# What is MUSIC today? (Or is classical music dead?)



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Some people have bad taste in music.
Some people have extraordinarily good taste in music.
What is the thing that they have in common?
They do not listen to classical music.

Today, we have people who listen to music, and people who listen to classical music.
It seems that classical music is not music anymore.

Even the most snobbish and intellectual guys in their 20s, 30s or even older may take pride in listening to the underground bands, independent bands, etc, but they do not listen to the classical.

Today, it seems that all self respecting, socially engaged and conscious musicians play some kind of indie rock, experimental rock, conscious hip-hop, alternative metal, and so on.

Also, it seems that all self respecting intellectuals in their 20s and 30s listen to such musicians and bands and take pride in their intellectual depth, refinement of their taste etc. But they do not listen to classical.

So, classical is essentially dead, it's reserved for enthusiasts, and musicians who do it just for themselves and absolutely don't care if anyone at all will listen to their stuff, and also don't care if their artistic message will be heard or not.


So, today it seems that classical music is not changing the world nor it is affecting the world in any way. It's just a niche.

But, it wasn't so in the past.
Even though classical music was never really popular, it was considered MUSIC and was much more important than it is today.

This entire text is intentional exaggeration, but probably not too far away from the truth. What do you think?


----------



## itywltmt (May 29, 2011)

This topic has been hashed and rehashed here so many times that it isn't funny...

What is _Classical _Music? Well, for most periods until the 20th century, _classical music was the popular music of the day_. I think only in 20th century terms have we made a disctinction. There are indded pieces of music that are part of the popular repertoire that will stand the test of time and be known (for generations in the future) not unlike how we view the Late Romantuc period, for imnstance.

I would agree that people don't seem to care much for what we call in these pages "contemporary music", and that's because the language expressed there is for one nothing like the language of the 19th century and two, nothing that people can "dance or hum" to. It requires personal investment...

To me music is music, and I find as much enjoyment listening to all genres - possible exception being _hard core country musi_c...


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

The "sit down and listen" approach of classical music concerts doesn't do much for people who want to wiggle around and get laid.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> I think only in 20th century terms have we made a disctinction.


And IMO, this is the time when contemporary classical music died.

There is still classical music today, but 90% of the time, a typical classical music lover of today is listening to music more than 100 years old.

Classical music lovers are real minority, aren't they? And even they, generally do not listen to contemporary classical music.

So, contemporary music of today is not socially relevant, it seems. Like it ceased to be music for people, it's not even for minority of people, it is just for the composer and few of his colleagues and critics. It's closed. It is almost like science. Like scientific papers that are read just by few scientists in the world that are involved in the research.

I'm still exaggerating, but I think that contemporary classical music is at least clinically dead until it reaches a little wider audience again. And it's not a good thing.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Classical music is not dead. Here look at this:






Real genuine classical music from the 90s.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

And believe me, opera is still alive too:


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Classical music is not dead. Here look at this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

aleazk said:


>


Thank you for that lovely comment, Aleazk.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

There are still some people learning, teaching and even speaking Latin, but it's still dead 

I'm joking. But I think that if classical is really dead, it didn't actually, die but it was killed by three things:

1) elitism - people stopped listening to music that was considered for rich, corrupt and snobbish people
2) lack of active communication with the public
3) lack of social relevance 

In order to become important again, classical music would have to:

1) become a genre like all others, maybe even change it's name, because the term "classical" has many negative connotations
2) adopt from rock the approach in which musicians more actively communicate with people
3) become more socially relevant, whatever it means


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

But there is always _this_ kind of classical music:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Or this:


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

Yes, it's a shame that they're both horrendous.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Crudblud said:


> Yes, it's a shame that they're both horrendous.


The Michael Nyman piece isn't bad.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

No, it's horrendous. :lol:


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

Now I am listening to this stuff you posted, will join discussion when I finish.
So far listened to "Lightning" - it really sounds like pop. If I heard it on radio, I wouldn't recognize it's classical.


