# Why is classical music unpopular with the youth?



## Gouldanian

A couple of weeks ago on my blog I wrote a piece regarding the fallout between the younger generation and classical music. Of course, many young people are fans of classical music, some of which I'm sure are member of this site. Therefore my analysis doesn't aime each young person individually but rather society as whole since, in general, young people dislike classical music. I'm sharing the piece with you because I'm curious yo know your take on the matter. I've had some very interesting responses on my blog.

Why is classical music unpopular with the youth?

It's a question to which most classical music fans would like to have an answer. Understanding the causes of its decline could help us reconnect it with the youth and insure the survival of this noble form of art.

I've spent a considerable time reading opinions on the matter, some of which I share with you herein. Many believe that classical music isn't regard as ''cool'' by young people to which the cool factor is the most relevant one for adhering to hobbies. This renders classical music unpopular with most teenagers and many young adults that are averse to rejection. The remaining minority that enjoys classical music does it in secret, contributing therefore to the perpetration of misjudgment of classical music and the underestimation of its actual popularity. Others submit that capitalism which began at the turn of the century extended to the music industry by transforming it into a common commodity just like any other good. Music ceased to be the pure form of art that it was and become more of a commercialized product conceived for the masses. Pseudo-artists multiplied, music lost its complex texture and songs became adapted to please the average person's ear because that category of people represented the bigger market. I could go on stating other relevant opinions such as the ones that believe that this state of decay isn't specific to classical music but also extends to most spheres of life: people are less refined than they used to be, manners are lost and social standards are gone.

I believe that the answer lies somewhere between that medley, for these opinions are mere reminders of the state of things rather than actual hypothesis regarding the actual reasons. For instance, there's a reason why classical music isn't regarded as cool by younger people. We can't simply say that classical music is lost with the younger generation because it's not regarded as cool. Why isn't it regarded as cool? What makes some things cool and others not? That's what we need to investigate. By the same token, we can't simply say that the music industry is a victim of capitalism and justify the reason of the poor music we have today with that sole argument. Why did classical music (or music in general should I say) fall victim to capitalism? Why were those ''mean'' capitalists able to turn it into a commercialized product? That's what we need to discuss rather than satisfy ourself with mere reminders of the state of things.

In attempting to take on this challenge, I went back to the origin of music. How did music evolve over the years? I won't go back to the beginning of music for this would be more than what is needed for the sake of the present discussion. I will instead begin from the Baroque era. During that era, music was written with the highest purpose in mind: God, heaven, eternity. Music was not an expression of personal feelings, it was an expression of what we perceived as the eternal beauty of God's supremacy. Bach is the perfect example of that. As a religious man himself, he used music as vehicle to connect with God on one hand and to circulate his message among his peers on the other. This is precisely the reason why when we listen to Baroque music we are unable to decipher personal messages as to how well or unwell the composer felt at the time he wrote the music (as opposed to when we listen to Chopin and the other Romantic era composers, which I'll get to shortly). The only thing we are able to perceive when listening to Baroque music is its abstract and impersonal beautify which is meant to represent God. With Mozart and Beethoven at the end of the 18th century, Baroque entered the Classical era, an era that is characterized by the struggle between the Baroque school of music and the new Romantic one. It was a time of evolution in music, a time of innovation, a time of boldness. Beethoven was arguably the first Romantic composer. An example of that is his Piano Sonata no. 14 (the ''Moonlight''). The very dark music of that sonata would have been considered unacceptable a few decades prior to Beethoven's time for he expressed ''his'' own personal feelings of love and heartache rather than abstract feelings towards a higher purpose. We could say that music was being humanized. This trend finally broke free with the arrival of the Romantic era during the mid 18's century with the likes of Chopin and Liszt. Artists began expressing happiness and sadness through music. That time around if you listened to a composition you knew precisely how the composer felt at the time when he wrote the music.

Which brings me to my own hypothesis on the matter. Could we still be living in the Romantic era? I explain. The term ''Classical music'' is understood to encompass the Baroque, the Classical and the Romantic eras. Those golden eras are understood to have ended with the industrial revolution at the turn of the 19th century by giving way to new forms of music. But is that so? How different is the conception of music today from the one at the time of Chopin? I don't mean to refer with this bold statement to the quality of the music itself, far from it, but to the ''motives'' behind it. Like Chopin wrote to express his deep personal feelings, we write to express our own personal ones. Adele, Bieber and all the other ''artists'' of our generation are expressing their deep personal feelings through what they call ''music''. Their efforts to express those feelings are questionable at best. But they are still efforts to express personal feelings which therefore relates them to the same school of music of that of the Romantic era. But why are those efforts so poor? Perhaps we are at fault. Perhaps humanity has lost its refined intellectual education (p.s. school education and intellectual education are different. Going to school to learn math and physics doesn't necessarily make us intellectual or refined. i.e. many people who hold a university degree don't know much about history and some can't even recall who the current Prime Minister is. How educated is that?) Perhaps capitalism realized that with the rise of the middle class and the invention of the radio (and later the many technologies we have today) new opportunities arise.

Before, music was reserved to the upper class as ordinary people didn't have the means to own a musical instrument nor attend concerts. Also, musicians needed to pay their dues to be discovered and brought on the scene. They couldn't simply record a silly song and upload it on youtube. But with the turn of the century this became possible. Music entered most people's homes through the radio and other means of communication. It entered the life of people who only a few years back did not posses musical education. Now, any successful business owner would tell you that between educating people to comprehend and appreciate complex things or simply adapting those things to their level of taste, the latter is by far the most profitable option. The music industry quickly understood that this new market was much more enchanted by listening to the expression of deep personal feelings rather than the expression of connections to a higher purpose. Baroque was definitely out of the equation. As to Romanticism, the music industry also understood that the average people needed to be reached in their sorrows and cheered in their joys. They didn't want their music to be complex for they didn't want to make an effort to understand it (i.e. to listen attentively to three half hour movements of a piano concerto for perhaps several times in order to maybe understand what the composer was trying to express).

I believe that the analysis that I make explains why the vast majority of music today is quick, simple and poor in substance. A few rhythmic notes, some touching lyrics and you have yourself a song that you can spin for the next few weeks on radio stations until the average people are bored with it and move on to the next one. This behaviour dictates today's music industry because this is where the money is. Sadly, the generations that are born into this trend will often grow to believe that this is decent music, that the previous schools of music are outdated and ''uncool''. And if you don't want to be seen uncool as a young person you must stay away from things that are regarded as such my the majority, unless you are not susceptible to rejection and judgment. One can't blame the younger generations for it is only normal to grow accustomed to the climate one was born into. Only a handful of young people are able to break free and realize what other classical music fans have realized: that classical music is a reservoir of infinite beauty, that it includes music for all tastes and that it is and will always be perennial as long as someone out there appreciates it.


----------



## Gouldanian

Here are two of the most interesting responses I got:

''Some random thoughts. 1. Terminology sets up a barrier right away: popular music vs. classical music. If it's not popular, why listen to it? This may be connected with the commercialization you mentioned. 2. Before the 20th century, classical music was popular. Many symphonies & other orchestral compositions were arranged so that they could be played by amateurs at home on piano, flute, guitar, violin, harmonium, etc., or by amateur bands. Many towns and even factories had bands that provided recreation for citizens and employees and entertainment for those who didn't play. Violinists like Ole Bull and Pablo de Sarasate and of course Paganini, and pianists like Liszt, Anton Rubinstein, Vladimir dePachmann, and Paderewski were popular and played giant concerts at World's Fairs and so on (sort of like stadium concerts today). 3. Even in the 20th C. classical music had popular appeal at venues like the Hollywood Bowl or the Proms in the Royal Albert Hall. In the USA starting in the 1920s with the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra many orchestras's concerts were broadcast on the radio. In the '30s and '40s people all over the country tuned in to hear Toscanini conduct the NBC Symphony. 4. But people like music that "catches" the ear, with tunes and songfulness and harmony. Even though such music can be studied and interpreted intellectually, it can also be enjoyed just sensuously. When "serious" music departed from that, it left most people behind. And when you leave people behind, after a while (now almost 100 years) you probably cannot get them back. 5. So classical music, removed from the popular consciousness, became the preserve of socialites and the cognoscenti--and that's definitely not cool. And special concerts devised by old people out of touch with youth--such as symphony orchestras with rock bands and light shows--are not going to bring people back. They're not cool either. 6. There is hope--some hope--in places where primary and secondary schools have good music programs that involve young people in learning instruments and experiencing classical music. If people learn to enjoy it, they will reach out to hear and experience more--especially on YouTube, which encourages exploration and is easy and doesn't cost anything and requires no more equipment than a computer or even mobile phone.''

''I've notice as the level of impatience in the human mind increases, so does the ability to think for itself. We're turning into robots. People like new music and not classical music because they are told to. As the world keeps getting easier, we lack the ability to have the patience to figure things out for ourselves. So we take the easy way out and look to the first person that seems to know something. Our minds our literally narrowing as we speak. Weve eliminated all situations to use them except for the tiniest tasks which are increasing on difficulty at an alarming rate. Classical music requires thought. Getting lost in your mind. People now basically don't have minds to get lost in.''


----------



## Triplets

Classical Music requires a bit of concentration and contemplation. The youth of today are incapable of both. They live their lives as if they have ADHD, simultaneously surfing, texting, playing video games, doing their homework, getting high and getting laid.
Do you really expect music that doesn't rely on endless repetition to succeed in that kind of environment?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

This is much more visible in the context of live classical music, and from there it becomes a cultural thing.

Where I live, my city's main orchestra has a new music festival every year. In the larger concerts, the audience is usually made up of a very equal distribution of ages from teens to grey haired old folks. In the main concert series, probably because of the more expensive subscription tickets, the audience is probably about 50-60% grey haired old folks. There are two main opera companies, one being smaller and performs a more diverse repertoire including a new commission every year and almost always employs local set, lighting and costume designers and musicians and the other is a bigger company which imports large productions from overseas with a much less diverse repertoire. In the former I remember seeing a double bill production of de Falla's Master Peter's Puppet Show followed by What Next? by Elliott Carter and about 15-20% were grey haired old people and the majority of the audience seemed to be in their 20s and 30s. In any production I've seen by the latter company, those approximate age demographics are the opposite. 

My girlfriend was born in Mexico and lived there until emigrating here when she was about 14 years old and she recalls live classical music as very very different where she used to live any way, with the majority of the audience being much much younger than the majority here....

But then again it seems to always depend of repertoire, cost and culture above all else.

I'm 18 and I've been going to various concerts of classical music since I was 10.


----------



## Gouldanian

Triplets said:


> Classical Music requires a bit of concentration and contemplation. The youth of today are incapable of both. They live their lives as if they have ADHD, simultaneously surfing, texting, playing video games, doing their homework, getting high and getting laid.
> Do you really expect music that doesn't rely on endless repetition to succeed in that kind of environment?


Precisely. I stressed that aspect in my analysis:

''(...) the music industry also understood that the average people needed to be reached in their sorrows and cheered in their joys. They didn't want their music to be complex for they didn't want to make an effort to understand it (i.e. to listen attentively to three half hour movements of a piano concerto for perhaps several times in order to maybe understand what the composer was trying to express).''


----------



## Gouldanian

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> This is much more visible in the context of live classical music, and from there it becomes a cultural thing.
> 
> Where I live, my city's main orchestra has a new music festival every year. In the larger concerts, the audience is usually made up of a very equal distribution of ages from teens to grey haired old folks. In the main concert series, probably because of the more expensive subscription tickets, the audience is probably about 50-60% grey haired old folks. There are two main opera companies, one being smaller and performs a more diverse repertoire including a new commission every year and almost always employs local set, lighting and costume designers and musicians and the other is a bigger company which imports large productions from overseas with a much less diverse repertoire. In the former I remember seeing a double bill production of de Falla's Master Peter's Puppet Show followed by What Next? by Elliott Carter and about 15-20% were grey haired old people and the majority of the audience seemed to be in their 20s and 30s. In any production I've seen by the latter company, those approximate age demographics are the opposite.
> 
> My girlfriend was born in Mexico and lived there until emigrating here when she was about 14 years old and she recalls live classical music as very very different where she used to live any way, with the majority of the audience being much much younger than the majority here....
> 
> But then again it seems to always depend of repertoire, cost and culture above all else.
> 
> I'm 18 and I've been going to various concerts of classical music since I was 10.


Interesting. So just to make sure that I understand correctly, which of the two factors is most contributive to the disconnection between classical music and the younger audience in your town : 1- the higher cost of the classical music concerts or 2- the selection of the programs (i.e. the more diversified and local selection being the most attractive)?


----------



## Triplets

Glenn Gould said:


> Precisely. I stressed that aspect in my analysis:
> 
> ''(...) the music industry also understood that the average people needed to be reached in their sorrows and cheered in their joys. They didn't want their music to be complex for they didn't want to make an effort to understand it (i.e. to listen attentively to three half hour movements of a piano concerto for perhaps several times in order to maybe understand what the composer was trying to express).''


 Yes, but I was more concise. The real Glen Gould would have admired my Webernesque pithiness


----------



## Bulldog

As far back as I can remember, classical music has always been disliked by young people; it says nothing to them.


----------



## GKC

Because the adults (the ones who would otherwise pass on to the next generation this great music) are "youth", too.


