# Elitist or not??



## Mayerl (May 5, 2008)

Over the years perhaps the most voiced criticism of "Classical" music is that it is very elitist. 
A prime example of this, here in the UK, occurs from time to time when musical bodies such as opera houses and orchestras which rely heavily on state sponsorship, have had funding requests refused or reduced by Labour governments on the grounds of eliteism.
I am not quite sure how the powers that be would define the word or what their perception of elitist may be, but there is an old German saying that roughly translates as "What the peasant doesn't understand, the peasant doesn't like".
If a passion for, understanding of, and the ability to play Classical music puts me among the "Elite", then I have no problem with that. Surely the term could also be applied to, shall we say, an expert golfer or an aerobatic pilot but I sense that if it were there would be no derogatory undertones.
Any thoughts out there?


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

http://www.talkclassical.com/1683-cause-effect-why-classical.html


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

It's one reason I'm a keen Dudamel/Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra fan: how could a bunch of slum kids be 'elitist'?






But classical music has got itself a bad name. At the turn of the 20th century (in Britain at least) there was a connection between classical music and the general public, driven by big low cost public subscription concerts. Anyone in the metropolitan centres with a few pennies in their pocket could turn up and hear classical music. That, in turn, was embedded in an unbroken Western art music tradition going back to Bach and the Enlightenment. For various reasons the cultural tradition was broken and the public largely alienated. Modern composers are partly to blame: producing music which you need to music degree to appreciate. That permitted the snobs to make classical music their own, to use it as symbol to advertise their wealth and social position.

So the 'elitist' charge is largely accurate, but lots of people active in classical music don't like it and are working to eject the snobs!


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Im about as working class as you can get, but I have loved classical music since I was a kid. My oldest friends and many of the friends I have made in my life have classical music in their collections, and attend concerts.( Some more than others!) Sure, there is an element in classical music circles who could be accused of maintaining an elitist attitude, but there are idiots wherever you go. Sad fact of life. At the end of the day there arn't enough of the 
high earning, high I.Q'ed self styled "sophisticates" to keep classical music alive. Even with government subsidies. No government could afford to subsidise a truly unpopular music form. In the North East of England where I live, Its the Oiks and the plebes than put the bums on seats lovey!


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Yes I agree with that. But also Classical music can't survive without *some* sort of elitism. Classical music requires a very heavy and broad education for performing and composing - these days more than ever - and even listening requires lengthy education (relatively) to other genres*. Jazz is similar. If you get rid of these things, you get rid of classical music.

*The education I mean is an 'education' based on how much you listen with an open mind.


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

I think Leonard Bernstein nailed why Classical music is so estranged from the public eye: the rise of the Twelve-tone row and Atonalism. It did not appeal to audiences, yet the composers were very elitist in that they just figured the audience "could not understand." It was very mathematically and musically complex, they knew it, they exploited it. Now the public just sees classical musicians as all elitists.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

"It did not appeal to audiences" understandably so


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> Yes I agree with that. But also Classical music can't survive without *some* sort of elitism. Classical music requires a very heavy and broad education for performing and composing - these days more than ever - and even listening requires lengthy education (relatively) to other genres*. Jazz is similar. If you get rid of these things, you get rid of classical music.
> 
> *The education I mean is an 'education' based on how much you listen with an open mind.


I agree with your comments, and listen as opposed to hear requires a bit of work put into it, how many schools have "Music Appreciation" to day? In NZ if it was not for our Labour Government we would have lost our sole Classical radio station.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> In NZ if it was not for our Labour Government we would have lost our sole Classical radio station.


Geez... thank god for Clark...


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers (May 30, 2006)

> I think Leonard Bernstein nailed why Classical music is so estranged from the public eye: the rise of the Twelve-tone row and Atonalism. It did not appeal to audiences, yet the composers were very elitist in that they just figured the audience "could not understand." It was very mathematically and musically complex, they knew it, they exploited it. Now the public just sees classical musicians as all elitists.


Perhaps true, but the decline of classical music occurred around about the time that the tape recorder was invented and a whole new window of possibility was opened up to composers - the rise of popular music. The two split - pop music is easier to listen to than classical music, the audience follows. I'm not gonna get into the whole contemporary music debate here again, but in my opinion (and without wanted to cause a reaction of counter-statements) I don't believe modern composers are to blame. And besides this, they don't all write atonally. And not liking a type of music doesn't make it worthless.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> I don't believe modern composers are to blame. And besides this, they don't all write atonally. And not liking a type of music doesn't make it worthless.


He said atonal, not modern. It is nothing to do with like or dislike, tonality utilises a natural system that humans intrinsically, subconsciously and naturally react to, while 12-tone atonality purposefully ignores this system meaning humans can't naturally react to it (bar tension). It involves much training (training as in my previous post) to 'react' to atonal music.


----------



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

I think also, it's what you were exposed to as a child.
Unfortunately, In Britain at least, most working class households do not play classical music. So, as a result working class children do not even know who, Beethoven. Mozart and alike are. (I'm not saying everyone)
The problem does seem to be less evident in middle class British society and in other European countries, where Classical music is much more embedded into their culture..


