# Is Classical Music a Dying Art and if so Why?



## Martin E (Feb 7, 2011)

I'm fairly new to classical music so I'm a bit puzzled by something and wonder if anyone here would be able to answer my question. If one looks at music through the baroque, classical, romantic and modern eras, one sees that there are many well known composers and that many of them lived at the same time as other well known composers. However, there seems to be a dearth of composers of high repute since around the nineteen twenties. The few names that crop up include Schoenberg, Berg, Webbern, Ives, Greshwin, Bernstein, Cage, Copland, Glass. Not only do these not appear to be of the stature of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn, Brahms, Schubert and the like but they seem to be a disparate group lacking a central idea of where classical music is going. In other words it seems to me that whereas classical music was for centuries a strong movement, it seems to have lost all sense of direction. One theory to account for this that I have heard is that when modernists broke all the rules of music they left nothing for future generations to do. There were no more rules to break and since modernism superceded more structured forms of music it sort of invalidated them since to return to structured music would appear to be a retrograde step. What do other members think?


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

No genre of music will die out anymore, I think... they just become marginalized. Like everything else. There are no more monolithic, big things that people are into, but small niches instead. I'm expecting that even the classical music scene will splinter even further.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

A flute professor at one of my auditions told me to it was, but I told him I disagreed. 

It's dwindling in popularity, because it's greatest fans are now dying of old age, and the new generation isn't quite able to make up for it. But recording has allowed classical music to spread across the world in a way it wasn't able to even 50 years ago. So, perhaps classical music is even more known by the world than it ever has.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Disagree, historical hindsight has elevated some composers above others. This takes time. In a 100 years or so we will recognise Varese, Ligeti and Xenakis as 'Old Masters' (or perhaps someone else.)

There may not be a central dogma ofmusic, but I think this is a good thing, as it allows for a far greater variety of styles, forms, modes of expression and each composer can find something that suits them.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

The music we call 'classical' has always been in a minority. The idea that it was one the 'popular' music of past times is completely erroneous. 'Classical' music was only enjoyed by the wealthy and 'well-born', while every age has had its 'popular' music cultures (eg 17th-century tavern songs, Victorian parlour ballads, 1930s swing).

It is wrong to think that classical music is dying out or that it has been marginalised; neither is true. We PERCEIVE that this is the case because we hear pop music pumped out of every electrical orifice wherever we go. But think about it: we also hear more classical music than we ever used to - on TV, in films and documentaries, adverts and in the shopping mall.

Classical music will always remain (as it always has been) a minority taste. It will never die-out, however.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

I think that classical music has become a lot more 'democratic' than it was before. Whereas in the days of old it was the music of the 'rich upper classes' - or was at least perceived to be like that, it now is an art form that is enjoyed, or can be enjoyed by people of all walks of life. So there is the potential to reach a bigger audience than ever before. Unfortunately the prejudice of 'classical music is for the posh and the rich' has been replaced by another prejudice - 'classical music is a thing of the past.' Whether it is or isn't the fault of contemporary composers themselves that they fail to reach an audience as substantial as the composers of the past is a different discussion, but the widespread idea that classical music is something they did in the 18th and 19th centuries and has no relevance anymore to people today no doubt hurts it's overall appeal. The fact that 98% of the populace would fail to name even one living composer can't be a good thing.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

I tend to think that the worst and most dangerous prejudice is "classical music is music for musicians", myself.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/nov2010/musi-n18.shtml

I think the fact that orchestras are suffering deeply in this recession is a sign that our priorities are moving away from the arts, and classical music is the easy corner to cut because it is certainly not what it used to be. The last bastion of classical music may end up being the university scene, where it seems to be thriving (and probably always will). Obviously classical music will never completely go away; it may experience ups and downs depending on the times, it may change its stigma and become more universal instead of esoteric. Contemporary classical composers (of which there are plenty good ones whose names most people have never heard) don't lack identity because of "broken rules," they just don't get nearly enough publicity.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Minor thing, but something I always notice on the telly when they do an interview on a talk show or have a little talk before the start of a quiz (or whatever) is that when the host asks the guest about his hobbies. If the guest says that he's a classical music fan the host will always ask, "and do you also listen to more modern (meaning pop) music?" It's like, "ok, you've just made an idiot of yourself by admitting that you listen to that weird stuff, now here's a chance to redeem yourself by saying that you also listen to 'normal music' just like the rest of the human race." I've yet to hear one of those hosts asking a guest who's just said that he loves U2 whether he also listens to Beethoven.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

jhar26 said:


> Minor thing, but something I always notice on the telly when they do an interview on a talk show or have a little talk before the start of a quiz (or whatever) is that when the host asks the guest about his hobbies. If the guest says that he's a classical music fan the host will always ask, "and do you also listen to more modern (meaning pop) music?" It's like, "ok, you've just made an idiot of yourself by admitting that you listen to that weird stuff, now here's a chance to redeem yourself by saying that you also listen to 'normal music' just like the rest of the human race." I've yet to hear one of those hosts asking a guest who's just said that he loves U2 whether he also listens to Beethoven.


