# A revealing statistic:



## David born 1950 (Apr 21, 2021)

I think that it would be very revealing, indeed, to know the approximate average age of the members of this website. Are they all old like me? Or are there young people who also like this genre, perhaps as an escape from the PC world we now inhabit? Regardless of reasons (but reasons are also revealing) can we make an accurate assessment as to an average age?

Another way of imparting this thought is to ask: Is love of classical music increasing or decreasing or remaining roughly the same? - David Lyga


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

David born 1950 said:


> I think that it would be very revealing, indeed, to know the approximate average age of the members of this website. Are they all old like me? Or are there young people who also like this genre, perhaps as an escape from the PC world we now inhabit? Regardless of reasons (but reasons are also revealing) can we make an accurate assessment as to an average age?
> 
> Another way of imparting this thought is to ask: Is love of classical music increasing or decreasing or remaining roughly the same? - David Lyga


What is the age of forum members?

David - if you google talkclassical + thread topic, it's the best way to see if the subject has been covered before. Don't use the TC search box - it's no good.


----------



## David born 1950 (Apr 21, 2021)

Doing that, I now get the welcome impression that the age is decreasing. But, perhaps, others will have comments also.

And just why is the TC search box not up to the task? - David Lyga


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

I don't know about the ages of site members, but I'd bet it's over 40. 

There was some research done along this line several years back, and none of the results was surprising:

Collecting classical music recordings is done mostly by males (>95%)
Reading classical music magazines is mostly a male activity.
Putting together high fidelity sound systems is almost exclusively male.
Women listen to pre-1800 music more than men.

Classical listeners have always been a minority. But it's still shrinking I think. Once upon a time a course in Western Humanities, or Music Appreciation or something akin was a requirement at most colleges. Those days are long gone. Now class in Hip Hop, Broadway Theater, History of Rock n Roll have taken hold and college grads are no longer aware of western civ. It's also evident in music majors - I can't tell you how many young people who want to be musicians or music teachers and have only a tiny awareness of the great music of the past. A nephew of mine is studying music at a major university. We talk shop sometimes and it saddens me that here's this kid who wants to be a great horn player but has never listened to a work by Mahler, R Strauss, Wagner. He was totally unaware of the Schumann Konzertstuck. All I can say is thank God for Asia - classical music is thriving in China, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

David born 1950 said:


> Doing that, I now get the welcome impression that the age is decreasing. But, perhaps, others will have comments also.
> 
> And just why is the TC search box not up to the task? - David Lyga


I think the TC search boxes comes with the website 'package' but isn't up to much.


----------



## Heck148 (Oct 27, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> ....All I can say is thank God for Asia - classical music is thriving in China, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea.


Really, that appears to be the future market for classical music...the Asiatics are eating it up....in the performance world, too...
I couple years ago, I attended a Chicago Symphony concert - 30 violinists - iirc - 18 of them were from Asia, and 14 of that total were women.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> Now class in Hip Hop, Broadway Theater, History of Rock n Roll have taken hold and college grads are no longer aware of western civ. It's also evident in music majors - I can't tell you how many young people who want to be musicians or music teachers and have only a tiny awareness of the great music of the past.


Are hip-hop, Broadway, and rock not Western civilization anymore? Do you have to know classical music to be a great musician? This superiority complex is part of why many are repelled by the genre.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

mbhaub said:


> I don't know about the ages of site members, but I'd bet it's over 40.
> 
> There was some research done along this line several years back, and none of the results was surprising:
> 
> ...


I find it hard to believe that music schools have changed as much as you claim. On another forum there were several members who were enrolled in advanced degrees in music, and stuck around long enough to come back when they completed their programs. Without exception they had a firm grounding in the traditional repertory, the canon, but also a facility with new music. None of them as I remember expressed any interest in non-classical music, but it may have not come up. One was very knowledgeable on Mahler and Schoenberg, but his education was thorough.

I find it a good thing that hip-hop, Broadway musicals and rock are being taken seriously as art forms and taught at the university level. There has been expressed on TC the assumption that the practitioners of non-classical music do not spend a large amount of time developing the skills necessary to be competent at their chosen music, or that what they do is "easy."

The musicians and artists working in rap, rock, jazz, bluegrass, country and other genres are all serious musicians and their genres require just as much skill, craft, training and discipline as classical music.

Art isn't easy.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

I'm in my late 20s. Not sure about using classical music to avoid "PC"; I'm a communist.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

For the record, if you're worried about the decline in teaching kids "the classics", the real culprit is the transformation of universities from places of learning into job training centers where any degree and course not relevant to finance, business, or STEM is being choked to death.


----------



## Wilhelm Theophilus (Aug 8, 2020)

fbjim said:


> I'm in my late 20s. Not sure about using classical music to avoid "PC"; I'm a communist.


.....Whats that?


----------



## MatthewWeflen (Jan 24, 2019)

I can only speak for myself (43) and do not possess the data to back broader societal claims.