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers (May 30, 2006)

I realise this, I wasn't expressing myself that I jump for joy everytime I hear Schoenberg, but merely that it has value. I don't believe that the rise of serialism, or perhaps one should say atonality, corresponds to the decline of classical music.

It's an interesting debate though and one I think about much myself - does a music that people cannot respond to without "training" as you so put it, or perhaps I would say having listened to it enough to get a grasp of it, pointless. Is a music that doesn't instantly grab you less worthy (am not implying you suggested it was unworthy so to speak, this just seems the best way to phrase this) than something you have an instant reaction to, an emotional reaction. While I absolutely agree that the emotional value is completely essential to any music, people who have heard more contemporary classical, or for the sake of this conversation atonal, music understand the ideas better than those who are first-time listeners. And from my own experiences some of the things that I wouldn't have listened to in a million years a couple of years ago, I now react to in a very emotional way, because intellectually I can appreiciate them better. So where is the balance between intellectual and emotional music? 

Does this make me an elitist. My own political views are absolutely against the idea, so I would hate to be called one... 

Hmm.. seem to have got a little side-tracked here... Just a few ideas anyway.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

I never mentioned emotion. React is probably a bad word, but what I meant is that humans subconsciously understand the relationships of pitches in tonal music because of physics.

And don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against atonal music (though for from my favourite for above reasons). Most (let's call them uneducated rather than lower or middle class) people would react (emotionally) much more with Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima than a Mozart violin Sonata. That said, most educated persons (such as most of us here) would react (emotionally) to the Mozart Sonata with as much emotion.

The Mozart is just as example, a lot of uneducated people would call Ride of the Valkyries or the Ode to Joy theme as merely good melodies rather than specifically emotionally invigorating.



> Does this make me an elitist. My own political views are absolutely against the idea, so I would hate to be called one...


It all depends on what your definition of elitist is.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

Besides, when the general public thinks of classical music (or those who may think of it as elitist), I don't believe the first thing they hear in their minds is of the atonal variety. As a matter of fact, with a few exceptions, 20th Century composers may not be nearly as popular among "non-listeners" (case-in-point, maybe we are elitist!)


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

About all this about public reaction to twentieth-century composers: Atonal music and the Twelve-tone row made the public (in general, of course) somewhat cautious of twentieth-century composers who weren't already established; they could be either tonal or atonal, and some people just didn't want to take that chance (I had an experience like that recently; the Cincinnati Symphony Orchestra played a twentieth-century piece, written within the past decade or so; I thought it might be atonal or something, but in fact it was a great piece of music).

Point being, I was anxious about it, wondering whether or not it was to be tonal. Surely some people would eliminate the chance altogether.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers (May 30, 2006)

> Most (let's call them uneducated rather than lower or middle class) people would react (emotionally) much more with Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima than a Mozart violin Sonata. That said, most educated persons (such as most of us here) would react (emotionally) to the Mozart Sonata with as much emotion.


Definately a good idea to leave class out of it - without getting into the politics of it all. Lower class doesn't mean uneducated obviously.

Ah but would they?? Everyone in our society seems to react to some kind of music. Be it Britney Spears, The Rolling Stones, Eric Clapton, Kylie Minogue... I wouldn't for a second like to compare the emotional value of music compared with Hiroshima, so leaving that out of the equation... I dunno if education really has anything to do with it. I have always loved classical music more than any other kind. I don;t believe that this is because I was more educated than most, or because I understood the music any better than the next person.



> Point being, I was anxious about it, wondering whether or not it was to be tonal. Surely some people would eliminate the chance altogether.


With the best will in the world, I don't believe your average Joe on the street with no musical background knows or understands what atonality is. Lots of my friends don;t even know what a key is...


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

But they _react_ to each one instinctively differently. They don't need a name for it. If the Average Western Joe goes and hears Mozart and then Webern, he won't need to know that Webern used such and such a twelve tone row - and frankly, he won't care; he just won't like it. I used to hate Ives, but now I can tolerate him because I've learned a lot more about his style and have eased my way up through progressively more "dissonant" composers of the 19th and 20th centuries.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers (May 30, 2006)

Yes, agreed, but I don;t believe without listening your average Joe could tell the difference, and so wouldn;t know to avoid them. If they don't know what atonal music is like, as your average Joe probably wouldn't, how would they know how to avoid it?


----------



## World Violist (May 31, 2007)

Because, let's face it: it sounds ugly to the average Joe. An average Joe would want to stick to what he knows is _not_ atonal: your Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Brahms; in short, the ones that are _guaranteed_ to be "safe." He would just simply throw all the other ones out the window. That's all there is to it.


----------



## Rondo (Jul 11, 2007)

> Most (let's call them uneducated rather than lower or middle class) people would react (emotionally) much more with Threnody for the victims of Hiroshima than a Mozart violin Sonata. That said, most educated persons (such as most of us here) would react (emotionally) to the Mozart Sonata with as much emotion.


