obesity out of that sentence it sounds hilarious to people of my generation. I can remember my mother saying "air pudding" when I asked what there was to eat. And even during the Depression many people had a weathered old piano in their household. Western culture has just changed, that's all there is to it. There was a time when a man would stab another man for a can of beans, and who knows if either of them could read, _but if you sat either of them down to some Mozart they both would have said it was beautiful_.
> 
> You've been around for a while too, Sid. I think you're aware of this, that there were several generations where lots of people had classical instruments in the house. At my granddad's house we could smell cow **** outside by the barn while we played Lutheran hymns (mostly I remember playing "A Mighty Fortress is Our God") on his old Baldwin. No my friend, I don't think the economic situation has a whole lot to do with it. You can't tell me that when me, my dad, and my Papa all went hungry to have an education. We were literally hungry to learn.


Each generation has its own challenges, and I can't deny that those hit by the Great Depression went through a very hard time. Of course then they had the war to deal with (and some had already lived through World War I). I remember having this debate years ago with a member of my family who said that I couldn't imagine those hardships. Well I can't. However the issue is that what we face now is issues like, as I said, depression which has lead to a very alarming suicide rate amongst our youth. It is undoubtedly linked to other issues, principally social and economic changes that have occured over the last few decades.

I do think, and have said this many times, that we can take a lesson or two from those generations who went through extreme hardship. One is to be thankful for what we've got. This is why you'll never find me fussing over things like not having the perfect sound system, or not being able to afford the Berlin Phil when they come to town, or not even worrying too much about getting the top recording of Beethoven's 5th or whatever. I certainly count my blessings, and the main point of my post was that I too have many other things on my mind than the relevance/future of classical music.

I must add that I think that you are being too direct in the way you addressed me. I hesitate to even answer you. But since I have, give me the courtesy to simply state my position on what is admittedly a very broad topic. We have discussed aspects of this topic many times on this forum - eg. the viability of everything from opera to making recordings of classical music, the massive salaries of conductors, the ageing audiences of classical and so on. So you know, give me some credit to just say what I think, you are free to take it or leave it.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> Each generation has its own challenges, and I can't deny that those hit by the Great Depression went through a very hard time. Of course then they had the war to deal with (and some had already lived through World War I). I remember having this debate years ago with a member of my family who said that I couldn't imagine those hardships. Well I can't. However the issue is that what we face now is issues like, as I said, depression which has lead to a very alarming suicide rate amongst our youth. It is undoubtedly linked to other issues, principally social and economic changes that have occured over the last few decades.
> 
> I do think, and have said this many times, that we can take a lesson or two from those generations who went through extreme hardship. One is to be thankful for what we've got. This is why you'll never find me fussing over things like not having the perfect sound system, or not being able to afford the Berlin Phil when they come to town, or not even worrying too much about getting the top recording of Beethoven's 5th or whatever. I certainly count my blessings, and the main point of my post was that I too have many other things on my mind than the relevance/future of classical music.
> 
> I must add that I think that you are being too direct in the way you addressed me. I hesitate to even answer you. But since I have, give me the courtesy to simply state my position on what is admittedly a very broad topic. We have discussed aspects of this topic many times on this forum - eg. the viability of everything from opera to making recordings of classical music, the massive salaries of conductors, the ageing audiences of classical and so on. So you know, give me some credit to just say what I think, you are free to take it or leave it.


Hey friend, I didn't mean to put you down or offend you. Nothing of the sort. I appreciate your opinion and hope it didn't appear as if I was making light of it there, you had a valid point.

It just didn't make much sense to me, this idea of "people have so much to worry about nowadays and that's why they aren't concerned with WCM". This didn't square for me with the reality we both know, that people had a whole lot to worry about back then and WCM seemed to be doing fine. What's so different between these two, right? People used to make a priority out of it, we all listened to Johnny Cash but many families still had a piano.