----------



## pjang23

I think the decline in the number of people who learn instruments has much to do with it, as classical music is strongly tied to its tradition of musical performance -- it is written to be performed by musicians other than the original artist (in contrast to popular music which is permanently tied to the original performance of the original artist).

With the advent of recording technology at the turn of the century, people no longer had to learn instruments to play music anymore, since they can just listen to recorded music.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Glenn Gould said:


> Interesting. So just to make sure that I understand correctly, which of the two factors is most contributive to the disconnection between classical music and the younger audience in your town : 1- the higher cost of the classical music concerts or 2- the selection of the programs (i.e. the more diversified and local selection being the most attractive)?


Well, I'm not trying to come to any strong conclusions or anything, but those are just some observations....I'm not sure which is most contributive to the disconnection, but it would be very different for different people in the end. The backgrounds, viewpoints and interests of the youth are just as diverse as any other group, really.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Well, in classical _concerts_ it's mostly old people because concerts are expensive. Is paying 70 dollars to hear Beethoven's 5th symphony again really worth it?

But if you look at young people playing piano and violin, listening to classical music, writing their own classical music even, and chatting about it on the internet... it seems that the young are just as engaged, if not more engaged.

I also think that the "omg the youth today are so retarded" idea is a fallacy that goes back to Socrates, if not earlier. I think that old folks tend to look at only the most noisy, dumbest, loudest youth and say "look, this must be how all youth are!"


----------



## GreenMamba

SeptimalTritone said:


> Well, in classical _concerts_ it's mostly old people because concerts are expensive. Is paying 70 dollars to hear Beethoven's 5th symphony again really worth it?


A lot of concerts I see are cheaper (or even free) for students. Most still don't want to go, although in fairness, plenty of adults wouldn't go even if concerts were free.


----------



## Woodduck

pjang23 said:


> I think the decline in the number of people who learn instruments has much to do with it, as classical music is strongly tied to its tradition of musical performance -- it is written to be performed by musicians other than the original artist (in contrast to popular music which is permanently tied to the original performance of the original artist).
> 
> With the advent of recording technology at the turn of the century, people no longer had to learn instruments to play music anymore, since they can just listen to recorded music.


When I was a kid, 50 and more years ago, people had pianos in their houses and more often than not somebody in the family played it. In the piano benches there were usually books of classical pieces, hymnals, and books and sheets of popular songs, often going back a couple of generations. Almost anywhere my parents, who were not musicians, took me to visit with their friends, I had the opportunity (or the onerous duty!) to sit down at the piano and play something classical for the oldsters. They always enjoyed it. Beethoven and Chopin and Grieg didn't seem to baffle them.

This is not the world we live in today. "Playing music" means pushing a button or turning a knob. We are half a century farther away from Chopin and Grieg, everything about our world is different - and, besides, recent classical music isn't generally anything you can play on the piano for your parents' friends.

I think it would be very nice and very wise to hand every child a musical instrument when he or she is very young to see if they take to it. Having that old piano back in the living room is a damn good place to start. Put some Beethoven, some Chopin, some Grieg - and some Bartok too - in the bench. Give music a fighting chance.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

SeptimalTritone said:


> Well, in classical _concerts_ it's mostly old people because concerts are expensive. Is paying 70 dollars to hear Beethoven's 5th symphony again really worth it?
> 
> But if you look at young people playing piano and violin, listening to classical music, writing their own classical music even, and chatting about it on the internet... it seems that the young are just as engaged, if not more engaged.
> 
> I also think that the "omg the youth today are so retarded" idea is a fallacy that goes back to Socrates, if not earlier. I think that old folks tend to look at only the most noisy, dumbest, loudest youth and say "look, this must be how all youth are!"


Young people certainly seem more _involved_ in classical music than old geezers (learning instruments especially), you're certainly right there, but I do think it's basically an inbuilt human condition for the youth to look down on the geezers as if they don't understand current society and the geezers to look down on the youth like they're inexperienced and stupid.

I remember a poll conducted several years ago about people's age on TC, and out of those who picked an option on the poll, the largest group was much younger than one might expect purely from going to expensive concerts. Some people might say that it's because computers and the Internet are more likely to be learnt and picked up by younger people, but really if the youth can do something, I don't see why others can't (provided it isn't too demanding on old people's physical capabilities!)


----------



## Gouldanian

SeptimalTritone said:


> I also think that the "omg the youth today are so retarded" idea is a fallacy that goes back to Socrates, if not earlier. I think that old folks tend to look at only the most noisy, dumbest, loudest youth and say "look, this must be how all youth are!"


While I do tend to agree with you, I believe some nuances are due.

The idea that youth are retarded does indeed go back to the beginning of time. That being said, don't you believe that in recent years young people sank to a lower level of maturity than before?

Not too long ago, teenagers were perfectly fit for marriage and kids. Young men were mature and responsible and handled heavy workloads while young women behaved like ladies.

Conversely, nowadays people say that 30 is the new 20. We see it in young adults being reluctant to leave childhood.

And just to put things in context and avoid people thinking ''here's another senior citizen looking down on young people'', I'm a young adult who's very critical of his generation.


----------



## Woodduck

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Young people certainly seem more _involved_ in classical music than old geezers (learning instruments especially), you're certainly right there, but I do think it's basically an inbuilt human condition for the youth to look down on the geezers as if they don't understand current society and the geezers to look down on the youth like they're inexperienced and stupid.
> 
> I remember a poll conducted several years ago about people's age on TC, and out of those who picked an option on the poll, the largest group was much younger than one might expect purely from going to expensive concerts. Some people might say that it's because computers and the Internet are more likely to be learnt and picked up by younger people, but really if the youth can do something, I don't see why others can't (provided it isn't too demanding on old people's physical capabilities!)


Hey! Watch what you say about old people! Most of us 65-year-olds can still stir our oatmeal without developing bursitis (assuming we don't already have it).

But seriously, it is perfectly true that people my age are often not into computers. We grew up, and even grew old, without them. Two of my best friends, both of whom love classical music, don't like to use them and don't even email me if I don't demand it. I myself avoided computers until I was over 50, and only started because of a job requirement. I suspect you can't use the age distribution of internet forum participants as an indicator of interest in classical music.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Maybe Classical doesn't hold as big a presence as pop music these days and is therefore less "accessible" to the masses, somehow.


----------



## Gouldanian

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Maybe Classical doesn't hold as big a presence as pop music these days and is therefore less "accessible" to the masses, somehow.


Classical music *was* popular music for those who lived it. They didn't call it classical music, we did. The question I'm interested in is why did the kind of music we call ''classical'' fall victim to lady gaga...

Many great responses so far, I'm glad I asked the question.


----------



## starthrower

pjang23 said:


> I think the decline in the number of people who learn instruments has much to do with it, as classical music is strongly tied to its tradition of musical performance -- it is written to be performed by musicians other than the original artist (in contrast to popular music which is permanently tied to the original performance of the original artist).
> 
> With the advent of recording technology at the turn of the century, people no longer had to learn instruments to play music anymore, since they can just listen to recorded music.


I have a feeling that your assumption is not accurate. I'm not sure how many kids are playing orchestra instruments, but guitars, keyboards and drums are selling like crazy. I work for a freight company, and we distribute all of the equipment to the Guitar Center stores in upstate New York from Albany to Buffalo. I can tell you that we have been receiving two floor loaded trailer loads a week of instruments. A trailer is 53 feet long, by 9 feet wide, by about 8 or 9 feet high. That's a hell of a lot of guitars and keyboards.


----------



## Kivimees

SeptimalTritone said:


> Well, in classical _concerts_ it's mostly old people because concerts are expensive. Is paying 70 dollars to hear Beethoven's 5th symphony again really worth it?


But are rock concerts any cheaper?


----------



## Guest

Glenn Gould said:


> Why is classical music unpopular with the youth?


To which question I would ask, "Is it true and does it matter?"


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Maybe Classical doesn't hold as big a presence as pop music these days and is therefore less "accessible" to the masses, somehow.


Maybe capitalism.


----------



## starthrower

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Maybe Classical doesn't hold as big a presence as pop music these days and is therefore less "accessible" to the masses, somehow.


These days? Pop music eclipsed classical and jazz decades ago. Why should art music be popular? It's there for the people who love it.


----------



## DavidA

GreenMamba said:


> A lot of concerts I see are cheaper (or even free) for students. Most still don't want to go, although in fairness, plenty of adults wouldn't go even if concerts were free.


Pop Concerts are often astronomical in price at least round our way. Far more expensive than a classical concert.


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Maybe capitalism.


Yep by golly. If we had socialism, those kids would listen to the music we want them to listen to, and by God they'd like it. Or else.

Vote Bernie, your candidate for intergenerational payback. And who among us oldsters hasn't thought about that? Meanwhile, have some coleslaw.


----------



## DavidA

Of course when we get a classical artist who does connect with youth, such as Lang Lang, a certain section of the classical press go out the way to vilify him without having the intelligence to ask the question : "Why?"


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

TBH Lang Lang is kinda overrated.


----------



## DavidA

Glenn Gould said:


> Classical music *was* popular music for those who lived it. They didn't call it classical music, we did. The question I'm interested in is why did the kind of music we call ''classical'' fall victim to lady gaga...
> 
> Many great responses so far, I'm glad I asked the question.


But look at the 'classical musc' being written today. Most of it is for a very small taste even among classical music lovers. Whenever any of it comes on the radio I use the off switch as I do not generally wish to hear an atonal racket. I remember a conductor saying years ago there was ever a time when composer and audience were so disengaged.


----------



## DavidA

Abraham Lincoln said:


> TBH Lang Lang is kinda overrated.


You make my point completely! :lol:


----------



## dgee

This tends to be an evidence-free discussion, which is fine because I don't know what evidence you'd get and how, but the version of the story that resonates with me is that roughly the same number of people come to classical music as young'uns (maybe under 30 or so?) as ever - roughly, maybe a bit less but I wouldn't think much less. Lots of people play instruments, are into other "cultural" activities - young people get chances to see classical music and many take them. So I don't think there's an actual problem there - it's the olld moral panic about how yucky the young are compared to older generations. I'm just shy of 40 and it seems to me a lot more 20-somethings are hooked into concert music than people my age

And here's why. Where the whole thing has changed is it's no longer "the done thing" to start going to concerts and the opera and recitals etc when one becomes a respectable "mid-career professional". So, 50 or so years ago, an up-and-coming accountant or whatever would start taking his good lady wife to symphony hall and the opera house to hob nob with clients and contacts and he or she might like it and a season ticket holder was born. Because it was one of the only games in town for a proudly "mature" couple. Now these people are going to the endlessly touring rockers of their youth, world music shows, film festivals, jazz-tango orchestras or whatever is the high society thing to do - sometimes the opera or a concert but they're not buying season tickets now!

So it's not the young - it's the choice. And so-called high art is losing out to things that are easier for the nearly middle-aged to meet their peers at and even quite enjoy


----------



## KenOC

DavidA said:


> Whenever any of it comes on the radio I use the off switch as I do not generally wish to hear an atonal racket.


To save one of our honored members the trouble, I'll fill in. There is no such thing as atonal music! Now repeat after me. There is no such thing...


----------



## Guest

I can't imagine how awful it would have been had the radio and the gramophone been around in the days of the baroque...the switch would have been permanently in the 'off' position in my house.

Thank god composers eventually got a grip and realised what the purpose of music is...!


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Glenn Gould said:


> While I do tend to agree with you, I believe some nuances are due.
> 
> The idea that youth are retarded does indeed go back to the beginning of time. That being said, don't you believe that in recent years young people sank to a lower level of maturity than before?
> 
> Not too long ago, teenagers were perfectly fit for marriage and kids. Young men were mature and responsible and handled heavy workloads while young women behaved like ladies.
> 
> Conversely, nowadays people say that 30 is the new 20. We see it in young adults being reluctant to leave childhood.
> 
> And just to put things in context and avoid people thinking ''here's another senior citizen looking down on young people'', I'm a young adult who's very critical of his generation.


As a first year PhD student in physics who is a bit younger than most, and still won't likely earn a "full" living until he's 27, and has a handful of friends and acquaintances in grad school or medical school who also won't earn "full" livings until they're in their late 20s, I vehemently object. It's impossible to be an engineer, doctor, academic, quantitative analyst, scientific consultant, or whatever these days and be fit for marriage and kids in your late teens. Why be critical of these bright, industrious, and mature students? Science and technology have gotten so specialized and competitive that there's no other way around it.

Also, this idea of "young women behaved like ladies" is, well... disagreeable. Neither men nor women should have to "earn" their masculinity or femininity by conforming to some arbitrary standards of gender. Indeed, with the increasing acceptance of women, minorities, gays, compounded with the increasing secularization of society, haven't things gotten much better? Do you really want to go back to the days of blacks being hosed by the police or forced to the back of the bus?


----------



## KenOC

BTW I'll add two cents on popularity. It appears that classical music is currently about 3% of music sales (physical media and downloads). But pop consumers always want the latest product of their favored artists and are in the market for "new music," which constantly appears. Classical consumers often get a nice set of Beethoven symphonies they like and they're set for years.

In the absence of a plethora of recordings of desirable new classical music, which most consider the case, sales per classical music fan will not be large except when major technology advances cause people to rebuild their largely stable libraries. That hasn't happened in 30 years.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

KenOC said:


> Yep by golly. If we had socialism, those kids would listen to the music we want them to listen to, and by God they'd like it. Or else.
> 
> Vote Bernie, your candidate for intergenerational payback. And who among us oldsters hasn't thought about that? Meanwhile, have some coleslaw.