I, also, don't believe it is that linear. There may be some trend that higher education leads to a greater appreciation of classical music. However, as true as that may sound to many of us, it would take something to back it up. As many of us here in the States have learned, correlating _anything_ with education or class comes across as a very elitist argument.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

My definition of education is what I stated earlier. Perhaps I need a better name, but I don't know one. Experience, maybe, but not completely accurate either.

I know that I found Beethoven interesting...ish but everyone else was boring.... When I was younger. The only reason I started to like classical music is because I started listening to it more and could predict the patterns in them (and as humans, this is all we do; we are pattern recognising machines and that is how we live). It honestly took me specific educations (theory) to like Mahler/Wagner etc..


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Rondo said:


> There may be some trend that higher education leads to a greater appreciation of classical music.


I'm the living example of the contrary. Maybe I'm an exception, I don't know, but my education has been basic at best.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> My definition of education is what I stated earlier. Perhaps I need a better name, but I don't know one. Experience, maybe, but not completely accurate either.


"Listening experience" combined with curiosity sounds pretty accurate I think.

I don't think that classical music is elitist at all. It's there for whoever wants it. No record shop ever refused to sell me a classical cd because I wear jeans instead of a suit. And 12 tone music makes for, what? One or two percent of all classical music? There's avant garde stuff in popular music as well. I've never heard of a rock fan thinking that the genre is elitist because they 'don't get', say, Captain Beefheart.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2008)

Yagan Kiely said:


> The only reason I started to like classical music is because I started listening to it more and could predict the patterns in them (and as humans, this is all we do; we are pattern recognising machines and that is how we live). It honestly took me specific educations (theory) to like Mahler/Wagner etc..


I think you are right anticipation of what comes next make music enjoyable, the Sonata form has not been bettered to date and this makes it easier to follow, some of the more complicated music take a few hearings before we are comfortable with it.

I also agree with *jhar26* that _classical music _is not elitist but some people like to think _they _are the elite because they like it.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2008)

Music has been mandatory in our schools (Australia) since Federation. This means that all school children should have the opportunity to participate in listening and performing music. It doesn't mean everyone is 'taught' to play a musical instrument, but it does mean that they learn about the elements of music and how to listen and respond to a broad range of repertoire.

So whether or not this fosters a love of classical music, like most other things in life, depends upon the individual. It's a matter of personal choice, but I believe everyone should be exposed to enough experiences to enable them to make the choice.

I have been passionate about classical music from an early age and can remember the first time I heard the sound of a violin on the radio, even though I had never seen one and had to ask what was making the sound. On the other hand, both my adult children were surrounded by classical music from birth, but neither chose to learn an instrument and still don't listen to it, although they love other kinds of music.


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

purple99 said:


> It's one reason I'm a keen Dudamel/Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra fan: how could a bunch of slum kids be 'elitist'?


Well, D.H. Lawrence was of working class origin - a miner's son - but his opinions were aristocratic, he detested labor unions and believed labor unrest ought to be dealt with by force.



> So the 'elitist' charge is largely accurate, but lots of people active in classical music don't like it and are working to eject the snobs!


Dumbing down of programs & John Adams, John Williams and fusion substituted for the real thing aren't the only problems caused by democratisation of classical music - nor the worst. Harassment and smear on authentic classical music lovers and a will to exclude them, is the other.


----------



## karenpat (Jan 16, 2009)

I think elitism has a lot to do with understanding - if you feel like the discussion takes place miles above your level of understanding, you might end up feeling excluded. 
Who am I kidding, I feel like that sometimes, and I admit I have made accusations of elitism here myself and then realised my reason for it. When I read posts with a lot of musical technique/jargon-filled discussion, it makes me feel like "the stupid one" - although some people I know would probably call me elitist or more specifically "culture snob" just because I like classical music and have read a few books.  The world is a strange place...


----------



## GraemeG (Jun 30, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> I don't think that classical music is elitist at all. It's there for whoever wants it. No record shop ever refused to sell me a classical cd because I wear jeans instead of a suit.


Wise arts companies wanting to avoid the charge of elitism ought to do what the Vienna State Opera does (or did, at least). The best 'seats' in the house at the VSO - a large section directly underneath the royal box - are a raked bank of 'stehplatz' - standing places - which are sold first-come-first-served on the day of the show at a price so low that anyone could afford them. They must get 120 people in there at least. Way cheaper than Britney Spears or Kylie Minogue or any plastic-voiced, air-headed cupie doll warbler.
_Anyone_ can go to the opera in Vienna - price isn't even a factor. Charge that with elitism...
cheers,
GG


----------



## TxllxT (Mar 2, 2011)

At home we've got a motorised satellite dish, which is able to pick up signals both meant for Britain & the rest of Europe. The number of times I  on André Rieu in German television are numerous. We sometimes see live transmitting from the Austrian TV at Salzburg, in Holland there is a special channel Brava TV devoted 24 hours to classical music and last but not least a lot of prime time is being devoted by the BBC to the Proms. Ask any Dutchman or German whether the name 'André Rieu' rings a (classical) bell & be sure the answer is positive. I'm no fan of this Strauss-copy with violin, but he *does* introduce droves of people to 'light' classical music.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

True. Hes definitely a celebrity.