----------



## Mika (Jul 24, 2009)

dead or not, but it is getting harder and harder to buy. Practically none of the record stores are selling it if you count out best of Mozart compilations. Internet seems to be last resort here.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

This Xenakis thing is unlistenable. Really. Literally.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Whistlerguy said:


> This Xenakis thing is unlistenable. Really. Literally.


You are wrong. :lol:


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> You are wrong.


It's sounds like dial up modem


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

AET sounds OK, nothing extraordinary, but OK.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Uncompromising music will never reach a large audience. It never has. Your clinically dead analogy doesn't mean anything. If only 1 percent of the world's population listens to it, that means it's reaching a lot of people. And anyhow, I don't give a hoot what people listen to. Accusing people of bad taste is useless. There is no accounting for taste. End of story.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

1 percent would be hugely optimistic - it would be 70 000 000 people today. If it was true, contemporary classical musicians would sell millions of discs.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

And I agree about this uncompromising thing, but my vacuum cleaner is uncompromising, too.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

Does all modern classical music sound like movie soundtracks without any pictures to go with them?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Does all modern classical music sound like movie soundtracks without any pictures to go with them?


NO. If it did I would shoot myself.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

bigshot said:


> Does all modern classical music sound like movie soundtracks without any pictures to go with them?


Yes, but even more sound more like uncompromising vacuum cleaners!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

moody said:


> Yes, but even more sound more like uncompromising vacuum cleaners!


And those uncompromising vacuum cleaners are music to my ears.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Whistlerguy said:


> There are still some people learning, teaching and even speaking Latin, but it's still dead
> 
> I'm joking. But I think that if classical is really dead, it didn't actually, die but it was killed by three things:
> 
> ...


So, well I'm not rich or particularly snobbish--but I'm glad to say I'm quite corrupt.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> And those uncompromising vacuum cleaners are music to my ears.


Well I am sure you've got nice ears--just you look after them now!


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Whistlerguy said:


> This Xenakis thing is unlistenable. Really. Literally.


my problem with that Xenakis piece is that I found those noises uninteresting, I don't have a problem with the use of noise in music, but I do find some noises more interesting than others (on another thread I mentioned that I love the noise of aircraft's engines). In progressive rock music, they also use "noise", and sometimes I think in a very much more interesting way than in modern classical. For example, listen here how Dave Gilmour (from Pink Floyd) drive the saturation noise of his guitar (with the lever) in a very interesting way:


----------



## skalpel (Nov 20, 2011)

As was perfectly phrased by Crudblud, sit down and listen music (serious/art music) just isn't favoured by the masses. Unsurprisingly, your average Joe in the 19th century would have preferred a shindig in the local public house accompanied by dance music of the day too; there is a huge difference between popular music and 'serious/art music', if you permit me to continue to sound pretentious.

These days, and ever since the dawn of recorded sound, technology has opened up a whole new landscape of music that wasn't available previously. It isn't that less people are interested in creating or listening to 'serious music', it's just that effort is being spread out across a bigger variety of styles now that more instruments, more styles and more technology is allowing it. The restraints of having to write music down, having to write it for acoustic instruments and opting to write in a particular structure and abiding by theoretical rules have been discarded in favour of the freedom that recorded sound allows.

I wouldn't say that 'classical music' has disappeared, but it certainly has integrated itself neatly and lain out huge influence to much of todays 'serious' music.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Today, we have people who listen to music, and people who listen to classical music. It seems that classical music is not music anymore.

Please define "classical music". I we consider that under the umbrella of the term "classical music" we might include Byzantine chants, Sephardic dance, Gregorian plainchant, medieval polyphony, the chanson of the troubadours, Renaissance madrigals and motets, Baroque opera, cantatas, sonatas, concerti grossi, symphonies, string quartets, operettas, gigues, polonaises, waltzes, ballets, lieder, melodies, tone poems, etc... on through music such as this:






this:






and this:






Tell me then how we might define classical music as being wholly separate from any other musical style or tradition?