I think more people like CM than they even know themselves. The orchestral style has pervaded movie, tv, commercial and documentary music, laying the groundwork for easy "conversions." 

I always enjoyed orchestral music, but through no real effort by my parents (they listened to more rock, jazz, and country). My dad had movie music though, such as John Williams, and I loved basically every movie containing a Williams score. But I also loved Star Trek, which not only has its own rousing orchestral theme, but frequently featured mini concerts with composers like Brahms and Mozart in the Ten Forward lounge. Then some documentaries got me into Copland. So my CM collection was comprised of a few Brahms, Copland, and movie soundtrack CDs.

I dove deep into CM about 3 years ago, having since purchased several hundred albums covering a broad survey from Baroque to modern periods. I was growing increasingly dismayed by the state of the country and world, and wanted an auditory escape into beauty and order. Since I had already been "primed" for CM, it was an easy dive to take. It did not feel intimidating at all, more like "coming home."


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

This is why I think a university education is grossly overrated. Anyone with any sense can find universality, eternality, complexity, originality or autonomy in non-classical genres of music.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

SanAntone said:


> This is why I think a university education is grossly overrated. Anyone with any sense can find universality, eternality, complexity, originality or autonomy in non-classical genres of music.


Except in most pop music. :lol:


----------



## Agamenon (Apr 22, 2019)

mbhaub said:


> I don't know about the ages of site members, but I'd bet it's over 40.
> 
> There was some research done along this line several years back, and none of the results was surprising:
> 
> ...


I agree with you. Young people,( few exceptions) tend to be hooked on hip hop, etc. Even Stravinsky and Beethoven are " weird" for them.

Yes, Asia is my hope. They believe in CM.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

The forum has difficulty in retaining members who like very avant garde music and who post mostly about it even when they do enjoy a broader repertoire. This may have an impact on the age range of members. And then people in their 40s and 50s can often be too busy for much interaction on social media.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

SanAntone said:


> a sinkhole of toxicity for decades.


Love it!:lol: Too many Mickey Mouse degrees that have no use in society and are on the syllabus to fulfil some sort of weird quota or agenda. And now you can barely speak your mind at university without some PC nut job getting in your face. As for safe spaces!! Give me strength. These are supposed to be places of debate and argument to coax the best out of people. Well they were when I was there, admittedly about fifty odd years ago.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

People really love to complain that the kids aren't learning The Classics anymore and then mock humanities degrees as "useless to society".


----------



## EnescuCvartet (Dec 16, 2016)

mbhaub said:


> I don't know about the ages of site members, but I'd bet it's over 40.
> 
> There was some research done along this line several years back, and none of the results was surprising:
> 
> ...


That is sadly true in many of the arts. There is no awareness or even interest in the works if the past. I've met people trying to break into the film industry that have no knowledge or appreciation of classic cinema. I know this holds true for music as well. I also understand that part of the charm of rock music is supposed to be that anyone can do it, and I agree with that. But even kids in garage bands would benefit from listening to, or having some grasp of the development of music through the ages.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Posts like many of the above confirm the ubiquity and complete saturation of today's society by the New Stasis in the arts. We have reached a point where niches are created and filled like the glow of tens of thousands of fireflies. Some decay--some rapidly, some slowly--but none ever disappear. All needs are met. Every cup is full. Yet the devotees of long-established genres weep for their lost perceived predominance. They weep out of nostalgia and melancholia while sitting among a recorded legacy unprecedented in human history.

The times they are a changing. Enjoy the richness while it exists, because if and when the New Stasis ends, it will be because something is slouching toward Bethlehem.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

David born 1950 said:


> I think that it would be very revealing, indeed, to know the approximate average age of the members of this website. Are they all old like me? Or are there young people who also like this genre, perhaps as an escape from the PC world we now inhabit? Regardless of reasons (but reasons are also revealing) can we make an accurate assessment as to an average age?
> 
> Another way of imparting this thought is to ask: Is love of classical music increasing or decreasing or remaining roughly the same? - David Lyga


I am in the 20-29 age group. This is a great age group to be in for I have much time to explore the centuries before me in particular older music, as there is much more choice today thanks to the rediscovery of older music and musicological research. So many composers today are being studied and their music recorded/performed. With so much rediscovery of the past, one life time is not even enough to listen to them all!


----------



## allaroundmusicenthusiast (Jun 3, 2020)

ArtMusic said:


> With so much rediscovery of the past, one life time is not even enough to listen to them all!


As a wise person -who? I don't know- once said "music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime isn't enough for music"


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

allaroundmusicenthusiast said:


> As a wise person -who? I don't know- once said "music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime isn't enough for music"


My granddad who is in his late sixties had far less choice when he was in his twenties or even thirties and forties compared to today. I mean, you can listen to Medieval music, complete oeuvres of Baroque and Classical composers who were completed forgotten during the 20th century. I think the 21st century is the dawn of a new rediscovery age of older music, refined musicology and professional performers that mark a new standard in old music making.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

If children begin to believe this they lose respect for CM. Maybe they never had any respect for it, or maybe they did, but that doesn't matter.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> If children begin to believe this they lose respect for CM. Maybe they never had any respect for it, or maybe they did, but that doesn't matter.