Also, if you dont know it there is also a french channel which we receive here in Holland called Mezzo. Devoted 24/7 to classical music, ballet and opera.


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

The myth that classical music is elitist is a canard which never seems to die.
One problem is that too many people who know nothing about it have a stereotypical image in their heads of concerts and operas as stuffy formal affairs where rich,snooty and snobbish people attending for purely social reasons and to see and be seen, as well as to show off their fancy clothes and jewelry,while actually being bored to tears.
Then,there's the stereotypical image of opera as being a stuffy formal affair with rich ,bored people sitting in their boxes while fat people in ridiculous pseudo Viking costumes scream at each other in some incomprehensible language.
The people who have this stereotypcal image in their heads don't realize that people attend concerts and opera because they really love this kind of music and are closely caught up weith what is going on on on stage, or the music at a concert.
They're just as enthusiastic as sports fans at games. 
And the term elitist implies that our orchestras and opera companies are trying to exclude any one who is not rich and white. On the contrary,they very much want to expand the audience and have people on their administrative staffs who are involved in community outreach and education. Excluding people is the exact opposite of their intentions !


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

emiellucifuge said:


> True. Hes definitely a celebrity.
> 
> Also, if you dont know it there is also a french channel which we receive here in Holland called Mezzo. Devoted 24/7 to classical music, ballet and opera.


They broadcast some jazz too, sometimes too much


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

All the arts have a degree of ELITISM or exclusivity about them. Whether we are speaking of classical music, opera, bluegrass, jazz, or pop there is a hierarchy... a sense that certain individuals within the genre are better than others... and quite often exclusivity... a sense that this given genre is superior to others. Perhaps in the past, this exclusivity was enforced in financial terms: only those of a certain class and degree of wealth could participate in a given art form. I don't see this as all that true anymore. There is still an elitism or exclusivity in the arts... but it is one of an elective affinity: the individual chooses whether classical music, opera, jazz, etc... is worth the effort needed to appreciate and develop a greater understanding of. The insider knowledge and understanding of the opera aficionado is no different from that of the Star Trek aficionado, the heavy metal fanatic, or the jazz lover. The audience for Renaissance poetry, Modernist poetry, Post-Modern short stories, Baroque painting, abstract painting, Bergman films, Baroque opera, Romantic era-lieder, Jazz, etc... will always be limited. The audience for any "serious" or demanding art from will always be limited. The number of individuals willing to invest a degree of effort into understanding and appreciating something challenging will always be limited. I see no reason to be concerned about the charges of "elitism" leveled at classical music... and I certainly have no interest in the efforts to engage a broader audience by diluted or dumbing-down the content.:tiphat:


----------



## Comus (Sep 20, 2010)

It may take elitism to make this music, but it takes only a pair of ears to listen to it. I love Schoenberg and Berg's music, but I have no music degree. It's ridiculous to think one would need to recognize the retrograde of the prime row. Besides, how many uneducated people could point out a cadence, a key change, a recapitulation?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I see no reason to be concerned about the charges of "elitism" leveled at classical music... and I certainly have no interest in the efforts to engage a broader audience by diluted or dumbing-down the content.:tiphat:


Agree. Classical music have attributes that make it what it is. There is a distinction between making classical music more accessible to modern listeners than defacing the work itself. A good example we often see are the very bizzare and modern staging/production of operas; many are modern but unintelligent productions. Perhaps in the interest of making them more accessible (i.e. sell more tickets at the end of the day), but not at the expense of ridiculing.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> All the arts have a degree of ELITISM or exclusivity about them. Whether we are speaking of classical music, opera, bluegrass, jazz, or pop there is a hierarchy... a sense that certain individuals within the genre are better than others... and quite often exclusivity... a sense that this given genre is superior to others. Perhaps in the past, this exclusivity was enforced in financial terms: only those of a certain class and degree of wealth could participate in a given art form. I don't see this as all that true anymore. There is still an elitism or exclusivity in the arts... but it is one of an elective affinity: the individual chooses whether classical music, opera, jazz, etc... is worth the effort needed to appreciate and develop a greater understanding of. The insider knowledge and understanding of the opera aficionado is no different from that of the Star Trek aficionado, the heavy metal fanatic, or the jazz lover. The audience for Renaissance poetry, Modernist poetry, Post-Modern short stories, Baroque painting, abstract painting, Bergman films, Baroque opera, Romantic era-lieder, Jazz, etc... will always be limited. The audience for any "serious" or demanding art from will always be limited. The number of individuals willing to invest a degree of effort into understanding and appreciating something challenging will always be limited. I see no reason to be concerned about the charges of "elitism" leveled at classical music... and I certainly have no interest in the efforts to engage a broader audience by diluted or dumbing-down the content.:tiphat:


I agree - there is no need to dumbing down the content to reach a bigger audience. What is rather sad though is the missguided idea of some (many?) people that unless they have a certain social background or a certain level of education classical music is not for them. Dumbing down classical music up to a point where it loses it's identity would be stupid indeed. Trying to get rid of the stuffy image of classical music (which is mostly just a matter of perception anyway) that prohibits a bricklayer from visting the concert hall or opera house because he thinks he'll be as welcome there as a needle in a condom factory is worth the effort though.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

One has to ask the question - who or what are the "elites?" The rich? The powerful? The intellectuals?...