Again, it's because 'classical' music is (or is seen to be) a minority interest. I suppose it's reasonable to expect interviewers to want to find common ground with the unwashed majority.


----------



## Martin E (Feb 7, 2011)

Thanks for your replies. It's encouraging to know that many of you regard classical music as something that will survive, even if it is a fringe interest. I'm also encouraged that you think the current crop of composers are worth listening to even if they do not get much attention. I accept that in looking to the past we can sometimes form the wrong impression; for example we might suppose that classical music was more popular in the past than it was. The world is indeed changing, and I suppose it is a sign of the times that there is a much greater diversity of interests amongst people but that does not mean that these interests will necessarily die out just as long as at least some people are interested enough in them. Similarly the lack of a single vision can be regarded as a good thing rather than a bad one so I suppose it all depends on whether you look at these developments in a positive or negative way. Your replies encourage me to look at things more positively. Thanks.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

I think right now Classical music needs 1 or 2 composers that can be accessible to a large audience but also be intelligent about it and sincere. I agree that right now the 'movement' is so scattered that there is no movement to speak of. It's gotten to the point where I think it's necessary to have an undisputed 'great' in our midst, someone that musicians will strive to emulate and then take their ideas further. Right now though most composers have this mindset that they _have_ to be original at all costs. Originality is good, but there's little point in being original if the music never gets heard. Not every immortalized composer is original, but they are all sincere. And I think at a time when classical music has become so alienating to the average person, a bit of sincerity could go a long way.


----------



## Guest (Feb 9, 2011)

It would help, as always, to have a pretty firm idea as to what "classical music" means, at least for each poster to have a firm idea as to what he or she means.

For one, a good deal of the music we now refer to as "classical music" was written before the term itself was coined. (Which was around 1925. So basically all of Beethoven and before.) For two, to the extent that it's a valid term and can apply to music written before its coinage, "classical music" is an ever growing, ever changing, and permanent thing, like art or literature or sculpture or architecture. And how many buildings do you know that are "Art," in any age, as opposed to the ordinary, utilitarian kind?

So people will always write and play and listen to music. It might not always be called "classical music" but if all of Monteverdi and Bach and Haydn and Mozart and Beethoven could have been written before anyone thought to call it (and that "it" should really be "them," eh?) "classical music," then I don't think we need whether Art music will continue to be written, regardless of whether it's called "classical" or not.

As for the OP's other point, echoed in "splintered" and "scattered" and the like, how about another metaphor, the tree. From many roots buried in the earth, springs a single trunk, which eventually divides into many branches, each of which makes more branches and leaves and flowers and fruit. When you have a nice avocado sliced up in your tacos, do you complain that that fruit is not anything like the trunk of the tree? Of course not.

Or perhaps this metaphor, from John Cage, one of the composers the OP was not sure was as gigantic as the giants of the past--one of the composers who's not as far _back_ in the past is all!--from sources high in the mountains, water runs down, is joined by other waters, becomes bigger and bigger until the river branches off again into the delta where it joins the even vaster ocean. Cage thought that in his time music was in the delta and perhaps already out into the ocean.

In any case, the best way to get a sense of where music has been and where it went and where it's going is to listen to it. A lot of it. And perhaps worry just a little less about "greatness" on the one hand and one's own limited and momentary needs on the other and just listen to as much as possible.

It's a funny thing, but once I'd stopped trying to find more music of the kind I already liked and started listening to more and different things, the more music I was able to enjoy. Ignoring my "needs" ended up giving me more of what I needed. Beauty!


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Nix said:


> I think right now Classical music needs 1 or 2 composers that can be accessible to a large audience but also be intelligent about it and sincere. I agree that right now the 'movement' is so scattered that there is no movement to speak of. It's gotten to the point where I think it's necessary to have an undisputed 'great' in our midst, someone that musicians will strive to emulate and then take their ideas further. Right now though most composers have this mindset that they _have_ to be original at all costs. Originality is good, but there's little point in being original if the music never gets heard. Not every immortalized composer is original, but they are all sincere. And I think at a time when classical music has become so alienating to the average person, a bit of sincerity could go a long way.