Again, exposure to CM early as a moral issue. Children (and later, adults) ignorant or or unmoved by classical music are put at risk because of their lack of exposure or of interest.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

on the contrary, I think the best way to get new listeners into classical music is to get rid of the whole reverence on it, and present it simply as great music. 

the idea that classical music has to be respected, rather than loved- that kind of thing puts people off the arts in general. Classical music is performance. It's show business. It's OK to just enjoy it and not push the romantic idea of the demi-god composer.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

fbjim said:


> on the contrary, I think the best way to get new listeners into classical music is to get rid of the whole reverence on it, and present it simply as great music.
> 
> the idea that classical music has to be respected, rather than loved- that kind of thing puts people off the arts in general. Classical music is performance. It's show business. It's OK to just enjoy it and not push the romantic idea of the demi-god composer.


YouTube shines here. The sight (and sound) of performers wholly absorbed by literally "playing their parts" on stage, under the guidance of an excited, energetic conductor, is a very moving spectacle. Andres Orozco-Estrada leading the Frankfurt is a prime example.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> If children begin to believe this they lose respect for CM. Maybe they never had any respect for it, or maybe they did, but that doesn't matter.


No, they will just have equal respect for CM and popular music. Which is a good thing.



fbjim said:


> on the contrary, I think the best way to get new listeners into classical music is to get rid of the whole reverence on it, and present it simply as great music.
> 
> the idea that classical music has to be respected, rather than loved- that kind of thing puts people off the arts in general. Classical music is performance. It's show business. It's OK to just enjoy it and not push the romantic idea of the demi-god composer.


Exactly. While the music of the Romantic era itself is great, the ideologies of the Romantic era cause problems. Many of these ideologies, unfortunately, stuck around in the 20th century through modernism, which is why Leonard Meyer once wittily said that CM is still in the era of "late, late Romanticism."

If we're getting rid of reverence, one of the first things that needs to go is the stifling concert-hall culture (which has changed little since the mid-1800s). The concert was entertainment in Mozart's day, a spectacle in Beethoven's, and by Brahms' practically a lecture, requiring background study and concentration on the part of audiences; in other words, CM became something to be "understood" rather than merely enjoyed. The late 19th century viewed the musical experience as an individual one, an aesthetic experience of art for its own sake rather than a shared social experience - this is where the reverent silence in concert halls comes from. You want CM to be popular? This is just a start, but ditch the silence and let audiences self-regulate.


----------



## BachIsBest (Feb 17, 2018)

Portamento said:


> No, they will just have equal respect for CM and popular music. Which is a good thing.
> 
> Exactly. While the music of the Romantic era itself is great, the ideologies of the Romantic era cause problems. Many of these ideologies, unfortunately, stuck around in the 20th century through modernism, which is why Leonard Meyer once wittily said that CM is still in the era of "late, late Romanticism."
> 
> If we're getting rid of reverence, one of the first things that needs to go is the stifling concert-hall culture (which has changed little since the mid-1800s). The concert was entertainment in Mozart's day, a spectacle in Beethoven's, and by Brahms' practically a lecture, requiring background study and concentration on the part of audiences; in other words, CM became something to be "understood" rather than merely enjoyed. The late 19th century viewed the musical experience as an individual one, an aesthetic experience of art for its own sake rather than a shared social experience - this is where the reverent silence in concert halls comes from. You want CM to be popular? This is just a start, but ditch the silence and let audiences self-regulate.


I'm also pretty sure classical music would be more popular if half-naked females twerked to the drumbeat in the opening of Brahms 1st whenever it was played.

Performers, audiences, and composers, of classical music mostly recognise the music is deserving of some level of respect that renders some actions (or yes, even attire) inherently disrespectful in a concert setting in much the same way using the Mona Lisa as a doormat with which to wipe your feet would constitute a debasement of Da Vinci's achievement and be considered an act of disrespect; popular music has no such standard or level of respect for the music and if this is one of the reasons it is more popular then so be it.

If the only way for classical music to become more popular is for the people involved in classical music to lose their respect and reverence for the music, then I'm pretty sure most everyone will be perfectly content for classical music to remain a niche interest.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

BachIsBest said:


> ... using the Mona Lisa as a doormat with which to wipe your feet would constitute a debasement of Da Vinci's achievement and be considered an act of disrespect....


----------



## Plague (Apr 4, 2020)

I don't assume that just because the love of CM decreases over the decades, which I think is a fact, there must be something going wrong in the society. The moderate popularity CM maintained in the first half of the 20th century was due to the underdevelopment of other genres. With limited options at hand, many listeners settled for CM. Today listeners have plenty of well-developed genres and an enormous non-classical repertoire to choose from, CM can no longer benefit from the lack of diversity. Compared to other genres, CM is too inaccessible and complicated for casual listeners, it is therefore being put in the right place by the masses.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

fbjim said:


> on the contrary, I think the best way to get new listeners into classical music is to get rid of the whole reverence on it, and present it simply as great music.