The term, "classical music" was initially employed as a means of separating the music of the "higher classes" from forms of popular music that were in the ascendancy as a result of audio recording technologies. We could have this jazz stuff or these popular songs defined as "classical music" now could we? But seriously, what makes this:






or this:






Different or somehow inferior to a Strauss Waltz, and Offenbach operetta, etc..?

It seems to me that just as in the world of the visual arts popular art forms such as photography, printmaking, poster design, book design, illustration, even comic books can rise to the same level as painting and sculpture and be recognized as "classic" art, by the same token, there is no "classical music" as a discernible style, but rather there are works of music that rise to the level of being recognized as "classics" and these come from nearly every possible form, genre, and style.

Today, it seems that all self respecting, socially engaged and conscious musicians play some kind of indie rock, experimental rock, conscious hip-hop, alternative metal, and so on.



Also, it seems that all self respecting intellectuals in their 20s and 30s listen to such musicians and bands and take pride in their intellectual depth, refinement of their taste etc. But they do not listen to classical.

Really?

So, classical is essentially dead, it's reserved for enthusiasts, and musicians who do it just for themselves and absolutely don't care if anyone at all will listen to their stuff, and also don't care if their artistic message will be heard or not.

How many people were in the audience for Bach's cantatas, Monteverdi's madrigals, or Hildegard of Bingen's compositions? Is the relevance of art measured by its share of the market? Does the market have any impact at all upon what art survives?

So, today it seems that classical music is not changing the world nor it is affecting the world in any way. It's just a niche.

How many works of music... or art as a whole... can really be seen as having changed the world?

But, it wasn't so in the past.

Please do pony up with some actual facts.

Even though classical music was never really popular, it was considered MUSIC and was much more important than it is today.

Again... how many people actually got to hear Monteverdi performing one of his Madrigals? How many people got to sit in with Schubert and listen to him play one of his new lieder? How, then, was this music more "important" than it is today?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> So, classical is essentially dead, it's reserved for enthusiasts, and musicians who do it just for themselves and absolutely don't care if anyone at all will listen to their stuff, and also don't care if their artistic message will be heard or not.


As I explained earlier, classical music is *not* dead. There are still composers around composing classical music and people listening to their music and attending performances of their music. Or rather people are listening to what classical music evolved into. Music undergoes evolution just as living things do.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ambrosian chant isn't even dead. Classical music, on the other hand, is _thriving_.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

*boycott classical music*

CLASSICAL MUSIC BEEN DEAD. clasical music is for fakes and poeple who dont know nothing about music.
CLASSICAL MUSIC BEEN DEAD.

go check out my blog for more info. BOYCOTT ALL CLASSICAL MUSICS


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

If classical music is dead, then why are we here discussing about pieces of examples, attending concerts, buying recordings, evaluating pieces? Classical music may not be as popular or as relevant as Lady Gaga today, maybe that's unfortunate to some extent, but it's all there if folks are willing to make the discovery for themselves.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> If classical music is dead, then why are we here discussing about pieces of examples, attending concerts, buying recordings, evaluating pieces? Classical music may not be as popular or as relevant as Lady Gaga today, maybe that's unfortunate to some extent, but it's all there if folks are willing to make the discovery for themselves.


You got it HC!


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Guys I think we're all aware of the "objective" state of classical music, the history of its popularity, etc, concert audiences. We're just bickering over the implications and range of the hyperbole "dead".

Critics spill ink over this all the time. Is the novel dead? Is poetry over? Are the classics dead?

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/jan/12/do-classics-have-future/

"Do Classics have a future"?

Classics scholars entertained the same question 100 years ago.

