# What does the future hold for classical music?



## tgreen

Broad I know... but i thought it would be good to get a discussion going on the future of classical music in all it's guises and what we think is in store? 

I for one believe that the future is very bright indeed. I live in london and over the last few years I have felt a real change in attitudes towards classical/opera, particularly among the younger generation 18-35. I think accessibility has improved at the same time that people are looking for more 'earthly' and refined cultural experiences. New venues are opening across town, festivals are aplenty, and their is an intriguing live scene that combines classical music performers with dance music DJs - One of the pioneers is the grandson of Prokofiev!! - not everyones cup of tea I know but I think it's an absolutely fantastic thing to be happening and vital to the ongoing development of the genre. 

I could go on but what does everyone else think?


----------



## Rondo

I don't see that exact thing happening here in the States. The UK, however, is much closer (geographically and otherwise) to a lot of the cultures and history surrounding the genre, so what you mentioned comes as no surprise.

In the near history, Im sure classical music will become more "popular," but in a different way, where what we begin to hear is not purely classical music but some uncongenial hybrid of classical music and popular music--a lot of which you can hear right now. But, that's the way life is around here, I guess. Things never change, they adapt (for better or for _worse_).


----------



## Yagan Kiely

Classical Music has always been very popular in many film scores.

But the same as the title post is happening in Perth Australia.


----------



## Guest

What do you all mean by the phrase "classical music"? Sounds like you mean a particular and recognizable style. A certain "sound," if you will. 

But listen to some Orlande de Lassus for awhile. Now listen to some Xenakis. Both of those have been categorized as "classical," even though stylistically, sonically, they are so different as to not even seem from the same planet.

Or?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Now listen to some Xenakis. Both of those have been categorized as "classical," even though stylistically, sonically, they are so different as to not even seem from the same planet.


This is an example of what will not be the future of Classical Music. If indeed it has any hope of becoming the slightest bit popular at any rate.


----------



## Rondo

If we are in a time when it is at least somewhat difficult to discern which music is "classical" music, then we are in very bad times, indeed (not to sound _too_ apocololyptic).


----------



## Yagan Kiely

I think you'd find it hard find someone who doesn't recognise a Liszt, Beethoven or Bach Keyboard Piece; a Stavinsky, Mahler or Mozart orchestral piece; any opera or any choral piece as 'that boring classical stuff'.


----------



## Guest

Yagan Kiely said:


> some guy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Xenakis
> 
> 
> 
> This is an example of what will not be the future of Classical Music.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the empty assertion, Mr. Kiely.


----------



## altiste

*"classical music"*

Perhaps in the future the term "classical music" will mean music with dynamics, or perhaps that's the case now.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

> If indeed it has any hope of becoming the slightest bit popular at any rate.


But when has the arts been judged by what is popular at the time? Taking art as an example - some of the most innovative and groundbreaking artists of the last century (plus a bit) for example: Van Gogh, Jackson Pollock, Picasso were not recognised at the time, and were seen as childlike with no real talent, rather than what they are... in my opinion obviously. It always amazes me that people never seem to learn from the past. That isn't a personal attack Yagan since I have no idea what your personal musical preferences are.. but it seems almost impossible to judge will happen in the future if what is happening in the present is so wildly discredited.

But maybe this is me just being back home stuck in the countryside and away from all the contemporary concerts I would normally be able to go to...


----------



## Guest

Drowning_by_numbers said:


> But when has the arts been judged by what is popular at the time?
> 
> But maybe this is me just being back home stuck in the countryside and away from all the contemporary concerts I would normally be able to go to...


I am also in the countryside and 2-3 hrs from a decent venue but would not go to a concert which featured only contemporary composers [unless the were the ones that I do like] even so all of the concerts that I have attended over the past couple of years have had one work by a living Composer most were local as we have a charter that forces the promoters to include a certain amount of local Talent or they loose the subsidy that is given by the Arts Ministry the majority I did not enjoy, but must confess that one or two were very good.
Only time will tell which of these are good enough to last but even so there _are _a handful of contemporary composers that are loved by the majority of present day music lovers.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> But when has the arts been judged by what is popular at the time?


Music from almost 100 years ago is still not popular. It's had its time to become popular and hasn't. And this is it's own fault. Atonal music and the like has no natural phenomenon that the untrained listener can appreciate. Humans work in pattern recognition (as all animals that I know of) and we cannot see a pattern in atonal music.



> present is so wildly discredited.





> It always amazes me that people never seem to learn from the past.


You seem to have ignored the fact that Schoenberg died 1951, Varese in 1965 and Schaeffer's a lot of Schaeffer's Music was pre WWII. They have had a long time for their music to become popular, it hasn't and it won't.

Xenakis died recently, but apart from his music being composed a long time ago (and it having many year to get popular) it is far too complex for an overwhelming majority of people to enjoy. Noise music is impossible to be popular for the same reason.

You seem to think I am basing it off my personal preferences: I am not.


----------



## Guest

Yagan Kiely said:


> Humans ... cannot see a pattern in atonal music.


Really. Well, mom always did say she thought I was from another planet. But seriously, Yagan, atonal music has plenty of patterns. (Anyway, talking about the recent past, are you sure that "atonal" is quite the thing? The atonal/tonal debate was over, at least among musicians, around 1936 or so. Well, among SOME musicians, anyway....)



Yagan Kiely said:


> You seem to have ignored the fact that Schoenberg died 1951, Varese in 1965 and Schaeffer's a lot of Schaeffer's Music was pre WWII. They have had a long time for their music to become popular, it hasn't and it won't.


You seem to have dropped some of your facts. Here, let me pick this one up for you: all of Schaeffer's music is post WWII. 1947 on. In any case, if it is true that it's not popular and never will be, why do you have to say it? If you're right, it will remain unpopular all on its own, without your help. Or don't you even believe it yourself?



Yagan Kiely said:


> Xenakis died recently, but apart from his music being composed a long time ago (and it having many year to get popular) it is far too complex for an overwhelming majority of people to enjoy. Noise music is impossible to be popular for the same reason.


Yagan, the music of Franz Josef Haydn is far too complex for an overwhelming majority of people. Or does Haydn pack 'em into stadiums down your way?

Xenakis' was actively composing from the early fifties to the late nineties. Which part of that are you defining as "a long time ago"? And why are you pretending there's no recent music of his?

Not sure if you're using "noise music" as a technical term or not, but the thousands of people that cram into clubs all over the world to hear noise artists (and who spend many thousands a year on CDs) might wonder what you mean by "popular."

I know I do.

*Not that "popular" is quite the point.* Beethoven is less popular than any pop music you could name. So what? Beethoven's music isn't considered good because it's more popular than Beyonce; it's considered good because it has enough variety and complexity (!) to make it a satisfying experience for the people who understand it, no matter how often they listen to it.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> Really. Well, mom always did say she thought I was from another planet. But seriously, Yagan, atonal music has plenty of patterns.


You cut out the important thing in my statement. I can't comment on this until you actually take it into account rather than cut around it.


> (Anyway, talking about the recent past, are you sure that "atonal" is quite the thing? The atonal/tonal debate was over, at least among musicians, around 1936 or so. Well, among SOME musicians, anyway....)


That has absolutely no point what-so-ever. Many article on wikipedia have many discussions on whether to keep an articles that change over time. Laws are abolished after many times of trying. Just because you believe that the argument is over, doesn't mean it is.



> Yagan, the music of Franz Josef Haydn is far too complex for an overwhelming majority of people. Or does Haydn pack 'em into stadiums down your way?


You are missing the point. No one, no matter what their preferences of music thinks that Haydn is unmusical or noise - they just don't like it. You still don't understand what I mean by complex do you...



> Xenakis' was actively composing from the early fifties to the late nineties. Which part of that are you defining as "a long time ago"? And why are you pretending there's no recent music of his?


Because... um... I didn't? What are you talking about? I said that he was compising a long time ago (ooh 50 years thankyou), so his music has had enough time to 'become popular'



> Not sure if you're using "noise music" as a technical term or not, but the thousands of people that cram into clubs all over the world to hear noise artists (and who spend many thousands a year on CDs) might wonder what you mean by "popular."


If you actually think that they frequent the clubs to listen to the music you are grossly missinformed.



> *Not that "popular" is quite the point.* Beethoven is less popular than any pop music you could name. So what? Beethoven's music isn't considered good because it's more popular than Beyonce; it's considered good because it has enough variety and complexity (!) to make it a satisfying experience for the people who understand it, no matter how often they listen to it.


I wasn't responding to you, I was arguing against the common (and flawed) aregument that if you give it time, it will become popular. This can't happen.

All your post is based on the fact that you ignored one sentence of mine. Without that sentence my post is meaningless, which is why you ignored it.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

> Only time will tell which of these are good enough to last but even so there are a handful of contemporary composers that are loved by the majority of present day music lovers.


But perhaps that is true because present day music lovers have only heard a handful of contemporary composers.



> Music from almost 100 years ago is still not popular. It's had its time to become popular and hasn't. And this is it's own fault.[/quote}
> What?! Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel… these people are not popular among present day music lovers, as Andante says? They are as popular in music as Van Gogh is in art. Without a doubt. Unless of course we are talking main-stream popular, in which case we probably have to discount all classical music. Leaving atonality aside which is a trickier issue for many people, there a lot of composers who have written in the last 100 years who are very popular. For example - in England there are dozens of English composers who I bet masses of music listeners know the names of - Benjamin Britten, Vaughan Williams, Elgar… to name the main ones. All very popular composers, and they will remain so for a very long test of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have ignored the fact that Schoenberg died 1951, Varese in 1965 and Schaeffer's a lot of Schaeffer's Music was pre WWII. They have had a long time for their music to become popular, it hasn't and it won't.
> 
> 
> 
> No you are correct, they have not become as popular as the composers I have named above - Britten being especially relevant since he died in the '70s. But perhaps this is because of the new ideas and content in the piece. Perhaps not, perhaps they are just bad. But I really really do not wish to ever type that again about Varese!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to think I am basing it off my personal preferences: I am not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never suggested it. I am and I don't believe it makes my argument any weaker.
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

Just to make it easier to follow, could the quotes be credited to poster?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

[URL="http://www.talkclassical.com/members/drowning_by_numbers.html" said:


> Drowning_by_numbers[/URL]http://www.talkclassical.com/members/drowning_by_numbers.html]What?! Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel… these people are not popular among present day music lovers, as Andante says?


I never said they aren't popular.



[URL="http://www.talkclassical.com/members/drowning_by_numbers.html" said:


> Drowning_by_numbers[/URL]http://www.talkclassical.com/members/drowning_by_numbers.html]Perhaps not, perhaps they are just bad.


I never said they were bad, I said atonalism restricts the music and ensures that it will never be popular.



[URL="http://www.talkclassical.com/members/drowning_by_numbers.html" said:


> Drowning_by_numbers[/URL]http://www.talkclassical.com/members/drowning_by_numbers.html]I never suggested it. I am and I don't believe it makes my argument any weaker.


I said 'you _seem_'. I was wrong, I wasn't suggesting anything else.


----------



## Guest

Yagan Kiely said:


> ...atonalism restricts the music and *ensures* that it will never be popular.


If you believe this, why do you feel compelled to keep arguing the point? That's the really curious thing about this argument.

"X is going to happen, no matter what I say. I must therefore make sure I tell as many people as possible that X is going to happen."

Good luck with that!

Now, on with the thread, eh? As I said on the other forum that tgreen used for this question, it would help if we all agreed about what we meant by "classical music." And I proposed that we think of "classical" as the musical equivalent of "literature" for writing. "Literature" doesn't identify any particular style. Sophocles is literature and so is Gertrude Stein. They have nothing in common stylistically (_vide_ Lassus and Xenakis), but they both tried to make something artistic, something that mattered and would continue to matter beyond the present. (The idea here is that artists are going for durability not popularity, even though some artists have been wildly popular as well. Right before his death, Cage took a trip to Finland where he was mobbed by admiring crowds as if he were a rock star.)

So "literature" will continue unabated, even though the books and poems will differ radically from each other and from past "literature." That's how I use "classical," not to identify a certain sound or style, but to indicate an attitude towards the materials of the art. To identify a living, current impulse. (This is what is really behind the determination to attack contemporary classical music at every opportunity--the people who hate it recognize that it's an enduring force that will have to be reckoned with, regardless of whether any particular composer or style has any popularity. )

I think that that current impulse has been to concentrate on sounds. Not so much the organization of those sounds, as was true for atonality and twelve tone and serial musics, as presenting contexts that would allow the sounds to be themselves, as is true for experimental, soundscape, acousmatic, live electronics and such. ("Current" apparently means "the past sixty or seventy years," I see!)

I must say, I don't spend much time thinking about the future. The present and the immediate past are plenty enough! But if the current practices are any indication, the future of "literature music" (as it were!) will see the use of electricity grow, will see more live laptop music, will see more theatrical music--not music for plays, but music that is part of mixed or multimedia events, or just an emphasis on the naturally theatrical elements in music, from the naturally occurring movements of performers to the spatial component of sound. So there will be more effort put into covering halls with speakers and sending sounds zipping about the hall, just to take a very simple example. Our ears can pick up sounds from all angles, but typically in concerts the sounds are only coming from right in front. That's changing, though, and will continue to change, I think.


----------



## Rondo

I believe what some guy just stated is an example of what the future holds for the genre. 