I think we have some composers like that:

John Adams
Kalevi Aho
John Corigliano
Henri Dutilleux
Arvo Pärt
Wolfgang Rihm
Valentin Silvestrov
Erkki-Sven Tüür

And what about that great old centenarian Elliott Carter? Doesn't he count as a truly great living composer? OK, I know his music can be tough and uncompromising, but I don't think anyone could honestly cast aspersions on his abilities or his sincerity.

It's all too easy to fall into the trap of generalisation by saying things like "most composers have this mindset that they _have_ to be original at all costs." I disagree. There are plenty of fairly conservative but very fine composers out there. The days of self-indulgent originality for originality's sake of the 1950s and 60s is long gone (mostly).


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I definetely dont believe it is a dying art. More the calm before the storm, or dark before the dawn kind of thing. Things always come full circle. I also agree with Nix that one or two prolific exciting composers doing something truly great is all it will take for people to start taking notice again. Rock/pop/blues etc. these things are lower chakra adrenaline pumping (sex sells) kind of music. Good sometimes perhaps, but they dont feed the soul/spirit or stimulate the imagination in the same way classical music does.

One thing people may not realize is imo most of western civilization and largely the world has been controlled by a small group of individuals who, lets just say the collective good hasnt been their top priority. The music thats popular right now is a reflection of this demoralization of society. These individuals *imo* purposely have tried to keep the population at large very dumbed down and not well educated. With the internet things are starting to change again. I believe a properly educated and cared for populace will naturally gravitate towards good/non-destructive things for example - classical music.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

tdc said:


> I definetely dont believe it is a dying art. More the calm before the storm, or dark before the dawn kind of thing. Things always come full circle. I also agree with Nix that one or two prolific exciting composers doing something truly great is all it will take for people to start taking notice again. Rock/pop/blues etc. these things are lower chakra adrenaline pumping (sex sells) kind of music. Good sometimes perhaps, but they dont feed the soul/spirit or stimulate the imagination in the same way classical music does.
> 
> One thing people may not realize is imo most of western civilization and largely the world has been controlled by a small group of individuals who, lets just say the collective good hasnt been their top priority. The music thats popular right now is a reflection of this demoralization of society. These individuals *imo* purposely have tried to keep the population at large very dumbed down and not well educated. With the internet things are starting to change again. I believe a properly educated and cared for populace will naturally gravitate towards good/non-destructive things for example - classical music.


THE ELITE! David Icke was right.

In essence I agree with some_guy here, but I'll put it slightly differently.

I don't care if classical music is dead, dying or alive and well. As long as there is music out there being produced that I like listening to and I am able to hear, then I don't really care what descriptor is placed before the 'music' part. And I'm confident there will always be music somewhere in the aether that I like.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*I am not that optimistic*



> Thanks for your replies. It's encouraging to know that many of you regard classical music as something that will survive, even if it is a fringe interest. I'm also encouraged that you think the current crop of composers are worth listening


in Europe maybe...But was is the new generation in North America? What are the values?

Type I:

- Family, love, respect, peace ! ...religion exists but each one respects differences...

Type II:

- Family? Not at all!
- Love? No!
- Feelings? Kindness? No! No!

- Money: yes!!!!
- Power: yes!!!
- Sex and instantaneous pleasure: Yes!
- Living without effort: Yes!!!!
- Religion: in North America too much for nothing (they pray but no love). My religion is the good one...others are bad! 
- War: yes!

How can fit classical music in a society like Type II?

Well, if the "clasical music" is easy...you don't have to think too much (no effort)...and can be listened while doing whatever*...it can work*...otherwise...I don't think so...

Martin, sad and realistic (I'm out of this world, it helps a lot).


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> in Europe maybe...But was is the new generation in North America? What are the values?
> 
> Type I:
> 
> ...


Bravo! :tiphat: I agree.

On a side note I'd like to add to my post that in no way do I think that no 'truly great' composers are out there from the last century/right now, there are many many. But sometimes it takes that one that will come along and just present something that society at large will really resonate with in the here and now.


----------



## Nix (Feb 20, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> I think we have some composers like that:
> 
> John Adams
> Kalevi Aho
> ...


I agree those are all very fine composers who could fit the mold, but these are composers that really only people absolutely obsessed with classical (or new) music make an effort into discovering. The average classical listener seems to make snap judgements based on what they hear on the radio or at the concert halls, and you might be surprised at how easily many people will reject someone as 'nice' sounding as Benjamin Britten. And to people who don't listen to classical at all, someone like Adams whose clearly tonal, still seems to alienate a lot of people (from my experience).

Some earlier posters made comments that classical music was never 'popular' and I don't think this is entirely fair to say. Keep in mind that when Beethoven died his service had some 20,000 people is attendance, and he wasn't nobility so it's not like anyone _had_ to go. And many nationalist composers were wildly popular in their homeland and elsewhere, like Sibelius, and Dvorak, and they achieved this by writing music that shared common ground with the people (using folk tunes and such).