Concert audiences are ... down?

http://books.google.com/books?id=Cy...QLZ-s2fCA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I'm not sure whether this forum is indicative that Classical music is "alive". There are all sorts of odds forums for all sorts of things on the internet, many of which pertains to subject-matters that are quite unspeakably unspeakable.....

I guess this music didn't have the status function it use to have. Back in the day it was the privilege of royalty and the aristocracy, who were automatically the deciders of fashion and taste. The masses had "street music", "folk music" etc, but without recording technology it doesn't really last. Of course my knowledge of the history of street music is shoddy, but still...


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> If classical music is dead, then why are we here discussing about pieces of examples, attending concerts, buying recordings, evaluating pieces?


classical composition, not classical music


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

brianwalker said:


> Back in the day it was the privilege of royalty and the aristocracy, who were automatically the deciders of fashion and taste. The masses had "street music", "folk music" etc, but without recording technology it doesn't really last. Of course my knowledge of the history of street music is shoddy, but still...


There are some interesting things you learn in record collecting about popularity. Bella figlia del'amore from Rigoletto with Caruso cost half a week's wages at the time for four short minutes of music, yet it's the most common 78l found in countless quarter bins at thrift shops across the country. The same goes for the sextette from Lucia. Even the three tenors can't compare to the popularity of these two.


----------



## Philip (Mar 22, 2011)

Whistlerguy said:


> Today, it seems that all self respecting, socially engaged and conscious musicians play some kind of indie rock, experimental rock, conscious hip-hop, alternative metal, and so on.
> 
> Also, it seems that all self respecting intellectuals in their 20s and 30s listen to such musicians and bands and take pride in their intellectual depth, refinement of their taste etc. But they do not listen to classical.


i don't know if this is relevant, but i really enjoy tuning in to the local college radio, they play all of the above; avant-garde, underground, local bands, etc. and it's some of the most rewarding listening i do. everything is so creative...

when you think about it, all these artists are basically the musical whiz kids that were better than you in music class. no wonder the music is great.

the snag is that i do also enjoy my classical music, my Bach, my classical guitar. and i know for a fact that a good portion of these artists are conservatory graduates and classically trained musicians.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think what we're seeing is the fruit of seeds planted in the late 1960s and the 1970s, when the genres all began to break down. Perhaps new genres will emerge in time, but for now a lot of really creative music is not simply jazz, rock, techno, classical, tango, gamelan, or whatever. It's all getting smashed together by people like Jan Garbarek, Keith Jarrett, Osvaldo Golijov, and so on. The Nonesuch and ECM labels are where it's at. (Also, a lot of good stuff done for film music, such as Eddie Vedder and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan collaborating for _Dead Man Walking_.) This kind of thing goes back to the prog rock bands that have been discussed so much here recently, Ravi Shankar's collaborations with everyone from the Beatles to Yehudi Menuhin, the Modern Jazz Quartet, Miles Davis, and so on.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

> But, it wasn't so in the past.
> 
> Please do pony up with some actual facts.


For example, we can say that "Eroica" changed the world. Also, between 10,000 and 30,000 people attended Beethoven's funeral!

Mozart was well known all over Europe, probably not only among aristocracy.

I think that the term "classical music" should be abandoned.

When listing music genres instead of saying: rock, pop, techno, metal, hip hop, folk, country, r&b, ... and classical.

People should be saying something like: opera, pop, symphony, techno, rock, chamber music, folk, minimalism, r&b, country, concerto, r&b, ...

Music magazines should treat classical music genres the same way they treat all the other genres, without making any distinction.

This way we will finally have just MUSIC again, and there will be much more creativity and much more influences between genres, and it would much more easily reach the people.

And finally, really, today in 2012, where does the most creativity and most innovation in music occur, in classical music or in various genres of popular music?

I think in popular, but not in popular like Lady Gaga, but in stuff such as:

Arcade Fire - Funeral
P.J. Harvey - Let England Shake
Nightwish - Imaginaerum
White Stripes - Elephant

etc.