Has the line between classical music (the type of music on which this very forum is founded and we constantly talk about, to be perfectly clear) and all other types of music become so fuzzy that we need to introduce a debate on what classical music is? I understand how you are using the word "classical" semantically, as it is used in literature (as in "the classics"). However, using that definition of the word Classical does introduce debate on what is considered "classical." (But, classic what? Classic rock? Classic metal? Classic grunge?) 

For the sake of the argument here, it may be best if we just assumed that the "classical" is an arbitrary label for the type of music implied.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

to me music will never be as beautiful as powerful as overall emotional as it once was. mozart and beethoven will never be replaced as the best so i stick to these old written peices of art. Classical music shouldnt even be called classical music. if so shouldnt we still be calling led zeppelin a new band? To me music should be called what it is. Did Haydn say I just composed a classical peice. He probably said i just composed a symphony. So their for one day techno could be called classical music . To tell you the truth Symphonic music still goes on. It is a shame that the good stuff went neo-classical which is a oxymoron. I would like to see brilliant works put before my eyes. I want to see a new opera! that doesent sound like that broadway nonsense. but we still have the "good stuff" to cherish. But maybe im wrong i completely agree with Rondo in the U.S. classical music is as the composers who wrote the music "dead" One day we could see some brilliant music. I would like to raise money to bring back the "good stuff"


----------



## Guest

*Yagan Kiely and Drowning by numbers*: 
*Re: *
_What?! Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel… these people are not popular among present day music lovers, as Andante says?_

I do not follow the point you are making by alluding to something I posted, please show the quote properly if you are going to quote me, are you saying that Stravinsky,Debussy and Ravel are not popular with to days audiences? If so that is rubbish. So ambiguous.


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> So ambiguous.


He was being sarcastic. That said, it was worded poorly but easily understood really.



> "X is going to happen, no matter what I say. I must therefore make sure I tell as many people as possible that X is going to happen."


That isn't what I'm doing, so whatever. 



> He probably said i just composed a symphony


I doubt he would concider his music like that of the folk music of the day though. You say it as if there was only classical music.



> For the sake of the argument here, it may be best if we just assumed that the "classical" is an arbitrary label for the type of music implied.


I agree, I hate the term. But although true, 'fine' music sounds terribly elitist...



> I must say, I don't spend much time thinking about the future. The present and the immediate past are plenty enough! But if the current practices are any indication, the future of "literature music" (as it were!) will see the use of electricity grow, will see more live laptop music, will see more theatrical music--not music for plays, but music that is part of mixed or multimedia events, or just an emphasis on the naturally theatrical elements in music, from the naturally occurring movements of performers to the spatial component of sound. So there will be more effort put into covering halls with speakers and sending sounds zipping about the hall, just to take a very simple example. Our ears can pick up sounds from all angles, but typically in concerts the sounds are only coming from right in front. That's changing, though, and will continue to change, I think


I agree, but don't like the idea of electronics. It stops being art and becomes poor maths then. Art does have a lot of maths in it, but no pure maths.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers

Andante: This is the bit that is a quote from you - nothing else. The rest refers to Yagan



> Only time will tell which of these are good enough to last but even so there are a handful of contemporary composers that are loved by the majority of present day music lovers.


But perhaps that is true because present day music lovers have only heard a handful of contemporary composers.

This next bit you refered to was addressing Yagan - where I was shocked after he said music from 100 years ago is not popular. The reference to you was just to say you had called listeners "present days music lovers" Apologies, I was suggesting you had made this claim.



> Music from almost 100 years ago is still not popular. It's had its time to become popular and hasn't. And this is it's own fault.


What?! Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel… these people are not popular among present day music lovers, as Andante says? They are as popular in music as Van Gogh is in art. Without a doubt. Unless of course we are talking main-stream popular, in which case we probably have to discount all classical music. Leaving atonality aside which is a trickier issue for many people, there a lot of composers who have written in the last 100 years who are very popular. For example - in England there are dozens of English composers who I bet masses of music listeners know the names of - Benjamin Britten, Vaughan Williams, Elgar… to name the main ones. All very popular composers, and they will remain so for a very long test of time.

Yagan - if you were addressing me, suggesting I had worded this poorly, I am she for future reference.


----------



## Guest

*Drowning by numbers and Yagan*, Thanks, now I understand, 
*Numbers*, Re your comment I am She, perhaps Yagan doesn't check user profiles, btw you are much prettier than me. 
One thing that I have found with new works is that they are much more acceptable to me if I hear them at a concert as opposed to a CD or the Radio.
I think to days composers want to break away from tradition [is that the right word?] but they have yet to find the alternative, its fine to write clever music but if it sounds awful even after repeated hearings then some thing is wrong. 
For me, and I would suggest the majority of music lovers, music must have at least one of the following: Form/structure [as in sonata form] Rhythm or driving beat, the overall sound must be pleasant [again maybe wrong word] and not an assault on my ears "subjective I know" The type of thing that makes my toes curl is for example George Crumb's Black Angels, played here by Kronos Qt

http://www.box.net/shared/jp2db9asc4


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> I am she for future reference.


Fair enough.


----------



## Guest

Andante said:


> The type of thing that makes my toes curl is for example George Crumb's Black Angels


The usual conclusion drawn from this type of anecdote is that certain twentieth century musics are too noisy and dissonant to ever be popular.

What I always think, however, being an avid listener to music that was written even more recently than thirty-seven years ago, is that the owners of curling toes are simply not keeping up.

Not that keeping up is in any way necessary, except that perhaps contributing to a thread on the future of music should mean one at least knows the musics of the present.

(And, of course, if Andante uses curling toes to mean extreme pleasure, then "Never mind," said in the Roseanne Roseannadanna voice. )


----------



## Rondo

Andante said:


> The type of thing that makes my toes curl is for example George Crumb's Black Angels, played here by Kronos Qt
> 
> http://www.box.net/shared/jp2db9asc4


Point taken. This is not an example of what the _future_ holds for classical music, but what it has been becoming as of right now. Of course, it's the Kronos Quartet. The same quartet which plays anything _except_ the types of music traditionally reserved for a string quartet.

Seeing this, perhaps what the future does hold is a time when people request songs such as Crumb's _Black Angels_ to be played at their receptions and parties, while others ask for Beethoven, Haydn, Borodin, or Dvorak and receive reactions of disgust and bewilderment. A bit extreme? Who are we to say right now?


----------



## Guest

I don't know that it's particularly virtuous of a string quartet (ensemble) to play only string quartets (musical pieces).

But I just checked my recordings of Kronos, and they play plenty of string quartets, including pieces by Cowell, Bartok, Sculthorpe, Gubaidulina, Nancarrow, Glass, Ives, and Kancheli.

Oh right, AND by Crumb, whose _Black Angels_ is a string quartet.

Otherwise, in what possible world does a liking for Crumb mean a concomitant disgust for Dvorak? What? That's just crazy talk, mon vieux!


----------



## Rondo

I wasn't thinking _that_ extreme, or necessarily about those who already have a very strong inclination to classical music (to borrow the term again). My response, using your mention of the _Black Angels_ piece as an example, was in regard to the direction I have seen classical music take. Many people claim that this is just contemporary classical music and those of us who don't like it should 'get used to it.' Well, that may be. However, there is a very, very big problem when music of the more "traditional" (again, I don't want to get into an argument over semantics) style is phased out and replaced, that is, except for your quintessential Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Dvorak, et al. _No one_ is challenging that, I'm sure.

Some would say that this has been happening since the beginning, from Gregorian chants to Stravinsky ballets and beyond (to use a futuristic analogy). Music has evolved and continues to, and Crumb may be an example of that. However, just because something is inevitable, doesn't mean you have to like it. 

Unfortunately, despite how pleasing and satisfying a piece of music is to the ears, it is only as good as the time in which it was composed.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> The usual conclusion drawn from this type of anecdote is that certain twentieth century musics are too noisy and dissonant to ever be popular.
> 
> What I always think, however, being an avid listener to music that was written even more recently than thirty-seven years ago, is that the owners of curling toes are simply not keeping up.


No, not *ever be popular,* just as I said makes my toes curl, in other words it is not for me I would never go to hear it performed or would I purchase the music. You have a problem with that?
You obviously have a personal involvement in music composed to day, I guess you are a composer hence the enthusiastic defence of your genre, but do not expect every one to also share your enthusiasm for all the music produced today.


----------



## Guest

Rondo,

Surely the words "phased out and replaced" can only apply--and in a very limited, localized way--to compositional practices (and I can't think of any examples of "replaced"). But your wedding party anecdote has people replacing an older composer in their listening with a more recent composer. That is, you were saying that listeners were replacing Dvorak with Crumb in their listening habits. If anyone actually would do that, well, I would pity the fool!

Andante,

We are participating on a thread about the future of classical music. My point about your reaction to _Black Angels_ was simply that contributors to a discussion of the future should probably know something about the present. You yourself may like or dislike any old thing you want. If you bring up something from almost forty years ago, something you dislike, then there's a _possibility_ that you've not got the knowledge necessary for holding up your end of the conversation. We can't any of us know everything, and you're certainly not alone in not keeping up with current practices.

Otherwise, I'd say that liking and disliking are only relevant insofar as liking something increases the odds that you'll understand that thing, and disliking something means that you won't. (And what I *expect*, just by the way, since you seem interested(!), is that very *few* people will ever share my enthusiasm for new music. But that's hardly germane.)


----------



## ChamberNut

Isn't it OK that relatively new listeners/fans of classical music listen to the so-called "canon" of classical music? At least, for the first X number of years until he or she feels they've exhausted their interests in the Baroque/Classical/Romantic genres?

And isn't it also OK that if more people start listening and gaining an interest in classical music (in general), then, in turn, more people will listen to the modern repertoire?


----------



## Guest

ChamberNut said:


> Isn't it OK that relatively new listeners/fans of classical music listen to the so-called "canon" of classical music?


No one has suggested that it's not. (Though there have been suggestions that this HAS been suggested.)



ChamberNut said:


> until ... they've exhausted their interests in the Baroque/Classical/Romantic genres?


When does _this_ happen? (I've been listening to music since I was tiny. And while I do listen mainly to music written since 1950 nowadays, I haven't exhausted my interest in the Baroque/Classical/Romantic eras.)



ChamberNut said:


> And isn't it also OK that if more people start listening and gaining an interest in classical music (in general), then, in turn, more people will listen to the modern repertoire?


Oh yeah! This is OK for sure!


----------



## ChamberNut

Some Guy,

All I'm saying is that if people feel coerced in any way to listen to this or that, it will turn them off, and turn them away. Fair enough?


----------



## Artemis

some guy said:


> Andante,
> 
> We are participating on a thread about the future of classical music. My point about your reaction to _Black Angels_ was simply that contributors to a discussion of the future should probably know something about the present. ...


This isn't necessarily true, as it depends entirely on the average time lag between the present day and the historical focal range of interest in classical music. Suppose from historical analysis that this average time lag has been determined to be, say, 160 years with a standard error of 60 years say, meaning that about 95% of the current interest in classical music broadly spans (in a bell-shape manner) the period 1728-1968, assuming a fairly symmetrical distribution.

I accept that these numbers are somewhat arbitrary because I don't have reliable data on which to base a more accurate set, but I reckon they are not that far out based on my perception of the kind of classical music which tends to receive most attention on radio, public concerts, CDs etc. In fact, I've probably been slightly generous to your case, as the time distribution could be rather older than 160 years.

As you must accept, there is relatively very little interest in the kind of contemporary music you continue to promote. I'm not saying that I dislike any of this music, or that it won't become increasingly more important as time goes by. What it does mean, however, is that it's such tiny segment of the overall classical music, and the historical time lags are so long, that there is no need to be interested in or knowledgeable about contemporary music in order to be able to pontificate about the future of classical music in general, at least over the next 40-50 years. Only if it is considered likely that past historical time lags are likely to shorten very considerably in the near future, might your argument have any strong validity, but I can't see that happening.


----------



## Guest

Artemis, since your time lag comment applies to listeners--to the knowledge and experience of most listeners--I can't help feeling that far from invalidating my point, you have just added some support to it. If your knowledge is out of date, you probably shouldn't be talking about the future.

At least, I don't think you would argue that ignorance is an acceptable substitute for knowledge. (And of course, any old person can pontificate on any old thing. I only observe from time to time that uninformed pontificating is not as useful or as interesting as informed pontificating.* I must stop doing that, too, I think.)

Chambernut, I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that no one's doing any coercing. If you feel coerced, what can I say? There is at least no gun in MY hand, anyway.

*Just a for instance, if you're interested. I am, among other things, a poet. My most recent publication (_Versal 6_, p. 46) was this spring. I number many published poets among my friends. I read a fair amount of recent poetry. And I would never participate in a discussion of the future of poetry, because I don't feel like I know enough about current poets and current poetic trends. (Yeah, if only everyone were like me, eh? Hahaha...!)


----------



## purple99

@ some guy. Let me get this straight. You're claiming a person's opinion about a thing - beef cattle, bathroom fittings, the overnight money markets, music, etc - gain value in proportion to how much they know about that thing? Consequently, when debating the future of classical music it is desirable to know something about contemporary music? And, to follow your logic through, the opinions of someone who knows little or nothing about contemporary music are of less value compared to someone with more experience?

Sorry to be dense, but that sounds so blindingly obvious I can't believe anyone would argue against it. So I must have got you wrong. Would you mind correcting my mistake? Or are people here in the habit of employing plumbers who regard the flush toilet as a suspicious modern invention and use a dowsing rod to find the water main?


----------



## Artemis

ChamberNut said:


> Some Guy,
> 
> All I'm saying is that if people feel coerced in any way to listen to this or that, it will turn them off, and turn them away. Fair enough?