This has been done for many decades, certainly since the 80s, even since the 60s to some extent, including popular arrangements. You must be either very young or grown up in Eastern Europe or so where older habits prevailed.
Not unsurprisingly, it has not helped classical music to acquire new listeners; at least in the Western world its audience seems older than it would be from general demographics anyway. 
It worked with "morning mood" and similar anthology pieces.
If you treat something like pop music that is actually quite different in some respects, pop music will of course win because by the habits of presentation and consumption derived from pop music/entertainment industry it is superior to most classical.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

BachIsBest said:


> I'm also pretty sure classical music would be more popular if half-naked females twerked to the drumbeat in the opening of Brahms 1st whenever it was played.
> 
> Performers, audiences, and composers, of classical music mostly recognise the music is deserving of some level of respect that renders some actions (or yes, even attire) inherently disrespectful in a concert setting in much the same way using the Mona Lisa as a doormat with which to wipe your feet would constitute a debasement of Da Vinci's achievement and be considered an act of disrespect; popular music has no such standard or level of respect for the music and if this is one of the reasons it is more popular then so be it.
> 
> If the only way for classical music to become more popular is for the people involved in classical music to lose their respect and reverence for the music, then I'm pretty sure most everyone will be perfectly content for classical music to remain a niche interest.


Don't conflate respect with reverence. It's perfectly fine to respect the craft that goes into making good music - popular music has plenty of that. However, the approach to music-making that CM has operated under since the mid-19th century is uniquely esoteric among the world's musical traditions, fundamentally concerned not with music as a social art nor with audiences, but with the pursuit of a musical ideal, engaging in an almost ritual purification of the art. At the root of this nonsensical reverence is the Romantic idea that CM is distinct from the social contexts from which it emerged and within which it is performed/listened to. This facade is upheld in large part through the existing concert-hall culture.

Anyone who attends a CM concert will soon discover that attentive listening is one of its most guarded rituals. However, this is a _relatively recent phenomenon_ in the history of Western musical culture. As historian William Weber (1984) writes, in the 18th century "some people listened and some socialized, but no one objected to their being together in one audience;" while in the nineteenth century, "audiences were expected to remain seated and silent for the duration of the musical performance." What changed? Well, there was a radical transformation of how people thought about instrumental music; this was fueled by the rise of connoisseurs into a position of musical authority. However, change didn't occur instantly - take the following example: "For the romantic reformers of Dutch musical culture, the battle against inattentive listening was waged throughout the nineteenth century. In 1848, the conductor Johannes Verhulst, who at this time was the most important conductor in the Netherlands, decided to use his privileged position to discipline audiences; when people started talking and getting up to leave before the completion of a performance, Verhulst stopped the orchestra and, with arms crossed, stared at those who were making a disturbance until they returned to their seats" (Cressman 2012). In short, Romantic ideology provided the conceptual basis for a transformation of musical taste, and listeners were encouraged to forget that attentive listening runs counter to fundamental human impulses.

Beginning in the 19th century, concert halls were constructed in European cities, and concert halls are not neutral conduits for the performance/reception of music. These buildings are loaded with meanings that draw upon the history of Western musical culture; they disseminate the idea that CM (the symphony in particular) is aesthetically superior to all other art forms. Functionally, this idea was translated into designs that encouraged listeners to listen attentively - devoutly, even - to music that had previously been considered a pleasant diversion to social obligations. In other words, "Concert halls are temples of a secular religion. Constructed for the worship of music, once inside, one can't help but feel reverence for the sacred art of music" (Cressman 2012).

It seems culturally dishonest to attend a symphony concert as you would a rock concert, doesn't it? The fact that we may think this lends credence to the idea that CM is musically superior to other types of music (and shows the influence of concert-hall culture). Our prejudices show when we reject the chatting listeners of Mozart's time as "cultural barbarians." They weren't.

Ultimately, we are talking about what we consider the meaning of music to be. Attentive listening is an argument for CM to be treated as a "serious" art form capable of transcendent aesthetic experiences. Alternatively, the demand that venues be more favorable to socializing is an argument that CM's meaning is realized through the corporeal pleasures/enthusiasms that it can inspire. Obviously I take the second position.



Kreisler jr said:


> This has been done for many decades, certainly since the 80s, even since the 60s to some extent, including popular arrangements. You must be either very young or grown up in Eastern Europe or so where older habits prevailed.
> Not unsurprisingly, it has not helped classical music to acquire new listeners; at least in the Western world its audience seems older than it would be from general demographics anyway.
> It worked with "morning mood" and similar anthology pieces.
> If you treat something like pop music that is actually quite different in some respects, pop music will of course win because by the habits of presentation and consumption derived from pop music/entertainment industry it is superior to most classical.