Rolling Stone Magazine lists 100 greatest albums of 2000s - and those albums aren't very popular, nor commercial.

Out of 100 albums, there is zero classical albums.

Classical music would be alive if serious, major general music magazines treated it like other genres, and if, for example, in that list there were at least 10-20 albums of newly composed classical music.


----------



## Whistlerguy (May 26, 2010)

And even if we define classical music by social class of its listeners - i.e. music listened to by smart, educated people of the upper classes - it seems that classical music is not classical music anymore, according to this definition. 

What kind of music is usually listened to by such people today - it's some kind of indie rock, art rock, modern jazz, some genres of metal, some genres of non-mainstream electronic music etc. - so these genres are classical music today, while classical music is actually what was classical music 100 and more years ago.

So we actually have four kinds of music:

popular music = Lady Gaga, Rihanna, LMFAO, Black Eyed Peas, Madonna, etc...
old classical music = Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Mozart, etc
modern art / classical music = Tool, P.J Harvey, Kate Bush, White Stripes, Arcade Fire, M.I.A. , Black Keys, Radiohead, etc...
"contemporary classical music" = stuff no one listens to = stuff for discussing at music academies and writing doctoral degrees about = Xenakis, etc...

What I would like to occur is that "contemporary classical music" mergers with "modern art / classical music" and finds 
more listeners among people who would normally listen to Tool, Radiohead or Black Keys.


----------



## AlexD (Nov 6, 2011)

Classical music isn't dead. Every concert I have attended has been almost full. Opera and ballet is now appearing at my local cinema - not all the operas get a good turn out, but at least it is more available for those of us who live beyond London. Popstar to opera put classical music onto prime time tv again last year.

There are reasons to be cheerful. Besides, if you enjoy it, does it really matter what others think/do with their time?


----------



## Guest (Jan 22, 2012)

Whistlerguy said:


> "contemporary classical music" = stuff no one listens to


Ah, so I'm no one, am I? Well well well.

Funny how often this assertion is made.

Funny how there always seem to be dozens if not hundreds of no ones at every new music concert I attend.*

Funny how much of this stuff is produced, even for fixed media like CDs and DVDs, for what? For no one!!

But, ya know, there's nothing so strong as a fixed opinion.

Facts? Fuggidaboudit.

*Yes, I'm aware that "dozens/hundreds" is not as much as "thousands/millions." But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about "dozens/hundreds" being more than "none." Indeed.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

With about 300 classical music releases and reissues every month, somebody's listening to it.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yeah, no one belongs to the Society For New Music in my town. The newsletter they send out to me each month doesn't get read because I don't exist!


----------



## TrazomGangflow (Sep 9, 2011)

Yes, classical music is an underappreciated genre but it has listeners, and not just old listeners but young listeners as well. The author of this thread is definately a pessimist.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

I found out a statistic that 3% of the public (I'm not sure what public is referring to, if it's entire world population or just Developed countries) listens to classical music. I thought that was an astounding rate, I use to think it was .4% or something. So really, we aren't alone, there are probably _millions _out there that care.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> I found out a statistic that 3% of the public (I'm not sure what public is referring to, if it's entire world population or just Developed countries) listens to classical music. I thought that was an astounding rate, I use to think it was .4% or something. So really, we aren't alone, there are probably _millions _out there that care.


Wow that's a huge number of people. I'm glad that there are so many out there who listens to classical music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Classical music is in a state of change and flux. It has been for ages, basically since about the 1820's, when Beethoven, Schubert, Weber died. These guys were early Romantics. Classical music drifted away from the aristocracy and went towards being more consumed by the intellectuals, businessmen, politicians. Another type of "elite" maybe. After recording technology, radio and TV bought music to the masses, classical music has ability to be accessed by everyone. So things like the Three Tenors concert in Rome in 1990, after the World Cup there, it had a massive global TV audience. Ask anyone who was around at the time, even people not at all into classical, and they most likely saw it on the box.