Absolutely right. Being told that ones's classical musical education is somehow deficient if it doesn't involve a knowledge or appreciation of contemporary classical music, is a sure fired way of annoying people, let alone putting them off classical music in general. To suggest that a knowledge of the present scene is some kind of pre-requisite for commenting on future trends in classical music is bordering on the arrogant, no matter how many smilies it's wrapped up in.

As far as I'm concerned, there's more than enough pre-contemporary music to keep my musical tastes satisfied. I do not feel in any way deficient in my appreciation or knowledge of classical music, as I regard the bulk of contemporary music pretty rubbishy and highly marginal in terms of consumer interest.

When most people talk about "classical music", and ask about its likely future, I'm pretty sure they're asking how others view the chances of its general survival and uptake among future generations as consumers, rather than about trends in the supply side of new forms of music. Unfortunately, the thread opener has been seen around these parts since the start of the thread to shed any light on such matters. He's probably having a good laugh somewhere, even assuming he has bothered to keep in touch here, which is probably optimistic.


----------



## purple99

Artemis said:


> Being told that ones's classical musical education is somehow deficient if it doesn't involve a knowledge or appreciation of contemporary classical music, is a sure fired way of annoying people, let alone putting them off classical music in general.


I wouldn't like to see anyone become annoyed, or be put off classical music. Civilized debate should be a pleasure. But I freely admit I know little about contemporary classical music. It's one reason I'm here - to learn. There's no shame in that. It's good to learn. People who don't want to learn can avoid the debate.

But there is shame in becoming annoyed when the blindingly obvious is pointed out: that you need to know about a thing before being able to comment intelligently upon it. In no other walk of life would such behaviour be tolerated:

"This is the BBC here. We're crossing now to our Westminster studio for an update on the current political crisis from our Political Correspondent who knows nothing about politics beyond 1872."

"Hello, I'm a Doctor. Where does it hurt? Hmmmm. Have to tried leaches? Ear of toad in an infusion of virgin's blood works well too..."



Why should music be different? And those who become annoyed, well, that's their problem isn't it? They should learn to control their emotions. Or have a lie down followed by a nice cup of tea. It would be ridiculous to curtail debate in case someone had a hissy fit should their ignorance be pointed out.


----------



## Guest

A lie down followed by a nice cup of tea, eh? 

Mmmmmm. (I just hope you're not suggesting that that cuppa is only for the people who are annoyed, because if you are...!!)


----------



## purple99

* Doctor, I became really annoyed and felt 'put off' when my ignorance was pointed out *

:angry: :angry:


----------



## Rondo

some guy said:


> Rondo,
> 
> Surely the words "phased out and replaced" can only apply--and in a very limited, localized way--to compositional practices (and I can't think of any examples of "replaced").


Well, I am no composer, but from my experience with those who are in the "business" (at least academically) you may be understating that a little. Let's take John Williams as an example. Why does he receive so much unneeded heat and flak from the academic community? His music is great, and very enjoyable.



some guy said:


> But your wedding party anecdote has people replacing an older composer in their listening with a more recent composer. That is, you were saying that listeners were replacing Dvorak with Crumb in their listening habits. If anyone actually would do that, well, I would pity the fool!


Right now, who wouldn't? After all, remember the thread concerns the future of classical music.


----------



## Guest

some guy said:


> Andante,
> 
> We are participating on a thread about the future of classical music. My point about your reaction to _Black Angels_ was simply that contributors to a discussion of the future should probably know something about the present. You yourself may like or dislike any old thing you want. If you bring up something from almost forty years ago, something you dislike, then there's a _possibility_ that you've not got the knowledge necessary for holding up your end of the conversation.


You are very quick to labour the point of posters not having the knowledge to take part in this discussion, how do you know what knowledge I or anyone else possesses?

You say you are a Poet, but do you also have Musical credentials which would justify and add some weight to your comments? 
*Are you directly involved in music as a musician or composer?? or are you enthusiastic but passive [listener] * 
In the end whether you like it or not, it is the consumer that will finally determine which way Classical Music will take and this will probably be that which is easily accessible not that which would approach or be classed as Avant-garde . perhaps Avant-garde is the wrong term.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

purple99 said:


> Let me get this straight. You're claiming a person's opinion about a thing... gains value in proportion to how much they know about that thing? Consequently, when debating the future of classical music it is desirable to know something about contemporary music? And, to follow your logic through, the opinions of someone who knows little or nothing about contemporary music are of less value compared to someone with more experience?


I was with ya until the last word, pp99. To have inserted the word "experience" here would work if there's a functional identity between knowledge and experience. Of course, that ain't necessarily so.

To use a generic illustration, imagine a (random) "religious cult." A "true believer" could be in the process of fully experiencing the cult, have the capacity to recite the texts of the cult-leader, etc... and still _know_ less about it than someone who had the good sense to avoid all of the "trappings."

Does anyone remember the "Cheech & Chong" routine... "What that?" "Unh... look like dog (waste)." And after a session of "feel," "smell," and (_omg_) "taste," -- they conclude "good thing we not step in it!"


----------



## Artemis

purple99 said:


> @ some guy. Let me get this straight. You're claiming a person's opinion about a thing - beef cattle, bathroom fittings, the overnight money markets, music, etc - gain value in proportion to how much they know about that thing? Consequently, when debating the future of classical music it is desirable to know something about contemporary music? And, to follow your logic through, the opinions of someone who knows little or nothing about contemporary music are of less value compared to someone with more experience?
> 
> Sorry to be dense, but that sounds so blindingly obvious I can't believe anyone would argue against it. So I must have got you wrong. Would you mind correcting my mistake? Or are people here in the habit of employing plumbers who regard the flush toilet as a suspicious modern invention and use a dowsing rod to find the water main?


I would be interested to hear what you have learned about the future of classical music based on this thread alone thus far. Personally, I haven't learned anything even though it's been going for some three pages now. The dialogue mainly comprises a series of misunderstandings, farcical rebuttals, mis-quotes, sundry red herrings, and various failed attempts at humour.

I wonder what you made of my earlier post where I pointed out that the future of classical music (from the consumer viewpoint) is largely predetermined as a result of the long term historical lags in the system. Given the existence of such well-established lags, the current scene - whilst obviously of interest to those who are engaged in creating new music, and those who enjoy listening to it - is unlikely to have much impact on what the majority of classical music fans will be listening to in 20-40 years time.

I note your belief in the need for access to the latest scientific/technology research for all types of personal problem solving. However, would you not agree that sometimes it can be more efficient to exclude the latest information in making long term predictions, especially when the latest observations are subject to measurement errors, as might appear to be the case with regard to classical music trends which are anything but clear as preferences and styles are still unravelling?

In the limited context of guessing future trends in classical music, I also wonder whether your comments might seem rather like a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Most people don't need to consult a medical expert on the latest research into brain disease before deciding on how many aspirin or possibly paracetomol to take for a headache. Nor is there generally any need to consult academic journals on the latest economic research into the workings of financial markets before deciding on, say, a savings strategy, or when to buy foreign exchange for an overseas trip. Likewise there's no need to consult an expert on animal rearing bio-technology in order to speculate on the future market for the best cuts in beef steak for BBQ purposes. And there can't be any universal need to call out DynoRod requesting their latest duct cleaning technology to unblock a sink when in most cases a local plumber, or even having a go at DIY with plunger and a piece of coat hook wire would probably do the trick.


----------



## Guest

Artemis said:


> Personally, I haven't learned anything even though it's been going for some three pages now. The dialogue mainly comprises a series of misunderstandings, farcical rebuttals, mis-quotes, sundry red herrings, and various failed attempts at humour.


And bad-tempered criticisms of the other posts, don't forget that one!



Artemis said:


> I pointed out that the future of classical music (from the consumer viewpoint) is largely predetermined as a result of the long term historical lags in the system. Given the existence of such well-established lags, the current scene - whilst obviously of interest to those who are engaged in creating new music, and those who enjoy listening to it - is unlikely to have much impact on what the majority of classical music fans will be listening to in 20-40 years time.


TGreen, who started this thread, has apparently left the room, otherwise we could ask him (or her) what she (or he) wanted to talk about. So it was left to us to make of it what we would. Certainly "what fans will be listening to" is a legitimate way to read "what does the future hold," but just as certainly it is not the only way to read the question. I read it as being about the music itself, what musics were being done today and which things were likely to continue to be done in the future.

I took that approach partly because I don't see any future (!) in discriminating between "the majority of classical fans" and "those who enjoy listening to [new music]." People in the latter group go to concerts, buy CDs, download mp3s and all the rest of it. What is served by marginalizing their experience or their money either one?

And I took that approach partly because I didn't want to see another thread get going on the future of classical performance, on the likelihood of Haydn or Pergolesi continuing to be performed twenty or forty years from now. That treats "classical music" as if it were something only out of the past, of certain established masterworks, and not something alive and producing new things every day. I prefer seeing "classical music" as something still being done, not as in the sounds of a romantic orchestra or in continuing the traditions of tonality, but in the attitude about the process--that classical composers are still in the business of making something valuable and durable that will give pleasure 200 years from now as well as today. Not something that sounds like it could have been written 200 years ago--those sounds and those traditions are indeed done--but something produced by the attitude that art is important and worthwhile, whether it takes the form of a symphony or the non-form of an experimental multimedia event.

But that's just me. That's not the only way to approach this topic. But neither, Artemis, is yours.


----------



## Artemis

some guy said:


> TGreen, who started this thread, has apparently left the room, otherwise we could ask him (or her) what she (or he) wanted to talk about. So it was left to us to make of it what we would. Certainly "what fans will be listening to" is a legitimate way to read "what does the future hold," but just as certainly it is not the only way to read the question. I read it as being about the music itself, what musics were being done today and which things were likely to continue to be done in the future.


I can't argue with this. There are indeed two ways of looking at the issue, one from the listeners' point of view and another from the perspective of suppliers of new music. I was concentrating on the former and, it seems, you on the latter.

But you probably know the saying that "consumer is sovereign", which in this context means that modern composers will have to comply with general tastes if they wish to be successful. There's no harm in trying out new and different approaches but ultimately, if none of it strikes a chord with the buying public, it won't get far. I think that Yagen Kiely was really saying no more than this in the early part of this thread in the context of what he loosely called atonal music, his point being that this experiment has had more than enough time to find a market and it's largely failed given the preponderance of interest in the Baroque/Classical/Romantic model.

Obviously, I accept that we can't remain stuck in a rut, and my own tastes have shifted forwards in time from being primarily interested in Baroque and Classical to Romantic and some early Modern. In fact, I'm very happy with some late Modern (RVW and Shosty for example) but I haven't yet made a successful crossing to many contemporary styles. Without going too far out of my way, I keep trying to find new styles that might interest me but I must admit that I rather have the attitude "if it ain't broke don't fix it" in the sense that I still very much place Romantic music at the centrepiece of my musical ideal, and where's still tons to investigate further.

Maybe part of the problem is that I don't get much chance to hear much contemporary music, as it's not broadcast to any great extent on the UK radio channels I like best, mainly Radio 3. I'm also rather past buying new CDs as I already have far more than I can cope with. I tend to tape stuff off the radio that interests me, and with modern digital transmission at a decent bit rate (192 kbps for Radio 3) it's possible to get good results.


----------



## purple99

Chi_town/Philly said:


> I was with ya until the last word, pp99. To have inserted the word "experience" here would work if there's a functional identity between knowledge and experience. Of course, that ain't necessarily so.
> 
> To use a generic illustration, imagine a (random) "religious cult." A "true believer" could be in the process of fully experiencing the cult, have the capacity to recite the texts of the cult-leader, etc... and still _know_ less about it than someone who had the good sense to avoid all of the "trappings."


Surely they'd simply have different sets of empirical data upon which to base their opinions? And when evaluating their opinions you look at the quality of the data to determine which opinion is more valuable.


----------



## purple99

Artemis said:


> I would be interested to hear what you have learned about the future of classical music based on this thread alone thus far. Personally, I haven't learned anything even though it's been going for some three pages now. The dialogue mainly comprises a series of misunderstandings, farcical rebuttals, mis-quotes, sundry red herrings...


The main thing I've learned - 'been reminded of' or 'relearned' are better descriptions - is how powerful a force is classical music conservatism. Some people feel comfortable with Beethoven and Mozart and don't really want to hear anything else. The mere thought of it makes their toes curl.

Which is fair enough. I'm all for music lovers determining what sound enters their ears, and being entirely free to exclude those they find unpleasant.

I live close to Tate Modern in London and witness the vast crowds drawn to modern art exhibitions. There's a visible hunger for modern art from a mass audience. They flock to see work produced by living artists, a fact illustrated daily by visitor numbers. Sure, they gawp at the old fogies too, but the modern/experimental galleries are packed. I've heard various explanations for this, the most compelling (for me) being the large increase in personal wealth among the London middle class over the last twenty years. There's now an enlarged, socially mobile London middle class with disposable income in their pockets, who vote with their feet for modern art. They want something a bit different from Eastenders on the telly to show their new class status.

I see no reason why this enthusiasm shouldn't extend into the concert hall, and this thread has re-enthused me to attend more modern classical music concerts, not least to take a look at the audience. Plus I enjoy some guy's posts and his enthusiasm is infectious.

The main thing is to make it easy for this new audience to expose itself to modern classical music. Tate Modern, in the visual arts, has strived to do just that with great success. It's now up to classical music impresarios to do likewise. I suspect it's in their financial interests to make the jump.