I think you're exaggerating the extent to which previous efforts tried to change the fundamental way CM is consumed - the "older habits" you talk about are still widespread. Indian classical music is quite different from Bollywood movie soundtracks and, despite allowing for more socializing, it seems to be doing just fine.


----------



## David born 1950 (Apr 21, 2021)

Response to Barbebleu post #25:

Today's universities are a parody of common sense. I want no part of them, especially at age 71.

Debate is simply not permitted if one's reasoning 'offends'. Hell, I even want topics like the Holocaust to be debated, but such would earn only infamy from the status quo, (or a jail term in some countries). Learning is not learning any more; instead, it is consummate indoctrination, deferring always to the PC crowd. Students are no longer students, but, instead, customers. Safe spaces are nothing more than gag orders which prevent one from experiencing thought which might counter (heaven forbid) one's preconceived ideas. - David Lyga


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

David Born 1950's post 48 says _Today's universities are a parody of common sense. I want no part of them, especially at age 71.

Debate is simply not permitted if one's reasoning 'offends'. Hell, I even want topics like the Holocaust to be debated, but such would earn only infamy from the status quo, (or a jail term in some countries). Learning is not learning any more; instead, it is consummate indoctrination, heeding always to the PC crowd. Students are no longer students, but, instead, customers. Safe spaces are nothing more than gag orders which prevent one from experiencing thought which might counter (heaven forbid) one's preconceived ideas. - David Lyga
_

^ What a strange post this is! You seem to be hinting at more than you say. Which universities don't allow or even encourage discussion and debate about the subjects they are teaching? They may, of course, insist on a discipline concerning what is and isn't an effective argument. There are clear laws of reasoning and a huge body of demonstrated fact that facilitate this debate.

As for some reasoning offending, again I am unsure what you refer to. You mention the Holocaust (or how about evolution?): there are many known and demonstrated facts, there is truth, and I am sure that most cultures or governments allow and encourage discussion that is based in truth. But there are also lies (not "reasoning that offends" but reasoning based on bald lies!), lies that are evidently such by reference to the very plentiful evidence, and these are often spread for the purposes of promoting hatred. That seems to equate to evil to me and I certainly don't have any problem with discouraging or penalising the spread of the evil of hatred based on lies.

The problem these days is that there are large numbers of people who lack the mental apparatus or training or inclination to sift truth from lies and yet want the facts to fit and give power to their prejudices - so they invent them or believe someone else's invention. Anything can be true, they believe, if they say it is true. Both polls of the political spectrum do this, of course, and that is why free debate must be allowed. But it has to be based in and must concern what are demonstrable facts.

It is these areas that the debate we often have of subjectivity vs objectivity actually becomes important.


----------



## Coach G (Apr 22, 2020)

I started with classical music in the early 1980s as a teenager. At the age of 53, my interest in classical has never waned and has grown and expanded into many sub-genres of classical music. During my college years and a few years beyond, I developed an interest in jazz that was quite pronounced and came to rival my interest in classical. Now, in middle age, I've developed an interest in Country music which seems to run direct opposition to my interest in classical; as classical is urban, cosmopolitan, cultured, and is surrounded by an aura of some snootiness; as opposed to Country music which is rural, provincial, folksy, and is looked down upon with a slight aura of condescension by those who don't like it. But I just like the way that country music has a lot of "heart"; and every song tells a story like every good symphony tells a story.

By-and-large, I'm an autodidact in music, as well as in other subjects that interest me. I learned most of what I know about classical music by buying records and later CDs; and reading the liner notes. At 16, my mother who didn't even like classical music but supported my interest in it, gave me a copy of Harold Schonberg's _The Lives of the Great Composers_ one Christmas, and it served as something as a guide from that point forward.

I don't think that classical music is conducive to modern life, at least not here in the USA. We've come to live in a world of constant stimulation. While the older generations have become somewhat zombie-like with their mobile phone, TV, and internet usage; with most young people, it's constant. It's not that they _won't_ shut their phones, it's that they _can't_ shut them off. Given that, how do expect people to sit through a symphony by, say, Brahms, and expect them to listen mindfully, maybe two three or times before the music starts to make sense to them?

It could be that we are in a post-classical music culture.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Coach G said:


> I don't think that classical music is conducive to modern life, at least not here in the USA. We've come to live in a world of constant stimulation. While the older generations have become somewhat zombie-like with their mobile phone, TV, and internet usage; with most young people, it's constant. It's not that they _won't_ shut their phones, it's that they _can't_ shut them off. Given that, how do expect people to sit through a symphony by, say, Brahms, and expect them to listen mindfully, maybe two three or times before the music starts to make sense to them?


I don't think the way we are "supposed" to listen to classical music is conducive to any sort of life. I don't think it abides by fundamental human impulses.

Have you seen this meme?









It's goofy, but the same applies to classical music as an argument against cultural gatekeeping. There's no reason why we can't have people who "understand" Brahms and people who think his melodies "go brrrrr" in the same audience. In fact, it's healthier that way.