And maybe we do have composers write now who are capable of connecting with the audience at large and it's just due to the poor marketing classical music has had to suffer through over the years that they haven't been widely received. But I still feel like we're waiting for a special someone, who can write music in an aesthetic that can connect to a wide audience, but is also charismatic enough to get people to listen to it. Or maybe I'm just romanticizing this too much in my own little fantasy.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

Well......Dying is already diying...LOL

Look at my sites: myaskovsky, tchaikovsky, rimsky-korsakov, lyatoshinsky...the people wrote a few lines about some VERY EASY works my plumber knows...and That's it! Finito! No more!

Composing new music? Respect the three S's

Make it *S*imple, *S*hort and *S*tupid.....Success will be guaranteed.

I am so disappointed!

Martin, the prophet


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Argus said:


> I don't care if classical music is dead, dying or alive and well. As long as there is music out there being produced that I like listening to and I am able to hear, then I don't really care what descriptor is placed before the 'music' part. And I'm confident there will always be music somewhere in the aether that I like.


And last year was a great year in popular music, many good albums if you look away from the hyped stuff.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Bolero...*

Ravel's bolero is considered a Master piece...why? Apply the *3 S equation*! (see my former email). Do you understand now? Moonlight sonata (Beethoven), the same...Vivaldi's 4 seasons...Bach Tocatta and fugue in D minor (I hope I'm not making a mistake), Chopin's polonaise, Tchaikovsky's nutcracker....(each number is short: e.g. sugar fairy, pas de deux, dance of the flowers, etc)

S.S.S for all of them!

S.S.S. will survive!!!

Martin, diying also...


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

starry said:


> And last year was a great year in popular music, many good albums if you look away from the hyped stuff.


Hit me up with some names, man.

I can't remember what I was listening to early last year, but I found a slew of great current releases later in the year. Oneohtrix Point Never, Gonjasufi, Emeralds, Vibracathedral Orchestra, new Eno, Hypnotic Brass Ensemble, Ducktails, Electric Wizard, Ultralyd, Bobby Previte, Prinz Thomas, The Sword, Yellow Swans, Expo 70, Ufomammut, Little Dragon. Those are some I can remember but I'm sure there's lots more.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

> I can't remember what I was listening to early last year, but I found a slew of great current releases later in the year. Oneohtrix Point Never, Gonjasufi, Emeralds, Vibracathedral Orchestra, new Eno, Hypnotic Brass Ensemble, Ducktails, Electric Wizard, Ultralyd, Bobby Previte, Prinz Thomas, The Sword, Yellow Swans, Expo 70, Ufomammut, Little Dragon. Those are some I can remember but I'm sure there's lots more.


Is this a discussion between deafs and mutes? You start suddenly speaking about rock? Then the subject changed? everything I wrote I wrote it for nothing? (it sounds like Brian Adams...LOL). Then...the music has already died...or dyed (worse).

Martin


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Argus said:


> Hit me up with some names, man.
> 
> I can't remember what I was listening to early last year, but I found a slew of great current releases later in the year. Oneohtrix Point Never, Gonjasufi, Emeralds, Vibracathedral Orchestra, new Eno, Hypnotic Brass Ensemble, Ducktails, Electric Wizard, Ultralyd, Bobby Previte, Prinz Thomas, The Sword, Yellow Swans, Expo 70, Ufomammut, Little Dragon. Those are some I can remember but I'm sure there's lots more.


I think Emeralds are overrated, they can sound pretty but doesn't feel much to it. For Oneohtrix Point Never I liked an earlier effort by them called Russian Mind, some of that was quite deep. A Pact Between Strangers was another good one by them. The one last year I didn't like as much.

A decent progressive album was Anathema's We're here because we're here. For electronic minimalism StrangeZero's Newborn Butterflies. A pretty obscure one is Manorexia's The Mesopelagic Waters which is quite experimental and uses classical instruments. For lively playful electronica there is VHS Head's Trademark Ribbons of Gold. About the only really hyped record that I agree is good is Sufjan Steven's Age of Adz, never liked anything by him before but this is different.

There's all kinds of other stuff covering other areas like folk/country/world, soul, classical, metal, rap, shoegaze, ambient, jazzy, good pop. But to find the interesting stuff people have to go out there, search and listen to it like me.  Great year though, some are saying the best ever for albums, there is just so much music people make now. In some cases they just seem to record it themselves and put it on the internet.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

What remains reassuring to me, and in a way, answering the points raised in this thread, is that in the relatively recent history of recorded music, say from the 1970s onwards until today, there has been enormous production of recorded music from the pre-Baroque, Baroque, Classical and Romantic periods. Enormous amounts. Many of these works have never been performed since their premiere and the classical music industry have allocated resources to record and to perform these works for listeners at home and for audiences at concerts. The generation that my parents and grandparents come from simply never had any access to these works, until the last few decades. We are almost taking it for granted the enormous choice we have. Take a browse at some on-line classical music sites, and the buyer is flooded with choice.