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

If the rich cease funding the arts, if the powerful cease protecting them, and if the intellectuals cease promoting them, then they will indeed disappear...

It's obvious they don't much care who goes to museums or concert halls or libraries as anyone who wants to go, can.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Trying to get rid of the stuffy image of classical music (which is mostly just a matter of perception anyway) that prohibits a bricklayer from visting the concert hall or opera house because he thinks he'll be as welcome there as a needle in a condom factory is worth the effort though.

This is a continuing challenge. Theaters and orchestras and ballets and art museums have tried to combat this image of exclusivity through young peoples concerts/tours/performances in which children are exposed in school to such artistic experiences. Unfortunately, these are among the first things cut when the Neo-Cons get into office... and the usual rallying call is "ELITISM!" Here in Cleveland the orchestra performs during the summer months in an outdoor park-like venue where families can bring the kids, a picnic lunch, a bottle of wine, and enjoy the performances followed by fireworks. This has been successful to the point that a city like Cleveland that is in economic decline and at the epicenter of the foreclosure crash has been able to maintain a world class orchestra.

I have personally long envied the sheer sense of fun that I see in many of the British Proms performances. Music... art... is about pleasure (among other things). I think stuffiness should be left at the door. Unfortunately its a holdover from the idea that attending the opera or ballet was a sign of wealth and prestige.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> Unfortunately, these are among the first things cut when the Neo-Cons get into office... and the usual rallying call is "ELITISM!"


Exactly, theirs and others like them are making a strawman argument. What I asking earlier is who exactly are the "elites?" Are they the rich, the powerful, the intellectuals or some other group? Even if we narrow it down to one group, there's a lot of diversity within that group in terms of many things - politics, ethnicity, socio-economic background. I don't think anyone can define who is considered to be part of the "elite" and who is not. It's a fallacy. Just like the opposite notion that the only people who listen to say techno are morons and neanderthals. These kinds of things just present false dichotomies. They are fantasies in the minds of certain people who want to perpetuate certain agendas...


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

It is elitist only in the sense that it requires more thinking to appreciate. It is not elitist in the sense that it does not dominate the music industry.

The implication for the first point is unbridled self-esteem. The implication for the second is that, ultimately, elitism involves financial power.

Given that, I'd be less concerned with questions on why classical music is considered elitist and more with questions on why contemporary pop music isn't.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Ralfy said:


> It is elitist only in the sense that it requires more thinking to appreciate. It is not elitist in the sense that it does not dominate the music industry.
> 
> The implication for the first point is unbridled self-esteem. *The implication for the second is that, ultimately, elitism involves financial power.*
> 
> Given that, I'd be less concerned with questions on why classical music is considered elitist and more with questions on why contemporary pop music isn't.


Interesting points. Your point about financial power is certainly true the further back we go when looking at music history. Baroque opera in England during the first half of the 18th century required enormous financial resources during its day, in order to attract the best continental composers and of course, the star singers (castrati and sopranos, in particular). It was indeed "elite" in the sense that the folks who supported that were the aristocrats of society, and such ventures often went bankrupt eventually.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

It should also be noted that in several cases, members of the audience included non-elites, and sometimes members of the aristocracy paid for such events not just to glorify themselves but to entertain commoners. It's still the case today but earnings are now involved.

The commercial pop music is still controlled by the elite, with much of the earnings going to companies rather than to performers, etc. The best performers are usually not chosen, only those who, through particular skills (not necessarily involving music, such as looks, a particular personality, and so on) can lead to increased sales and more revenues earned from spin-off media (from television sitcoms to even video games). In some cases, the ones who provide much revenue to companies are also backed by managers, financial and accounting firms, lawyers, spin doctors, and so on.


----------



## Barking Spiderz (Feb 1, 2011)

Only in class obsessed Britain does this seem to be the case. As a Brit of Italian and Austrian parents I've lived in all three countries plus stints in Germany, Czech Republic and France. In these countries there's no sense of CM being for middle aged, middle-upper class snobs. You'll see loads of ordinary schoolkids going to the opera with their parents. Maybe because these countries dont consume rock and pop as much as Brits and Americans might have something not to mention that these are the heartlands of CM.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

I thought that the concept of an "elite" is about a relatively small sub-group of the wider community distinguished by wealth or superior education or social class, which considers itself better qualified than the majority (the "hoi polloi") to make judgements about a particular topic, which could be music, politics, or whatever. 

