# A Problem Posed by Musical Snobbery



## Martin E (Feb 7, 2011)

Before I used to listen to classical music I used to listen to a variety of music until I started listening to Radiohead. I liked this group so much that I stopped listening to most other types of music but it did lead me to listen to Aphex Twin as well. After a while I exhausted these two artists but didn’t feel inclined to go back to what I had used to listen to because it seemed to be so inferior by comparison. It is part of the reason I got into classical. Classical was a complete departure from the sort of music I used to listen to so I didn’t find myself so inclined to compare it unfavourably with Radiohead and Aphex Twin.
My liking for Radiohead and Aphex Twin was born of a sort of snobbery in which I felt I had found a superior form of music and no longer felt that other types of music were worthy of listening to. The snobbery was partly based on the fact that I felt Radiohead and Aphex Twin were not easily accessible artists likely to be liked by everyone.
Now that I’m listening to classical I am wondering if the same might happen and I don’t really want it to because it will limit me as it did before.
Specifically the older music is less sophisticated because technique has evolved and improved over the years. I try to appreciate the fact that older artists were geniuses in their time and every bit as skilled as those composers that followed but when I hear something that is more modern I am wondering if it is ruining my ability to appreciate the composers from long ago who could not employ the same range of techniques because they had not been developed.
I don’t know enough about classical to give concrete examples but it would be something like Beethoven maybe being influenced by Mozart but then developing music beyond this. Composers who followed Beethoven were more likely to be influenced by Beethoven than Mozart because he had taken Mozart’s music to the next level. Does this mean that as listeners we are wasting our time listening to Mozart rather than Beethoven?
In more general terms (genres rather than specific composers) music has evolved from Baroque, through Classical and Romantic to Modern. I know that Shostakovich is not exactly modern (or is he?) but his music seems to break new territory in that it began to be less tonal and I know that what followed was a revolution in music in which it began to experiment with atonality. Again, when I listen to music from the likes of Shostakovich it can make me feel that music by the likes of Mozart is relatively simplistic and my snobbery of wanting to listen to less accessible forms of music kicks in.
I’m not saying that Mozart wasn’t one of the greatest geniuses ever but I still find myself wondering if music hasn’t progressed to a point where he is less worth listening to.
Of course you might say to me “listen to what you enjoy and stop thinking about things in this way” but attitude towards music can affect ones enjoyment of it. Am I just guilty of snobbery or is my inclination towards less accessible music justified in some sense? Really I want to be open to all that classical has to offer because if I limit myself too much I will find that I very quickly exhaust the music within the niche I create for myself.
By the way, I am not a completely lost cause yet, I do listen to all sorts and I still enjoy it but I have a sense of the inclination I have just described and I want to stop the rot before it goes too far.


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

I created a Radiohead laser show for the Miami Space Transit Planetarium and an interesting tidbit (and hilarious!) about the show is that it started off with '2 + 2 = 5' and Prince (yeah, the performer) rented out the dome after a laser show one Friday night for a private showing for him and a girl...I showed him the stars of the season which they sat through and enjoyed very much and then the manager/handler dude came up to me and asked to keep going, 'anything'...so, the lasers still nice and warm I popped in the Radiohead show...he didn't even make it past the first song...bodyguard dude hands me a hundred bucks tip and says they're out...Prince claimed it was "sensory overload"...ahhh, the magic of music.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Its an interesting question, one that may be mused about theoretically for many hours. However, no matter what conclusions I could reach, if I go listen to the Jupiter Symphony after a day of Stockhausen I cannot deny its immediate and ever-lasting beauty.


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

I don't think that what you say is necessarily true. As you discover more classical music you'll begin to see that there really is no continual progression in complexity, in fact there is often a revolution against it as in the case of movements such as Rococo, Neoclassicism, and Minimalism. Check out any late Bach contrapuntal work for instance. Honestly, Shostakovich could be for simpletons in comparison.

For Mozart, there's always the fugue at the end of the Jupiter symphony. But even with works like his clarinet concerto, there's a lot of intricacy involved that has more to it than just how dense the texture is. A lot of the intervals are spaced in a very special way, and the melodic lines take a lot of emotional work to learn how to grasp - complex emotion that is often less overt and not as "in your face" but equally profound. 