Of course I haven't any more right to invoke the great generation than you do, I probably don't know it any better than you and neither of us can say that we really understand it anyways. It's interesting that you mention economic and social changes at play because that's exactly what I was getting at. Cultures simply change and it isn't a bad thing. Everything has to do die eventually, *but that doesn't mean that the things we love won't make a rich compost*.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

To clarify, I'm not asking if Classical music is relevant, I understand that Classical shouldn't have an elitist image. I understand that even if 95 percent of the population thinks that Classical doesn't matter, it still does matter. I don't have to prove that to the people on this forum. Just like I don't have to prove that the other arts matter. We're all older than 10 years old here. Furthermore, I'm also not asking why more people don't listen to it. That's not my point.

People have also noted that a lot of people don't think literature is relevant because they don't read or aren't interested in reading. I don't think this is a true equivalency. Chordalrock said on the 1st page, "Most people just aren't very interested in music, the same as they're not very interested in literature. How often do you hear of someone who has actually read a novel by Dickens unless it was forced on them at school?". The difference is that I don't read as often as I should and even if I were to give up literature completely, I would still understand its importance and I always will. Like I said, I'm over 10 years of age. The same cannot be said for Classical, people don't listen to Classical yet so many people give you a funny look if you say you listen to it. It's perceived as "elitist" as I've stated. I tell people I'm reading X book, I often hear how they wish they had more time for reading, etc. I tell someone I'm reading Mark Twain, no problems. I tell someone I'm listening to Mozart, problems.

The Houston Musuem of Fine Arts is in no danger of "dying", even if the vast vast majority of people don't "do art" (see example above). I guess the reason I care is because I don't want the Classical "scene" to die in any way, I'm going to my very first live symphony performance at the Houston Symphony this upcoming November* and I don't want it to be among the last. Perhaps, it's going as strong as it ever has and is in no danger of cutting performances/pay/funding/etc. If so, then there's no problem. Something tells me that's not the case, though.

*P.s the performance is Beethoven 5th (Andrés Orozco-Estrada, conductor). I'm very excited!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

My partner loves to tell the story of how we met. It was through a personal ad that I wrote for a magazine. "Classical music lover looking for single woman to go to concerts with...." She tells this story over and over much to my embarrassment as I am usually standing right there and NOT ONCE, after an estimated 30-50 times of relating this story has one of those people said, "Wow! You like classical music? Me too!" She simply gets a polite smile or else they concentrate on how generally a personal ad can be used to meet people. NOTHING about the specific classical music angle.

I believe that with each succeeding generation our number will dwindle until one day only a handful of people will be considered fanatical about classical music as I am. Its irrelevancy grows by the day as fewer people are exposed to it. Truly sad.

What's the point of saying classical music will always be relevant if the number of active listeners one day dwindles to the point of only being able to listen to classical recordings in a museum? To me relevancy is irrelevant if nobody's doing it! Numbers count!!

If nobody is left to carry the torch, it has become irrelevant.


----------



## Alypius (Jan 23, 2013)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> The Houston Musuem of Fine Arts is in no danger of "dying", even if the vast vast majority of people don't "do art" (see example above). _I guess the reason I care is because I don't want the Classical "scene" to die in any way, I'm going to my very first live symphony performance at the Houston Symphony this upcoming November* and I don't want it to be among the last_. Perhaps, it's going as strong as it ever has and is in no danger of cutting performances/pay/funding/etc. If so, then there's no problem. Something tells me that's not the case, though.
> 
> *P.s the performance is Beethoven 5th (Andrés Orozco-Estrada, conductor). I'm very excited!