On this basis, I don't understand what many of the contributions on this thread are all about, as they seem to veer off the point by miles. The mere fact that classical music is enjoyed by a tiny minority of the general public (probably less than 4% and declining) doesn't make this group an "elite" in the above sense. It merely makes it a minority group. It would be an elite only if the classical music loving segment of the general population tried to enforce its views on society as a whole, e.g. in terms of what genres of music are worth supporting financially hrough State subsidy. That's what the OP was all about, but the member who started the thread appears to have cleared off and hasn't responded to any of the posts that have ensued. Therefore we don't really know whether any of the responses answer his query.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Mayerl said:


> Over the years perhaps the most voiced criticism of "Classical" music is that it is very elitist.
> A prime example of this, here in the UK, occurs from time to time when musical bodies such as opera houses and orchestras which rely heavily on state sponsorship, have had funding requests refused or reduced by Labour governments on the grounds of eliteism.
> I am not quite sure how the powers that be would define the word or what their perception of elitist may be, but there is an old German saying that roughly translates as "What the peasant doesn't understand, the peasant doesn't like".
> If a passion for, understanding of, and the ability to play Classical music puts me among the "Elite", then I have no problem with that. Surely the term could also be applied to, shall we say, an expert golfer or an aerobatic pilot but I sense that if it were there would be no derogatory undertones.
> Any thoughts out there?


Wikipedia says :

Anti-elitism

Main articles: Populism and Pluralism (political theory)

The term elitism, or the title elitist, are sometimes used resentfully by people who are (or claim to be) not a member of an elite organization.[2] In politics, the terms are often used to describe people as being out of touch with the Average Joe. The implication is that the alleged elitist person or group thinks they are better than everyone else; and, therefore, put themselves before others. It could be seen as a *synonym for snob.* An elitist is not always seen as truly elite, but only privileged. This definition is often used in politics; in societies in which social equality is valued; and the middle and lower classes have political power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitism

I don't know how classical music makes one to be an elitist. Its a matter of taste, and I am no snob because I listen to classical music.

What's next?

Should we blame all rich people to be snobs just because they have alote of money?

Bring back communism God forbid?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

A political perspective:



> _A Question of Discrimination_ by *A. C. Grayling*, 2002
> 
> Think, wrote the cultural critic Eunice Lipton, "about Michelangelo, van Gogh, Rodin, Picasso, Pollock. Could these artists be lesbians, Asian Americans, Native Americans?" Her point was that if they had been any of these things, they would not have been recognised as "artist-geniuses" (her term); and this by implication shows that the notion of high culture in the western tradition embodies everything that is exclusive of other cultures and elitist within its own.
> 
> ...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

The music obviously isn't elitist, but a lot of elitists listen to classical music. As evidenced by most threads here. Listening to classical music exclusively is a sure sign of this.

Imperialistic? Probably.

Maybe add racist to the list. 

WHERE BE ALL THE BLACK FACES IN THE ORCHESTRA AND THE AUDIENCE?

That gives me an idea.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Argus said:


> The music obviously isn't elitist, but a lot of elitists listen to classical music. As evidenced by most threads here. Listening to classical music exclusively is a sure sign of this.
> 
> Imperialistic? Probably.
> 
> ...


There's lots of Asian classical musicians though, so it cant be a race thing........


----------



## wingracer (Mar 7, 2011)

jhar26 said:


> I don't think that classical music is elitist at all. It's there for whoever wants it. No record shop ever refused to sell me a classical cd because I wear jeans instead of a suit.


I know this is a very old post but just had to comment.

No, I haven't been refused either but you should have seen what happened when I went up to the cash register with a Chopin CD wearing a greasy, dirty "snap on" hat. The cashier got this confused expression on his face and actually said "I have never seen anyone wearing a snap on hat buy Chopin." I had to explain to him that I was both a mechanic and a musician.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> There's lots of Asian classical musicians though, so it cant be a race thing........


Asian's don't have black faces.

(I'm guessing you're using the usual American word 'Asian' as meaning East/South East Asians)

What I don't understand is if China is really nationalist, why doesn't it encourage more young kids to pick up the erhu or pipa rather than an imported Western instrument. Same for Japan with it's long history of isolationism and cultural superioty complex. I know they do to some extent but the amount of quality pianists/violinists coming from the East seems to be growing faster.

Actually scrap that about racism. Black people shouldn't listen to classical music as much as white people. It's not their culture and in many cases it's the culture of imperialist oppressors. It makes sense to not see black people in orchestras. They'll be playing and listening to music which is more relevant to them and their history.

Ideally, people should be able to see past non-musical prejudices and listen to the music for what it is, but this isn't likely to happen across the board.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Argus said:


> Asian's don't have black faces.
> 
> (I'm guessing you're using the usual American word 'Asian' as meaning East/South East Asians)
> 
> ...


What exactly is a 'western instrument'?

King David used a Violin and a Harp to sing songs of praise.
The Levite Orchestra in the Temple had the following musical intruments:

Temple music consisted of singers and an orchestra. The singers and musicians could come only from the males of certain families. Likewise, the types of instruments were restricted. Instruments that were associated with women, with raucous merrymaking (such as the Egyptian sistrum), or with pagan worship were banned from the temple orchestra.