Even the most seemingly "simple" music may have a good deal of complexity behind it - composers like Mozart are in no way accessible as many people seem to think. For many in the general public I think, Shostakovich can definitely be the more accessible of the two, if we are going to go by that comparison.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

This may not help you, but... do you suppose there has been a recurring phenomenon, wherein young composers have had the strong sentiment: "Those ingenious ******** have mined out this musical mother lode. I have to do something else to make my mark." ?

Regarded just right, that concept makes the succeeding 'periods' equally valid - just different.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Martin E said:


> Specifically the older music is less sophisticated because technique has evolved and improved over the years. I try to appreciate the fact that older artists were geniuses in their time and every bit as skilled as those composers that followed but when I hear something that is more modern I am wondering if it is ruining my ability to appreciate the composers from long ago who could not employ the same range of techniques because they had not been developed.
> I don't know enough about classical to give concrete examples but it would be something like Beethoven maybe being influenced by Mozart but then developing music beyond this. Composers who followed Beethoven were more likely to be influenced by Beethoven than Mozart because he had taken Mozart's music to the next level. Does this mean that as listeners we are wasting our time listening to Mozart rather than Beethoven?


This is simply false. The timeline of music has not simply progressed from less to more 'sophisticated'. Perhaps if you defined what in your opinion is sophistication? Different periods emphasized development of different aspects of music, I would not dare say Chopin is more sophisticated than Bach:

Bach: Intricate and complex polyphony 
Mozart: Less complex harmony, highly developed melody
Beethoven: Less melodic, more complex development and form
Schubert/Chopin: Expanded harmony, simpler forms
Wagner: Rich orchestration, long, complex free-form development
Debussy: Richer harmony, loose rhythmic ambiguity
Stravinsky: Abandonment of conventional harmony, strong pulsating rhythms (early Stravinsky)
Schoenberg: Total abolishment of conventional harmony
Reich: Extremely simple harmony and repetitive phrasing, complex phasing effects


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I sometimes get this way a little bit (snobby) about classical music in general, I do try and avoid it. However, I've never really thought about 'classical' music itself quite in the same way as you because I honestly just feel that there is an incredible amount of good stuff out there from all time periods. Different stuff suites different moods. Bach and Mozart are both beautifully complex and unique. Both probably directly or indirectly influenced Shostakovich, that doesn't mean that by listening to Shostakovich you are also listening to Bach and Mozart. You have to listen to the earlier composers for a while to get them too. The rewards are incredible and completely distinct than what you get from listening to Shostakovich - and definitely no less powerful. Each time period has its own unique qualities and merits.

*edit* - I didn't see all the other posts before I posted this but I more or less agree with hilltroll couchie and air


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

Air said:


> Even the most seemingly "simple" music may have a good deal of complexity behind it - composers like Mozart are in no way accessible as many people seem to think. For many in the general public I think, Shostakovich can definitely be the more accessible of the two, if we are going to go by that comparison.


Exactly. :tiphat:


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

Radiohead and Aphex Twin? I thought snobbery was usually directed against them. Maybe I've been doing it wrong.

Anyway, context is important. The Classical era was about balance and elegance, so you gotta look deeper than whether or not Mozart strikes you as dainty and simple compared to an obviously tortured artist like Shostakovich.


----------



## Pieck (Jan 12, 2011)

I agree with previous posters. I am a bit snobby, because I just cant be otherwise when listening to Bach\Beethoven\Mozart\Brahms etc. and then Pop.
And I can solve your problem. Listen to any piece of modern music you want, and then listen to Bach's Art of the Fuge and see what's more complex.


----------



## Conor71 (Feb 19, 2009)

Good advice offered aready and I would also add that if you're at the start of your Classical journey then you have all the time in the world to listen to and get to know many different Composers (and theres no reason you cant continue to listen to your other genres of music too as I do) so don't worry that you have to "prioritise" certain forms of music over another


----------



## Martin E (Feb 7, 2011)

Thanks for your comments. There were some good points and to be honest the argument is going the way I hoped it would because I certainly don't want to lose my enjoyment of composers like Mozart by listening to the likes of Shostakovich. It is evident from your posts that the idea that complexity necessarily increases as times goes by is actually wrong. But even if composers like Mozart have ostensibly simpler music in some respects their music is not so in other respects. What's more simplicity does not equate to inferior. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread to see what anyone else thinks but I already think I was looking at things the wrong way and that my snobbery was just misguided. Silly as it may sound it will make a difference to my receptiveness to the music I listen to and therefore my enjoyment of it. Thanks.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

emiellucifuge said:


> Its an interesting question, one that may be mused about theoretically for many hours. However, no matter what conclusions I could reach, if I go listen to the Jupiter Symphony after a day of Stockhausen I cannot deny its immediate and ever-lasting beauty.