Maybe totalitarianism is crap too, no matter whether it's left or right wing :lol:


----------



## SeptimalTritone

KenOC said:


> BTW I'll add two cents on popularity. It appears that classical music is currently about 3% of music sales (physical media and downloads). But pop consumers always want the latest product of their favored artists and are in the market for "new music," which constantly appears. Classical consumers often get a nice set of Beethoven symphonies they like and they're set for years.
> 
> In the absence of a plethora of recordings of desirable new classical music, which most consider the case, sales per classical music fan will not be large except when major technology advances cause people to rebuild their largely stable libraries. That hasn't happened in 30 years.


Like I've asked you before Ken, (but haven't gotten an answer), do you wish we go back to common practice tonality?

I actually think that this would be a reasonable thing for musicologists and some composers to do, and if it takes off, it should be expanded. I actually have no problem with it, and don't believe in the "pastiche" argument. I'm just wondering if you think this would be the solution.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

I love common practice tonality! What wonderful fluffy pink happiness! It smells like strawberries!


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> To save one of our honored members the trouble, I'll fill in. There is no such thing as atonal music! Now repeat after me. There is no such thing...


What I was taught at school was certainly wrong then!

And this is wrong then?

https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Music_Theory/Atonal

And Liszt was wrong in calling his piece, 'Bagatelle without tonality'?

OK I'll submit to the collective wisdom of TC. Just miss out the word 'atonal' - just include 'racket'


----------



## KenOC

SeptimalTritone said:


> Like I've asked you before Ken, (but haven't gotten an answer), do you wish we go back to common practice tonality?


Why would I want that? To avoid misunderstanding, I think it's plain that there is a real absence of "desirable" new classical music and has been for years. The word was chosen with some care. "Desirable" means, simply, that a lot of people desire it. That's not a value judgment, but as a statement of fact it may of course be wrong. I beg, sir, for correction!

As for "going back" to CPT, no, I don't want or recommend that. I believe composers should write whatever they wish, and the best of luck to them. I'll even contribute to the food stamps.

To quote a famous man: "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend!"


----------



## DavidA

Mind you as I consider most pop music around to day as an infernal racket I perhaps shouldn't judge!


----------



## SeptimalTritone

KenOC said:


> Why would I want that? To avoid misunderstanding, I think it's plain that there is a real absence of "desirable" new classical music and has been for years. The word was chosen with some care. "Desirable" means, simply, that a lot of people desire it. That's not a value judgment, but as a statement of fact it may of course be wrong. I beg, sir, for correction!
> 
> As for "going back" to CPT, no, I don't want or recommend that. I believe composers should write whatever they wish, and the best of luck to them. I'll even contribute to the food stamps.
> 
> To quote a famous man: "Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend!"


Hmm... if (according to you) going back to CPT wouldn't help, and if John Adams and Magnus Lindberg don't cut it compared to the old greats (also according to you)...

then what sort of music would save classical? Just wondering, do you think such music could even exist even in principle? If we had a science fiction machine that could stop time, and during that period of stopped time composers, musicologists, performers, conductors, and university faculty throughout the world had 100 years to write and develop music, would they be able to, at the end of this period, write music of sufficient quality that would save classical? Imagine perfect conditions where all of these composers and musicians had great health and energy, ample communication with each other, many large libraries of books and articles, infinite funding for technology and computers, and an audience of both connoisseurs and laymen (who were sent through the time machine also!) Would they be able to produce music that would save classical? What sort of music could this even be imagined to sound like?


----------



## KenOC

SeptimalTritone said:


> Hmm... if (according to you) going back to CPT wouldn't help...


Please read what I wrote. I said nothing about what would "help," merely that composers should write whatever they like as far as I'm concerned.

BTW I think music will survive just fine, and even thrive. It may not be the music you or I like, or what we call "classical," but the universe probably cares little about that. There are plenty of pretty pictures hanging on the walls of our museum.


----------



## violadude

Classical is unpopular with the youth because none of these poor kids ever get a chance with Classical Music. Pop and whatever else is all around our various cultures, everywhere we look. But when do kids ever get exposed to classical music? Sometimes Classical piece appear in movies and tv as brief cameos. Classical Music hardly has a fighting chance for wielding any influence over young people.


----------



## DavidA

violadude said:


> Classical is unpopular with the youth because none of these poor kids ever get a chance with Classical Music. Pop and whatever else is all around our various cultures, everywhere we look. But when do kids ever get exposed to classical music? Sometimes Classical piece appear in movies and tv as brief cameos. Classical Music hardly has a fighting chance for wielding any influence over young people.


Sorry but it's a wrong assumption. It's a matter of choice. I brought both my kids up to listen to classical music but both of them have chosen various forms of pop music to listen to or play. My son even makes his living out of playing pop music. Not that it bothers me as I'm just glad they like music. It's a matter of choice.


----------



## violadude

DavidA said:


> Sorry but it's a wrong assumption. It's a matter of choice. I brought both my kids up to listen to classical music but both of them have chosen various forms of pop music to listen to or play. My son even makes his living out of playing pop music. Not that it bothers me as I'm just glad they like music. It's a matter of choice.


Maybe it's a wrong assumption for some people. But I'm almost positive there are swaths of people who would like Classical Music if it had ever occurred to them to actually listen to it.


----------



## DeepR

What's worrying me is not that only a few youngsters listen to classical music, but that (apparently) lots of them listen to the awful pop music of today. There is something in between you know. But I'm talking about the most popular music that you find in the hit charts and all. There used to be a time when even the most popular music still had a little class and style. When pop songs weren't the overcompressed autotuned trash that you hear today. And don't get me started about the videoclips, some of them are almost porn. It has all become extremely superficial.


----------



## KenOC

Question: Why are we concerned with the kind of music others, even our own children, enjoy?


----------



## dgee

DeepR said:


> What's worrying me is not that only a few youngsters listen to classical music,


How do you know? What evidence do you have? It's a big assertion, but I don't imagine its any different from maybe 20 or 30 years ago


----------



## dgee

KenOC said:


> Question: Why are we concerned with the kind of music others, even our own children, enjoy?


One decent reason is that we don't want institutions that we cherish disappearing or diluting.

For instance, every major opera company within 2000kms of where I live is putting on a musical next season as part of their regular programme. That's one live opera displaced, even if it was probably La Traviata or something equally undesirable - thin end of the wedge

I sometimes feel that few people on TC have any real contact with actual live concert going and music-making - it's real music happening in real life (and artists' livelihoods) that concern me in this instance, more than Klangforum Wien's next release (which I'm sure will be terrific and enjoyed by me and many others)


----------



## Gouldanian

dgee said:


> This tends to be an evidence-free discussion, which is fine because I don't know what evidence you'd get and how, but the version of the story that resonates with me is that roughly the same number of people come to classical music as young'uns (maybe under 30 or so?) as ever - roughly, maybe a bit less but I wouldn't think much less. Lots of people play instruments, are into other "cultural" activities - young people get chances to see classical music and many take them. So I don't think there's an actual problem there - it's the olld moral panic about how yucky the young are compared to older generations. I'm just shy of 40 and it seems to me a lot more 20-somethings are hooked into concert music than people my age
> 
> And here's why. Where the whole thing has changed is it's no longer "the done thing" to start going to concerts and the opera and recitals etc when one becomes a respectable "mid-career professional". So, 50 or so years ago, an up-and-coming accountant or whatever would start taking his good lady wife to symphony hall and the opera house to hob nob with clients and contacts and he or she might like it and a season ticket holder was born. Because it was one of the only games in town for a proudly "mature" couple. Now these people are going to the endlessly touring rockers of their youth, world music shows, film festivals, jazz-tango orchestras or whatever is the high society thing to do - sometimes the opera or a concert but they're not buying season tickets now!
> 
> So it's not the young - it's the choice. And so-called high art is losing out to things that are easier for the nearly middle-aged to meet their peers at and even quite enjoy


Ok, I see the argument there and find it interesting. Not to say that I completely agree with you, I do admit that young professionals have greater ''choices'' of business development activities and personal weekend hobbies than before.

But I believe this to be only part of the answer.


----------



## DeepR

dgee said:


> How do you know? What evidence do you have? It's a big assertion, but I don't imagine its any different from maybe 20 or 30 years ago


I don't have any evidence, it's just a presumption based on what I see in daily life. I also don't think it's different than a few decades ago. The point of my post is that pop music has become (more) rotten.


----------



## KenOC

dgee said:


> I sometimes feel that few people on TC have any real contact with actual live concert going and music-making - it's real music happening in real life (and artists' livelihoods) that concern me in this instance...


 Do you count Taiko drumming concerts? I went to a Kenny Endo Ensemble concert tonight. It was very good. After the concert they sold CDs in the atrium, plus they had this "neat carry bag." I'm afraid I didn't do much for their livelihoods because I didn't buy anything. But a vague feeling of guilt preys on me...


----------



## Gouldanian

violadude said:


> Sometimes Classical piece appear in movies and tv as brief cameos.


Oh and when it does kids think that it was a piece of soundtrack specifically composed for the movie...


----------



## dgee

Glenn Gould said:


> Ok, I see the argument there and find it interesting. Not to say that I completely agree with you, I do admit that young professionals have greater ''choices'' of business development activities and personal weekend hobbies than before.
> 
> But I believe this to be only part of the answer.


Well, what are the other parts? Right now, I think and feel people are more empowered to make choice than ever before because lots of stuff is available. If you're of an artsy bent and like "culture" you will probably be exposed to "classical music" through your education, through arts orgs targeted marketing at young people (i.e. future audiences), and through how simple it is to find cultural products through spotify or youtube or itunes etc

What isn't there is the cachet that classical music has as the sophisticated activity of the adult - that could well be alt-country or balkan brass-band or new orleans jazz or just keeping going to what they've always gone to. Pop music has never been so revered as now and pop act longevity never so ... um .... long

My equally evidenceless assertion (although based on a fair bit of concert going as a player, critic and audience member) is that young people are represented just fine but they drop off. And slightly older people aren't getting into classical as an alternative to the noisy live music of their youth - they're just as likely, if not more, to find something else. The classical audiences I see at symphony hall are bimodal - young and old without much in between


----------



## sharik

Glenn Gould said:


> Why is classical music unpopular with the youth?


because they need to grow up.


----------



## sharik

but then again, is popularity a good thing ?


----------



## DavidA

sharik said:


> because they need to grow up.


Why is liking classical music a sign of maturity?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

KenOC said:


> Please read what I wrote. I said nothing about what would "help," merely that composers should write whatever they like as far as I'm concerned.
> 
> BTW I think music will survive just fine, and even thrive. It may not be the music you or I like, or what we call "classical," but the universe probably cares little about that. There are plenty of pretty pictures hanging on the walls of our museum.


Sorry for being a little dense on my part. I have read every post here you've written to me several times, but things are still not clear 

You stated at the beginning that pop music has new stuff coming out all the time that gets a lot of sales, whereas classical music does not (except for a small niche audience of modern classical).

That's fine. I ask what could fix this problem. Could any sort of new classical music fix this problem, even with my hypothetical time-stopping machine where time freezes and composers had a long time to collaborate and get feedback and infinite funding? In other words, do you believe this problem could be solved with better new classical music, if only it could be written? What might this sort of music be, if not John Adams or Magnus Lindberg or a partial return to common practice?

Or do you believe that the low quantity of classical music sales, strictly speaking, isn't actually a "problem" and just how the state of affairs is? In other words, it doesn't need to be "fixed" or "helped" but is just fine the way it is? Do you think that the golden age of classical music is over, and ended with, say, Stravinsky? Is this what you mean by "there are plenty of pretty pictures hanging on the walls of our museum"? (I legitimately don't know what you mean by that. Do you mean that the best classical is a museum of the past? Do you think, again, that we could, in principle, create new things just as good?)

Sorry for bothering you, but I just want to get clear on what your stance is, just for the sake of my understanding. I really mean the utmost respect.


----------



## Iean

DavidA said:


> Why is liking classical music a sign of maturity?


I was 9 years old when I fell in love with classical music. Guess I was not mature then:angel:


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Glenn Gould said:


> Oh and when it does kids think that it was a piece of soundtrack specifically composed for the movie...


Oh _God_.

When that happens, I'm one millimetre away from turning into this:









Seriously. THE BLUE DANUBE WALTZ DID *NOT* COME FROM A CRASH BANDICOOT GAME!!!!


----------



## Guest

First of all we just need to decide on whether or not free will exists.

Thereafter, simples.


----------



## Guest

dgee said:


> Pop music has never been so revered as now and pop act longevity never so ... um .... long


Take care dgee...you're straying into the unknown. Last time I checked what "people" mean by "pop", I got no answer because it's easier to use the hackneyed examples of what all Self-Respecting Classical Listeners must surely despise than to distinguish between "Pop" and "pop" and "Popular". In fairness, I did spot someone make fairly clear that _they _meant the stuff that figures in the Top Twenty (though they didn't also make clear which Top Twenty!)