These instruments include the big harp (nevel), the lyre (kinnor), the ram's horn (shophar), the trumpet (chatsotserah), the timbrel (toph), and cymbals (metsiltayim). After the Israelites returned from the Exile and rebuilt the temple, the orchestra was reestablished (cf. Neh. 12:27). The pipe or flute (halil) was probably now included, and vocal music became more prominent.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Argus said:


> Listening to classical music exclusively is a sure sign of this.


Isn't it wrong to judge those people too?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Is it possible for us to enter an intelligible discussion without someone bringing up largely irrelevant references to scripture???


----------



## toucan (Sep 27, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Is it possible for us to enter an intelligible discussion without someone bringing up largely irrelevant references to scripture???


Obviously not. Perhaps mods ought to intervene?


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

toucan said:


> Obviously not. Perhaps mods ought to intervene?


So are you suggesting that if religion or biblical history is mentioned in any discussion therefore it can't be 'intelligent'?

Where this baby came from?

If you don't like something, why cant you ignore it? I do.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Elitists like classical music like they like Rolexes and Hennessy X.O.
They like, don't like it. They like liking it only for its likeness.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

:lol: Darn, this thread is beginning to sound elitist...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> So are you suggesting that if religion or biblical history is mentioned in any discussion therefore it can't be 'intelligent'?
> 
> Where this baby came from?
> 
> If you don't like something, why cant you ignore it? I do.


The problem is not that it makes threads unintelligent; the problem is that, on threads devoted to a subject that is _a_religious (neither religious nor irreligious), it is _disruptive_ to enter the discussion referencing scripture as fact because few people are going to agree with your interpretations and suppositions, and so the conversation devolves into a argument about whether or not someone's religious convictions are valid. It just spoils things!


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

I thought I asked a valid question, but it gets you so upset, I wont do it unless the subject is related somewhat to spirituality...

Hope that this will put a smile across your face...


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

Polednice said:


> The problem is not that it makes threads unintelligent; the problem is that, on threads devoted to a subject that is _a_religious (neither religious nor irreligious), it is _disruptive_ to enter the discussion referencing scripture as fact because few people are going to agree with your interpretations and suppositions, and so the conversation devolves into a argument about whether or not someone's religious convictions are valid. It just spoils things!


I take your point but you can't really be saying that you aren't intersted to learn that The Levite Orchestra in the Temple placed restrictions on the types of instruments that could be used such as those associated with women and raucous merrymaking (such as the Egyptian sistrum), can you? I bet also there were tough restrictions on popcorn munchers, and those irritating audience members who applaud in between movements, or too early at the end.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Toccata said:


> I take your point but you can't really be saying that you aren't intersted to learn that The Levite Orchestra in the Temple placed restrictions on the types of instruments that could be used such as those associated with women and raucous merrymaking (such as the Egyptian sistrum), can you? I bet also there were tough restrictions on popcorn munchers, and those irritating audience members who applaud in between movements, or too early at the end.


Dont bet on it...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> What exactly is a 'western instrument'?


Instruments historically associated with Western (European) music. Whats difficult to comprehend about that? Some instruments have multi-national lineage but it's quite simple to see the difference. e.g the Spanish guitar, the lute, the oud and the sitar have very similar feutures and belong to the same family of instruments but it makes sense to call the first two Western instruments and the latter two not. It doesn't matter where it was invented but where it found its most use. Bagpipes may have been invented in the Middle East but most people would day they are more closely associated with Scotland.

Out of all of my post, why focus on that bit? It looks like it was a way of you cramming in some more religious stuff.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Argus said:


> cramming in some more religious stuff.


In the orange box...:lol:


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Toccata said:


> I take your point but you can't really be saying that you aren't intersted to learn that The Levite Orchestra in the Temple placed restrictions on the types of instruments that could be used such as those associated with women and raucous merrymaking (such as the Egyptian sistrum), can you? I bet also there were tough restrictions on popcorn munchers, and those irritating audience members who applaud in between movements, or too early at the end.


Now that's just elitism followed by a crap joke to divert attention 

It doesn't matter what I am and am not interested in; people are not going to want to engage in discussion with someone using scripture as valid historical texts.


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Now that's just elitism followed by a crap joke to divert attention
> 
> It doesn't matter what I am and am not interested in; people are not going to want to engage in discussion with someone using scripture as valid historical texts.


You seem to be a man of the people, that's good.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Saul_Dzorelashvili said:


> You seem to be a man of the people, that's good.


You seem to be a man of God; shame he doesn't exist


----------



## Saul_Dzorelashvili (Jan 26, 2010)

Polednice said:


> You seem to be a man of God; shame he doesn't exist


You're begining to bore me..yanks...


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

This topic reminds me of the ff. essay:

"A Culture of Low Expectations"

http://web.archive.org/web/20010423...inc.co.uk/LM/LM117/LM117_LowExpectations.html

Also, something I found only a few minutes ago:

"Music for the masses: could it work here?"

http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/372/


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Now that's just elitism followed by a crap joke to divert attention
> 
> It doesn't matter what I am and am not interested in; people are not going to want to engage in discussion with someone using scripture as valid historical texts.