I don't understand your point (incidentally: although, grammatically, the 'its' above refers to Stockhausen, I assume you meant the Mozart).  Surely your appreciation of the Mozart is independent of your appreciation of the Stockhausen. Why would listening to Stockhauen risk you losing the ability to discern beauty in the Mozart? Indeed, why would listening to Mozart risk you losing the ability to discern beauty in Stockhausen's music?

There's a more than acceptable performance of the Mozart clarinet concerto conducted by Stockhausen and containing a stunning cadenza to the last movement which breathtakingly synthesises the Mozart with Stockhausen's style.


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

You're exactly correct Jeremy, listening to Stockhausen does not create the risk of losing my ability to appreciate Mozart, nor is the opposite true. That was my point.

If you read the OP and then re-read this post it should become clear.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

IMO, the key is to realize that classical music and pop music are doing different things. 

I don't know Radiohead, so I won't comment on that. 

But although I've been listening almost exclusively to classical music for about a decade, I still enjoy Johnny Cash, Elton John, the Beatles, Muddy Waters, and so on. My appreciation of some of them has grown, in fact. Of course I don't expect to hear counterpoint or a lot of interesting melodic variations in their music, but that's not what it is about.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

What an interesting subject! It's been really interesting to see the comments. I've always wondered the same questions. I've experienced exactly what Martin E has gone through, and these are the lessons I've learned through becoming consumed with one kind of music.

1. There isn't anything wrong having a passionate love for one kind of music. The only problem comes when you start misusing it (playing it too much until you wear it out) and abusing other kinds of music (saying to yourself everything else is awful in comparison). That must never be the mentality you have, because bad-mouthing other music by comparing is snobbery.
2. The phase will end! It always does! Whether you try or not, you will always find something new that you will enjoy nearly as much or more. And you will still be able to love what you already know at the same time, even from different eras. As others said here, the changing styles weren't what made one better than the other, they were only different.
3. Most of all, don't obligatorily search for music, as if it's absolutely imperative you like it. Forcing yourself to hear things you aren't interested in is the last thing that will help you. Listen to it only if you're _curious_. If you _want _to listen to something that you've no clue what it's like, that's the point! But don't listen to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and whoever else telling yourself, "I have to like this, I have to like this, if I don't I'm a snob." Let it _come _to you. Then you will learn how to truly appreciate, and more than that, truly love the piece of music. That's how you have an open mind.


----------



## Martin E (Feb 7, 2011)

Thanks for the advice Huilunsoittaja, I'm being quite successful in keeping myself open to the various eras of classical at the moment although I must be honest and say that I do not bother listening to other types of music. I still have a tendency to "try" and like stuff I find least appealing because I have found in the past that a degree of persistance sometimes pays off although at other times it never really does grow on me. I suppose I'll carry on trying to like stuff but not push myself to the point of boredom with it; there has to come a time when one moves on and says "Oh well, that's not for me." Regards, Martin


----------



## theindividual (Jul 9, 2011)

Wow, long post, and poorly paragraphed. Break that up and be more concise next time. I suggest this mainly because it was an interesting question.

I think, as someone else suggested, you are incorrect in saying that modern composers are more technically proficient than boroque composers. From my experience, modern composers are more likely to use dissonant chords, and experiment with "stranger" sounding melodies and moods, but technically proficient? I think not. If anything, boroque music comes way closer to musical mathemitization than anything modern I've heard.

And about the snobbery thing. I'm not sure I understood the question (see first paragraph). However, if you like things that are inaccessible, then good for you (although radiohead is not my idea of good music, nor do i feel it is all that inaccessible). 

Thinkers don't wanna listen to boring music; we want to broaden our horizons; we want somthing "interesting." If that's a bad thing than so what. The reason modern music is probably more fashionable among classical musicians is because it is interesting, not boring like a lot of boroque, classical etc. 

That said, if you are worried about not being able to relate with people by have too high brow of tastes, then I'd say classical music is the wrong genre altogether!

Peace.