I'm think I'm now as grown up as I'm likely to get (though not as _old _as I hope to get) and I'm still selecting from new rock/alt/pop (just purchased CDs by alt-J and Sufjan Stevens) and old (though new to me) classical. I am, of course, not prejudice free, but I don't feel compelled to reduce all that I dislike about pop to Bieber and Gaga or, worse, dismiss a whole generation for what I judgmentally perceive their musical tastes to be.


----------



## starthrower

KenOC said:


> Yep by golly. If we had socialism, those kids would listen to the music we want them to listen to, and by God they'd like it. Or else.
> 
> Vote Bernie, your candidate for intergenerational payback. And who among us oldsters hasn't thought about that? Meanwhile, have some coleslaw.


Oh, we've got socialism, but most of the benefactors are large industries, or non-productive members of society. If a little more money was spent for public music education and instruments for kids all over the country, I'm sure it would bear some fruit. No investment, no return. And if my government actually cared about the arts, they might have assisted my local orchestra when the corporate sponsors pulled the plug. As it stands, a top flight symphony orchestra is now defunct. But hey, we've still got football and McDonalds. Poison food products and concussions are good for kids!


----------



## isorhythm

There is no reason to expect an art form that developed under feudal aristocracy to flourish under modern capitalism. It would be surprising if it _were_ popular.


----------



## DavidA

Iean said:


> I was 9 years old when I fell in love with classical music. Guess I was not mature then:angel:


I was 15. Elderly by comparison! :lol:


----------



## sharik

DavidA said:


> Why is liking classical music a sign of maturity?


its not a sign of maturity.

today's youth & most adults have to grow up in terms of learning to make out the best of what life has to offer.


----------



## Chronochromie

Triplets said:


> Classical Music requires a bit of concentration and contemplation. The youth of today are incapable of both. They live their lives as if they have ADHD, simultaneously surfing, texting, playing video games, doing their homework, getting high and getting laid.
> Do you really expect music that doesn't rely on endless repetition to succeed in that kind of environment?


I wanted to write a good reply to this but I'm not sure if it's satire.


----------



## Woodduck

I seriously doubt that classical music will ever be widely popular, no matter what we do. 

Yes, classical music would be more popular if children had decent music education and were exposed to music's possibilities (which of course will not happen unless our culture recognizes music's benefits, which will not happen unless people know more about music, which will not happen without better music education, which...).

But, whether we musical sophisticates like it or not, "classical" music isn't what it used to be. By that I mean that, as a contemporary artistic expression, it began long ago to diverge, in idiom and style, from any other sort of music that most people know and enjoy. We whose musical knowledge and tastes encompass many centuries of musical evolution can minimize all we want the meaning of the radical changes music has undergone, but people whose musical interests are confined mainly to popular styles are not likely to have this perspective. Most people in most times will have a sense of what music "normally" sounds like, and are likely to find music that strays too far from that norm difficult to understand or to like. Up until rather recent times, the "norm" for Western music, both popular and classical, was what we call common practice tonality. That norm is now largely history. 

From the middle ages to the Romantic era, the roots of "art music" in the traditional idioms of Western European popular and folk music were strong and unmistakable. "Classical" music, up until sometime in the mid-19th century, was still by and large music whose basic language people felt as familiar and could understand without a musical education. Classical and popular music used mostly the same instruments and were sung and payed with similar techniques. Even into the early 20th century, when classical music was breaking radically new ground in so many ways, popular songs were programmed and recorded by the greatest opera singers, and it sounded good because the basic harmonic and melodic vocabulary of "classic" classical music and popular music were similar, distinguished mainly by complexity and difficulty. Even if my great grandmother couldn't understand sonata form she could still appreciate a good tune, an affecting chord change, and an infectious rhythm, whether they came from a symphony by Mozart or an opera by Verdi or a waltz by Strauss. As a matter of fact, my maternal grandmother, whose musical accomplishments did not greatly exceed playing the piano in church, had stuff like that in her piano bench, along with her hymnal and popular songs by Stephen Foster, Carrie Jacobs Bond, and Irving Berlin. She also had a pile of 78rpm records of opera arias and songs sung by Caruso, Galli-Curci, et al., and she knew they were great and enjoyed them despite never having seen an opera in her entire life. They sat happily on her shelf alongside Bing Crosby, Kate Smith and Jane Froman (who, with her opera-trained contralto, delighted our boys overseas during WWII - impossible to imagine now).

My point is simple. Classical music and popular music don't have as much in common as they used to, and so people don't have the same sense of a common musical language that gives them a basis for bridging the growing gap between musical styles. There was always a gap, of course, between relatively simple popular music and the most complex works of the classical composers. Bach and Mozart heard their share of complaints about "too many notes," and, certainly, few people at first could have understood what Beethoven was up to in his late sonatas. But the gap has widened enormously, and much of the classical music that we would presently call "avant garde" or "cutting edge" would not even be acknowledged to be music by most people without musical training (and, truthfully, by some people with it). The "great age" of Western tonal music - in which people of no particular musical erudition had pianos in their parlors whose benches were filled with popular songs, hymns, opera transcriptions, art songs, and classical piano works of whatever level of difficulty they could manage or aspire to - is long past. 

I think that when we express a wish that young people, or contemporary people in general, had a greater appreciation for classical music, we need to be honest about what "classical" music means now, and recognize that the changing nature of music itself - involving changes in both classical and popular styles which have been diversifying our culture's and the world's musical menu to a degree unimaginable even a few generations ago - will ensure that "classical" music will, like almost everything not mass-produced in the modern world, remain a minority interest and a niche market. We're just fortunate that so much of our musical heritage retains a deep enough meaning for enough people that, as a minority interest, it will hold a significant place as a part of our cultural heritage.

Meanwhile, lets put the piano back in the parlor. Once I discovered it was there, a team of horses couldn't have pulled me away from it.


----------



## KenOC

SeptimalTritone said:


> I have read every post here you've written to me several times, but things are still not clear
> 
> You stated at the beginning that pop music has new stuff coming out all the time that gets a lot of sales, whereas classical music does not (except for a small niche audience of modern classical).
> 
> That's fine. I ask what could fix this problem. Could any sort of new classical music fix this problem, even with my hypothetical time-stopping machine where time freezes and composers had a long time to collaborate and get feedback and infinite funding? In other words, do you believe this problem could be solved with better new classical music, if only it could be written? What might this sort of music be, if not John Adams or Magnus Lindberg or a partial return to common practice?
> 
> Or do you believe that the low quantity of classical music sales, strictly speaking, isn't actually a "problem" and just how the state of affairs is? In other words, it doesn't need to be "fixed" or "helped" but is just fine the way it is? Do you think that the golden age of classical music is over, and ended with, say, Stravinsky? Is this what you mean by "there are plenty of pretty pictures hanging on the walls of our museum"? (I legitimately don't know what you mean by that. Do you mean that the best classical is a museum of the past? Do you think, again, that we could, in principle, create new things just as good?)


Good questions, to which the only answers are opinions. I'm not sure that the lack of widespread interest in CM is a "problem." Not for me, certainly. I can listen to whatever I want, and that's not likely to change. In our age, does every mid-sized city need an old-style orchestra costing tens of $millions a year? Do we need large assemblages of experts blowing and sawing away on acoustic instruments when we have such excellent synthesized and amplified instruments, and a trio can make more racket than Mahler's thousand?

As for CM's recovery of popularity, that will require composers writing music that people are anxious to hear. That seems horribly obvious. Likely? Dunno!


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Woodduck said:


> But the gap has widened enormously, and much of the classical music that we would presently call "avant garde" or "cutting edge" would not even be acknowledged to be music by most people without musical training (and, truthfully, by some people with it).


Just a small objection: current day trance music or especially ambient music (ambient music is an actual term) is actually a good bridge to modern classical. Something like this "popular ambient" work 



 is a reasonable bridge to this "serious avant garde" work 




Remember that brotagonist, and a reasonably sized audience of similar people, find modern avant-garde much more accessible than common practice! Brotagonist has stated this quite often.


----------



## Bulldog

From reading all the previous postings, it looks like many posters consider the lack of classical music popularity to represent some kind of problem; I don't agree. 

Also, classical music isn't just unpopular with young people; you can add middle-aged and senior citizens to the list.


----------



## sharik

also, what we call 'classical music' is in fact a set of masterpieces undergone a selection process through centuries; its an elitist thing that can take time and effort to get into, which not many can afford... for example, some are better off with fast food then black caviar.


----------



## isorhythm

KenOC said:


> As for CM's recovery of popularity, that will require composers writing music that people are anxious to hear. That seems horribly obvious. Likely? Dunno!


It's pretty clear that no composers working in the classical tradition can compete with pop music for a mass audience in 2015. If John Adams can't do it, who possibly could? The ship has sailed, and that's OK.


----------



## sharik

SeptimalTritone said:


> current day trance music or especially ambient music (ambient music is an actual term) is actually a good bridge to modern classical.


only shows the extent to which 'modern classical' has degraded.


----------



## sharik

still, i won't get why be so preoccupied with youth opinion?.. they didn't even have a say back in the 19th century, for instance.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

KenOC said:


> As for CM's recovery of popularity, that will require composers writing music that people are anxious to hear. That seems horribly obvious. Likely? Dunno!


And hence, I again ask, if we had a time-stopping machine that put composers, musicians, performers, university faculty, and both educated and lay audiences into a perfect utopia for 100 years where they could be industrious and productive and have access to instruments and technology and information, would they be able to write music that would recover classical music's popularity?

The reason why I've made a big deal of this question is: I think that no such music could possibly exist. I think that with (going back to the topic of this thread!) society's preconceptions that "older generations were more wholesome, spiritual, grounded with nature, industrious, intelligent, respectful, family-oriented, and didn't have these stupid computers and smartphones and didn't practice pre-marital sex etc." that _prejudice_ would prevent even the most perfect masterpieces imaginable generated from people in a utopia in a setting of a time-stopping machine from gaining wide acceptance. I think that the prejudice of the classical music community that worships the "profoundly spiritual" Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven who were, _pure and simple_, good men who walked with God and had visionary unearthly genius would prevent even the most perfect music written in my time-stopping machine from gaining wide acceptance. As good as, say, Beethoven's 6th symphony is, I think that if some of my time machine composers were to write a masterful orchestral piece inspired by nature that had the perfect combination of old and modern elements (or whatever perfect combination of musical elements is desired), people would respond to it by saying that it didn't have the "rooted earthiness" that Beethoven's 6th did, because Beethoven was in a time where humans were more rooted with nature.

I really think that there is a prejudice of worshiping the spirituality of the centuries of old that prevents even perfect time machine music from being widely accepted. I think this is ridiculous, but I think that it won't ever go way. Remember, again, that even Socrates bemoaned what he perceived as a lack of maturity in his new generation.

So yeah. I think that due to a prejudice that uncritically worships the old, that even the most perfect, visionary, masterful music even imaginable written today would not be widely accepted, and therefore would not serve to recover classical music's popularity.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

sharik said:


> only shows the extent to which 'modern classical' has degraded.


First you guys complain that modern classical music has diverged too much from popular music (see Woodduck's post), and then you are critical of modern classical music's similarities with popular ambient music?

This doesn't make sense.


----------



## DavidA

sharik said:


> its not a sign of maturity.
> 
> today's youth & most adults have to grow up in terms of learning to make out the best of what life has to offer.


You are an exception to this rule?


----------



## sharik

SeptimalTritone said:


> you are critical of modern classical music's similarities with popular ambient music?


it isn't the similarities but the primitiveness of the both, popular or not.


----------



## sharik

DavidA said:


> You are an exception to this rule?


which one rule?


----------



## KenOC

SeptimalTritone said:


> And hence, I again ask, if we had a time-stopping machine...


A very interesting post, and thanks! You obviously have a horse in this race, even though you know it's not likely to win: "I really think that there is a prejudice of worshiping the spirituality of the centuries of old that prevents even perfect time machine music from being widely accepted. I think this is ridiculous, but I think that it won't ever go way."

Perhaps a more value-free way to put it might be: Classical music is at a dead end because people today think differently and have different values from those in earlier times, and want music that suits their own lives and needs. What we might recognize as "classical music," written today, can't do this.

Probably true, until somebody comes along and proves both of us wrong!


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Hmm...

I do think that John Adams's works like On The Transmigration of Souls, Doctor Atomic, or Dharma at Big Sur appeals to a broad modern sensibility quite well, in fact, very well. You are also a fan of John Adams, and have even had him as your avatar once or twice in the past!

Maybe he isn't more broadly popular because people don't really want serious art music that engages their own time...


----------



## DavidA

SeptimalTritone said:


> Hmm...
> 
> I do think that John Adams's works like On The Transmigration of Souls, Doctor Atomic, or Dharma at Big Sur appeals to a broad modern sensibility quite well, in fact, very well. You are also a fan of John Adams, and have even had him as your avatar once or twice in the past!
> 
> Maybe he isn't more broadly popular because people don't really want serious art music that engages their own time...


Adams is not popular with me for the simple reason I do not like his music.


----------



## sharik

SeptimalTritone said:


> Maybe he isn't more broadly popular because people don't really want serious art music that engages their own time...


most likely because he lacks melody; the same about Britten and others alike.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

sharik said:


> it isn't the similarities but the primitiveness of the both, popular or not.