The problem with your assertion, though, is that you dismiss any historicity in sacred texts. While the Jewish and Christian scriptures may be religious texts, they are also historical. Many books of the Old Testament are largely historical, and events documented in them can be verified through external, non-religious sources. For example, the lineage of Jewish kings, the political history of Northern and Southern Kingdoms, the interactions, through wars, etc., between the various nations of the Middle East of that time.

So while, yes, interjecting scripture in that is purely theological in nature frequently disrupts discussions, from what I saw, the reference made by Saul was more an issue of historical reference. You may object to the validity of the religious doctrine in scripture, but to dismiss them completely, including the historical aspects, on that ground would be just as unfounded as to dismiss the musical value of Bach's cantatas based on their religious themes. Much of what we know of ancient history that we know has been gleaned from documents and records that were religious, or mythological, in nature. Shall we also dismiss out of hand much of the music of the Renaissance for its religious nature?

Your general point is a valid one - but its application, in this instance, I think was misguided.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

DrMike said:


> Your general point is a valid one - but its application, in this instance, I think was misguided.


I understand your point, but I think you exaggerated.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I understand your point, but I think you exaggerated.


Yeah, it's possible. I have been know to do that from time to time. I just don't think it is always bad to insert something from the Bible into an arreligious topic, so long as it is topical. And I would also point out that the problem lies not only with the person posting the comment, but also with those who will ridicule such references for no reason (not holding you up as an example here, but we all know that there are those who will knee-jerk deride anything remotely biblical for whatever motives they have).

Rule of thumb, I guess, for me has been that anything is fair, so long as it is topical, not mean-spirited, and not a personal attack.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

DrMike said:


> Yeah, it's possible. I have been know to do that from time to time. I just don't think it is always bad to insert something from the Bible into an arreligious topic, so long as it is topical. And I would also point out that the problem lies not only with the person posting the comment, but also with those who will ridicule such references for no reason (not holding you up as an example here, but we all know that there are those who will knee-jerk deride anything remotely biblical for whatever motives they have).
> 
> Rule of thumb, I guess, for me has been that anything is fair, so long as it is topical, not mean-spirited, and not a personal attack.


I certainly have no problem with the discussion of scriptural references, I'm just wary of the tone people use when discussing them (i.e. general intrigue vs. ramming-down-throat), but sometimes I misjudge


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I certainly have no problem with the discussion of scriptural references, I'm just wary of the tone people use when discussing them (i.e. general intrigue vs. ramming-down-throat), but sometimes I misjudge


Agreed - tone is important. I, myself, consider myself to be a very religious person. That being said, I understand there is a time and a place for everything. I am certainly not going to shy away from voicing my beliefs, where appropriate, but would also not insert them where inappropriate, and not in a way that was purposely meant to "stir the pot." I don't particularly like my views ridiculed, and a lack of tact on my part can certainly escalate into ridicule of my belief from others.


----------



## Il Seraglio (Sep 14, 2009)

All great art is 'elitist' because the very notion of great art and a great artist implies that not all men are created equal. I know this isn't a popular view (understandably), but I think the quality of Western music -and also painting, sculpture and architecture- declined with the erosion of Europe's aristocracy. I'm not going to pretend I fully understand why, but I find this fact very telling.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Il Seraglio said:


> All great art is 'elitist' because the very notion of great art and a great artist implies that not all men are created equal.


I don't think it implies that. People can excell in different areas aside from just art. Art is just one (somewhat) measurable attribute, and even if an individual performed better in a myriad of things I still don't think it implies that not all men are created equal. However - time isn't equally distributed amongst individuals (something great art requires a lot of), and sometimes we just have cases of individuals by their own free will choosing to make better use of their time. It still doesn't mean they were created as better than anyone else.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

All men are born equal in the sense of the rights they are entitled to _etc._, but Il Seraglio is right to say that, practically in every other aspect, of course men (meaning men and women! ) aren't born equal, physically and mentally. That's the simple diversity of life. No matter how much education and time you might give one person, it may well just be the case that 'great art' is beyond their capabilities, no matter whatever tasks they may excel in.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2011)

Polednice said:


> All men are born equal


All Pigs are born equal but some are more equal than others [Animal Farm] and that is so very very true!


----------



## vamos (Oct 9, 2009)

Drowning_by_numbers said:


> Perhaps true, but the decline of classical music occurred around about the time that the tape recorder was invented and a whole new window of possibility was opened up to composers - the rise of popular music. The two split - pop music is easier to listen to than classical music, the audience follows. I'm not gonna get into the whole contemporary music debate here again, but in my opinion (and without wanted to cause a reaction of counter-statements) I don't believe modern composers are to blame. And besides this, they don't all write atonally. And not liking a type of music doesn't make it worthless.


blame all the composers since who had the talents but were too daft to come up with the idea of genuinely blending art music and pop music


----------



## Guest (Apr 10, 2011)

Polednice said:


> No matter how much education and time you might give one person, it may well just be the case that 'great art' is beyond their capabilities, no matter whatever tasks they may excel in.


You can take a fool and give them a fine education but all you finish up with is an educated fool


----------