Dies, Nothing better than a live concert, and nothing better than one's first one! And add to that: Beethoven's 5th. That makes it (triply) good. (Is "triply" a word?) Speaking of the Houston MFA and art scene, be sure and see the De Menil Museum and the Rothko Chapel (which is on or near the University of St. Thomas campus). Sometimes art and music come together. Back in the early 70s I saw Ralph Kirkpatrick perform Bach's _Goldberg Variations_ on harpsichord at the Rothko Chapel. Before that concert, I thought of Rothko's work (and the other Abstract Expressionists' works) as artless paint-slinging. After hearing Bach in that chapel, it all changed. Bach came alive and so did Rothko's vast canvases. Enjoy!


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Alypius said:


> Dies, Nothing better than a live concert, and nothing better than one's first one! And add to that: Beethoven's 5th. That makes it (triply) good. (Is "triply" a word?) Speaking of the Houston MFA and art scene, be sure and see the De Menil Museum and the Rothko Chapel (which is on or near the University of St. Thomas campus). Sometimes art and music come together. Back in the early 70s I saw Ralph Kirkpatrick perform Bach's _Goldberg Variations_ on harpsichord at the Rothko Chapel. Before that concert, I thought of Rothko's work (and the other Abstract Expressionists' works) as artless paint-slinging. After hearing Bach in that chapel, it all changed. Bach came alive and so did Rothko's vast canvases. Enjoy!


Yes, I'm extremely excited about it, the suspense is sometimes too much so I try not to think about it too often, haha! (that reminds me of a joke that my brother would tell me when I was much younger: "How do you keep an idiot in suspense?... I'll tell you tomorrow"). Like you said, Beethoven's 5th, not bad for a first live performance.

Houston really does have an amazing Museum district, I'm truly grateful for that, it's been so long though that I've visited the Menil and Rothko Chapel that I think another visit is in order soon. To see/hear Bach at the Rothko Chapel must have been an experience! That's awesome. Thanks for the suggestions!

I love the MFA, I would go so often a child because my dad's a muralist/ceramist and we'd go there during the summer. He's currently an art professor at Texas Southern University, he's got quite a few murals/mosaics around Houston. (At Fonde Recreational Park on Memorial, the Starbucks on Woodridge, etc.). I'm grateful to have grown up in an "art family".


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

I'm curious, have Europeans come across anti-classical sentiment in their own countries? Because it seems like such an American thing.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Alypius said:


> Dies, Nothing better than a live concert, and nothing better than one's first one! And add to that: Beethoven's 5th. That makes it (triply) good. (Is "triply" a word?) Speaking of the Houston MFA and art scene, be sure and see the De Menil Museum and the Rothko Chapel (which is on or near the University of St. Thomas campus). Sometimes art and music come together. Back in the early 70s I saw Ralph Kirkpatrick perform Bach's _Goldberg Variations_ on harpsichord at the Rothko Chapel. Before that concert, I thought of Rothko's work (and the other Abstract Expressionists' works) as artless paint-slinging. After hearing Bach in that chapel, it all changed. Bach came alive and so did Rothko's vast canvases. Enjoy!


Add Morton Feldman's _Rothko Chapel_ for chorus and instrumental ensemble to 'music which goes with or fits well in the Rothko Chapel.'


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Nothing lasts forever. I think we have a good collection of recordings, more than any of us can hope to listen to. The world has greater tragedies than symphonies going out of business.


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Couchie said:


> Nothing lasts forever. I think we have a good collection of recordings, more than any of us can hope to listen to. The world has greater tragedies than symphonies going out of business.


Non Sequitur. We are discussing precisely that... I suppose I could say what you said in any conversation where people are discussing matters that are "trivial" compared to the great tragedies in the world. Yes, I know there are starving kids, murderers, ruthless dictators, and wars out there and yes I know that they are the more pressing matters in the grand scheme of things. What that has to do with this thread, however, I'm not quite sure.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Dies, Nothing better than a live concert, and nothing better than one's first one! And add to that: Beethoven's 5th. That makes it (triply) good. (Is "triply" a word?) Speaking of the Houston MFA and art scene, be sure and see the De Menil Museum and the Rothko Chapel (which is on or near the University of St. Thomas campus). Sometimes art and music come together. Back in the early 70s I saw Ralph Kirkpatrick perform Bach's Goldberg Variations on harpsichord at the Rothko Chapel. Before that concert, I thought of Rothko's work (and the other Abstract Expressionists' works) as artless paint-slinging. After hearing Bach in that chapel, it all changed. Bach came alive and so did Rothko's vast canvases. Enjoy!