While classical music is not going to become as popular as today's best selling rock bands/musicians, I would say it has never been more popular in modern times, and growing. Handel's opera _Semele_ was staged in the People's Republic of China last year, a first Baroque opera production in that country. Classical music has never been more alive than it is today, as far as modern times are concerned. How many times have you managed to find a work by an unknown composer of the past? Happens all the time.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Recording has helped save classical music and made more of it available than would ever be heard performed live. And the internet doesn't do it any harm either. On a site like youtube classical music exists alongside all the biggest chart hits of today, so the audience who might just click on a classical video is enormous. It's probably more accessible to people than it has ever been.


----------



## Guest (Feb 10, 2011)

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Martin, sad and realistic (I'm out of this world, it helps a lot).


You may indeed be sad, but realistic? You've just given us an artificial construct of your own devising that matches the real world at practically no point at all.

Sad because the false image of the world that you've made doesn't make you happy? The solution to that is to get out more. (Oh, and stop making artificial constructs, of course!)

I think that that's often the case on these threads. I find myself thinking over and over again, "You need to just get out, more."

There's a lot of ugliness in the world, to be sure. But what else is new? There's a lot of beauty in the world as well. (And I hope you know that I don't mean "prettiness" when I use the word "beauty.")


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

starry said:


> Recording has helped save classical music and made more of it available than would ever be heard performed live.


Indeed, and full credit to companies like Chandos, Hyperion, Naxos, BIS and CPO for sticking their necks out and recording the works of so many hitherto almost unheard masters.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

All art, by its own intrinsic nature, is dying. Art - be it music, literature, or fine art - is not created, but rather shaped from a finite set of resources: musical pitch set in time, words and sentences, or brush strokes and colours. Because these resources are limited, every time a new work of art is created, unless it blatantly plagiarizes previous work, the opportunity for future original art, art that has something new to say, is diminished. Combine this with the fact that metrics by which we judge these works: our emotions and intellect, are also a fixed, finite set, it is a mathematical certainty that at some point the following will occur:

1. The quest for originality will push art to the point that it ceases to have relevance to our intellectual and emotional probes, and cannot be appreciated by humans. 
2. No new, original art can be created (everything that can be said has been said)

After this point, only two types of art will continue to be made:
1. Art that has no relevance
2. Art that rehashes old art.

Now there's nothing outright wrong about 2. Great art can be created (and has been created) that reinterprets old art and combines prevous styles in new and interesting ways. But the fact remains that the driving innovation, freshness, and originality which has fuelled art's transformation for hundreds of years has been lost. 

And now ladies and gentlemen, the 20th century. Introducing Schoenberg's and other's atonal work, Xenakis' stochastic approach, Joyce's Finnegan's Wake... I am increasingly convinced that we reached and breached this inevitable tipping point in the 20th century and yes, art is dead.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Couchie said:


> All art, by its own intrinsic nature, is dying. Art - be it music, literature, or fine art - is not created, but rather shaped from a finite set of resources: musical pitch set in time, words and sentences, or brush strokes and colours. Because these resources are limited, every time a new work of art is created, unless it blatantly plagiarizes previous work, the opportunity for future original art, art that has something new to say, is diminished. Combine this with the fact that metrics by which we judge these works: our emotions and intellect, are also a fixed, finite set, it is a mathematical certainty that at some point the following will occur:
> 
> 1. The quest for originality will push art to the point that it ceases to have relevance to our intellectual and emotional probes, and cannot be appreciated by humans.
> 2. No new, original art can be created (everything that can be said has been said)
> ...


I disagree. I think your logic is functioning on two incorrect sets of parameters 1) that artists have a finite set of resources to work with, and 2) that our emotions and intellect are finite. Art can be reborn without end as new parameters evolve through the necessity to create. Sometimes this process seems very slow in real time, but there are always an infinite set of combinations in which things can be created. Art inspires art. If you really think art is finite explain to me why no two snowflakes are the same?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm not sure a snowflake it the best example, but I don't think 'art' is dead. The more you listen to the more good stuff you will find, same in other areas. Find what you like and not just what some others may, there is normally something for everyone.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

It is marginalized because of more money being made in pop music. But commercial pop music is also part of industrialization, which in turn is dependent on oil and other resources, not to mention increasing credit needed to support more production and consumption of goods.