Well, 'primitiveness' is certainly pejorative here, but criticising a harmless industry of creativity because you aren't its audience is only going to make you look like some kind of ignoramus to the enormous world of new music. Fortunately for composers and musicians today who make a living from their passion of adding things creatively to the world, we aren't really concerned about dissing genres of music and people who like them! Not gonna say that we don't have prejudices and negative thoughts at all, but at least professional musicians and composers tend have a bit more of a willingness to understand.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

SeptimalTritone said:


> Hmm...
> 
> I do think that John Adams's works like On The Transmigration of Souls, Doctor Atomic, or Dharma at Big Sur appeals to a broad modern sensibility quite well, in fact, very well. You are also a fan of John Adams, and have even had him as your avatar once or twice in the past!
> 
> *Maybe he isn't more broadly popular because people don't really want serious art music that engages their own time...*


The elephant in the room...


----------



## sharik

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well, 'primitiveness' is certainly pejorative here, but criticising a harmless industry of creativity because you aren't its audience


i myself play electronic music, although not ambient, but primitive all the same.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

sharik said:


> i myself play electronic music, although not ambient, but primitive all the same.


What is primitiveness according to you?


----------



## Strange Magic

I repeat that Leonard Meyer's thesis that we are in a probably very protracted period of cultural stasis of a new kind is a major factor accounting for the loss of audience for classical music. When artistic trends follow one another with startling rapidity, with none able to gain traction either in number of adherents or in time for maturation--Brownian motion--the stasis of constant yet small-scale change is the result. I've posted of this before, and shall be happy to again. :tiphat:


----------



## sharik

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> What is primitiveness according to you?


the absence of an underlying meaning & story.


----------



## Itullian

It's not noisy enough
It's not immediately accessible.
Each generation likes to have its own music/sounds. A way to rebel/stand apart.
Its not fast enough.
Media hype.
Pier pressure.
Short attention spans like MTV. Everything is short bites today.
Not rowdy enough for attention getting.


----------



## Sloe

Itullian said:


> It's not noisy enough
> It's not immediately accessible.
> Each generation likes to have its own music/sounds. A way to rebel/stand apart.
> Its not fast enough.
> Media hype.
> Pier pressure.
> Short attention spans like MTV. Everything is short bites today.


There is noisy classical music and there is classical music that is immediately accessible of course what is accessible is different from person to person and classical music that is fast.

What I think is media hype and pier pressure. 
Classical music gets oweshadowed by everything else.
Still there is classical music available for those who want to hear it so there is no reason to complain that other people don´t like it.


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> Remember that brotagonist, and a reasonably sized audience of similar people, find modern avant-garde much more accessible than common practice! Brotagonist has stated this quite often.


What size is "reasonably sized"? Will that size affect the argument?


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Woodduck said:


> What size is "reasonably sized"? Will that size affect the argument?


The size of overlap between the popular ambient fans and the avant garde fans is really not important, and probably it is small.

My real point is in post 77.


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> And hence, I again ask, if we had a time-stopping machine that put composers, musicians, performers, university faculty, and both educated and lay audiences into a perfect utopia for 100 years where they could be industrious and productive and have access to instruments and technology and information, would they be able to write music that would recover classical music's popularity?
> 
> The reason why I've made a big deal of this question is: I think that no such music could possibly exist. I think that with (going back to the topic of this thread!) society's preconceptions that "older generations were more wholesome, spiritual, grounded with nature, industrious, intelligent, respectful, family-oriented, and didn't have these stupid computers and smartphones and didn't practice pre-marital sex etc." that _prejudice_ would prevent even the most perfect masterpieces imaginable generated from people in a utopia in a setting of a time-stopping machine from gaining wide acceptance. I think that the prejudice of the classical music community that worships the "profoundly spiritual" Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven who were, _pure and simple_, good men who walked with God and had visionary unearthly genius would prevent even the most perfect music written in my time-stopping machine from gaining wide acceptance. As good as, say, Beethoven's 6th symphony is, I think that if some of my time machine composers were to write a masterful orchestral piece inspired by nature that had the perfect combination of old and modern elements (or whatever perfect combination of musical elements is desired), people would respond to it by saying that it didn't have the "rooted earthiness" that Beethoven's 6th did, because Beethoven was in a time where humans were more rooted with nature.
> 
> I really think that there is a prejudice of worshiping the spirituality of the centuries of old that prevents even perfect time machine music from being widely accepted. I think this is ridiculous, but I think that it won't ever go way. Remember, again, that even Socrates bemoaned what he perceived as a lack of maturity in his new generation.
> 
> So yeah. I think that due to a prejudice that uncritically worships the old, that even the most perfect, visionary, masterful music even imaginable written today would not be widely accepted, and therefore would not serve to recover classical music's popularity.


You grant tremendous power to a prejudice (even discounting the rather comical hyperbole: "good men who walked with God..." )

What do you think is the source of that power?


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> First you guys complain that modern classical music has diverged too much from popular music (see Woodduck's post), and then you are critical of modern classical music's similarities with popular ambient music?
> 
> This doesn't make sense.


Hey wait a minute! We're different guys!


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The elephant in the room...


We never ever talk about the elephant in the room. It might step on us.


----------



## KenOC

Itullian said:


> It's not noisy enough
> It's not immediately accessible.
> Each generation likes to have its own music/sounds. A way to rebel/stand apart.
> Its not fast enough.
> Media hype.
> Pier pressure.
> Short attention spans like MTV. Everything is short bites today.
> Not rowdy enough for attention getting.


Nobody bites the heads off bats while playing it.


----------



## DeepR

Just a note, I don't think ambient music, in the more strict sense of the term, was ever particularly popular... a lot of ambient music is probably as much as a "niche genre" as modern classical music.


----------



## Woodduck

SeptimalTritone said:


> ...you guys complain that modern classical music has diverged too much from popular music (see Woodduck's post)...


Oh no, not complaining at all! Merely noting a fact. Time marches on, change is the only constant, no crying over spilt milk - choose your adage. We won't be riding any time machines into the past. Let's all be grateful for our classical legacy and see what our brave new world of global culture brings next to our ears, minds, and hearts. It seems likely to me that globalization will no longer permit the geographical and cultural isolation which allows a classical music tradition to grow from local, native, or indigenous music the way Western (or for that matter Indian) classical music did in intimate relationship with the popular idioms of its time and place. The very idea of "classical" music may prove inapplicable to music of the future, whatever that might turn out to be. But you young folks will sort it all out as time passes. I have every faith that people will find the music they need, as they always have.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

KenOC said:


> We never ever talk about the elephant in the room. It might step on us.


Yet Murdoch's minions in News Corp thrive on twisted right wing propaganda based on the elephant in the room.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

sharik said:


> the absence of an underlying meaning & story.


This is the main flaw in all your arguments...ever. Underlying meaning & story _can only_ be made in the minds of listeners. Music is a completely abstract form of art when there are no words or images to it. A painted portrait or a sculpture of someone is not abstract because the subject matter is objectively identifiable, a short story can be taken with literal interpretation as well in that same way...but a wordless piece of music simply cannot. Music is music and music only. It's what we humans _do_ with it in our minds, how we _react,_ which generates any extra-musical component. Boulez's second piano sonata is just as abstract as any of Haydn's piano sonatas or Mozart's piano sonatas, even if they follow different compositional methods and aesthetics. They're not representative of anything, so they're abstract.

On the word 'primitive' when applied to music...

I have a feeling that you probably don't get that music as a form of ancient entertainment was used in conjunction with other mediums of entertainment, art or cultural rituals such a dancing, storytelling, visual arts, aristocratic/royal events (and so on), so really, this 'primitiveness' of ancient music (which is as close as I can come to understanding what 'primitiveness' in music means) has more links to an 'underlying meaning & story' than, say, any of Brahms's music does.


----------



## starthrower

I think Norway is the place to be. They spend roughly six times as much money on art and culture compared to a huge country like the United States.


----------



## KenOC

God's way of telling Norwegians they have too much money. I'm going to get together with some mates and go over there and get some of it. Who's with me?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

KenOC said:


> God's way of telling Norwegians they have too much money. I'm going to get together with some mates and go over there and get some of it. Who's with me?


Because religious worship is only done properly by the military, not the arts.


----------



## GreenMamba

starthrower said:


> I think Norway is the place to be. They spend roughly six times as much money on art and culture compared to a huge country like the United States.


If I were to walk through a typical Norwegian high school, how many teens would I find who listen to Classical? Is it a lot?


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Because religious worship is only done properly by the military, not the arts.


We have people to bless our tanks. Do they? I rest my case.


----------



## starthrower

They probably don't have as much money as the Walton family or Koch brothers.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

KenOC said:


> We have people to bless our tanks. Do they? I rest my case.


Check out this drivel. Just a hobo pointing to a naked guy with a little penis.










And what's all the fuss I hear about Bach's cantatas and masses and passions? Probs more drivel. *What kid likes this stuff?*

KenOC you have reminded me of an important factor in the supposed rejection of classical music by the youth: the ties to religion, and particularly Christianity, but not even just religion because I feel that it's about many things stereotypically associated with classical music that turns youth away. Things that are preached and/or 'upper class twits.' A instrumental/music teacher might preach 'oh this a great great piece of music, the greatest that there has ever been and you must learn it' thus closing the mind of a student learning an instrument on one hand and on the other hand creating a certain tension between them and the student who might disagree. And on 'upper class twits/snobs....' well that's probably come out from a slightly negative opinion of those who are financially better off in life and who fit to the stereotypical 'high art' crowd. The people who go to auctions to buy valuable paintings for their three-storey houses (with two pianos) to show off how wealthy they are. The people who listen to classical music.


----------



## Pugg

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Check out this drivel. Just a hobo pointing to a naked guy with a little *****.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what's all the fuss I hear about Bach's cantatas and masses and passions? Probs more drivel. What kid likes this stuff?


This could be offending to religious people , I thought you know this by now


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Pugg said:


> This could be offending to religious people , I thought you know this by now


I'm mocking a point of view held by people who don't care about the arts.


----------



## DavidA

Strange Magic said:


> I repeat that Leonard Meyer's thesis that we are in a probably very protracted period of cultural stasis of a new kind is a major factor accounting for the loss of audience for classical music. When artistic trends follow one another with startling rapidity, with none able to gain traction either in number of adherents or in time for maturation--Brownian motion--the stasis of constant yet small-scale change is the result. I've posted of this before, and shall be happy to again. :tiphat:


Amazing how these guys write theses on somethng which is obvious!


----------



## Woodduck

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> And what's all the fuss I hear about Bach's cantatas and masses and passions? Probs more drivel. What kid likes this stuff?
> 
> KenOC you have reminded me of an important factor in the supposed rejection of classical music by the youth: the ties to religion, and particularly Christianity, but not even just religion because I feel that it's about many things stereotypically associated with classical music that turns youth away. Things that are preached and/or 'upper class twits.' A instrumental/music teacher might preach 'oh this a great great piece of music, the greatest that there has ever been and you must learn it' thus closing the mind of a student learning an instrument on one hand and on the other hand creating a certain tension between them and the student who might disagree. And on 'upper class twits/snobs....' well that's probably come out from a slightly negative opinion of those who are financially better off in life and who fit to the stereotypical 'high art' crowd. The people who go to auctions to buy valuable paintings for their three-storey houses (with two pianos) to show off how wealthy they are. The people who listen to classical music.


Are young people really aware of these social class stereotypes and cliches? I know I wasn't when I was discovering music in my teens. Coming from a small town and a working class family, I just liked the sound of classical music when I heard it. I had no idea and couldn't have cared less who else liked it - but I knew quite well who didn't like it. I found out in high school that my music teachers - choir and band - liked it and had us performing some of it, and I wasn't turned off by associating it with people who knew more than I did. Have young people people really acquired such a resentment of their elders and of people superior in knowledge? Is that the "youth culture" we've created? Do children set the terms now? Are society's values so inverted?

God, I must really be old.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Woodduck said:


> Are young people really aware of these social class stereotypes and cliches? I know I wasn't when I was discovering music in my teens. Coming from a small town and a working class family, I just liked the sound of classical music when I heard it. I had no idea and couldn't have cared less who else liked it - but I knew quite well who didn't like it. I found out in high school that my music teachers - choir and band - liked it and had us performing some of it, and I wasn't turned off by associating it with people who knew more than I did. Have young people people really acquired such a resentment of their elders and of people superior in knowledge? Is that the "youth culture" we've created? Do children set the terms now? Are society's values so inverted?
> 
> God, I must really be old.


Well I am speculating here, but I've met teenagers who think like that!!!! 

Personally, I'm more in your position at that time, I seek for more knowledge because there is an endless amount of knowledge. Some people have some knowledge based on their experiences with music and other people have other knowledge, but greedy little me wants it all! So I surround myself by people who know much more than I do about music, and, frankly, that completely cancels out some stereotypes associated with classical music! 

But I haven't met many extremely rich people so I can't say what they are like at all, or indeed, if they listen to classical music to feed their status as they do in the above stereotypical speculation! :lol:


----------



## KenOC

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> ...The people who go to auctions to buy valuable paintings for their three-storey houses (with two pianos) to show off how wealthy they are. The people who listen to classical music.


The people who pet their cats while plotting world domination. Yes, I know people like that. Without them, Mozart sales would drop to near-zero.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

KenOC said:


> The people who pet their cats while plotting world domination. Yes, I know people like that. Without them, Mozart sales would drop to near-zero.


Aha! But are they _young people?_ I rest my case.


----------



## Pugg

KenOC said:


> The people who pet their cats while plotting world domination. Yes, I know people like that. Without them, Mozart sales would drop to near-zero.