I've never been a fan of the paintings from the Rothko Chapel. They seem to have dissolved into nothingness... although this may be in part due to the use of fugitive materials leading to the colors sinking into black. I actually like Newman's sculpture far more... and I'm not a fan of the overly pretentious Barney. I can understand the experience, however. I spent a good period of time sitting surrounded by Rothko's paintings from the Seagram's commission and they took on a feeling akin to sitting in a Japanese garden.


----------



## Guest (Aug 23, 2014)

Chordalrock said:


> I'm curious, have Europeans come across anti-classical sentiment in their own countries? Because it seems like such an American thing.


What I've come across in the UK is occasional examples among classical fans who believe themselves to be beleaguered, but mostly, either love or indifference. The BBC is currently showing three of the Proms concerts a week - something that would never have happened even 5 years ago (though it has been broadcasting all of them on radio for as long as I can remember). Clearly, although these are not shown on the main channel at peak time, the BBC recognises that there is a solid audience for the concerts.

What I don't see is active opposition. It's one of those things that you only have an opinion about if you're asked.

BTW - If you'd like to know how adventurous/conservative the Proms programmes are, you might like to rummage the newly published archive. It will give some hints about attitudes to classical among those you might expect to promote it widely. Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire didn't appear until the 1970s, but has had reasonable exposure since. Works by Cage have made 24 appearances (25% of them were _Sonatas and Interludes_). A single work by Beethoven has appeared 170 times!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/archive


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Lukecash12 said:


> Hey friend, I didn't mean to put you down or offend you. Nothing of the sort. I appreciate your opinion and hope it didn't appear as if I was making light of it there, you had a valid point.
> 
> It just didn't make much sense to me, this idea of "people have so much to worry about nowadays and that's why they aren't concerned with WCM". This didn't square for me with the reality we both know, that people had a whole lot to worry about back then and WCM seemed to be doing fine. What's so different between these two, right? People used to make a priority out of it, we all listened to Johnny Cash but many families still had a piano.
> 
> Of course I haven't any more right to invoke the great generation than you do, I probably don't know it any better than you and neither of us can say that we really understand it anyways. It's interesting that you mention economic and social changes at play because that's exactly what I was getting at. Cultures simply change and it isn't a bad thing. Everything has to do die eventually, *but that doesn't mean that the things we love won't make a rich compost*.


I can understand what you're saying. In fact, the quote I gave from Copland ties into all this. He was of that generation that was around during that difficult period. He really did want to bring into the fold of classical those who where dedicated listeners. In other words, get people enjoying it and accessing it more. I think that's still a challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

But on my darker days, I wonder if we can get even the fundamentals right today. I suppose that's where I can accept your argument, I think that our society as a whole doesn't value or respect knowledge now as much as it did. Other than knowledge to do with making money, but of course that doesn't take into account the society as a whole. I know it wasn't perfect before, there was no 'golden age,' but I am fearful for the future we are building for the younger ones.

Neither was I downplaying the importance of classical music, or of any music, art or culture. Its one of those things that has always served to express aspects of the human condition and also to hold society together in some respects. I was just trying to put things into perspective.

I realise the elitist stigma attached to classical, I am conscious of it in real life on a regular basis. My view though is much the same as Copland's was, and it was the reason why he wrote books on music. Its to celebrate the diversity of classical music, to maintain an inclusive attitude and also to aid access to it. I think though that that kind of sentiment is a common concern, to figure out ways to solve the problem and not add to it. Conductors like Simon Rattle have said things that go to the heart of Copland's philosophy - for professional musicians music is a lifelong learning process as well. So the theory is that by emphasizing access, and not painting these people as gods, we reduce that stereotype of elitism (or other such negative stereotypes associated with CM).