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

I'm in the 55-65 age group.

. . . And I think that Pop and Rock music genres in the 1965-1975 decade were an astounding time "popular" music. So much creativity, so much fusion. And in the late 70s Country Music grew another set of balls and started cranking out some exquisitely crafted and beautifully engineered stuff, even if it was still about dogs and pickup trucks and girlfriends and your dead mom.

I really despised Disco, mostly because it lacked rhythmic complexity. By the time it found some depth it was over except for the memories and the hangers-on. Punk's simplicity bored me, and once Heavy Metal developed from Proto-Metal to "Metal" I really lost interest. Stadium Rock and Corporate Rock seemed shallow after a great start.

I did, and still do love me some Progressive Rock, including all the pseudoprogressive derivatives.

I occasionally find new artists to like, but they are few. I keep my ears open.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

*I'm closing this thread temporarily for clean up - too much politics.*


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Following some discussion, the thread has been re-opened.

Please no politics.

Please keep to the OP about how old you are.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I am 'old like you', *@David born 1950*. I wasn't born in 1950, but not far off. 

When I joined in 2013 I posted and read a lot, and my impression was that the site was split between older people (45+) and teenagers still at school or college - Ukko, an erstwhile poster, used to joke about 'whippersnappers' and there were a lot of them, including some as young as 13.

Now, however, I get the impression that the average age has moved upwards. I don't take part half as much as I used to, so I may not be right, but even if I am, I have no idea why.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

Portamento said:


> Don't conflate respect with reverence. It's perfectly fine to respect the craft that goes into making good music - popular music has plenty of that. However, the approach to music-making that CM has operated under since the mid-19th century is uniquely esoteric among the world's musical traditions, fundamentally concerned not with music as a social art nor with audiences, but with the pursuit of a musical ideal, engaging in an almost ritual purification of the art. At the root of this nonsensical reverence is the Romantic idea that CM is distinct from the social contexts from which it emerged and within which it is performed/listened to. This facade is upheld in large part through the existing concert-hall culture.
> 
> Anyone who attends a CM concert will soon discover that attentive listening is one of its most guarded rituals. However, this is a _relatively recent phenomenon_ in the history of Western musical culture. As historian William Weber (1984) writes, in the 18th century "some people listened and some socialized, but no one objected to their being together in one audience;" while in the nineteenth century, "audiences were expected to remain seated and silent for the duration of the musical performance." What changed? Well, there was a radical transformation of how people thought about instrumental music; this was fueled by the rise of connoisseurs into a position of musical authority. However, change didn't occur instantly - take the following example: "For the romantic reformers of Dutch musical culture, the battle against inattentive listening was waged throughout the nineteenth century. In 1848, the conductor Johannes Verhulst, who at this time was the most important conductor in the Netherlands, decided to use his privileged position to discipline audiences; when people started talking and getting up to leave before the completion of a performance, Verhulst stopped the orchestra and, with arms crossed, stared at those who were making a disturbance until they returned to their seats" (Cressman 2012). In short, Romantic ideology provided the conceptual basis for a transformation of musical taste, and listeners were encouraged to forget that attentive listening runs counter to fundamental human impulses.
> 
> Beginning in the 19th century, concert halls were constructed in European cities, and concert halls are not neutral conduits for the performance/reception of music. These buildings are loaded with meanings that draw upon the history of Western musical culture; they disseminate the idea that CM (the symphony in particular) is aesthetically superior to all other art forms. Functionally, this idea was translated into designs that encouraged listeners to listen attentively - devoutly, even - to music that had previously been considered a pleasant diversion to social obligations. In other words, "Concert halls are temples of a secular religion. Constructed for the worship of music, once inside, one can't help but feel reverence for the sacred art of music" (Cressman 2012).


I could hardly disagree more. Of course you are correct on a descriptive level about the development in the 19th century, But you seem to be missing that this development of the bourgeois concert setting was a co-evolution with the music and something demanded by the music, not externally applied! 
For most of its history almost any music was tied to social function. Sure, there were maybe some exception of having music "just for fun" but usually it was together with religious service, court ceremony or country dance etc. Starting with early modernity there were some niches for contemplative music that was enjoyed *for its own sake", mostly keyboard (or also lute songs maybe). By the late 18th/early 19th century there was more and more music that was complex and serious enough to demand the full attention instead of being played as background for dining and flirting. Just recall the irate young Beethoven refusing to play as "background entertainment" (50 years before Verhulst!) This shows that music and its ideal reception venue were not in tune at this time (of course most composers did not have much of choice, better have the music played to a not very attentive audience than not at all). So a form of reception was developed that would put the music centrally and subordinate everything towards focussing attention on the music. (Again, of course there were still opera performances or virtuoso concerts that were more like 20th century pop concerts.) It was not imposed from the outside but demanded from the way music developed.