In which case, given chronic economic crises, we should expect support for classical music to weaken considerably, and given a resource crunch (such as peak oil) we may see commercial mass entertainment weaken as well. Ultimately, given de-industrialization, we may see a leveling of the playing field. That is, commercial pop music will be replaced by live, folk music and chamber music, with rare performances of classical music requiring larger numbers of performers.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

All music which is recorded and sold is commercial.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

starry said:


> All music which is recorded and sold is commercial.


...and when pop(ular) music does bad it's bad for classical music as well. When major labels make millions from their sales of pop they are more likely to take risks with classical and the side of pop/rock that only appeals to a comparitively small audience. When money is tight they only want to invest in those things that are sure to make them a profit.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

> ...and when pop(ular) music does bad it's bad for classical music as well. When major labels make millions from their sales of pop they are more likely to take risks with classical and the side of pop/rock that only appeals to a comparitively small audience. When money is tight they only want to invest in those things that are sure to make them a profit.


and sometimes music doesn't sale because people prefer to download it illegally!

This is awful! I am SO against that!

Martin


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

.....and yet you post youtube links, which are not really legal of course if you go strictly by the law.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

starry said:


> .....and yet you post youtube links, which are not really legal of course if you go strictly by the law.


Yes, but youtube also helps to promote and thus also sell music.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

I'm not complaining about youtube, I like it.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

starry said:


> A decent progressive album was Anathema's We're here because we're here. For electronic minimalism StrangeZero's Newborn Butterflies. A pretty obscure one is Manorexia's The Mesopelagic Waters which is quite experimental and uses classical instruments. For lively playful electronica there is VHS Head's Trademark Ribbons of Gold. About the only really hyped record that I agree is good is Sufjan Steven's Age of Adz, never liked anything by him before but this is different.


Nice one. I'll check them out. I've heard a lot of Sufjan Stevens and like you was never that impressed but I'll give his new one a go. I actually thought the Emeralds and OPN albums from 2010 were their best, although Rifts is another good album.

That VHS Head album sounds very interesting. Quality sampling. Like the Streets of Rage soundtrack cut up like Cage's Williams Mix only by John Oswald. There's something very 80's about the sound, much like a lot of the new batch of electronica and chillwave kind of artists.



> In some cases they just seem to record it themselves and put it on the internet.


Since the early 90's, I think it's been possible to make good, professional sounding albums with only a decent computer and the right software. Make it and stick it on the internet. Simple as that. No middlemen necessary.

Ultimately, I believe the easier access to more music that the internet provides is a good thing, even if it has dramatically altered the business model and driven much of art into subsidy and a return to the amateur. However, people who make adequate money doing what they love must surely be commended.

Hopefully, Delicious Manager or someone who understands the industry side of music can explain how the way people make a living from music has changed in the last 20 years or so.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Argus said:


> There's something very 80's about the sound, much like a lot of the new batch of electronica and chillwave kind of artists.


Yep, it's the return of the 80s.  And I like that as that was when I was into popular music (the first half of it anyway), though I have a childhood nostalgia for the 70s too.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starry said:


> I'm not sure a snowflake it the best example,


The fact that snowflakes are infinitely diverse, people are infinitely diverse (ie - always evolving and changing), and the fact that space itself has no known limits all suggest the creation we are living in is infinite. Therefore art (which is us just as co-creators in an infinite creation) can also be looked at as infinite. Infinity cannot have a beginning, therefore it also cannot have an end. It is best looked at as circular. Some may argue that in a circle the same ideas will constantly be recycled, but no! That would suggest limitations! Limitations cannot exist in infinity! Ideas are always recycled in new ways, always changing, they combine and new styles are created and always evolving. Consciousness itself expands, intelligence increases etc.

Really think about my point about no limitations across the board and then apply it to art which is not seperate from the rest of the creation, because there is no seperation --> there cannot be seperation! Seperation itself suggests a lack of infinity, for 'many' is a finite concept, in infinity there can be only one.

Lets not forget also that Quantum physics, Einstein, Carl Jung, The Mayans ALL suggest the physical world you can see with your eyes is in fact an illusion! There is a bigger/realer world we cannot even physically see! This is what some of the most brilliant minds in the sciences have told us through the years. Are people grasping this?