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Why shouldn't the classical music still be relevant? After all, it was the artistic outlet that the best of those who could afford it created in for centuries.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> BTW - If you'd like to know how adventurous/conservative the Proms programmes are, you might like to rummage the newly published archive. It will give some hints about attitudes to classical among those you might expect to promote it widely. Schoenberg's Pierrot Lunaire didn't appear until the 1970s, but has had reasonable exposure since. Works by Cage have made 24 appearances (25% of them were _Sonatas and Interludes_). A single work by Beethoven has appeared 170 times!
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/proms/archive


They're generally quite diverse, and usually reflect the tastes of the individual programmers.

I don't generally think of the Proms as a venue for chamber works like Pierrot lunaire (maybe I'm mistaken on this?). The 10 performances of the Chamber Symphony and 10 performances of the Five Orchestral Pieces (including one next week) seem quite respectable. Both have been performed more often than Vaughan Williams' Symphonies 7, 8, and 9, and just as often as A Sea Symphony.

Henry Wood even gave the UK premiere of the Five Orchestral Pieces at the Proms.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Something that illustrates the difference between the USA and the UK: something like five years ago, I noticed that Amazon.com removed the category "classical music" from the dropdown list next to the search field, and for a long time they had only "music", while the UK Amazon kept the separation. These days Amazon.com has only "CD & Vinyls" and "Digital music", while Amazon UK still has "classical" in addition to those two.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

science said:


> I'd be surprised if the fundamental sickness of humanity is stronger now than it was in the past. After all, we've _almost_ stopped stuff like beheading, which used to be the nice way of executing someone. We no longer torture cats for entertainment. We've even stopped slavery, for the most part.


I think the Western civilization overcame the plague only to get Alzheimer's instead. Listing all the symptoms of this illness would be too long and offtopic, but the fact that one of the greatest cultural achievements of this civilization, classical music, is either labeled with negative stereotypes or considered to be irrelevant altogether is a very telling sign. Yeah, a collective Alzheimer's case is what it is: forgetting who you are and what you were once capable of.



Lukecash12 said:


> *Are we spiritually sick because some of us don't even recognize how rewarding it is to listen to Handel's Rinaldo, Almira, or Scipione operas?* Is there something wrong when people say that Baroque music sounds emotionally sterile? No, I don't think there is anything wrong with that.


Of course there is nothing wrong with that. There is something in classical music for everyone: some prefer Romantic, some prefer Baroque and some modern or Renaissance. To dismiss classical music or high arts altogether as "irrelevant" or "elitist" is a symptom of sickness. Indeed, the very use of the word "elitist" as a negative term is a symptom too. We were once a civilization with a drive for perfection, for reaching heights that nobody reached before, for doing things that were once impossible, a civilization of explorers, thinkers, poets, inventors, conquerors and overcomers. All these things are inherently "elitist" as they are opposed to "mediocre". The modern civilization is "democratic", "of the people" and catering to the lowest common denominator. Even our worship of God has changed: Europeans used to build cathedrals and compose masses and requiems that have survived over centuries, now we build churches that are sometimes on the outside indistinguishable from shopping malls and worship with choruses that are sometimes indistinguishable from pop music.