> Ultimately, we are talking about what we consider the meaning of music to be. Attentive listening is an argument for CM to be treated as a "serious" art form capable of transcendent aesthetic experiences. Alternatively, the demand that venues be more favorable to socializing is an argument that CM's meaning is realized through the corporeal pleasures/enthusiasms that it can inspire. Obviously I take the second position.


That's what you have the applause at the end, the concert/opera break and maybe the pub or café afterwards for. *I think it would be the eventual death of what is special about classical music*, namely that more than any other music it is in fact serious and capable of providing transcendent experiences (I am not saying it is the only music who does this but the one that shows it most clearly). And it was (socially) powerful enough to produce a better environment (the stiff bourgeois concert with no applaus in between etc.) for such experiences. To give this up would be the most foolish thing, I am afraid.

I hope this is not political (I don't see how) but of course it goes beyond age (I am in my late 40s, should anyone care). But I think it is a deserving topic because I really think that to "help" classical music by making it and its concerts more like "pop" is crazy. Furthermore, there always have been "pop"/light music concerts and informal settings like Last night of the Proms. Nothing wrong with having that once in a while. I also do not demand white tie attire for audiences  But in general the typical concert has to remain focussed on the music as paramount and allow maximal concentration,


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

I'll have to sit this one out. Aged 66 and devoted to CM since adolescence, I just never 'got' rock and pop music despite being the generation that grew up with the Beatles, Stones, Who etc. So I have no experience of musical tastes changing or 'maturing' with age.


----------



## Portamento (Dec 8, 2016)

Kreisler jr said:


> I could hardly disagree more. Of course you are correct on a descriptive level about the development in the 19th century, But you seem to be missing that this development of the bourgeois concert setting was a co-evolution with the music and something demanded by the music, not externally applied!
> For most of its history almost any music was tied to social function. Sure, there were maybe some exception of having music "just for fun" but usually it was together with religious service, court ceremony or country dance etc. Starting with early modernity there were some niches for contemplative music that was enjoyed *for its own sake", mostly keyboard (or also lute songs maybe). By the late 18th/early 19th century there was more and more music that was complex and serious enough to demand the full attention instead of being played as background for dining and flirting. Just recall the irate young Beethoven refusing to play as "background entertainment" (50 years before Verhulst!) This shows that music and its ideal reception venue were not in tune at this time (of course most composers did not have much of choice, better have the music played to a not very attentive audience than not at all). So a form of reception was developed that would put the music centrally and subordinate everything towards focussing attention on the music. (Again, of course there were still opera performances or virtuoso concerts that were more like 20th century pop concerts.) It was not imposed from the outside but demanded from the way music developed.


18th-century musical life adhered to a social etiquette that tolerated forms of behavior more diverse than those permitted today. But that doesn't mean people didn't listen to music at all or had no serious interest in it. They paid attention to it in different ways than our own, and through their writings we can see that their perspective had musical and intellectual integrity. The post-Romantic perspective distrusts any fusion between music and "mundane" social activities (which supposedly violates the musical experience's integrity). The discovery that not everyone was absorbed in listening at every moment is disturbing to us, given the idealistic aesthetic that defines our current approach to experiencing music. But this shouldn't make us think that one couldn't listen in earlier times, or that people in general didn't.

Your claim that older composers were "forced" to choose between having their music played to a not very attentive audience and having it played at all is dead wrong. Composers didn't see having their music played to a "not very attentive" audience as a bad thing. Mozart said as much in a letter to his father in 1782 when he described a set of concerti he was writing as "a happy medium between what is too easy and too difficult... here and there are things which connoisseurs can appreciate, but I have seen to it that those less knowledgeable must also be pleased without knowing why." Musical tastes/interests were polymorphous; some went to concerts for simple entertainment, others went for serious artistry, but nobody saw anything illogical in these two groups being in the same place at the same time.

This intermingling of tastes broke down around the turn of the century. It was really the rise of the printing industry and simultaneous collapse of the patronal tradition, not "the way the music developed," which changed things. At one end of the spectrum stood virtuosi, entrepreneurs who created a frenzy of popular demand for music advertised as brilliant but not difficult. "Facile virtuosity was the order of the day, and only a few of the virtuosic corps - chiefly Liszt and Paganini - were later to make it into the standard 'serious' repertoire" (Weber 1977). According to a Parisian journalist as late as 1833, "musical feeling, taste, the study of the great masters, the science of composition are dissonances to their ears that you would be ill advised to pronounce before them." At the opposite end were musicians and supporters of newly founded symphony orchestras - connoisseurs - who wanted to maintain the tradition of learned music-making. They were fanatic devotees of the German school, and their organizations made little headway till about mid-century. However, eventually they forged the concept of "The Masters" and fashioned values for seriousness and learning which were alien to 18th-century musical life. It's clear that the development of sheet music polarized values for entertainment and serious artistry, establishing as a basic fact of life the difference between connoisseur and layman. This polarized environment is what led Beethoven - a young connoisseur - to rebel so vehemently against "background entertainment."