Not to forget: spread there wisdom all over the internet


----------



## DavidA

KenOC said:


> The people who pet their cats while plotting world domination. Yes, I know people like that. Without them, Mozart sales would drop to near-zero.


I must get a cat!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Pugg said:


> Not to forget: spread there wisdom all over the internet


And that's why I joined Talk Classical 

(to learn from and share with others, I mean, not to plot world domination)


----------



## BlackKeys

Funny I should see this... I was just at a Beethoven lecture today and (as always) I was the youngest by 60 years! I think it's a maturity thing though, even I'm not mature enough to grasp most of Bach's work yet.


----------



## Woodduck

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well I am speculating here, but I've met teenagers who think like that!!!!
> 
> Personally, I'm more in your position at that time, I seek for more knowledge because there is an endless amount of knowledge. Some people have some knowledge based on their experiences with music and other people have other knowledge, but greedy little me wants it all! So I surround myself by people who know much more than I do about music, and, frankly, that completely cancels out some stereotypes associated with classical music!
> 
> But I haven't met many extremely rich people so I can't say what they are like at all, or indeed, if they listen to classical music to feed their status as they do in the above stereotypical speculation! :lol:


I admire people who have the wisdom and humility to look up to others possessing superior knowledge. Sometimes I think that that attitude is a thing of the past, killed by "progressive" education and the perverse egalitarianism - i.e. leveling to the least common denominator - of American society ("I'm just as good as the next guy, who does he think he is, I have a right to my opinion on everything under the sun, and it's as good as anybody else's"). I suspect that European societies may still have more of a healthy respect for the authentic elitism of superior knowledge and attainment, as distinct from the false elitism of class and snobbery, and that classical music there is considered more "normal" and is not burdened by negative stereotypes. If music education were taken more seriously in our schools, youngsters who might entertain these stereotypes might, like you, realize how irrelevant they are to the experience of music.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

BlackKeys said:


> Funny I should see this... I was just at a Beethoven lecture today and (as always) I was the youngest by 60 years! I think it's a maturity thing though, even I'm not mature enough to grasp most of Bach's work yet.


I bet if someone put all the classical music obsessed young people in the same room together it would be the weirdest party ever.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Woodduck said:


> I admire people who have the wisdom and humility to look up to others possessing superior knowledge. Sometimes I think that that attitude is a thing of the past, killed by "progressive" education and the perverse egalitarianism - i.e. leveling to the least common denominator - of American society ("I'm just as good as the next guy, who does he think he is, I have a right to my opinion on everything under the sun, and it's as good as anybody else's"). I suspect that European societies may still have more of a healthy respect for the authentic elitism of superior knowledge and attainment, as distinct from the false elitism of class and snobbery, and that classical music there is considered more "normal" and is not burdened by negative stereotypes. If music education were taken more seriously in our schools, youngsters who might entertain these stereotypes might, like you, realize how irrelevant they are to the experience of music.


Well, personally I don't believe in such thing as 'superior' knowledge. Knowledge comes from experience, and because everyone has such different experiences, knowledge can't be put on a qualitative scale where some a superior than others. I do believe in the understanding of one another, however, and I believe that there is more people can learn when we treat everyone with the kind of selfless respect for different lifestyles and experiences in order to live and learn in our own lives. I don't believe in 'elitism of class and snobbery' (good way of putting it btw!) but I do believe that the closest anyone can get to it is when they say stuff like 'I'm just as good as the next guy, who does he think he is, I have a right to my opinion on everything under the sun, and it's as good as anybody else's.' A personality like that is selfish rather than respectful of _all_ others.


----------



## Woodduck

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Well, personally I don't believe in such thing as 'superior' knowledge. Knowledge comes from experience, and because everyone has such different experiences, knowledge can't be put on a qualitative scale where some a superior than others. I do believe in the understanding of one another, however, and I believe that there is more people can learn when we treat everyone with the kind of selfless respect for different lifestyles and experiences in order to live and learn in our own lives. I don't believe in 'elitism of class and snobbery' (good way of putting it btw!) but I do believe that the closest anyone can get to it is when they say stuff like 'I'm just as good as the next guy, who does he think he is, I have a right to my opinion on everything under the sun, and it's as good as anybody else's.' A personality like that is selfish rather than respectful of _all_ others.


By "superior knowledge" I mean greater knowledge or understanding of a subject. You do acknowledge such a thing, don't you? If no one possessed that, there would be no value in going to school or even reading a book. Lots of people know more about music history, theory, and composition than I do. They have superior knowledge, and I respect their attainment and their authority even while I'm free to disagree with their ideas. I mean nothing other than that by the phrase.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Woodduck said:


> By "superior knowledge" I mean greater knowledge or understanding of a subject. You do acknowledge such a thing, don't you? If no one possessed that, there would be no value in going to school or even reading a book. Lots of people know more about music history, theory, and composition than I do. They have superior knowledge, and I respect their attainment and their authority even while I'm free to disagree with their ideas. I mean nothing other than that by the phrase.


Ah yeah I get what you mean now. Maybe I just have an issue with the word 'superior' or something like that :lol: I usually term it 'greater knowledge;' a quantitative scale usually implies less judgement than a qualitative one!


----------



## Woodduck

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Ah yeah I get what you mean now. Maybe I just have an issue with the word 'superior' or something like that :lol: I usually term it 'greater knowledge;' a quantitative scale usually implies less judgement than a qualitative one!


Can we always separate quantity from quality? Is intelligence quantitative or qualitative - or both? How about aesthetic sensitivity? Creative imagination? Empathy? Wit? Wisdom?

Maybe Chopin's mind possessed a larger quantity of some ingredient than Kalkbrenner's - but that would be a funny way of talking about the difference!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Woodduck said:


> Can we always separate quantity from quality? Is intelligence quantitative or qualitative - or both? How about aesthetic sensitivity? Creative imagination? Empathy? Wit? Wisdom?
> 
> Maybe Chopin's mind possessed a larger quantity of some ingredient than Kalkbrenner's - but that would be a funny way of talking about the difference!


Intelligence, aesthetic sensitivity, creative imagination, empathy, with and wisdom are all qualities, and for many qualities in any given societies there are always qualities which are 'better' or 'superior' because of cultural and social acceptance. Some qualitative scales, however, I don't think the idea of superior and inferior would be acceptable on a universal and humanistic level, for example: 'The culture I identify with is superior to yours because of the qualities in a human being we believe in and how we implement them in society' or 'my understanding of music is superior to yours because I have a better aesthetic sensitivity.' It's merely incompatibility rather than a scale, but I suspect again that you weren't meaning it in this way. When you talk about 'larger' amount of a certain quality, you are really talking about a quantitative scale. You may have greater amounts of some qualities in your personality than I have in mine, and vice versa, but that, and I stress, shouldn't mean that anyone should believe in a superiority that is gained _because_ of more or less of anything. It's still quantitative.


----------



## sharik

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Underlying meaning & story _can only_ be made in the minds of listeners.


listeners can make of that all they want but first it has to be made by the composer.



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Music is a completely abstract form of art when there are no words or images to it.


tell that to Wagner's _Forest Murmurs_, for example.



ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> music as a form of ancient entertainment was used in conjunction with other mediums of entertainment


music had gone a long way since then and in the 19th century it has reached the point of becoming more than just entertainment.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

sharik said:


> listeners can make of that all they want but first it has to be made by the composer.
> 
> tell that to Wagner's _Forest Murmurs_, for example.
> 
> music had gone a long way since then and in the 19th century it has reached the point of becoming more than just entertainment.


Any of Wagner's operas are the ideal example of why Wagner needed both words and visuals to convey the story in addition to his music, which serves as evocation of moods and symbolism (leitmotif) of certain ideas which can only ever be properly explained by words.


----------



## sharik

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Any of Wagner's operas are the ideal example of why Wagner needed both words and visuals to convey the story in addition to his music


his Forest Murmurs, as a standalone piece, needs no words; its got immediately by the listener; thats what ambient music is all about.


----------



## Ilarion

The day when the educational establishments, both public and private, decided that music was to be an elective rather than a requirement like reading, writing and mathematics...that day marked the devolution of music to be a province of the *wealthy class*.


----------



## schigolch

I guess the meaning of "unpopular" here, is that is liked by few people, a small percentage of the total number.

If that is the case, then it's true that Classical music is unpopular with the youth. And unpopular with the middle aged. And unpopular with our senior citizens, too.

And I think there is nothing wrong with that. First, because I'm a firm believer in the freedom of the individual to choose his own entertainment/artistic exposure. And second because, by its own nature, "classical" music is unlikely to appeal to many people (and of course, these people are not better or worse, because "classical" music is not their thing). And it has always been this way, is not that "popular" music is even more popular today, or that it was not existing in the past. 

"Popular" music has always been there, only most of it from before the 20th century is lost, because usually it was not notated, and the oral transmission link was broken in the past. Since the gramophone, it's recorded. But the songs (because the song is the standard form for popular music in the West) were there in the 1930s for the audience, as well as in the 1960s, or just now. They are not new, or something unique to the youngsters of the 10s. When I was young, popular songs were as ubiquitous as today, and it was the same for my mother's generation.

All in all, I think the best moment to get a "classical" music exposure is today. It has been mentioned that in the past, there were class and pecuniary barriers for many people to have access to "classical" music. Due to the technology we are using today, these barriers are mostly gone. At least, for recorded music.

About education, I'm all for having Music as part of the curriculum in Primary and Secondary education. But this is only the first step. In Spain, for instance, Music is taught at the schools for the last 40 years, at least. However, the quality of the teaching itself is rather poor.


----------



## Ilarion

schigolch said:


> I guess the meaning of "unpopular" here, is that is liked by few people, a small percentage of the total number.
> 
> If that is the case, then it's true that Classical music is unpopular with the youth. And unpopular with the middle aged. And unpopular with our senior citizens, too.
> 
> And I think there is nothing wrong with that. First, because I'm a firm believer in the freedom of the individual to choose his own entertainment/artistic exposure. And second because, by its own nature, "classical" music is unlikely to appeal to many people (and of course, these people are not better or worse, because "classical" music is not their thing). And it has always been this way, is not that "popular" music is even more popular today, or that it was not existing in the past.
> 
> "Popular" music has always been there, only most of it from before the 20th century is lost, because usually it was not notated, and the oral transmission link was broken in the past. Since the gramophone, it's recorded. But the songs (because the song is the standard form for popular music in the West) were there in the 1930s for the audience, as well as in the 1960s, or just now. They are not new, or something unique to the youngsters of the 10s. When I was young, popular songs were as ubiquitous as today, and it was the same for my mother's generation.
> 
> All in all, I think the best moment to get a "classical" music exposure is today. It has been mentioned that in the past, there were class and pecuniary barriers for many people to have access to "classical" music. Due to the technology we are using today, these barriers are mostly gone. At least, for recorded music.
> 
> About education, I'm all for having Music as part of the curriculum in Primary and Secondary education. But this is only the first step. In Spain, for instance, Music is taught at the schools for the last 40 years, at least. However, the quality of the teaching itself is rather poor.


Maybe those music classes in Spain are taught as electives and thusly do not receive the necessary funding like the obligatory classes...If you're going to pay peanuts then you'll only get monkeys...


----------



## Lucifer Saudade

The question you should be asking is not why it isn't popular but why should it be popular among the youth anyway? it makes no sense. Starting from the 50's people listened to simpler stuff and followed trends - because music actually started to cater towards younger audiences.


----------



## brotagonist

Research shows that contrary to the legal age of maturity (typically 18), the human brain does not fully mature until 25 in most people.

Taking this back to the above comment, then people should start liking more complex music after age 25?

And this begs the question: why should music cater to younger audiences? The majority of people (paying customers) are over 25.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade

brotagonist said:


> Research shows that contrary to the legal age of maturity (typically 18), the human brain does not fully mature until 25 in most people.
> 
> Taking this back to the above comment, then people should start liking more complex music after age 25?
> 
> And this begs the question: why should music cater to younger audiences? The majority of people (paying customers) are over 25.


Young musicians make music for young audiences. The music industry markets younger acts with great potential because you know... the Beatles disbanded and Freddy Mercury is dead.

All of their records have already been bought and older people aren't necessarily on the hunt for newer sounds. Just check threads like "One Hit Wonders Rule" - 80's synth pop and what not but hardly anything from the aughts.
http://www.talkclassical.com/40855-one-hit-wonder-rule.html

Look at Katy Perry trying to cater to older audiences - not too many views are there?





Same here





Young people are way easier to market to with their hivemind mentality and desire to follow the trends/ labels and what not. Also they attend more concerts and buy more merchandise.

Really you have to move forward with the times, that's just how it is. Teens are driving the media market forward these days, especially in the United States.


----------



## Krummhorn

I think it all depends upon how one was brought up in their youthful years. I was born into a classical music family where my parents both played in the Scandinavian Symphony (Detroit) for years and years. My sister plays the violin and viola, and I took up the piano and later, organ. 

I also think that technology has displace a certain interest in classical music. When I was a kid we did not have mobile phones, electronic games, computers; what we did have were transistor radios and very limited television, and that was a black and white set and an 11" screen. 

There are way too many distractions in today's world ... everyone seems in a hurry to go hither and yon and not taking the time to smell the roses along the way. Even when tent camping in remote forests I see (and hear) the boom boxes and people trying in vain to link up to a wi-fi connection. 