That doesn't mean there'll be less Mozart and Beethoven. Andante's toes are safe from curling! Western music colleges turn out a whole army of talented performers each summer. Let some of them play modern classical music, by living composers, to entertain the new aspirational middle class. It's a simple case of supply meeting demand.



Artemis said:


> ... and various failed attempts at humour


Didn't the image of Andante requiring a soothing foot-rub - hopefully from Mrs Andante  - to recover from this thread raise a _hint _of a smile on the stern Artemis countenance? Come on, be honest now...


----------



## Guest

Artemis said:


> [Y]ou probably know the saying that "consumer is sovereign", which in this context means that modern composers will have to comply with general tastes if they wish to be successful....
> 
> Obviously, I accept that we can't remain stuck in a rut, and my own tastes have shifted forwards in time from being primarily interested in Baroque and Classical to Romantic and some early Modern....
> 
> Maybe part of the problem is that I don't get much chance to hear much contemporary music, as it's not broadcast to any great extent on the UK radio channels I like best, mainly Radio 3.


We may not agree about the value of "general tastes," but I do think you've hit the nub, here. I would put it like this (probably not how you'd put it!): in the twentieth century the recording industry helped turn classical music into just another commodity, like soap or soft drinks or automobiles. In this situation, the consumer does become sovereign or at least feels that way! Music becomes, for consumers, a thing that must serve them and their current needs. It is no longer valued for its ability to take one out of oneself or to provide one something new, to expand one's horizons.

But not every listener is like that. Your talk of a shift is very encouraging, as is purple99's desire to get out to some new music concerts. And there are a lot of new music concerts and CDs, so many that I can't ever even hope to keep up, and I'm a pretty active listener. (Success, in other words, has already come to the new music folks.) The same technology that gives us Vivaldi (and could keep us stuck on Vivaldi!), is fortunately the same technology that enables us to add Varèse and maybe even Verrando and Vitiello to the mix. (Yes, I do indeed have CDs of all those people.)

And speaking of which, it's time to bring this little post to a close and listen to some more music!


----------



## Rondo

some guy said:


> Music becomes, for consumers, a thing that must serve them and their current needs. It is no longer valued for its ability to take one out of oneself or to provide one something new, to expand one's horizons.


There is a working model here (though, not in any way academic): if they (the consumers) like it and it works, then why the heck not? I'm sure many successful composers and musicians have thought that, while other successful ones had thought otherwise. Therefore, what difference can it make from an economic standpoint?

That may not (and I would_ bet _not) be a popular sentiment within the *classical* music industry (though, I've been wrong before). I'm just playing the devil's advocate with the above question.

As far as the future, just how "different" can classical music become until the styles and structures are so alien that it becomes another genre altogether? Or, worse yet, it begins to meld with other genres and form the "hybrids" to which I alluded earlier? If that is so, atonal music is the least of my worries.

I'm not condoning a complete _homeostasis_ of classical music (even though it may sound that way), or even the utter disregard for any of the "different" classical music I speak of. I'm merely making an observation. Atonal musical structures are fine and, I agree, they broaden one's taste and exposure to the variety of styles _within_ classical music. But, to be wary of the direction this may go, ten years from now, I would still like to walk into a store, or go online, to a section conveniently labeled "Classical music" and know exactly what I am getting into. (Frankly, it's hard enough right now!)

But, if people like it, then why not? Right?


----------



## Yagan Kiely

> It is no longer valued for its ability to take one out of oneself or to provide one something new, to expand one's horizons.


Neither was Mozart, Bach etc.


----------



## David C Coleman

tgreen said:


> Broad I know... but i thought it would be good to get a discussion going on the future of classical music in all it's guises and what we think is in store?
> 
> I for one believe that the future is very bright indeed. I live in london and over the last few years I have felt a real change in attitudes towards classical/opera, particularly among the younger generation 18-35. I think accessibility has improved at the same time that people are looking for more 'earthly' and refined cultural experiences. New venues are opening across town, festivals are aplenty, and their is an intriguing live scene that combines classical music performers with dance music DJs - One of the pioneers is the grandson of Prokofiev!! - not everyones cup of tea I know but I think it's an absolutely fantastic thing to be happening and vital to the ongoing development of the genre.
> 
> I could go on but what does everyone else think?


The fact that you live in London does not represent the attitude across the rest of the country, unfortuately.
London is a great, world class cultural centre. What you see happenning in London, generally is not happenning in some back street, working class, Northern town. 
Ignorance and a fixation on Pop-music rule the day there, and until we can change the image, broadcasting and education of Clas. Mus. then it has a bleak future..


----------



## agstoke

Of course, the term 'classical' in music refers to the period 1770 - 1810. But because the same term is also used to define music from before and after that period things can get confusing. Aren't we in the Post Post Modern period at the moment?

Apparently stylistically at present there is supposed to be a 'neo-romantic' thing happening. I don't know where. US? Europe? UK? I think the 'neo-romantic' thing occurred in 1980s 'classical music' too. Perhaps 'classical' music is repeating itself stylistically at an ever increasing rate.

Musical food for thought:

But music is very important. Music is a tonic for the pineal gland. 
Music isn't Bach or Beethoven; music is the can-opener of the soul.
It makes you terribly quiet inside, makes you aware that there's a
roof to your being.

-Henry Miller


----------



## tgreen

*quite a discussion!*

Wow, I didn't expect to log on and find so many replies!

The general feeling I get from you all is perhaps less positive than I feel about the future. I read an article in this morning's Metro that backs up my opinion that Classical Music sales are growing year on year both CDs and Downloads

How about that?


----------



## Herbstlied

Well...I've noticed that classical music is appealing young generations in my country (Syria-Middle East)... so you see the opera house is full of people who are under the age of 35... which was the case in the very old days in Europe, when classical music used to be fresh and new (as I read some where) musicians used to wonder where are the elder people...
but also we mustn't ignore that the concept of music is also losing its essence around the world...I mean when you listen to vivaldi, Bach and Mozart...you have to concentrate, feel and think...and when you listen to Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake...you never need to use your mind at all!!


----------



## Simpson Microphones

*Film scores, John Williams & the future*



Yagan Kiely said:


> Classical Music has always been very popular in many film scores.


The film industry is a very interesting motivation for music composition.

I have long been a fan the huge melodies of John Williams' film scores, and this is one place at least where the general public will remain familiar with the full-scale orchestral sound.

I occasionally test microphones/recordings on cinema theatre speaker systems and it is surprising how much potential to reproduce a believable orchestra they have.

With the introduction of next-gen microphones, film scores will get far more realistic over the coming years. Very exciting!

Andy


----------



## purple99

This is what live classical music used to be like:



> While most were in their places by the end of the first act, the continuous movement and low din of conversation never really stopped. Lackeys and young bachelors milled about in the crowded and often boisterous parterre, the floor-level pit to which only men were admitted. Princes of the blood and dukes visited among themselves in the highly visible first-row boxes. Worldly abbés chatted happily with ladies in jewels on the second level, occasionally earning indecent shouts from the parterre when their conversation turned too cordial. And lovers sought the dim heights of the third balcony-the paradise-away from the probing lorgnettes...
> 
> The audience sometimes participated without any prompting from the stage. Once, when Liszt was beginning a performance of the "Kreutzer" Sonata with the violinist Lambert Massart, listeners began calling out "Robert le Diable!"-meaning that they wished to hear instead Liszt's fantasy on themes from the Meyerbeer opera. Liszt acceded to the demand and launched into his "Robert" fantasy. Imagine what would happen today if, just as Maurizio Pollini was playing the first of Chopin's Études, concertgoers were to shout, " 'Claire de Lune'! 'Claire de Lune'!"


Compare that to the dull, stuffy, snobby, predictable, a*se-freezingly boring ritual of today. I scan the London concert schedules and while there's lots of good stuff you also see endless 'Yet another bloody Brandenburg concert'. No wonder most people hate it. They're quite right to hate it. But the article ends on an upbeat:



> The problem isn't that the modern way of giving concerts has grown hopelessly decrepit, as some say; it's that music has for too long been restricted to a single, almost universally duplicated format. If the idea is to treat composers as serious artists, then concerts must become significantly more flexible, in order to accommodate the myriad shapes of music of the past thousand years. Superbly polished as today's performances are, I sometimes get the feeling that the classics are a force more contained than unleashed, and that new works might still produce the tremendous effect that Beethoven had on Berlioz's old music master at a concert in Paris: "When I came out of the box and tried to put on my hat, I could not find my own head."


View attachment 283​


----------



## soundandfury

As someone with an active interest (albeit amateur) in composition, I would just like to point out that the possibilities of the older forms have yet to be exhausted. Personally, I write almost exclusively in a Baroque style, simply because there is so much potential still untapped in its forms. I do not doubt that there are other, if not 'Neobaroque' composers, then certainly 'Neoclassicist' in the broad sense (ie. not just 1770-1810 or w/ever); while some of them will fit the caricature of the neoclassicist (eg. someone who writes a classical sonata for vacuum-cleaner and orchestra), others might better be described simply as 'classicists, who aren't dead yet'. So when discussing the future of classical music, please don't forget that as well as going forwards, we can go backwards, sideways, or whatever. There is still essentially 'traditional' music being written, it just doesn't get the exposure (to the classical community) that 'modern' works seem to get.
Someone mentioned John Williams; he is a case in point. His works may not be breaking vastly new ground - he's not inventing new structures, tonalities etc. like the 'modernists', or indeed like the most 'forward' composers of the 'classical' eras (ie. baroque, classical, romantic, and early (tonal) 20thC), but then, they're still valid, 'classical' works in their own right. To be honest, I can't understand why the classical community seem to cold-shoulder him so much. After all, Mozart didn't exactly develop new genres, but he's still among the greatest (some would claim _the_ greatest) composers of all time.

Sorry for going on for so long, especially as I don't really know much about the topic. But why should that matter? If the topic is about 'what music will be considered valuable in 100yrs time', which is one valid interpretation, then it depends to a considerable degree on whether someone can enjoy it without having to be painstakingly taught beforehand _how_ to enjoy it. In any value judgement, accessibility must play a part. (Note that I don't mean this in the sense of 'do concerts in wet t-shirts so that teenagers will come to them', but rather in the sense of 'play music that is complete and understandable in itself, without any verbal explanation')

[edit]I've just thought of an example: Ethan Winer (http://www.ethanwiner.com). He says at one point: "For reasons I can't understand, many players and composers these days have abandoned traditional musical values in favor of pieces that change meter every third measure, or contain excessive dissonance that never resolves. Perhaps I'm just stuck in the 19th century, but I greatly prefer music that has a melody and harmony, and strives for beauty rather than shock or sound effects." If you need proof that he's a decent composer, just look for his cello concerto http://www.ethanwiner.com/concerto.html[/edit]


----------



## Elgarian

soundandfury said:


> So when discussing the future of classical music, please don't forget that as well as going forwards, we can go backwards, sideways, or whatever.


I suppose I'd like to add to your comment that all of those progressions can be taking place at the same time, with different artists making different kinds of art for different reasons and for different audiences. I know more about the history of visual art than the history of music, and when one looks around at the visual art world today, almost every strand imaginable is being pursued. That seems pretty healthy, because people enjoy art for a whole raft of reasons. At one end of the spectrum they may want to be comforted and made to feel secure - and turn to traditional, non-challenging forms; at the other, they may want to be thrilled with a sense of exploring new perceptions, perhaps by the kind of art that makes other people cross.

I don't see why all these things can't exist alongside each other, in music as well as visual art - and I think they do, don't they? When I look around, it seems that every currently conceivable kind of music is available to me, should I want it; and I can't see why that will change in the long term, as long as the arts remain necessary to us (as they seem to have been throughout history).


----------



## soundandfury

*So, yes, basically.*



Elgarian said:


> I suppose I'd like to add to your comment that all of those progressions can be taking place at the same time, with different artists making different kinds of art for different reasons and for different audiences.


[etc.]
I thoroughly agree with what you added. That was roughly the point I was making: that the future doesn't just involve 'modern' music, it will continue to broaden - especially so thanks to the Internet which, by bypassing traditional publishing methods, effectively changes everything in practically all creative fields.
Hence, we can't really say anything specific about the future of Classical Music in terms of how it will stylistically evolve, since there will cease to be a dominant style/paradigm.


----------



## Guest

soundandfury said:


> Ethan Winer (http://www.ethanwiner.com). He says at one point: "For reasons I can't understand, many players and composers these days have abandoned traditional musical values in favor of pieces that change meter every third measure, or contain excessive dissonance that never resolves. Perhaps I'm just stuck in the 19th century, but I greatly prefer music that has a melody and harmony, and strives for beauty rather than shock or sound effects."


These days? Apparently Ethan hasn't been paying very close attention. In 1998, when he wrote that, people had been writing in multiple meters for at least 80 years, long before Ethan was born. Long enough so that that is itself a tradition by now, and one that's been "abandoned" by many composers. As for "excessive," that of course is cheating. One cannot argue with it, as it has no reliable meaning. It's a bad description of only the auditor's response, not the thing responded to.

As for dissonance (without the cheat word) that never resolves, that too has gone on long enough to be a tradition as well. So long, for both items, that neither are really part of any serious discussion among musicians any more.

And, lastly, as for "abandoned," Ethan has also not been paying very close attention. Composers started expanding compositional resources oh sometime around when there started to be composers, I suppose. Striving for beauty is what everyone does; it's what the expansions (not abandonments) are for. (The content of the word "beauty" does indeed change from time to time. Certainly Zbigniew Karkowski's idea of beauty is much different from Winer's. I doubt very much that Telemann would have found Mahler to be beautiful!)