Kreisler jr said:


> That's what you have the applause at the end, the concert/opera break and maybe the pub or café afterwards for. *I think it would be the eventual death of what is special about classical music*, namely that more than any other music it is in fact serious and capable of providing transcendent experiences (I am not saying it is the only music who does this but the one that shows it most clearly). And it was (socially) powerful enough to produce a better environment (the stiff bourgeois concert with no applaus in between etc.) for such experiences. To give this up would be the most foolish thing, I am afraid.


Now we get to the root of your prejudice. Though you try to cushion it as much as possible, you think that classical music is aesthetically superior to other types of music. You like listening "attentively" because, by doing so, audiences confirm and reinforce the idea of classical music's superiority.



Kreisler jr said:


> I hope this is not political (I don't see how) but of course it goes beyond age (I am in my late 40s, should anyone care). But I think it is a deserving topic because I really think that to "help" classical music by making it and its concerts more like "pop" is crazy. Furthermore, there always have been "pop"/light music concerts and informal settings like Last night of the Proms. Nothing wrong with having that once in a while. I also do not demand white tie attire for audiences  But in general the typical concert has to remain focussed on the music as paramount and allow maximal concentration,


It's not about making classical "more like" pop - classical music will never have the same aesthetic values as pop. However, no other musical culture in the world is as obsessed with its supposed aesthetic superiority as classical, and getting rid of "attentive" listening gets rid of repulsive Romantic-era ideology.

Remember: it's the _music_ that should make classical music special, not how it's presented.


----------



## Kreisler jr (Apr 21, 2021)

I hardly believe that you keep missing the point, as you seem too smart for this. But I'll try once again. The point is not some superiority of classical music. I didn't write a word about this (in fact I *explicitly* conceded that other music might also lead to very special aesthetic experiences, so much for projecting "prejudices" into what I wrote...) But as only CM developed the modern concert setting, this is one of many features *special* about it, there is other music that has different special things about it, e.g. a more spontaneous interaction between audience cheering and musicians immediately reacting with another solo or so. (Note however, that as Jazz got more "serious" its concert settings often became also more classical, maybe it's not a conspiracy of "ze dshermans" forcing not only their 19th century great composers but also highbrow stiffness onto the poor world...)

I am not interested in non-classical music here, it's about the question if the presentation of CM that developed in the last ca. 200 years is particularly conducive to its appreciation or not. I claim that it is, that's one reason why it was developed and remained like this. You have some "external"/conspiracy story about this development and seem to claim that it is not the best way for the appreciation of classical music (why not?) 
However, the details of the historical evolution are hardly the point. It took place as it did and led us to where we are. 

But now we have had mass media for almost 100 years which especially in more recent decades, led to people with very short attention spans, inability to concentrate (even if one is wary about the explosion of numbers of Attention deficit disorders diagnosis, this does not seem totally fabricated) and by now the third generation has grown up with a certain kind of popular music (3-5 min Anglo-Pop/Rock songs etc., not hour long raga imrovisations), i.e. has an *extremely narrow* idea what "music" should be like. I read that more recently streaming led to pop songs having to capture the listener within 10 secs or so, otherwise it would be "clicked/swiped away", so the 3 min of the vinyl single were really long compared to that... We are more in need of help with focus and attention to appreciate complex, not immediately gratifying art than ever before!

Have you ever asked a professional classical musician if she'd prefer the audience coming and leaving as they pleased, talking and eating during the music? I am puzzled that you write of "attentive listening" as if it was a bad thing, only because it is *relatively* recent. Modern dentistry is also relatively recent...
And "some went to concerts for simple entertainment, others went for serious artistry, but nobody saw anything illogical in these two groups being in the same place at the same time." might have worked well in Mozart's time (when there was no alternative anyway!) It will still be the case, I'd guess and it can work. But of course, there are *obvious conflicts*. Until quite recently it also "worked well" that people smoked in restaurants. The non-smokers had the option of bearing the stench or of eating at home.. This is almost exactly the situation of someone preferring a traditional quiet audience focussed on the music if it becomes normal again, that a certain percentage of the audience does not behave in that way but rather snogs its date, talks to the neighbors or slurps champagne.

And again, we have had such "relaxed" concerts for decades, often outdoors. There seems no reason at all to change all concerts to this way, what exactly would be the benefit in your opinion?


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

It seems that everyone is afraid to say that Western CM is superior to other types of music. Well, it is. Live with it.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

advokat said:


> It seems that everyone is afraid to say that Western CM is superior to other types of music. Well, it is. Live with it.


Wow. I am impressed with your argument, so convincing. :lol:


----------



## advokat (Aug 16, 2020)

SanAntone said:


> Wow. I am impressed with your argument, so convincing. :lol:


Thanks! Need any more convincing arguments, such shout. :lol:


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

*Community forum: This is the place for those fun, and not so serious threads, birthday greetings, & general chit-chat.

Posters have ignored the moderator's request to stick to the thread topic.

Thread closed.
*


----------