I don't think it's dead, definitely new music purely for the concert hall has a more limited audience, but that's changing. Classical music is and has been used in films for decades. Not only composers of original film scores - eg. Rozsa, Herrmann, Rota, Goldsmith of the old days and guys like Howard Shore and Michael Nyman of our own time - but also the old classical music, has made it's way into the cinema. A number of contemporary classical composers got their first mass exposure through the cinema. Think Ligeti's music in _2001: A Space Odyessy_.

Another thing is that no music will ever literally "die" if we have some sort of record of it for future generations to find and revive. Look what happened with J.S. Bach, who was largely obscure outside the music industry, basically unknown to "the man in the street," even in Leipzig, I'd guess, until the likes of Mendelssohn revived him in the 19th century, gave public concerts of his choral things, and then in the early 20th century loads of musicians from all fields - eg. Casals, Landowska, Schweitzer, Widor, Ysaye, etc. - started to revive more and more of his music, eventually forming more larger exposure through recordings.

Bernstein did the same with Mahler and Ives too, for example. Alkan has also been revived since the 1960's. Things like this.

So classical music isn't necessarily dead, it's just changing and maybe going into hybernation in some aspects, becoming a bit dormant.

As for addressing the audience, here it's being done in concerts more and more. In smaller scale venues, the audience can also meet them, talk to the musicians over a drink, after the show. I've been to a number of concerts where the conductor talks to the audience about the works before it's played, or if it's a piano recital, the pianist does. It's becomeing more human, and I think guys like Andre Rieu have done much to open up music, to communicate to the audience, not just have them sit there, too passively. Of course, outside of classical, this has been how things are done generally, eg. Frank Sinatra was great with reaching out to his live audiences, many people who saw him live say they felt that they were the only person in the room with ol' Blue Eyes.

& what about China. During the era of Chairman Mao - who died in the 1970's - classical music was banned. AFter him, now that the ban has been lifted, it's become more popular. If say 10 per cent of Chinese listen to classical music, then that's what 10 per cent of a billion people! (you guys do the maths). There are these kinds of developing markets possibilities for classical too.

So keep positive guys. There's hope yet! Glass half full not half empty!!!...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

For example, we can say that "Eroica" changed the world.

In what way? Did it change the world in even one hundredth of a degree as much as the man for whom it was originally dedicated?

Also, between 10,000 and 30,000 people attended Beethoven's funeral!

How did that change the world?

Mozart was well known all over Europe, probably not only among aristocracy.

Mozart was composing at the time when the dominant patronage of the arts was slowly shifting from the aristocracy to the bourgeois. We're still dealing with an audience limited to the upper-middle class and independently wealthy.

I think that the term "classical music" should be abandoned.

I would still employ the term, "classic music" or something similar to define that music which is the finest of all genre, forms, eras, etc... but certainly I agree that the term "classical music" has become meaningless when it can mean anything from medieval chant to opera to ballet to string quartets to musique concrete or the conceptual experiments in sound of John Cage, Xenakis, etc...

Music magazines should treat classical music genres the same way they treat all the other genres, without making any distinction.

A hell of a lot of musicians treat music in such a manner. Miles Davis built upon classical music and was quoted as having closely listened to the vocal phrasings and timings of... wait for it... Willie Nelson!. Rock bands drew ideas from Minimalism and musique concrete. Rock and Roll was born of jazz, the blues, R&B, bluegrass, country and western, etc... Most visual artists are as likely to draw from the Renaissance or the Rococo or Japanese woodblocks or American folk art as they are to build upon the latest developments in contemporary art. They see the whole of art as one grand tradition... one grand palette from which to be inspired. Music breaks itself too much into exclusive cliques. Fans of chamber music don't listen to operas. Fans of Romanticism dismiss the Baroque. Fans of classical music look askance at bluegrass, the blues, and jazz.