----------



## Guest

_So, some guy why is it that the majority of music lovers are still having difficulty in accepting [bar a few exceptions] most of to days composers._ 
In the last season I have been to 3 concerts that have premiered new works, and of the other concerts that I have attended most have new works included in the concert, so its not for a want of trying on my part or that of the concert organisers


----------



## Guest

Andante,

I can only guess. When I first realized that there was something called "twentieth century music," I only wanted more. I had heard a few things, of course--Janáček's _Taras Bulba,_ Stravinsky's _Petrushka,_ Prokofiev's _Peter and the Wolf,_ the suite from Kodály's _Háry János_--but only after Bartók's _Concerto for Orchestra,_ for some reason, did it strike me that there was a whole unexplored world out there.

That was 1972, and my own explorations have never ceased since then.

So I'm really the wrong person to ask why the "majority of music lovers" have trouble with modern music. That they have trouble is clear. But why? Aside from such general knowledge like 'prejudices are strong and difficult or impossible to overcome', and 'most people listen to music for comfort and reassurance', I only know specifically that I respond favorably to most contemporary classical music. I have heard things I don't like--happens all the time--but I have never concluded that something was wrong with modern music generally.

That the musics of the most extreme contemporary composers is enjoyable and satisfying I have proven on my own ears. Beyond that, I canna say more.

--Michael


----------



## soundandfury

*I know only two things: that I know nothing, and that I argue about everything...*



some guy said:


> These days? Apparently Ethan hasn't been paying very close attention. In 1998, when he wrote that, people had been writing in multiple meters for at least 80 years, long before Ethan was born. Long enough so that that is itself a tradition by now, and one that's been "abandoned" by many composers. As for "excessive," that of course is cheating. One cannot argue with it, as it has no reliable meaning. It's a bad description of only the auditor's response, not the thing responded to.


Just because it's been around for 80 years doesn't necessarily mean it's actually any good. Multiple meters, unless done well, have a tendency to obscure the meaning of the music. Also, you've taken it a little out of context: by "...pieces that change meter every third measure..." he refers, afaict, to the seemingly random changes that merely take away any reliable sense of a pulse. Of course, a good work can be written with multiple meters, for example the suite from the film _On the Waterfront_, which has a long 2/2-3/4 section, but here the pattern is regular, meaning that the effort required to follow it is, from the average listener's perspective, reasonable - and the music manages to reward the listener sufficiently for the effort they have to put in. On the other hand, John Cage's Sonata III for Prepared Piano (to take an example) requires a tremendous effort to keep up with its rapid changes of time and meter, and in the end has very little to offer in recompense.
As for 'excessive', since it is, undoubtedly, a subjective viewpoint, the only way to define it is to do so statistically. For example, I suspect at least 95% of people would say that driving a car which is 200 metres long, on public roads constitutes 'excessive' behaviour. While people may not agree on precisely where 'excess' begins (the paradox of the heap complicates this further), for sufficiently large _x_ it can reasonably be stated that _x_ is excessive. ('Sufficiently large _x_' meaning, mathematically, that _x_ must exceed _y_, I don't know what _y_ is, but I know there is some finite _y_ for which the statement holds) Used carefully, 'excessive' is not cheating.



> As for dissonance (without the cheat word) that never resolves, that too has gone on long enough to be a tradition as well. So long, for both items, that neither are really part of any serious discussion among musicians any more.


Hang on... you say that the question of resolution of dissonance is not really part of serious discussion among musicians? Do you mean that all musicians now agree that dissonances can be left hanging, or do you mean that all musicians now agree that dissonances should be resolved and that the 'tradition' of unresolved dissonances was, although interesting from a music-history perspective, essentially folly? I think it is self-evident that there are musicians today in both camps - I am in one, you seem to be in the other! (If necessary I can give examples of other musicians in my camp, besides Ethan whom I already cited)
You can't just disappear an argument by saying 'no-one discusses that nowadays'. Either show, conclusively, that one specific viewpoint is now generally accepted, or put up with the fact that if you want to put forth your view, you must accept that some people will disagree with it and hence you have to support it.



> And, lastly, as for "abandoned," Ethan has also not been paying very close attention. Composers started expanding compositional resources oh sometime around when there started to be composers, I suppose. Striving for beauty is what everyone does; it's what the expansions (not abandonments) are for. (The content of the word "beauty" does indeed change from time to time. Certainly Zbigniew Karkowski's idea of beauty is much different from Winer's. I doubt very much that Telemann would have found Mahler to be beautiful!)


You aren't really answering the charge here at all. You start with "abandoned", then go off to talk about expansion instead. Of _course_ expansion is, in itself, a good thing, and neither I nor Ethan said otherwise. Composers should feel able to try out these ideas, but if they don't work out, don't parade them in front of the public as being 'the only kind of music any of us write nowadays'. The issue with 'abandonment' is that the public are led to believe that ALL musicians no longer make use of classical idiom - patently untrue. Equally, another form of abandonment is that SOME musicians have ceased to make use of classical idiom. While there is an argument for starting afresh, and I encourage composers to look for new forms and methods for creating music, when this combines with the first issue - that the public are given to believe that this is the only way progress can be made in music - I'm afraid it just turns people off new music, and in many cases off classical music entirely. When they have the choice between highly experimental 'modern classical' music, and the easy hollow nothings of modern pop, most opt for the pop, in spite of the fact that most of it (especially the typical fare on Radio 1) lacks what people like us value in our music. People are not really aware of the fact that there is a truly inexhaustible supply of 'classical' classical music (if you follow my meaning from that almost tautological expression), since they think that once they have 'run out' of Mozart and Beethoven (a popular misconception, of course, but a pervasive one), there will be no new music to listen to unless they embrace the rough cast of experimental music, untempered by the forge of tradition (to coin a rather dubious metaphor), whereas new 'chart hits' come out every week.

The point is that there is good, powerful new 'classical' music being written, for example Andreas van Haren, who will certainly deserve to be remembered by posterity as a _real_ composer in the classical tradition. There is also 'modern' music being written, and indeed some of it is also good and powerful, but by billing itself not only as Classical music, but even as The Only Kind Of New Classical Music You'll Be Seeing For A Long Time (tm), it distorts the picture more than somewhat. Perhaps it is not even the composers themselves who create this impression, but rather the media or even the learning institutions. I often hear it said that the only people who go to concerts of work by university students are other university students on the same course; the universities seem to have a bias towards doing 'new' things, and I don't think that's good for music.

So, in conclusion, hell in a handbasket, all the media's fault, grumble, when I were a lad we walked 15 miles to school, kids these days I don't know...
(Well, I'm not really anything like old enough to say that, since I'm actually only 17, but I feel like a grumpy old man sometimes)


----------



## Guest

soundandfury said:


> Just because it's been around for 80 years doesn't necessarily mean it's actually any good.


My point was about Ethan's "these days" remark. I was certainly not arguing that because it's been around a long time, therefore it's good. I was pointing out simply that "these days" was evidence that Ethan was not paying attention.



soundandfury said:


> Multiple meters, unless done well, have a tendency to obscure the meaning of the music.


Say what? You may want to reconsider this assertion. I mean more than the obviously unassailable (and equally indefensible!) "unless done well." I mean the hidden assertion that music has some sort of meaning apart from itself. Or at least that there's some meaning that's not intimately bound up with the way the music works. If there's a meaning to a piece that's made with multiple meters, that meaning will have come, in part, _from_ the multiple meters, not in spite of them, not prior to them!



soundandfury said:


> ...the seemingly random changes that merely take away any reliable sense of a pulse.


Yes, well if you like a nice reliable pulse, then there's a lot music that won't reward you. Rewards me, that's all I can say. (And it doesn't take any effort, either, or none that's not totally worth it.



soundandfury said:


> ...you say that the question of resolution of dissonance is not really part of serious discussion among musicians? Do you mean that all musicians now agree that dissonances can be left hanging, or do you mean that all musicians now agree that dissonances should be resolved and that the 'tradition' of unresolved dissonances was, although interesting from a music-history perspective, essentially folly?


I mean that it does not play a significant part in the discussion. Sure there may be people for whom tonality and the whole expectation/dissonance/resolution thing that exercised so many people for so long is still fresh and invigorating, for whom atonality/dodecaphony/serialism are still the enemy. Those aren't the things that serious composers are talking about nowadays. I understand that I'm saying I don't think that Winer and van Haren are serious composers, so we needn't spend any time on that.



soundandfury said:


> You start with "abandoned", then go off to talk about expansion instead.


No, I replaced the biased and unfair "abandoned" with the more descriptive "expanded." _Replaced._



soundandfury said:


> When they have the choice between highly experimental 'modern classical' music, and the easy hollow nothings of modern pop, most opt for the pop....


Really. People have this choice? I doubt that any (or at least many) pop listeners even know such a thing as "highly experimental modern classical music" exists much less have heard any of it. (I doubt most people have heard very much classical music. A skosh of Bach, an ort of Beethoven, some rags and tags of Mendelssohn and Grieg--those famous bits of Mozart. That's at most.)



soundandfury said:


> they think that once they have 'run out' of Mozart and Beethoven (a popular misconception, of course, but a pervasive one), there will be no new music to listen to unless they embrace the rough cast of experimental music


Well, once you have run out of Mozart and Beethoven, you have certainly run out of Mozart and Beethoven. Unless you're saying that people nowadays can mimic those two well enough to satisfy. Anyway, not sure I quite follow the "run out" metaphor. I still listen to Mozart and Beethoven. Besides, what about all that there Chopin and Tchaikovsky and Brahms and Saint-Saens and Dvorak and Smetana and Borodin and Schumann and Mendelssohn and Berlioz and Wagner and Verdi and Bach and Telemann and Vivaldi and such like? Just to mention a very few of the more famous other guys.



soundandfury said:


> There is also 'modern' music being written, and indeed some of it is also good and powerful, but by billing itself not only as Classical music, but even as The Only Kind Of New Classical Music You'll Be Seeing For A Long Time (tm), it distorts the picture more than somewhat.


Um, I think that that's you doing the distorting, here.

Go back now, Mr. Doom and Gloom, and read my post responding to Andante's question. That's the real stuff right there. No abandonment, no roughness, no distortion, no cause for dismay or grumpiness. Just one listener's very natural, satisfied experience with new music. It's not your experience, to be sure. But it's at least genuine. And it knocks all the arguments for modern music's unlikeability into a cocked hat.


----------



## Simpson Microphones

When I consider the definition of music as art, I come to the expression _'more than the sum of its parts'_.

When I apply this definition to music I think of the human congnitive/sensory abilities, most specifically of pattern recognition.

Melody would be a good example of this.

I would like to see the evolution of music composition to make further progress in this field.

Regarding the work of John Williams, I would regard his best melodic work as a great example of the above definition - a great sum from small, simple parts.

Much modern music goes the other way, with increasing parts and decreasing sum - at least as I perceive it.

Andy


----------



## soundandfury

*I should probably have already shut up by now...*

I'm glad to have someone to bounce ideas off, don't get me wrong. I have comparatively little knowledge of music in general and want to learn more. I just happen to disagree with you on this topic! So if I get emotional about the subject please don't take it personally.



some guy said:


> My point was about Ethan's "these days" remark. I was certainly not arguing that because it's been around a long time, therefore it's good. I was pointing out simply that "these days" was evidence that Ethan was not paying attention.


On the contrary, what Ethan means by "these days" is: for a large part of the last century. This is indicated by "maybe I'm still living in the 19th Century, but," which shortly precedes it. In essence, Ethan is, rightly or wrongly, comparing the predominant style of the last 80-100 years with the predominant styles of the various periods which precede that epoch, and is making what I freely admit is a subjective value judgement of the one relative to the other.



> Say what? You may want to reconsider this assertion. I mean more than the obviously unassailable (and equally indefensible!) "unless done well." I mean the hidden assertion that music has some sort of meaning apart from itself. Or at least that there's some meaning that's not intimately bound up with the way the music works. If there's a meaning to a piece that's made with multiple meters, that meaning will have come, in part, _from_ the multiple meters, not in spite of them, not prior to them!


You have taken the "unless done well" out of context: I explain precisely what I mean by 'done well' and 'not done well' in the ensuing paragraph, and suggest (or at least imply) that I place the majority of modern usage of that method in the latter class.
As for the assertion about 'meaning', you are of course right to challenge that, since it is a very contentious point. My opinion on the subject is that music is meant to convey something, usually an emotion. In the kind of music to which I listen frequently, it tends to be joy, or some other emotion related thereto (although I do listen to some music which conveys loss, grief, pain etc.). I consider any music which doesn't convey some emotion or idea to be somehow empty - others may well disagree; to each, after all, his own! On the other hand, I suspect that most casual listeners (a group I sometimes fall into, sometimes not) will often hold a view which approximates to my own - but maybe that is just conceit on my part! Without any meaning or purpose, music is at risk of rambling on incoherently (I'm perfectly aware of the hypocrisy in _me_ talking about incoherent ramblings; I am seeking a slight ironic effect with this sentence).



> Yes, well if you like a nice reliable pulse, then there's a lot _[of]_ music that won't reward you. Rewards me, that's all I can say. (And it doesn't take any effort, either, or none that's not totally worth it.