A snowflake is a perfect example, but not the only example, anything that points towards the infinite nature of the universe is a perfect example, and everything in nature points towards the infinite nature of the universe! In the slow crawl of time nature may appear the same year after year but that is incorrect. Bacteria were once the only living organisms, at one time there were dinosaurs, now there are people. You see? Life grows and changes infinitely, because the creation is infinite.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Great composers are only truly appreciated after they die.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

tdc said:


> The fact that snowflakes are infinitely diverse, people are infinitely diverse (ie - always evolving and changing), and the fact that space itself has no known limits all suggest the creation we are living in is infinite. Therefore art (which is us just as co-creators in an infinite creation) can also be looked at as infinite. Infinity cannot have a beginning, therefore it also cannot have an end. It is best looked at as circular. Some may argue that in a circle the same ideas will constantly be recycled, but no! That would suggest limitations! Limitations cannot exist in infinity! Ideas are always recycled in new ways, always changing, they combine and new styles are created and always evolving. Consciousness itself expands, intelligence increases etc.
> 
> Really think about my point about no limitations across the board and then apply it to art which is not seperate from the rest of the creation, because there is no seperation --> there cannot be seperation! Seperation itself suggests a lack of infinity, for 'many' is a finite concept, in infinity there can be only one.
> 
> ...


So music is a natural phenomenon to you, some would agree with that and some would disagree. But what evidence should someone give to prove it?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

starry said:


> So music is a natural phenomenon to you, some would agree with that and some would disagree. But what evidence should someone give to prove it?


All phenomenon spring from the same source whether natural or not natural, therefore all are subject to the same natural laws. See evidence in my previous post. It could also be easily pointed out that there is an incredible amount of scientific evidence suggesting that all 'matter' is in fact not solid, but made up of vibration, therefore we could take this a step further and suggest that the universe itself is in fact a song. Making us co-composers simultaneously living in a composition!


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

I think poor music education in schools is a big reason. No one comes in contact with classical music or even music at school.

The performing arts should be taken more seriously. You have more chances of getting a job with those.

Classical Media also needs to celebrate the modern composers as well as the old. Notice the other genres that have less snobbery are thriving.

If you look at Asia and America you see teenagers feeling proud to play an instrument or be part of a band. But in England they don't get an option at school. So the interest is never established.

These things create devisions, a lack of interest and a decrease in the popularity of classical music.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

> and yet you post youtube links, which are not really legal of course if you go strictly by the law.


Links are not illegal...I can give you links about Wikipedia!

Downloading and keeping stuff it is.

Martin


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Streaming is downloading it onto your computer and lots of videos get taken off youtube. How do you check whether someone has kept something or not lol. The issue is way more complex both historically and realistically than you want to admit, and is still to be resolved properly if it ever will be in many different countries. Have you ever had a video recorder, a cassette recorder, photocopied stuff, used blank dvds or cds?


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

LordBlackudder said:


> I think poor music education in schools is a big reason. No one comes in contact with classical music or even music at school.
> 
> The performing arts should be taken more seriously. You have more chances of getting a job with those.
> 
> ...


I agree, if the classical music industry would do more to promote the music of modern composers in the concert hall but also in classrooms, it would encourage people to think about music in more abstract ways.

I dont think its true what you say about english schools. Ive been in British schools my whole life, and theres always been opportunity to play instruments, join bands, orchestra of all kinds, take part in musicals/operas. At one point in my 'career' choir membership was mandatory.
If it wasnt for my school I would never have started conducting or composing.


----------



## Guest (Feb 11, 2011)

Frank Battisti gets it right when it comes to music education.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

i dont think classical music or any music in general is dying, just that its evolving form has changed from its original shape that we perceive to be classical. While I agree more people should be educated or at atleast have some influences from the classical era both new and old - our society isnt really constructed for that reason. Generally the only reason i can think of that makes people bow down and praise certain artists like gaga or justin bieber is because these people are confused or have no knowledge as to how to connect with music. People are just raised in such a way that there are too many other worries and troubles in life and paths of education that offer enough room to understand music in its primary form - to connect ideas/thoughts/constructs/ and imagination of sound that one can perceive and understand, even if they dont necessarily agree with those ideas. Its this lack of connection that makes it difficult for young people and even old people to connect with classical music or anything that seems to suggest complexity of expressing higher levels of emotion or depth.

I can recall listening to classical my first time as well, and it turned me off because i lacked the ability to comprehend or connect with it, though after some time and of re listening and going back to listening to bach and handel and vivaldi, i found a connection to it which lead me to search for other artists who were trying to achieve the same thing.

I think people just need to be more in tuned with themselves, or atleast grasp and understand their awareness more.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

LordBlackudder said:


> I think poor music education in schools is a big reason. No one comes in contact with classical music or even music at school.
> ...
> Classical Media also needs to celebrate the modern composers as well as the old. Notice the other genres that have less snobbery are thriving.


It is true about the schools - that's how I heard the classical music for the first time and started to listen to it. At the same time, our state owned TV network broadcasts classical music on regular basis, but does awful job at promoting it.