This way we will finally have just MUSIC again, and there will be much more creativity and much more influences between genres, and it would much more easily reach the people.

Classical music would be alive if serious, major general music magazines treated it like other genres, and if, for example, in that list there were at least 10-20 albums of newly composed classical music.

Well let's face it... by the standards of pop music, jazz and bluegrass and the blues and pop music in the manner of Frank Sinatra or Billie Holiday as well as folk music are all equally "dead". I don't think that the ability to reach the largest possible audience is any measure of aesthetic merit. This often has more to do with peer pressure, fads, and the vast public relations, advertising, and marketing machinery behind certain forms of music. I agree that cross pollination is one way to promote a genre of music... and we have not been without such. One need only look to Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain or the Beatles' use of a string quartet (_Yesterday_) a string octet (_Elinor Rigby_) and a jazz band (_Got to Get You Into my Life_)... but at the same time such crossovers or fusions are not always for the better (Kenny G, anyone?) I think that the institutions and composers and educators involved in classical music have failed miserably over the last half-century to maintain interest. Indeed they've been very successful at ostracizing the public. I grew up exposed to classical music throughout pop culture: in Disney's _Fantasia_, throughout Warner Brother's cartoons (where one might come across Rossini or Wagner or Verdi... as well as Sinatra and Ellington), in the Little Rascals, where Alfalfa painfully warbled "I'm the Barber of Seville!" More must be done to eliminate the notion that classical music is reserved only for the elite and that it is something almost sacrosanct. I loved Yesterday's "pasticcio" from the Metropolitain Opera cobbling together "hits" from Handel, and other composers and plays from Shakespeare. I love the open-air concerts that the Cleveland Orchestra puts on here every summer where families gather on blankets with picnic baskets and bottles of wine or beer in order to listen to the music... often followed by fireworks.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> Miles Davis built upon classical music and was quoted as having closely listened to the vocal phrasings and timings of... wait for it... Willie Nelson!.




I believe you mean Frank Sinatra. Miles was an admirer.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I thought Miles said that of Helen Merrill, eg. the way she sang right up close to the microphones. Him doing similar thing with his trumpet.

But maybe Miles was influenced by many vocalists, all mentioned?

Despite the difference in style and generation, Miles payed tribute to Louis Armstrong as one of the greatest trumpeters (or THE greatest?). I thought that was nice, since many people only know Miles "rougher" side. Another thing is that Armstrong influenced Malcolm Arnold's music, as he started out as a trumpeter, playing both jazz and classical.

See how all these guys are in one paragraph? This is why I don't think there are many boundaries between so-called "high" and "low" and in-between arts now, since the last 100 years especially, but I think the boundaries have always been fluid and porous. Not for the highbrows of course, but for the people in the mainstream or the mass, they don't care much for boundaries, not today, really. Any boundaries, like the separation of concert hall music with other things, it's superficial. I mean last year, a friend who's a fan of classical of many kinds, incl. film musics, went to see the Sydney Symphony Orchestra play the complete score of Howard Shore's _Lord of the Rings_ (one of the films in the trilogy), with the film playing simultaneously.

Things like this are happening more often now. Comedian and former classical musician Tim Minchin did a hugely successful tour here with our State symphony orchestras, him talking about classical music of various kinds and them playing it. Classical music can be accessible and fun for everybody, it doesn't have to be about exclusion of any kind. Depends how you see it, really, attitude, etc...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...I love the open-air concerts that the Cleveland Orchestra puts on here every summer where families gather on blankets with picnic baskets and bottles of wine or beer in order to listen to the music... often followed by fireworks.


Agreed, many, myself included, loved and still love, "family" type concerts. Still go to them when I can.

In decades gone by, they were broadcast (simulcast) live on radio, but no more now.