I think that is also the root of the education problem that Sid James mentioned. While the material aspects of education have gotten only better, the drive of the students themselves, the desire to improve themselves, has diminished. They are encouraged to be satisfied with themselves as they are, no need for improvement.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think the Western civilization overcame the plague only to get Alzheimer's instead. Listing all the symptoms of this illness would be too long and offtopic, but the fact that one of the greatest cultural achievements of this civilization, classical music, is either labeled with negative stereotypes or considered to be irrelevant altogether is a very telling sign. Yeah, a collective Alzheimer's case is what it is: forgetting who you are and what you were once capable of.
> 
> Of course there is nothing wrong with that. There is something in classical music for everyone: some prefer Romantic, some prefer Baroque and some modern or Renaissance. To dismiss classical music or high arts altogether as "irrelevant" or "elitist" is a symptom of sickness. Indeed, the very use of the word "elitist" as a negative term is a symptom too. We were once a civilization with a drive for perfection, for reaching heights that nobody reached before, for doing things that were once impossible, a civilization of explorers, thinkers, poets, inventors, conquerors and overcomers. All these things are inherently "elitist" as they are opposed to "mediocre". The modern civilization is "democratic", "of the people" and catering to the lowest common denominator. Even our worship of God has changed: Europeans used to build cathedrals and compose masses and requiems that have survived over centuries, now we build churches that are sometimes on the outside indistinguishable from shopping malls and worship with choruses that are sometimes indistinguishable from pop music.
> 
> I think that is also the root of the education problem that Sid James mentioned. While the material aspects of education have gotten only better, the drive of the students themselves, the desire to improve themselves, has diminished. They are encouraged to be satisfied with themselves as they are, no need for improvement.


I think all this just comes down to cultural change and democracy. Democracy might be little more than a fiction in the near future, but we're not going to get back our ability to legislate culture for a while, because as we take away their freedoms that will probably be what the people cling to most fiercely. Most likely from a strategic POV we have to let them keep their consumer culture until we're sure they've lost all their ability to resist, and then we'll be able to impose our cultural values on a defeated populace, the way it was done in the good old days.

Meanwhile, we're still striving. We still cure diseases, we still make discoveries, we still invent stuff. We're still composing music (maybe even more than ever before: contrast 1813 in music to 2013 in classical music).

Even discounting new creations, just in terms of the old traditions: they thrive now more than they did in the past. We've got greater access to Medieval music than most people in the middle ages did; greater access to Renaissance music than most people in the Renaissance did; greater access to Baroque music than most people during the Enlightenment did; and so on. But especially, we've got far greater access to Renaissance music than even kings did in the 19th century.

We can even still hear classical music used in churches. High church liturgy is not dead. If you're in a major city like London you have phenomenal opportunities like this every Sunday at 11 am. Granted, there's only one London, but you can hear pretty good music in churches in Paris or New York as well. You can still even hear Bach at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig, Ambrosian chant in Milan.

And we've spread, not only thanks to colonialism. Here in Seoul, never ruled by a western government, I could hear live classical music every single evening if that's how I wanted to spend my money! In _Seoul_. Beethoven had never even heard of Seoul.

But of course there is new and other and different stuff, too, so we can't be too satisfied. We've got to crush rock and rap and K-pop, make sure the people know how much better our culture is than theirs. It might take a couple decades, but there is much more hope for our project than there was even 15 years ago, and we've made strides unimaginable in the 1970s.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think that is also the root of the education problem that Sid James mentioned. While the material aspects of education have gotten only better, the drive of the students themselves, the desire to improve themselves, has diminished. They are encouraged to be satisfied with themselves as they are, no need for improvement.


For the longest time, students didn't have to strive. Most people didn't even get formal education, and if they did, it had little point because they couldn't transcend the class they were born into anyway. And those of nobility didn't have to strive either because they were already set. So the notion of self-improvement through education is fairly recent and probably hasn't yet fully sunk into the general conscience. Maybe it will, put personally, I'm not sure that would be a good thing as there is a slight, perhaps more than slight, totalitarian-utopian feel to it.

The elite is by its definition a fairly small circle at the top-end of a quantitative or qualitative scale. Classical music, for several reasons, takes that position in the field of music, hence its comparatively small circle of listeners. Unless one banned all other types of music, it will always be that way.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

As long as forums like TC exist, classical music will be relevant. When there are no more members, it won't.


----------