But I don't think that snobbery has something to do with old vs new composers - one can be very snobbish about new ones too, and even regard the whole thing as somehow esoteric even among listeners of classical music (it seems to me that for a lot of people Wagner is passe and Arvo Part is "in" - not to be misunderstood: I like them both). I think it would help to dispel "snob aura" by re-inventing the concerts by making them more in contact with the audience, which is something many people do and is encouraging to see.


----------



## Jacob Singer (Jan 7, 2011)

I used to be able to buy new classical cd's at stores, as recently as 5 or 10 years ago.

Now, all the stores that sell (new) cd's no longer carry any classical music whatsoever.


----------



## graaf (Dec 12, 2009)

Jacob Singer said:


> I used to be able to buy new classical cd's at stores, as recently as 5 or 10 years ago.
> 
> Now, all the stores that sell (new) cd's no longer carry any classical music whatsoever.


might be the case with some other genres too? my guess is that because online sales were skyrocketing last 5-10 years, those cd stores might be interested only in bestsellers?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

Many second hand record shops have closed now too which is a shame but times move on. People still sell old records online too of course, others digitize them and help preserve those recordings for the future.


----------



## Jacob Singer (Jan 7, 2011)

graaf said:


> might be the case with some other genres too? my guess is that because online sales were skyrocketing last 5-10 years, those cd stores might be interested only in bestsellers?


Of course online sales have affected things, but classical is the only genre that has disappeared from my local stores' shelves completely. I can still find jazz, blues, folk, etc.


----------



## myaskovsky2002 (Oct 3, 2010)

*Best purchase*

Jacob singer,

I don't buy my CDs in stores anymore, they are too expensive and the selection is bad.

amazon.com
amazon.ca (I live in Canada)
ebay.ca or ebay.com

and

best and cheap at:

http://www.broinc.com/

Good luck.

Martin


----------



## Jacob Singer (Jan 7, 2011)

Yeah I know, Martin. I use those sources almost exclusively.


----------



## Listener (Sep 20, 2010)

I think to say classical music is dying is overstating things. I see classical music as being in both the best and worst of times.

More music is available to more people than ever before.

But at the same time, classical music is more disconnected from the general population than ever before. To get the music, you have to go looking for it. And even within the classical music world, things are different. There are many fine composers today, who may or may not be at the level of composers like Beethoven, but is there a single one who is in general highly regarded by classical fans? I don't think so. This is the biggest difference I think.

Until there is a single living composer who is just as popular in concert halls as Beethoven or Mozart, classical music will continue to struggle. Unfortunately I don't know of any who can fill that role right now.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2011)

The composers are all doing their work. It's the audiences who've been, for a long time, falling down on the job. Recording technology aids and abets, of course, in allowing people to listen only to what they like right now, but the split started back in the early 1800s and doesn't look to be getting any better any time soon.

Audiences in Mozart and Haydn's time expected new music. Are there any audiences nowadays who can step into that role? Well fortunately there are some. And though their numbers are small, their enthusiasm is great.

Classical "fans" by and large have dropped the ball, though.

I think a better question than "is there a single one who is in general highly regarded by classical fans?" would be "is there any composer who is highly regarded by the same type of people who would have expected new music in the 1700s?"

The answer there is definitely "yes," I think. But you have to get outside the oppressively insulating world of "classical music," for sure, get outside your normal round of symphony concerts and youtube videos of younger and younger performers playing older and older music to notice it.

It's a big world out there. I for one have found it immensely rewarding.

Here are a very few names of people who are highly regarded by their audiences:

Helmut Lachenmann
Phill Niblock
Pauline Oliveros
Zbigniew Karkowski
Eliane Radigue
Brian Ferneyhough

Enjoy!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Well, if some modern composers are producing the following pieces, perhaps no wonder listeners are "falling down on the job". I randomly selected three of the names posted above and sampled their bizzare sounds.

*Phill Niblock* (born 1933), _Stosspeng_. Would this be any different to sitting next to an electronic motor of some sort?





.

*Eliane Radigue *(born 1932), _Adnos I_. Or this, too?






*Zbigniew Karkowski* (born 1958). I'm not sure at all what this performance was about.


----------



## Guest (Feb 14, 2011)

*News flash!!*

Karkowski does not sound like Handel.

Indeed, he does not.

But then neither does Sibelius, or Brahms or Berlioz or Haydn or even Bach.

21st century music does not sound like Baroque music.

It's true.

But then neither does 20th century or 19th century or quite a lot of 18th century.

HC seems constantly surprised that this should be so, but at least he bothers to post clips. I know it's for the purpose of demonstrating that contemporary music is worthless noise, but as there's always a chance that someone will listen to some of that noise and like it, I applaud his efforts.


----------