All I can say to that, in the most positive way, is: Good for you! If you enjoy that type of thing, I don't wish to take it away from you; indeed, I am glad you have access to it. However, this discussion concerns the future of classical music, and while I agree that you have shown that this music can be enjoyed, that does not necessarily mean that it is the only music which will (or, indeed, shall) continue to be written. Quite possibly you have not even suggested, nor even believe, as such, but I've started this sentence and now I've got to try to sound like I know where I'm going with this, erm, nope, lost it. (More irony there for you! I have a very strange sense of humour)



> I mean that it does not play a significant part in the discussion. Sure there may be people for whom tonality and the whole expectation/dissonance/resolution thing that exercised so many people for so long is still fresh and invigorating, for whom atonality/dodecaphony/serialism are still the enemy. Those aren't the things that serious composers are talking about nowadays. I understand that I'm saying I don't think that Winer and van Haren are serious composers, so we needn't spend any time on that.


The assertion that you don't *think* Winer and van Haren are serious composers, I do not challenge, and no time need be spent on it, as you rightly say. The question is whether you are correct in that belief. It seems to me that your definition of 'serious composer' might well tend to be inclusive of the very people who it supports your argument to label as such. I would certainly consider van Haren to be a serious composer, in that he devotes as much time as his (rather menial) job will allow to composing, he does so regularly, indeed all effort that he can spare from the basic necessities of working for a living, he appears to direct towards his compositional activities. Perhaps you should read http://blog.macjams.com/?p=66, if you have not done so already. Please do explain why you do not consider him a 'serious' composer, and please also give an example of a 'serious' composer, who is actually writing music in the present (by which I mean anyone who has published a work since, say, the beginning of the 21st Century, and professes to be working on another). I really would love to have a chance to hear the kind of music you so enjoy, even though it be only over my computer's consumer-grade soundcard (note: I really want someone I can get free recordings of on the Internet, partly for pragmatic reasons and partly because I believe in openness. Free as in freedom, not price, as the Gnu Project (gnu.org) puts it). I fear that I have lived, musically, in a secluded world, and I am almost certainly making judgements that I have not the experience to support. For this I make, however, no apology, since the entire purpose is an exchange of opinions - yet I would like to have facts, the better to form those opinions. In science, this method would be unacceptable. In art, it is unavoidable.



> No, I replaced the biased and unfair "abandoned" with the more descriptive "expanded." _Replaced._


And I explained why 'Abandoned' is not biased and unfair, and why 'Expanded' does not describe *all* of them any better than 'Abandoned' does. They are merely talking about different strands of modern music composition.



> Really. People have this choice? I doubt that any (or at least many) pop listeners even know such a thing as "highly experimental modern classical music" exists much less have heard any of it. (I doubt most people have heard very much classical music. A skosh of Bach, an ort of Beethoven, some rags and tags of Mendelssohn and Grieg--those famous bits of Mozart. That's at most.)


Well, I don't know what section of the proletariat you pass the time with, but the people I know seem to be well aware of a goodly slice, at least, of the canon. For example, you missed out Tchaikovsky - ok, so my friends wouldn't know the 1st Piano Concerto if it jumped up and hit them on the nose (which, come to think of it, is rather what it does do, and it does it incredibly well), but they practically all recognise the 1812 Overture, and often also parts of the Nutcracker suite. Whether they are aware of the experimental stuff, I am honestly not sure - I suspect I may have overstepped my knowledge here. But my fellow students of Music are certainly aware of the modern, experimental genre, and of the seven I could name, approximately none of us liked it. By my math (which is in fact my main subject, btw), that works out at unanimous. Strangely enough, although they tend to greatly enjoy the classical works, even as far back as Renaissance vocal music or Baroque Brandenburgs, they still tend, mostly, to listen to pop music. I can't for the life of me understand why; I am still looking for someone who can shed light on this particular mystery. Of course I do not dislike all pop music, any more than I dislike _all_ modern music. However, I simply cannot understand most people's tastes in this regard - precisely the pop I think is most worthy of the appellation 'music' appears to be the sort that is widely shunned by the masses.



> Well, once you have run out of Mozart and Beethoven, you have certainly run out of Mozart and Beethoven. Unless you're saying that people nowadays can mimic those two well enough to satisfy. Anyway, not sure I quite follow the "run out" metaphor. I still listen to Mozart and Beethoven. Besides, what about all that there Chopin and Tchaikovsky and Brahms and Saint-Saens and Dvorak and Smetana and Borodin and Schumann and Mendelssohn and Berlioz and Wagner and Verdi and Bach and Telemann and Vivaldi and such like? Just to mention a very few of the more famous other guys.


This is my point, though. You can't 'run out' of Mozart and Beethoven, because they have what is elsewhere known as 'replay value'. However, I suspect that people are not aware of this. And you yourself argued that they wouldn't have heard of all that there Chopin and Tchaikovsky and Brahms and Saint-Saens and Dvorak and Smetana and Borodin and Schumann and Mendelssohn and Berlioz and Wagner and Verdi and Bach and Telemann and Vivaldi and such like. (Just a very few, as you say )



> Um, I think that that's you doing the distorting, here.


Ok, so I exaggerated. I did so because, at heart, I am, among other things, a comic. Not in any way a good one, as I have to admit (How does Thor send messages to Odin? Norse Code!), but, in the best tradition of British optimism, undauntedness, and (when all else fails) sheer bloody-minded stubbornness, I keep on trying. (There's a synecdoche for you!)
The point is, such music occasionally does bill itself along those lines; in a milder, more euphemistic form, perhaps, but there is this pervasive idea in the heads not only of the listeners but also in the composers that music needs to be New! and Different!!11one if it is to prosper, or to have whatever value music can be said to possess. Perhaps also there is an element of the desire for posterity: Beethoven is supposedly remembered for "inventing the modern symphony" (a claim that was made to me on another forum, and a claim I disagree with); modern composers look at that and say "If I want to be remembered, I'll have to invent something New! and Different!!11one".
Again, I am exaggerating a little. Composers do not consciously think these thoughts. However, I would claim that something approximating these ideas is at least present in their subconscious; at this point I must ask, in fairness to you, whether you wish me to talk about conscious and subconscious thought, on which topic I will inevitably make more than a few forays into evolution. I doubt whether this would interest you at all, but if it would, please let me know.



> Go back now, Mr. Doom and Gloom, and read my post responding to Andante's question. That's the real stuff right there. No abandonment, no roughness, no distortion, no cause for dismay or grumpiness. Just one listener's very natural, satisfied experience with new music. It's not your experience, to be sure. But it's at least genuine. And it knocks all the arguments for modern music's unlikeability into a cocked hat.


Ah, the post where you mention Prokofiev's Peter and the Wolf, and the suite from Kodály's Háry János? I truly enjoy those pieces. You know why? Because they take classical idiom, use it for a bit, then subvert it - and then bounce back to the classical for a while, before another foray outside one's expectations. Rather than inventing something new, they DO something new WITH the existing idiom, or perhaps metaphor is more accurate. However, this is not, in itself, a new idea - in fact it is what composers had always done, at least until the 20th Century. If you can give me examples of present-day composers who, similarly, DO something clever WITH the idiom that they rely on, with the caveat I mentioned before, id est that you can also provide links to places I can hear their works on the Infratubes, then I shall be happy - indeed, not merely content but actually positively glad - to sample what present-day modernism has to offer. A word of warning however: DON'T send me to anything like John Cage's 6'33 or whatever it's called; I'm after things which at least pay lip service to tonal backgrounds, and are actually within a reasonable definition of 'music'. Backlash forms, such as Serialism, are not what I am seeking.

Thanks for reading all of that (there was a lot of it, wasn't there?), and I look forward to having an opportunity to broaden my musical horizons.


----------



## Guest

soundandfury said:


> I'm glad to have someone to bounce ideas off, don't get me wrong.


If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't do my famous imitation of a wall for you any more!



soundandfury said:


> My opinion on the subject is that music is meant to convey something, usually an emotion. In the kind of music to which I listen frequently, it tends to be joy, or some other emotion related thereto (although I do listen to some music which conveys loss, grief, pain etc.). I consider any music which doesn't convey some emotion or idea to be somehow empty


This idea may keep you from enjoying a lot of very fine music. I know it did me. Besides, as Cage pointed out, humans make emotional responses to everything. It's what we do. See what happens next time there's a thunderstorm, for example!



soundandfury said:


> ...while I agree that you have shown that this music can be enjoyed, that does not necessarily mean that it is the only music which will (or, indeed, shall) continue to be written.


Indeed. These are two very different statements, and you are correct to treat them as such. Without going into specifics (I have a life outside Talk Classical, after all!), my take on discussions of the future of music is that the interlocutors should all be aware of the present, first. (And my suspicion is that if they are, they will not engage in any predictions of the future!)



soundandfury said:


> ...please also [It's gonna havta be "only" not also. See "life outside...," above!] give an example of a 'serious' composer, who is actually writing music in the present (by which I mean anyone who has published a work since, say, the beginning of the 21st Century, and professes to be working on another).


There are thousands. I'll give a few who are different from each other, to give you an idea of the variety.

Chaya Chernowin
Zeena Parkins
Christina Kubisch
Michèle Bokanowski

These are none of them going to thrill you in any way, but you did ask for an example. (I could find you some clips, too, but that would mean assuming that you cannot use search engines for yourself. I wouldn't be so rude!!)



soundandfury said:


> If you can give me examples of present-day composers who, similarly, DO something clever WITH the idiom that they rely on...then I shall be happy - indeed, not merely content but actually positively glad - to sample what present-day modernism has to offer. A word of warning however: DON'T send me to anything like John Cage's 6'33 or whatever it's called; I'm after things which at least pay lip service to tonal backgrounds, and are actually within a reasonable definition of 'music'. Backlash forms, such as Serialism, are not what I am seeking.


I can. But won't. There are lots of idioms. There are composers who create new ones; there are composers who follow the ones already made. Both groups produce fine music. (One of the idioms already made, by the way, is serialism, which you describe as a backlash form. _Au contraire._ Serialism is one way to continue to write music with tones, to continue to make large, integrated forms, to continue to write music that is an expression of intent. Cage's expression of non-intent, which you refer to, is called 4'33".)


----------



## nickgray

Hmmm... Minimalism? Just an excuse for not having the ability to write something touching and complex. Shostakovich (and Stravinsky, and a couple of other guys))) were probably the last "good" classical composers. Just gonna have to wait a couple more years for new fellas that'll continue to advance and explore the romantic stuff forward without being stuck in minimalism.


----------



## soundandfury

*Thank you*

Warning: Long post iz loooooooooooong! (really bad lolcats reference).



some guy said:


> If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't do my famous imitation of a wall for you any more!


It's brilliant. Sometimes I really think I'm talking to a _real brick wall!_ (I kid)
It's most kind of you to find the time for me, really it is.



> This idea may keep you from enjoying a lot of very fine music. I know it did me. Besides, as Cage pointed out, humans make emotional responses to everything. It's what we do. See what happens next time there's a thunderstorm, for example!


Maybe I didn't express myself clearly. I don't mean that music has to be explicitly expressionist, as was the Romantic trend. Nonetheless, my conception of very fine music involves some sort of purpose.



> Indeed. These are two very different statements, and you are correct to treat them as such. Without going into specifics (I have a life outside Talk Classical, after all!), my take on discussions of the future of music is that the interlocutors should all be aware of the present, first. (And my suspicion is that if they are, they will not engage in any predictions of the future!)


Hence my desire for more information about this side of the present scene of which I have so little knowledge. Hence, also, my desire to remind you of the other side of the present, composers like van Haren who you do not consider serious, yet of whom I have a very high opinion.



> There are thousands. I'll give a few who are different from each other, to give you an idea of the variety.
> 
> Chaya Chernowin
> Zeena Parkins
> Christina Kubisch
> Michèle Bokanowski


Well, after trawling around for half an hour, I could find no free clips at all of Chernowin or Kubisch. Of Parkins, I listened to something called "Benya Krik", and could see nothing of interest in it - certainly I was unable to relate to it in any way. Similarly for the Bokanowski I found - "Cirque; Andante" - which had sections consisting entirely of a looped galloping-horse sound, and when there were basic musical sounds they appeared to me to be, I'm afraid, childish, in that they weren't going anywhere, there was no vertical element that I could discern. Also, I don't see a great deal of variety between these two, as they both seemed to have almost precisely the same problems.
Frankly, then, having listened to as much as free-ness permits of what you imply is a representative sample of the music you enjoy, I honestly have no idea why you like it! In fact, I would not consider it to be music. Art, perhaps; if pickled cows are art then this certainly is. But 'music' arouses certain expectations, not of quality but of type, of familiarity, of accessibility. I am not sure how to classify this 'art'. Perhaps, to borrow a term from the genre, it is not music but 'soundscapes'. I am very grateful to you for showing me your interests; it reflects neither upon you nor on those interests that I do not share them.



> These are none of them going to thrill you in any way, but you did ask for an example. (I could find you some clips, too, but that would mean assuming that you cannot use search engines for yourself. I wouldn't be so rude!!)


Indeed they didn't thrill me. However, I am grateful that you found the time to give me an example. My opinions of the content of the examples you gave do not and cannot affect that. (Incidentally, I simply could not find clips of two of them. This has nothing to do with search engines; it has to do with non-free. I'm actually something of a Stallmanite, and if someone won't even allow samples or clips of their work, I _a priori_ won't make an effort to like it. They don't have to have fans if they don't want to even try. That's their lookout)



> I can. But won't. There are lots of idioms. There are composers who create new ones; there are composers who follow the ones already made. Both groups produce fine music. (One of the idioms already made, by the way, is serialism, which you describe as a backlash form. _Au contraire._ Serialism is one way to continue to write music with tones, to continue to make large, integrated forms, to continue to write music that is an expression of intent. Cage's expression of non-intent, which you refer to, is called 4'33".)