Recently observed a family of 5 eating at a restaurant. The entire family had a mobile phone ... and everyone was texting friends and each other instead of having a family chat or time together without electronics. One kid said to his brother, "hey look at this, it's so cool - I'll send you in an email!". What????? 

Classical music has been around for centuries and it has withstood the weather and will continue to delight people as they let it be part of their lives and souls, but they need to allot the time for it, too.


----------



## GreenMamba

Krummhorn said:


> I also think that technology has displace a certain interest in classical music. When I was a kid we did not have mobile phones, electronic games, computers; what we did have were transistor radios and very limited television, and that was a black and white set and an 11" screen. .


But was your childhood at all typical? How many teens in your day were into Classical? It certainly wasn't most of them.

So the technology issue may be a part of it, but I'd say it it's a small part. Even in the pre-TV days of the 1940s, I believe most young people identified more with swing.


----------



## Strange Magic

@Woodduck: if you haven't already read it, I recommend heartily Ortega y Gasset's 1930 classic book, _The Revolt of the Masses_. Ortega y Gasset directly addresses the issue of the loss of authority of those segments of the population that previously had set the standards for behavior, artistic judgment, societal direction, etc. It's 85 years later, and still on target.


----------



## brotagonist

Lucifer Saudade said:


> Look at Katy Perry trying to cater to older audiences - not too many views are there?


I'm looking  Great cleavage... but I have 0% interest in the music she and her cohorts do.



Strange Magic said:


> Ortega y Gasset directly addresses the issue of the loss of authority of those segments of the population that previously had set the standards for behavior, artistic judgment, societal direction, etc. It's 85 years later, and still on target.


I agree that teens are not the ones who should be setting the standards for "behavior, artistic judgment, societal direction, etc.," but I also think that society needs to start realizing that we each, as autonomous beings, have the right to set our own standards and not have them dictated to and imposed on us.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade

Even for the musically inclined and those who were exposed to it at a young age (like myself) who no doubt would have picked it up sooner or later...

Time (or lack thereof) is a major obstacle. Between studies, preparing for the army and my future career, the regular social activities and the myriad of other things my ambitious mind wanted to absorb, the initial investment that was necessary to get into Classical music was just not on the list.

And as GreenMamba pointed out my experience isn't at all typical of your average urban kid who'd much rather spend his spare time playing video games and getting drunk.

Really, lack of exposure, lack of time/ desire/ incentive to put in the time to appreciate Classical music (I do think most teens would find it too complex upon first listening), the fact that only the musically inclined would even venture beyond your typical Mozart/ Beethoven pieces... the fact that is not as danceable/ expressive (doubt Emo teens would turn to depressive classical pieces over Elliot Smith for solace) doesn't have easily digestible hooks, is not "cool" to enjoy with your peers and to watch on TV... all these contribute to it's relative obscurity.

I mean seriously, what is more enticing to teens - dancing to EDM/ Swing/ Rock n Roll with their peers






or sitting in a concert room n complete silence with a concentrated expression on their faces, perhaps being reminded of all the jolly good times in the classroom and how fun the pastor's speech was in their local church?

The answer suggests itself.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade

brotagonist said:


> I'm looking  Great cleavage... but I have 0% interest in the music she and her cohorts do.
> 
> I agree that teens are not the ones who should be setting the standards for "behavior, artistic judgment, societal direction, etc.," but I also think that society needs to start realizing that we each, as autonomous beings, have the right to set our own standards and not have them dictated to and imposed on us.


Older audiences that would still be interested in Katy Perry's music, not necessarily _you _. Such a thing does exist no doubt...


----------



## sharik

Lucifer Saudade said:


> what is more enticing to teens - dancing to EDM/ Swing/ Rock n Roll with their peers or sitting in a concert room n complete silence with a concentrated expression on their faces


that's a loaded question because it contains 'dancing' and 'peers' - mass cult vs music.


----------



## Strange Magic

Ortega y Gasset's book provides yet more corroboration for Leonard Meyer's Cultural/Artistic Stasis thesis. OyG was writing long before the advent of modern instant global communication on the scale we have today, but the trend into stasis was very clear in 1930. Mahlerian's paean to modernism on another thread exemplifies and celebrates the vastly enlarged opportunities open to creators and audiences today, but the price paid is that the audience for any given (and ephemeral) artistic trend, school, movement will be small and restless. I know that this is a music forum, but books provide, for me, powerful tools with which to understand music and its direction. Therefore I recommend again Meyer's _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_; modernists especially will find much to engage them therein.


----------



## brotagonist

Lucifer Saudade said:


> ...sitting in a concert room n complete silence with a concentrated expression on their faces, perhaps being reminded of all the jolly good times in the classroom and how fun the pastor's speech was in their local church?
> 
> The answer suggests itself.


That's not my experience of classical music... but I was a teen once, too, and I attended a good number of (what then seemed to me) mind-blowing concerts :tiphat:


----------



## Krummhorn

GreenMamba said:


> But was your childhood at all typical? How many teens in your day were into Classical? It certainly wasn't most of them.


Those years were in the 50'2 & 60's (I'm in the senior citizen category of life now). I'd say it was a mixture of 50/50.



> So the technology issue may be a part of it, but I'd say it it's a small part. Even in the pre-TV days of the 1940s, I believe most young people identified more with swing.


Sure ... there were "sock hops" at the schools, as well as regular concerts featuring the choirs and/or instrumentalists.

I, to this day, love the music of the swing and big band eras.

Few households even had a TV ... if we desired information for a book report or essay, we got on our bikes and rode down to the library; we even had to walk 2 miles each way to/from school every day (but not uphill or in the snow - this was in Southern California).


----------



## brotagonist

Strange Magic said:


> Ortega y Gasset's book provides yet more corroboration for Leonard Meyer's Cultural/Artistic Stasis thesis. OyG was writing long before the advent of modern instant global communication on the scale we have today, but the trend into stasis was very clear in 1930. Mahlerian's paean to modernism on another thread exemplifies and celebrates the vastly enlarged opportunities open to creators and audiences today, but the price paid is that the audience for any given (and ephemeral) artistic trend, school, movement will be small and restless. I know that this is a music forum, but books provide, for me, powerful tools with which to understand music and its direction. Therefore I recommend again Meyer's _Music, the Arts, and Ideas_; modernists especially will find much to engage them therein.


That sounds fascinating! I just ordered a copy of Meyer's book from the library.


----------



## Flamme

Classical music is music for special people and i dont mean mental lol...I think there are three stages 1. Knowing something about it, some compositions etc...2. Getting deeper, knowing around 30 % of composers...3. Truly taking a deep dive into it and making it become a part of a habit, knowing to recognose a composer by first notes of a melody heard on radio or while played and an everyday musical and life experience, soundtrack of ones life, circulationg like a blood giving vitality and rhytm to your everyday activites...IMHO im in stage 2...


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Flamme said:


> Classical music is music for special people and i dont mean mental lol...I think there are three stages 1. Knowing something about it, some compositions etc...2. Getting deeper, knowing around 30 % of composers...3. Truly taking a deep dive into it and making it become a part of a habit, knowing to recognose a composer by first notes of a melody heard on radio or while played and an everyday musical and life experience, soundtrack of ones life, circulationg like a blood giving vitality and rhytm to your everyday activites...IMHO im in stage 2...


THIRTY PER CENT OF COMPOSERS????? I think I barely know ONE per cent!


----------



## arpeggio

Bulldog said:


> As far back as I can remember, classical music has always been disliked by young people; it says nothing to them.


I was going to say the same thing. When I was in high school (Walter Hines Page High School, Greensboro, NC, Class of 1964) all of the members of the band and orchestra were considered freaks.

I was really an outsider because along with Beethoven and Brahms I liked that modern stuff.


----------



## mmsbls

Glenn Gould said:


> Why is classical music unpopular with the youth?
> 
> It's a question to which most classical music fans would like to have an answer. Understanding the causes of its decline could help us reconnect it with the youth and insure the survival of this noble form of art.


I wanted to ask this question much earlier. Does anyone have actual data on the popularity over time of classical music among youth? Also we've had a few discussions on whether classical music is declining in popularity. The general view seems to be that in concert halls it may be, but the effect of smaller venues and online listening is very hard to quantify. Furthermore, sales must include online sales to make reasonable comparisons.

Data on any of these topics would be wonderful.


----------



## Lucifer Saudade

brotagonist said:


> That's not my experience of classical music... but I was a teen once, too, and I attended a good number of (what then seemed to me) mind-blowing concerts :tiphat:


Well I'm with ya man, I'm on this website after all.

But I'm trying to actually, you know, look at it from the teens perspective who don't listen to classical music... if it was an enticing/ low effort requiring thing they would do it. Just clarify I'm not trying to attack anyone's tastes here otherwise I'd be attacking my own.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln

Whoa, this thread has mushroomed since I last checked on it.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Whoa, this thread has mushroomed since I last checked on it.


And you're so young that your age has, like, doubled since then, right? 

Always a nice thing to see anyone interested in classical music, not just young people!


----------



## Nereffid

mmsbls said:


> I wanted to ask this question much earlier. Does anyone have actual data on the popularity over time of classical music among youth? Also we've had a few discussions on whether classical music is declining in popularity. The general view seems to be that in concert halls it may be, but the effect of smaller venues and online listening is very hard to quantify. Furthermore, sales must include online sales to make reasonable comparisons.
> 
> Data on any of these topics would be wonderful.


I haven't yet seen any information on what actual percentage of the _entire_ population in, say, 1700 or 1800 had an interest in the art music of the time. 
I mean, I'm sure there were _some_ Irish people who were upset to hear of Chopin's death in 1849, but, you know...


----------



## helenora

Nereffid said:


> I haven't yet seen any information on what actual percentage of the _entire_ population in, say, 1700 or 1800 had an interest in the art music of the time.
> I mean, I'm sure there were _some_ Irish people who were upset to hear of Chopin's death in 1849, but, you know...


:lol: Nereffid, it's such a witty comment , can't stop laughing. TC is an endless source of fun ....as usual. I'm sure some Irish people and not only them were shocked by this fact (Chopin's death) while checking their news feeds on one of the social nets ( bad joke, I know )


----------



## Xaltotun

How about this for an explanation?


----------



## Morimur

OP: Kids are stupid, that's why. 

You're welcome.


----------



## Blancrocher

Morimur said:


> OP: Kids are stupid, that's why.


Except for the ones that happen to be members of this forum, of course--a lot of those b******* know more about music and performance than I ever will. Every time I see one of them say "I'm feeling so lazy today--I just took a break from learning Chinese (my sixth language) _for over an hour!_ to squander my time playing piano versions of Billboard Top 100 tunes in the styles of various composers like Beethoven, Chopin, and Debussy" (which happens almost daily) I want to shoot myself.


----------



## Gouldanian

dgee said:


> This tends to be an evidence-free discussion, which is fine because I don't know what evidence you'd get and how, but the version of the story that resonates with me is that roughly the same number of people come to classical music as young'uns (maybe under 30 or so?) as ever - roughly, maybe a bit less but I wouldn't think much less. Lots of people play instruments, are into other "cultural" activities - young people get chances to see classical music and many take them. So I don't think there's an actual problem there - it's the olld moral panic about how yucky the young are compared to older generations. I'm just shy of 40 and it seems to me a lot more 20-somethings are hooked into concert music than people my age
> 
> And here's why. Where the whole thing has changed is it's no longer "the done thing" to start going to concerts and the opera and recitals etc when one becomes a respectable "mid-career professional". So, 50 or so years ago, an up-and-coming accountant or whatever would start taking his good lady wife to symphony hall and the opera house to hob nob with clients and contacts and he or she might like it and a season ticket holder was born. Because it was one of the only games in town for a proudly "mature" couple. Now these people are going to the endlessly touring rockers of their youth, world music shows, film festivals, jazz-tango orchestras or whatever is the high society thing to do - sometimes the opera or a concert but they're not buying season tickets now!
> 
> So it's not the young - it's the choice. And so-called high art is losing out to things that are easier for the nearly middle-aged to meet their peers at and even quite enjoy


Dear friend, I read your intervention again and thought it was worth providing comments. I'll begin with the second part of your text. Very interesting analysis you make and I thank you for sharing it with me as this is not an aspect I had thought of. I can see how this change in trend - in young and middle age professionals - could have had an impact. But to the point where it would explain on its own the decline in classical music's popularity among the youth? Not sure.

This brings me to the first portion of your response. Perhaps the same amount of young people ''come'' to classical music and are engaged by it as before. I won't dispute that because I don't have any numbers to back any attempt to oppose your statement. But let's say that it is the case. If it is, then we know that as many young people today as before are ''hooked'' by the classical fever. But the rest of the youth, as opposed to earlier times, are not the slightest bit interested by it. You ask them ''why don't you listen to classical music'' and they answer ''because it's gay''. This is what I mean. When did classical music take such an unfortunate appeal with the young people who are not classical music fans? (not that ''gay'' is pejorative but you have to put it in context and understand what _they_ mean by it). Ok, so there was people who didn't like classical music back in the day, but did they think of it as ''gay''? Did they make fun of those who liked it? Did ''some'' of those who liked it need to hide their love for it in elementary school and high school? I doubt. And this isn't explained by the change of trend of young professional's business development initiatives.