I also discovered many things through them as a child, eg. first time hearing Sibelius' _Finlandia_ & Vaughan Williams' _Lark Ascending_. & also loved the jazz, rock and country concerts of this kind...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Sid James said:


> See how all these guys are in one paragraph? This is why I don't think there are many boundaries between so-called "high" and "low" and in-between arts now, since the last 100 years especially, but I think the boundaries have always been fluid and porous. Not for the highbrows of course, but for the people in the mainstream or the mass, they don't care much for boundaries, not today, really. Any boundaries, like the separation of concert hall music with other things, it's superficial. I mean last year, a friend who's a fan of classical of many kinds, incl. film musics, went to see the Sydney Symphony Orchestra play the complete score of Howard Shore's _Lord of the Rings_ (one of the films in the trilogy), with the film playing simultaneously.
> 
> Things like this are happening more often now. Comedian and former classical musician Tim Minchin did a hugely successful tour here with our State symphony orchestras, him talking about classical music of various kinds and them playing it. Classical music can be accessible and fun for everybody, it doesn't have to be about exclusion of any kind. Depends how you see it, really, attitude, etc...


This is why I could never understand musicians like Wynton Marsalis trying to turn jazz into classical music. Putting on a tuxedo and playing straight jazz at Lincoln Center. The Pat Metheny Group makes more sense to me. It's contemporary and relevant to the times. Miles got rid of his Brooks Brothers suits and the standard jazz repertoire in the late 60s, and Marsalis ushered in the new conservatism in the 80s, but it's an anachronistic approach to music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I didn't think of that or know that, re Marsalis. Yes, image is important in some ways. SOunds like it's a similar treatment of jazz being a "museum piece." Going back to the past too much, this kind of obsession with "authenticity" or more accurately, some poeple's nostalgia for the past. I can't judge what you say because I've only heard Marsalis' work on recordings, not seen videos of him, etc. I don't mind this kind of thing, I'm not very visual oriented, I'm into the music mainly. I would hate Andre Rieu's videos but I enjoy him on disc, purely his music ONLY. I don't mind showmanship or image but I'm mainly into the music, not the garnish or gloss, etc...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm into the music too, which is why Marsalis doesn't appeal to me. When I listen to one of his records it sounds like 1958. That's already been done to perfection by Miles, Cannonball Adderley, Thelonious Monk, etc. So I guess I'm not too interested in classical music. I've already heard that. I like contemporary music whether it's jazz or orchestral/chamber.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Yeah, I suppose in playing the standards, Marsalis may well be rehashing things a bit, but at least he plays new music, I believe composed by himself and others. At least he's getting new music performed, not only the jazz standards. But maybe he's pulling in the crowd with one and treating them to the other at the same time. An old concert programmer's trick, the oldest trick in the book, and if done well and with some thought put into it, it can be a win-win situation, for both those who like either things, and of course for those interested in both of them...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

But what I'm saying is that his own music still sounds like it's from the 1950s. That's why it doesn't interest me. Standards has nothing to do with it. In jazz the material is secondary. The interpretation is where it's at.

A great example is Herbie Hancock's album Gershwin's World. Old material played in a thoroughly contemporary style which really brings it to life for a contemporary audience.


----------



## wiganwarrior (Jan 6, 2012)

If classical music is dead why does Classic FM attract nearly 7 million listeners each week? Maybe it fulfilled a void which was left empty by Radio3 (possibly considered "elitist" by many, but still attracting about one and a half million listeners itself). It shows there is a demand if we reach out to people.
Why do 6,000 people fill the Albert Hall each night for over 70 nights during the Proms season (that's about half a million)? Why can you find any particular classical piece you care to mention being played in the world every day somewhere in the world? And what about the El Sisiema project in Venezuela - 250,000 poor children playing in orchestras -saved from the streets!


----------



## wiganwarrior (Jan 6, 2012)

Sorry for the error - El Sistema, if anyone wants to look it up.


----------