As I say, I am totally untouched by the attempts of these composers to get the 'new idioms' across to me. I believe that, in part at least, this is because a completely 'new idiom' is a contradiction. 'Idiom' implies, at least for me, that someone other than the speaker can, assuming the level of shared cultural background which is average between two randomly selected persons, understand what the meaning is. Indeed, in linguistics, an 'idiom' has to have a meaning - something which you tell me you don't require from your music.
As for serialism, its stated central concept is, IIRC, to ensure that no one note of the twelve has any special prominence over the rest. Of course, this means that none of the notes are relative to anything, so unless you happen to have perfect pitch, they are just all the same. You may see more into it than that. But I was taught at school (and by a 20thC music enthusiast of a teacher, no less) that serialism was a backlash against the intense and complex relationships of the tonal system, and I'm afraid I still view it that way.

In conclusion, then, go ahead! Listen to this stuff if you want; even tell other people about it (like you told me, in the end). Remember, though, that there are some, indeed I suspect many, people who don't like it, and for this reason the old idiom will live on. Most of the time you can forget this because it is not necessarily relevant to the 'new idiom' music that you enjoy, but when participating in a discussion on the future of classical music, it is important to accept that tonal, 'old idiom' music will also continue, and that this is therefore a part of the future of CM. Also, please don't talk in the way you have of 'serious' and 'not serious' composers. I respect your veneration of modernist composers, and I accept that they are serious composers. I do not, however, accept your assertion that classicist composers such as van Haren cannot be considered equally 'serious'. Nor do I accept your suggestion that any possible or perceived lack of 'seriousness' in, say, Ethan Winer's approach to life can legitimately be levelled as criticism of the value of his music, which is at least as enlightening to me as your favourite composers are to you.

@nickgray: You certainly have a point, and I know I'm not touched by minimalist works. But I think we have ample evidence, from some_guy among others, that some people do, for reasons we don't know, enjoy them, and it is rather cruel to declare that minimalism is just an excuse. _I_ am not convinced that minimalism is worth two kopeks; indeed I am less than sure of the value of some of Stravinsky's more 'avant-garde' works. Nonetheless, the differing philosophies of music are, fortunately, able to coexist. It's not like, say, religion and atheism, in which the atheists have to fight for their freedoms and the theists have to fight for... well, I don't know why they feel the need to fight us, but they do...
The point is that these two kinds of music do indeed coexist. You don't even need to wait 'a couple more years' for the classicist revival - with composers such as Andre van Haren, and indeed (in all modesty) myself, there is music being written today that works with the idioms of classical music as we know it. Just take a look at the "Today's Composers" forum on this site (http://www.talkclassical.com/todays-composers/) and you'll find a wealth of tonal, accessible, and above all _normal_ music that's being produced even now. The great thing about the Internet is that we can have music for me and for you, and music for some_guy, without them getting in each others' way at all! There is no longer such a thing as a cultural dominance by one genre or philosophy, as long as you are in a place where you can get _your_ favourites off the Internet, because someone somewhere who shares your outlook is making them and putting them there!

@@some_guy: You see what I mean? This person doesn't think that there's anyone advancing and exploring the tonal stuff. Of course, maybe he's already seen the stuff I mention. But maybe he's been blinded by the modernist advocacy to the extent that he just doesn't know that we've already started the revival. PS: nickgray please tell us which it is, else we'll be arguing about yet another thing for the next 6.2x10^23 years.

Also, I now know something about your side of the the present scene. However, rather than stopping me predicting the future of classical music, it has led me to describe how the Internet will continue to allow this wonderful diversity of music, from builders on Bach to subscribers of serialism and men (and women, but that doesn't alliterate) of minimalism - and everything in between, plus a fair bit that's outside those apparent extremes - to thrive, and be available to anyone with the requisite technology and freedom. So much for "And my suspicion is that if they are, they will not engage in any predictions of the future!": the awareness I have gained, in spite of its very small nature, has led me to predict things that I never would have before.

Finally: With regard to what I was saying about context and answering the whole, you may notice that I respond precisely and fully to each point that you make. Indeed, I also have a life outside of tc.com, but I put it on hold when I desire to debate. I don't suggest that you should do the same; you're welcome to your personal life - but try to answer one point in its entirety rather than fragments from all of them. I would rather that the breadth of scope of the discussion be narrowed, than its depth be shallowed.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

nickgray said:


> Hmmm... Minimalism? Just an excuse for not having the ability to write something touching and complex. Shostakovich (and Stravinsky, and a couple of other guys))) were probably the last "good" classical composers. Just gonna have to wait a couple more years for new fellas that'll continue to advance and explore the romantic stuff forward without being stuck in minimalism.


I reckon that there's already more than enough genuine "romantic stuff", with no need for additional latter-day versions of it. It's this realisation that has led modern composers to produce something different in the hope that it will catch on. From my reading of the situation, only a tiny minority of classical music lovers is interested in any of these modern genres. The baroque, classical and romantic models hugely dominate the classical music scene, and this will continue to be case for the forseeaable future.


----------



## Guest

Dear Fury,

I really cannot respond the way you apparently want. I agree that playing fair is a good thing, and that discussants can request that their colleagues play fair. But really, to respond to each and every point? No, not reasonable. Just so you know!

So now, for the snippet I DO want to respond to:



soundandfury said:


> I don't see a great deal of variety between [Parkins and Bokanowski], as they both seemed to have almost precisely the same problems....
> 
> I am totally untouched by the attempts of these composers to get the 'new idioms' across to me.


Here's the nub of it. You see the new musics in terms of problems. And, so far as I can see, the problems are merely that they don't speak to you at your present stage of development. OK. It seems that the problem may be with your expectations. You expect "music" to be a certain way, to do certain things. In this, you have something in common with the vast majority of listeners. But where does that leave us? With the limitations of listeners, not with any putative problems with the music.

I'm sorry to hear that you're totally untouched, of course, but you do seem a sensible sort, and you are young enough to have very probably many years to hone your sensibilities. So my final word on the matter (final for the moment!) is to invite you to question your expectations, question your assumptions, question your ideas.

If I've learned anything on Internet music forums, it's that attitudes get in the way of experience. Let the music speak to you. Let it speak in its own voice without insisting (or repining) that it do something else. No, Bokanowski is not going to sound like Brahms any more than Brahms sounds like Berlioz or Beethoven like Buxtehude. The wall, if there is one, is the one that listeners put up, and because it is self-constructed, it is almost impossible to tear down. Only the constructor can do that, and what's the likelihood of THAT happening?

Anyway, happy listening!!


----------



## soundandfury

some guy said:


> I really cannot respond the way you apparently want. I agree that playing fair is a good thing, and that discussants can request that their colleagues play fair. But really, to respond to each and every point? No, not reasonable. Just so you know!


I quite specifically asked the opposite of this: that you answer one point in depth, rather than answering each and every point superficially. Fortunately, this seems to be what you did anyway, so thankyou for that.
I have no reason to argue with any of what you say above - yes, I will continue to occasionally look at what's happening in the 'avant-garde' or the atonal genres.
I don't consider it a problem of the music that it doesn't touch me; I meant that the sum of the music and my ear, together, had these problems.
May you, also, have much and fruitful enjoyment in your listening to come. I am glad we managed to end our debate on amicable terms - a rare thing indeed, I find, in Internet discussions. Bye!


----------



## Metalheadwholovesclasical

Classical music will never die. That is plain and simple. It has stayed alive since its birth hundreds and hundreds of years ago, and has been containing consistent popularity. Kids never really find appreciation for the music, but as they grow, pretty much all of them get a taste for classical music. (I got mine a bit early, in 2nd Grade. My father was a huge classical fan) Classical is one of those forms of music that will never die because it has no stance in the mainstream. Music that does happen to become a part of the mainstream will die off. Music like Classical, Metal, Jazz, Blues, etc will most likely never die because of this attribute. The musicians do not even try to fit in with the mainstream tastes to try and make money, they make music they love and want to make, not what everyone else wants them to make. Mainstream musicians follow the money, which ALWAYS in the end leads to the collapse of the genre.


----------



## Air

I agree.

*Movies = Classical music*

The circus uses it, advertisements use it, kids use it to make suspense (du du du duh), even the 2008 Olympics uses it (the theme was Arnaud Bugler's March)


----------



## kingtim

I'm curious to see what everyone has to say. Music is changing so much. There are the purists, where only acoustic instruments will do. Then, there are some who believe as long as it sounds good it doesn't matter. But all of this usually surrounds non-classical music.


Where will classical music sit in the future?


----------



## handlebar

It will be around for generations to come. Just think of where baroque music was in the 19th century and the fact that it was still being played by the giants we listen to now.

It will never be forgotten.

Jim


----------



## Guest

We've done this one already.

With the identical thread title.

Last post in 2008.

http://www.talkclassical.com/3275-what-does-future-hold.html


----------



## Toccata

There was a thread of this exact same title about 2 years ago initiated by a "tgreen". It wasn't you was it, perchance?

http://www.talkclassical.com/3275-what-does-future-hold.html


----------



## Toccata

Sorry, someguy, you beat me to it before I saw your post. I happen to have read the previous thread a while back. Still, there might be some more views.


----------



## hlolli

I think classical music is going to get popular again with the help of the internet. More that people will seek information the more they will enlighten. More and more people will figure out how much **** pop music is and realize what music is good.


----------



## Weston

With the advent of the internet I see music tastes becoming more and more homogenized and accepted across age and income boundaries. There is no longer a generation gap or a class gap. If I am able to buy in less than five minutes an obscure album by a very obscure pop group -- Simon Dupree and the Big Sound, for instance -- I have every confidence even obscure classical composers will be available as along as civilization endures.


----------



## jurianbai

here in Singapore althought classical music is not 'home' music (compare to cantonese pop) the concert is still fully seated. last week Sarah Chang played here (Bruch's vc) and it's fully book weeks before.


----------



## superhorn

There's no way of knowing what classical music will be like in the future. But I think that it will survive as long as western civilization does. It's one of the crowning glories of mankind,and you can't keep a great art form down.
People who lived a century ago had no way of knowing how classical music would develop in the 20th century,and we have no way of knowing how it will develop throughout the rest of the 21 century,either. 
And most of the classical music from ALL eras has been forgotten anyway, for the simple reason that it wasn't very good. So it's wrong to dismiss the atonal music of the 20th century as a whole. In the field of opera alone,it's been estimated that since the early 17th century, approximately 40,000 operas have been written. How mamy are performed today?
Today, classical music is more diverse than ever before. We can hear an infinitely wider variety of orchestral,operatic,chamber music,choral music etc than people have ever been able to hear before,live or recorded. 
We can hear the music of such early masters as Palestrina,Lassus,Dufay, Josquin, Monteverdi etc, and we can also hear the latest works by Adams,Glass,Boulez, Henze, Thomas Ades, 
Penderecki and so many other contemporary composers, with countless composers inbetween.
Late in his life, Brahms was staying at a lakeside resort in Austria where he met Gustav Mahler.
The older man was gloomy about the state of music. He declared that there was nowhere for music to go,to progress anymore. Then Mahler pointed to the lake and said "Look-there goes the last wave!"
Brahms died in 1897 at the age of 64. If he had lived into his 80s, he could have heard Stravinsky's Rite of Spring, which no doubt would have horrified him. But music did NOT stand still, and it won't now. 
Unless, some series of catastrophic and cataclysmic events destroys the world some time in the future, classical music will continue to bring joy into the lives of people all over the world.


----------



## Guest

superhorn said:


> And most of the classical music from ALL eras has been forgotten anyway, for the simple reason that it wasn't very good.


What a strange conclusion. If it has been forgotten, then we don't know anything about it, so cannot conclude anything about its quality.



superhorn said:


> So it's wrong to dismiss the atonal music of the 20th century as a whole.


It would be wrong to do this in any case. If "atonal" really identifies anything in particular. It's hard to respond to things like this. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" See, impossible to answer. "Do you know how fast you were going?" Same deal. "Do you like/hate atonal music?" More sameness in the whole dealness area.

And why are we on this old thread, anyway? The brand new "What does the future hold for classical music?" thread is somewhere else. Well, recent anyway. It's newness is debatable!!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

There will always be strong demand for Classical music. People asked the same question ten years ago in 2000 and some predicted doom and gloom. Today, we still see ever more recordings, new talents, fierce competition and consolidation amongst record companies/labels (to our advantage). We have more choice than ever before and I think price is generally coming down (huge number of discount items/packaged collections). Although the CD shop that specialises in Classical recordings might be becoming less, the rest of us are buying more music via the internet shops and downloads. The means of acquiring music has changed but not the demand, which is still there.

Take any record label, and you will see an astonishingly wide range of music by numerous composers, many versison of old favourites and near/fully complete recordings of large collections. There are already a few complete recordings of Bach's cantatas in progress, for example.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I agree that the technology of the internet has revolutionized my experience of classical music. I had slowly... very slowly... collected classical recordings since high-school... but there was much that I had read of and was intrigued with that I just could not find. Schubert's lieder, for example, were always touted... and as a fan of vocal music I wanted to listen to these... but with the exception of a Kurt Moll disc I bought on a trip to Chicago, I could find nothing in my local record shops.