----------



## Gouldanian

SeptimalTritone said:


> As a first year PhD student in physics who is a bit younger than most, and still won't likely earn a "full" living until he's 27, and has a handful of friends and acquaintances in grad school or medical school who also won't earn "full" livings until they're in their late 20s, I vehemently object. It's impossible to be an engineer, doctor, academic, quantitative analyst, scientific consultant, or whatever these days and be fit for marriage and kids in your late teens. Why be critical of these bright, industrious, and mature students? Science and technology have gotten so specialized and competitive that there's no other way around it.
> 
> Also, this idea of "young women behaved like ladies" is, well... disagreeable. Neither men nor women should have to "earn" their masculinity or femininity by conforming to some arbitrary standards of gender. Indeed, with the increasing acceptance of women, minorities, gays, compounded with the increasing secularization of society, haven't things gotten much better? Do you really want to go back to the days of blacks being hosed by the police or forced to the back of the bus?


First of all, I never said teenagers should marry young like our great grandparents used to do. The point I was trying to make (with perhaps little success) is that young people today are less mature and responsible than they used to be. Being brilliant doesn't mean mature, responsible or educated (for education is different from ''instruction''). I have 2 majors and a master's degree and I don't consider myself at 30 more mature than my father was at my age and he didn't go to university.


----------



## Gouldanian

KenOC said:


> Question: Why are we concerned with the kind of music others, even our own children, enjoy?


Because we want to make sure that classical music remains perennial. Imagine if people stopped caring about classical music a hundred years ago. With no recordings, no videos etc. none would have had the privilege of getting introduced to classical music. You would have probably been a fan of some other type of music, but not classical. You would have never experienced Bach.

We have to make sure that the future generations get the same chance. If we let this form of art die today (by not caring why kids aren't into it), this sad trend will continue and classical music will be no more.


----------



## Gouldanian

dgee said:


> One decent reason is that we don't want institutions that we cherish disappearing or diluting.
> 
> For instance, every major opera company within 2000kms of where I live is putting on a musical next season as part of their regular programme. That's one live opera displaced, even if it was probably La Traviata or something equally undesirable - thin end of the wedge
> 
> I sometimes feel that few people on TC have any real contact with actual live concert going and music-making - it's real music happening in real life (and artists' livelihoods) that concern me in this instance, more than Klangforum Wien's next release (which I'm sure will be terrific and enjoyed by me and many others)


And this is why most of us buy real records instead of ripping it off of youtube.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

Gouldanian said:


> First of all, I never said teenagers should marry young like our great grandparents used to do. The point I was trying to make (with perhaps little success) is that young people today are less mature and responsible than they used to be. Being brilliant doesn't mean mature, responsible or educated (for education is different from ''instruction''). I have 2 majors and a master's degree and I don't consider myself at 30 more mature than my father was at my age and he didn't go to university.


Well, it is a great thing that you have had mature older role models like your dad in your life.

I would like a bit more specificity from you about how young people these days are, on the whole, less mature. After all, the concept of ungrateful young people is nothing new! You of course have read Great Expectations recently (as you've posted on the community forum), and know all about Pip, much less Estella!!!

I also know of teenagers who are really pushed too hard by their parents to achieve academic greatness, and they can't help but be a bit resentful, rather than appreciative as they "should" be. Life nowadays is much more of an intense rat race especially within our middle class, and by God it is much harder to be mature and grounded.

And yes, I'm not saying that education = maturity. What I'm saying is that it's impossible to start a "full" family when you're 20 because the demand for higher education in our work force has vastly increased. As they say, college is the new high school. This is an inevitability due to the more specialized nature of skilled jobs. You can't expect 20 or 21 year olds to be family men and family women anymore, because the world has made different demands on them.

And thanks for the friend request by the way. I accepted. I do enjoy talking to you, and I would love to hear what you have to say, in more specificity, about the maturity of the millennial generation.


----------



## Gouldanian

isorhythm said:


> There is no reason to expect an art form that developed under feudal aristocracy to flourish under modern capitalism. It would be surprising if it _were_ popular.


Well it was popular at the turn of the century during the rise of both capitalism in the West and socialism in the East.


----------



## Gouldanian

SeptimalTritone said:


> Well, it is a great thing that you have had mature older role models like your dad in your life.
> 
> I would like a bit more specificity from you about how young people these days are, on the whole, less mature. After all, the concept of ungrateful young people is nothing new! You of course have read Great Expectations recently (as you've posted on the community forum), and know all about Pip, much less Estella!!!
> 
> I also know of teenagers who are really pushed too hard by their parents to achieve academic greatness, and they can't help but be a bit resentful, rather than appreciative as they "should" be. Life nowadays is much more of an intense rat race especially within our middle class, and by God it is much harder to be mature and grounded.
> 
> And yes, I'm not saying that education = maturity. What I'm saying is that it's impossible to start a "full" family when you're 20 because the demand for higher education in our work force has vastly increased. As they say, college is the new high school. This is an inevitability due to the more specialized nature of skilled jobs. You can't expect 20 or 21 year olds to be family men and family women anymore, because the world has made different demands on them.
> 
> And thanks for the friend request by the way. I accepted. I do enjoy talking to you, and I would love to hear what you have to say, in more specificity, about the maturity of the millennial generation.


I'll begin right away with your final paragraph by saying that the feeling is most mutual.

I chuckled when I read your reference to Great Expectations, you're very clever! Now, while Pip certainly felt a great deal of ungratefulness towards Joe and Biddy and to some extends Provis, he did realize it and tried to make it up to the latter towards the end of the book. One can also argue that by giving so much to Herbert he was appeasing his conscious for the way he treated his family. Conversely, I'm not sure how kids these days realize their level of ungratefulness. All they do is complain how horrible their parents are. Also, Pip and Estella had good manners. They talked properly, they behaved cordially, etc. Even when Pip was just a little peasant in his countryside it was clear that he understood the notion of respect and authority even in moments of great injustice. Do kids feel the same today? Do they always behave properly? Do they make any legitimate efforts at reaching a higher level of class and maturity? Not all, to say the least.

I think that people in general (young and old (the proles)) figured out that instead of trying to reach higher standards of morality, which requires efforts and sacrifice, they can mutually agree to make higher standards uncool and average the new norm. Why bother with decorum if we can abolish it altogether? I call that the revolution of the middle class.


----------



## Gouldanian

sharik said:


> still, i won't get why be so preoccupied with youth opinion?.. they didn't even have a say back in the 19th century, for instance.


Ah! Because unlike in the 19th century, youth these days decide what the general trend is. If your radio is garbage it's because of what youth decided to hear. Youth spend money, they represent a great portion of economy, which wasn't the case a hundred years ago.


----------



## Bulldog

Gouldanian said:


> Ah! Because unlike in the 19th century, youth these days decide what the general trend is. If your radio is garbage it's because of what youth decided to hear. Youth spend money, they represent a great portion of economy, which wasn't the case a hundred years ago.


So true. Seniors, not being big-spenders, get the short end of the stick except that the commercial world loves hawking health care plans and drugs to us.


----------



## Arsakes

Because
*Lady Gaga!*
and
*Nicki Minai!*
and 
*50 cent!*
and 
some other dirty vulgar singers!


----------



## Strange Magic

I am old enough to remember the time when almost all men wore hats in public. But beginning with the ending of World War II, that social convention, along with myriad others, began to erode with amazing swiftness as the enormous transformation that the war had wrought upon millions of survivors began to seep through the entire social fabric. Being the bookworm that I am, I can recommend _The Lives of Men_, by the indefatigable Barbara Ehrenreich, as a useful guide to this phenomenon. But an important byproduct of this social overturning has been the rise of Youth Culture since, and the domination by youth of many of the important aspects of our culture, like it or not. I have already recommended Ortega y Gasset's _The Revolt of the Masses_ as an earlier harbinger of what was beginning to be observed before WWII, in part the result of the horrors of WWI. Yet societally "correct" behaviors did persist for a while even after WWII, some the result of the continued strength of hypocrisy: "Hypocrisy is the Tribute that Vice pays to Virtue" goes a wise old saying. But with the slow but steady withering of hypocrisy in many areas of behavior, and the defining-down of standards of what is "correct", there is, again, a manifestation of that new state of cultural stasis that so marks our time.

I read too many books! I need some music.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Gouldanian said:


> While I do tend to agree with you, I believe some nuances are due.
> 
> The idea that youth are retarded does indeed go back to the beginning of time. That being said, don't you believe that in recent years young people sank to a lower level of maturity than before?
> 
> Not too long ago, teenagers were perfectly fit for marriage and kids. Young men were mature and responsible and handled heavy workloads while young women behaved like ladies.
> 
> Conversely, nowadays people say that 30 is the new 20. We see it in young adults being reluctant to leave childhood.
> 
> And just to put things in context and avoid people thinking ''here's another senior citizen looking down on young people'', I'm a young adult who's very critical of his generation.


I am with you here. I am 28 myself, but the next generation of teenagers horrifies me.

As for the low popularity of CM, I think the reason is advertisement. Most people are easily influenced (not only young people). If you pound them day in and day out with what is supposed to be cool, modern and fashionable, most people will start following the fashion sooner or later, and that includes fashion in musical taste. If classical labels and orchestras had as much money for advertising as MTV, Hollywood and other manufacturers of popular culture have, making CM the most popular music would not be a problem. Teenagers would be blasting Beethoven out of their cars instead of gangsta rap.


----------



## Nereffid

SiegendesLicht said:


> I am with you here. I am 28 myself, but the next generation of teenagers horrifies me.
> 
> As for the low popularity of CM, I think the reason is advertisement. Most people are easily influenced (not only young people). If you pound them day in and day out with what is supposed to be cool, modern and fashionable, most people will start following the fashion sooner or later, and that includes fashion in musical taste. If classical labels and orchestras had as much money for advertising as MTV, Hollywood and other manufacturers of popular culture have, making CM the most popular music would not be a problem. Teenagers would be blasting Beethoven out of their cars instead of gangsta rap.


... and then the snobs would give up on that vulgar populist Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck

Bulldog said:


> So true. Seniors, not being big-spenders, get the short end of the stick except that the commercial world loves hawking health care plans and drugs to us.


In 1900, thirteen percent of the population was age 50 and over. In 2002, it was over twenty-seven percent. By 2020, it will be over thirty-five percent. The size of the 50 plus population will more than double in the next 35 years. A baby boomer turns 60 every 7.5 seconds.

And yet the print on those drugs - and practically everything else - is still too small to read without a magnifying glass. The only way I know what buttons to push on my stereo equipment is to memorize their location.

The politicians want to raise the retirement age. I have news for them: sixty-five is not the new forty-five.

The music people are listening to is the least of my worries.


----------



## isorhythm

Gouldanian said:


> Well it was popular at the turn of the century during the rise of both capitalism in the West and socialism in the East.


Right, but that's exactly when it started to decline.


----------



## JosefinaHW

KenOC said:


> BTW I'll add two cents on popularity. It appears that classical music is currently about 3% of music sales (physical media and downloads). But pop consumers always want the latest product of their favored artists and are in the market for "new music," which constantly appears. Classical consumers often get a nice set of Beethoven symphonies they like and they're set for years.
> 
> In the absence of a plethora of recordings of desirable new classical music, which most consider the case, sales per classical music fan will not be large except when major technology advances cause people to rebuild their largely stable libraries. That hasn't happened in 30 years.


I'm 49 and I spend an average of $500/month on music.


----------



## JosefinaHW

violadude said:


> Classical is unpopular with the youth because none of these poor kids ever get a chance with Classical Music. Pop and whatever else is all around our various cultures, everywhere we look. But when do kids ever get exposed to classical music? Sometimes Classical piece appear in movies and tv as brief cameos. Classical Music hardly has a fighting chance for wielding any influence over young people.


I belong to several fan sites for British tv series and we get this kind of question very frequently: what was that song playing in x, y, z scene.


----------



## JosefinaHW

DeepR said:


> What's worrying me is not that only a few youngsters listen to classical music, but that (apparently) lots of them listen to the awful pop music of today. There is something in between you know. But I'm talking about the most popular music that you find in the hit charts and all. There used to be a time when even the most popular music still had a little class and style. When pop songs weren't the overcompressed autotuned trash that you hear today. And don't get me started about the videoclips, some of them are almost porn. It has all become extremely superficial.


I think a great deal of it is porn.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Nereffid said:


> ... and then the snobs would give up on that vulgar populist Beethoven.


For the snobs there would still be Stockhausen and John Cage.


----------



## KenOC

SiegendesLicht said:


> For the snobs there would still be Stockhausen and John Cage.


If anybody needs me, I'll be in the bomb shelter.


----------



## JosefinaHW

Gouldanian said:


> And this is why most of us buy real records instead of ripping it off of youtube.


Yes, this is my small way of contributing, too.


----------



## Jos

Triplets said:


> They live their lives as if they have ADHD, simultaneously surfing, texting, playing video games, doing their homework, getting high and getting laid.


Very good, perfectly normal behavior for teenage kids. nothing to worrie about. Who-quote: "the kids are allright"

Been listening to classical from when I was about 13 and did all of the above too. (well surfing had a somewhat different meaning then, involving large planks and waves)
The love for classical music didn't do much for me in the getting laid-department, but thankfully I had broad taste


----------



## mstar

...Can I assume that this thread doesn't apply to me?? :angel:


----------