I first started on my serious day job at the same time when the classical CD market seemed to bloom... especially with the technology which allowed for restoration of many classic older recordings. I used to spend several hours every payday in Borders selecting any number of discs... a great many classic recordings by EMI and Deutsche Grammophone. And then several years ago I noticed that it was becoming increasingly difficult to find anything I wanted in the stores. I thought on one hand that I had reached a certain saturation level... where I could find nothing more... or where the only works I desired were too obscure to be found in most stores. Soon, however, I recognized that the scale of the stock being carried in the stores was rapidly shrinking. Soon one could only find one or two different recordings of even the most well-known works, such as Beethoven's 5th.

Around this same time I had begun to purchase a few books on-line. I began to experiment with buying music on line... and was immediately addicted. I discovered an incredible wealth of music: composers I had never heard of, more obscure works by old favorites, recordings of old war-horses that offered eye-opening revelations. In the last two years the scale of my CD collection (which was already quite formidable) literally doubled. As a result my collection of Modern and Contemporary composers has grown from literally nothing... to something quite size able... in spite of the fact that some would portray me as the arch-conservative of musical tastes. Access to samples and reviews of music has been a great way to explore unfamiliar music. To this I must add the wealth of stuff available on YouTube or discussed by others passionate about serious music on sites such as this. My own career is in the visual arts and most of my friends are artists. Few have a deep passion for classical music, and so social groups such as Talk Classical are great for sharing. I think this will only continue to grow, and cannot help but be a boon for classical music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Why are there two threads of the same title? Anyway, I wrote this below in the other thread, reproduced here. In short, I think we are in a Golden Age as far as Classical music recordings are concerned.



HarpsichordConcerto said:


> There will always be strong demand for Classical music. People asked the same question ten years ago in 2000 and some predicted doom and gloom. Today, we still see ever more recordings, new talents, fierce competition and consolidation amongst record companies/labels (to our advantage). We have more choice than ever before and I think price is generally coming down (huge number of discount items/packaged collections). Although the CD shop that specialises in Classical recordings might be becoming less, the rest of us are buying more music via the internet shops and downloads. The means of acquiring music has changed but not the demand, which is still there.
> 
> Take any record label, and you will see an astonishingly wide range of music by numerous composers, many versison of old favourites and near/fully complete recordings of large collections. There are already a few complete recordings of Bach's cantatas in progress, for example.


----------



## superhorn

What I meant was that a vast amount of classical music from the past has never become a part of the standard repertoire. There are tons of works by minor composers from the past on CD; a lot of it just isn't interesting, such as stuff by minor baroque and classical composers as Manfredini, etc, and other later minor composers as Louis Spohr, etc. 
And yes, countless works from the past HAVE been pretty much forgotten.
People knowledgable about music history has heard of such obscure composers as Baldassare Galuppi, Johann Adolf Hasse, Nicola Porpora, Felix Draseke, Louis Spohr, Johann Svendsen,
Thomas Arne, Nicolo Jomelli, Reinhard Keiser, and many other once well-known compsers, but none of them is performed with any frequency today. 
Will Philip Glass be regularly performed centuries from now,assuming that the world has not been destroyed by some cataclysm? Who knows? Meyerbeer was the Andrew Lloyd Webber of the 19th century, but revivals of his once wildly popular operas today are extremely rare.
The classical repertoire, far from being in any way "ossified",is actually in constant flux.


----------



## Krummhorn

some guy said:


> We've done this one already.
> 
> With the identical thread title.
> 
> Last post in 2008.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/3275-what-does-future-hold.html





Opal said:


> There was a thread of this exact same title about 2 years ago initiated by a "tgreen". It wasn't you was it, perchance?
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/3275-what-does-future-hold.html





HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Why are there two threads of the same title?


[Edit:Merge] 
The two threads are now merged into one. Thanks to the above members who have pointed this out


----------



## nosmelc

Last year witnessed the death of New York's only commercial classical radio station.
New York, the cultural capitol of the U.S.? the public radio station that has taken over the letters: WQXR and moved it down the dial, plays an even tamer repertoire than its, for hire, predecessor. orchestras live on handouts, without which they would die at a time when the loudest voices scream for tax cuts. before this picture get too gloomy let me conclude with a vision is of the future filled with amateur musicians and composers who love and respect the music simply :tiphat:for what it is capable of.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I was reading an article yesterday about the activities of the Australian World Orchestra. This orchestra is made up of local talents across the country, not necessarily that based in any one particular city. Could this be an emerging trend? It's nothing new of course. With fundings becoming ever precarious to local-city-based orchestras, "grouping" of the best talents might be one way of nuturing the best, without loosing local talents to overseas.

A programme this weekend of Beethoven, Tchaikovsky, Wagner and contemporary Australian composers Peter Sculthorpe and Brett Dean, under Simone Young.


----------



## Sid James

I made a longer reply to this HERE on member nosmelc's blog before I came to read this thread.

To summarise that, I think that groups playing classical music live have to reach out to the "middle ground" of classical listeners, who are in my estimation the majority. The groups whose concerts I patronise do this, they play a variety of old & new things, both popular and less known. However, some of our "flagship" groups simply pander to the "hard" conservatives, who are basically stuck in the era between c.1800-1900, & mainly want to hear the "warhorses" of that time. I don't mind conservatives who are more towards the middle, but I really have no time for the "hard" ones. Their loud voices are being heeded too much by some orchestra & opera boards, who basically do this kind of boring, predictable "bums on seats" programming to suit this very vocal minority.

As for things available on disc, I agree that there is a lot to choose from now, more so that when I got into collecting classical 20 or more years ago. Back then, you'd be pressed to find much more (say) by Villa-Lobos than his Bachianas Brasileiras #5 (on the shelves of shops anyway, not to speak of on the net). Now, you can get heaps of stuff by guys like him & many others. His music is even being played now here Down Under.

So there you go, things are improving in terms of diversity, I just wish that we could sideline the "hard" conservatives, their attitudes belong in the dustbin of history, imo. These people walk out on Mahler in a concert, because they think it's "ugly," "atonal," "too modern," whatever. WTF, what planet are these people on, honestly? Not the same planet as the majority of "middle ground" classical listeners, that's for sure...


----------



## Guest

The concerts that I go to "Chamber" *nearly always *include a new work and by NZ composers I do find some of it challenging but that's OK?? John Psathas is one composer that has won me over, even the NZSO include some new stuff at times.


----------



## Sid James

Well I think that the chamber groups here are also less "bums on seats" oriented in their programming than the "flagship" orchestras. I think the Australian Chamber Orchestra, for example, is prone to stearing the middle course. Maybe orchestras in New Zealand have also steered the middle course as you say. Judging from the varied - & not so easy to play - repertoire they have recorded for Naxos, some of which I have (eg. Zemlinsky), that may well be the case, your mob may be more open to these things...


----------



## Guest

We had a Labour Gov led by Helen Clarke that was very sympathetic to the arts and music in particular so things stayed on an even keel for most of their tenure but did drop off a bit in the end, now we have the right wing National Party that think the best thing in music is Dave Dobbyn and the like and of course the World Cup (Rugby) is going to be Party Time, heaven help us


----------



## Philip

"_Classical music is dead._" - F. Nietzsche


----------



## Klavierspieler

Philip said:


> "_Classical music is dead._" - F. Nietzsche


"_No, it ain't._" - D. Klavierspieler


----------



## Guest

Philip said:


> "_Classical music is dead._" - F. Nietzsche


So is Nietzsche .................


----------



## PetrB

Yagan Kiely said:


> This is an example of what will not be the future of Classical Music. _If indeed it has any hope of becoming the slightest bit popular_ at any rate.


I think it a bit mistaken to think 'it wants to become 'popular.'

Trouble is, classical music has never has been 'popular' or for the broader consuming public. Popular it has been and is, but among a small percent of the population.

If it is aimed toward becoming popular, it will have to become at best, a hybrid, perhaps another interesting genre or sub-genre but no longer 'classical music' as it has been known from Gregorian Chants to Xenakis to this day. (Maybe Xenakis was chosen to be extreme, but there are many writing 'tonal' music as well - all part of the current 'classical' scene).

This 'not being populist' is not a plot, an elitist club, or anything but a fact: 
Classical music, then and now, is just not for everybody -- it is written for any who might enjoy it, but it is a very small number (between two to three percent of the population) who at any time have been or are now interested in classical music beyond the lightest of 'pretty' snippets from the repertoire.

To go Platinum in any popular music category, 1,000,000 albums have been sold.
To go Platinum in any classical music category, if I recall correctly, is one-tenth of the pop category, 100,000

The ratio difference shows the difference in consumer base. Actually, with just two to three percent as the classical listener base, that 100,000 is proportionately more extraordinary than the 1,000,000 in the popular markets, based on a 97% of population listener base.

If classical music becomes broadly popular, it will be because about 97% of the beings on the planet have radically changed their listening habits and expectations -- not likely to happen soon.


----------



## PetrB

Yagan Kiely said:


> _Music from almost 100 years ago is still not popular. It's had its time to become popular and hasn't. And this is it's own fault._


*Currently, the musics of Schoenberg, Berg, Xenakis, Stravinsky, Ives, and a host of other composers from the last 100 years are being more and more frequently played, recorded, consumed -- more people than ever before are now listening to and enjoying those composer's music. This is the phenomenon of 'becoming popular.'*



Yagan Kiely said:


> _Atonal music and the like has no natural phenomenon that the untrained listener can appreciate. Humans work in pattern recognition (as all animals that I know of) and we cannot see a pattern in atonal music._


*This is so far gone off the mark, false, 'made up' that it is not really worth addressing. Your 'personal' take, or limits, are completely showing here. There is nothing 'natural' about earlier tonal music, either, but you are so accustomed to it that you now find it 'natural' to follow the patterns within that set of parameters.*

Seriously, you're near whining about being used to tracking seven pitches, and saying you're beyond adding five to that.

The complaint against -- as so often it seems -- that comes from those who dislike 20th century or later classical, is not one of 'bad music' as much as a complaint that the listener might actually have to initially work at it to develop / expand their listening habits and attention in order to follow the newer works.

*You might as well complain about the literary style of a contemporary novel or film vs. the earlier era of no film and, say, Charles Dickens.*


----------



## Guest

*What does the future hold for classical music?*
I don't know how to answer that question as it can be asked of any field of human endeavour. I can only answer (vaguely) from personal/professional experience : the conservatoires and university music faculties have no shortage of candidates.


----------



## Jimm

An ever increasing recontextualization in all areas .. performance space, practice .. incl. an ever increasing assimulation of more recent music written in the last 50 years or so. An ever increasing role/influence of technology across the board.


----------



## LordBlackudder

classical music has almost completely gone from most cultures. some of them it hardly arrived.

you can find it in some western countries and it is associated with the church.

people are not impressed by it anymore and cannot stand the sound of it. so i suppose it will just be for theory and novelty music.


----------



## millionrainbows

"Nietzsche is dead." -God

Like *someguy* said, "...in the twentieth century the recording industry helped turn classical music into just another commodity, like soap or soft drinks or automobiles. In this situation, the consumer does become sovereign or at least feels that way! Music becomes, for consumers, a thing that must serve them and their current needs. It is no longer valued for its ability to take one out of oneself or to provide one something new, to expand one's horizons."

We are all CD consumers here. "Classical music" needs to be defined by its essential goals and criteria, not by its outer forms and traditions only.

To ask what classical music will be in the future, we should define what its specific functions have been up to now.

Here are some criteria:

*1.* "Classical music" should be of high artistic quality, and not tied to any utilitarian purpose or use other than its own self-directed being as art; if it is used for a utilitarian purpose, it must transcend this function.

The term "classical" can no longer mean what it used to mean, since it is no longer "the only game in town," but just one of a multiplicity of forms which exist and compete in the modern world. There is even dispute between traditionalists and modernists as to whether modern "classical" music and composers should be allowed into the Western tradition, John Cage being the easiest case in point.

I see a lot of empty chatter from those who have a narrow definition of "classical" and no real criteria as to what artistic functions this kind of music should provide.

I will assert, however, that in the future, the best music, which represents the highest artistic achievements, and highest musical criteria, will be the music which should rightly be called "classical" because it continues and extends the highest goals of Western musical tradition.

*2.* "Classical music" will place the highest demands on human creators and interpreters, as it always has. It will not be "churned out" automatically, but will represent the highest artistic intent of its creators and performers, even if it is created on computers or is reproduced in some mechanical way.

*3. *"Classical music" will represent and emphasize a high level of purely musical thought, and will be complex in some form, on some level, or will satisfy a high level of artistic criteria. It will, where relevant, in many cases extend the syntax of music, and will be concerned with purely musical elements (pitch, timbre, rhythm); and/or with highly artistic ways of presenting artistic concepts, using musical syntax, or simply sound itself, as its medium.


----------



## Vaneyes

It's all good.


----------



## Guest

LordBlackudder said:


> people are not impressed by it anymore and cannot stand the sound of it. so i suppose it will just be for theory and novelty music.


You are a very brave soul saying that on "Talk Classical" as well as being wrong.


----------



## millionrainbows

I suppose the most controversial thing I'm saying is that the presently persisting notion of "classical" music as we know it, the _notion_ of which began in the nineteenth century, is totally inadequate and uncritically ethnocentric in today's pluralistic consumer culture of world "musics."

If "classical music" still has any value in this pluralistic context, it is as an export to aspiring third-world countries and countries which aspire to capitalism (Gustavo Dudamel, China, Africa), or a means of "assimilation" into the respectable élite of America's class-structured society, such as Asian-Americans and other upwardly-mobile ethnic groups.

Contemporary "classical" music, by contrast, is less encumbered by the Western/European élitist tradition, and offers a great opportunity for composers the world over to participate in the Western classical tradition as creators, not mere consumers or assimilators.


----------