----------



## Guest (Jul 12, 2011)

Martin - music should be enjoyable, or, failing that, at least interesting. As soon as people defined progress in music as changing the rules, then it was only a matter of time before modern geniuses dished up a cacophony of doorbell sounds and called it art. In the process, the primary objective of enjoyability was often lost (although some will always claim they greatly enjoy those doorbells and chicken scratches). Nowadays, if anything, there seems to be a move away from cleverness for cleverness' sake, and back towards producing enjoyable music.

I suppose a similar process has occurred in other artistic fields, to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps only the culinary arts have never lost sight of the primary importance of enjoyment - not many people would be willing to pay for the culinary equivalent of John Cage's 4'33".

If the primary purpose of music is to create enjoyment, then our jobs as listeners is to figure out what eras of music are most appealing to us personally, irrespective of how exclusive or acquired the taste may be. Everyone's tastes are different - the trick is to learn yours.


----------



## Martin E (Feb 7, 2011)

BPS said:


> I suppose a similar process has occurred in other artistic fields, to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps only the culinary arts have never lost sight of the primary importance of enjoyment - not many people would be willing to pay for the culinary equivalent of John Cage's 4'33".QUOTE]
> 
> Good point, it wouldn't really fill a hole would it? :lol:


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Pop music has been dominant in the music industry for decades. Given that, I don't see anything wrong when those who listen to marginalized music answer back.


----------



## Rasa (Apr 23, 2009)

Pop music has always been mre popular. Think of the medieval troubadours. I bet peasants didn't sing 6-voiced motets when working in the field.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Culturally, it seems to me that classical music is still widely recognized as the most elite music, followed by jazz. The next rank down is the older pop, stuff from the 60s or earlier, rock or blues or R&B or country or whatever. As long as it's old.

Probably the next level down is the subcultures: world music, electronica (or whatever it's called now), musical theater, and so on. Fans of a subculture genre admire themselves much more than others admire them, but they are generally recognized to be above ordinary pop music. The key to identifying such a genre is that it has a passionate and self-congratulatory fan base, but no radio stations. If an artist from such a genre gets radio time, that artist's status becomes ambiguous. 

The stuff that dominates the major radio stations, regardless of genre, may be the most popular but is not as respected as those forms.

Probably below them are things that obviously target pre-teens and early teens. I believe we've increasingly seen the "contemporary pop" music bifurcate into a market for them, and a distinct market for late-teens and young adults. The early teen stuff is currently lowest on the social scale: most people would lose a little respect for an adult who professed, without any sense of irony, to like it. 

Within the top level, most classical music fans are comfortable to enjoy their superiority over the other genres, but if you want to assert yourself within this group there are a few strategies. The main one is to champion modern music while showing either scorn for or boredom with the standard repertoire. In the not-too-recent past, insisting on period instruments and historically informed performance was also fairly common; that bled into an "early music" movement, which for some time had its own quasi-avant-garde status. Thse strategies amount to microcosms of the subcultures. There are other sub-cultures: the champions of Haydn, or Baroque opera, and so on. Those are smaller, not large enough to form a meaningful community, but they get a bit of extra respect compared to ordinary classical music fans. Minimalism sometimes seems large enough to have its own subculture. 

But IMO, the most successful strategy for maximing snob cachet is to appear above it all, demonstrating appreciation for a wide variety of musical forms from many cultures. You've got to be careful not to endorse any "pop" too enthusiastically, but you've got to coolly acknowledge its worth as well. You should have just a few eccentric opinions - say, that Madonna or Andrew Lloyd Webber are better than generally appreciated, and perhaps that Turkish court music deserves as much fame as the Indian classical traditions - but you have to be careful, because if your eccentricity outruns your apparent knowledge, then you lose a lot of status. 

This of course applies only to North America, the scene I know best. In Korea, the hierarchy would shake out differently, but I cannot decipher it very well.


----------



## Aksel (Dec 3, 2010)

Rasa said:


> Pop music has always been mre popular. Think of the medieval troubadours. I bet peasants didn't sing 6-voiced motets when working in the field.


Sure they did. And when they didn't, they belted hits from the most popular mystery plays. Promise.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

science said:


> Culturally, it seems to me that classical music is still widely recognized as the most elite music, followed by jazz. The next rank down is the older pop, stuff from the 60s or earlier, rock or blues or R&B or country or whatever. As long as it's old.
> 
> Probably the next level down is the subcultures: world music, electronica (or whatever it's called now), musical theater, and so on. Fans of a subculture genre admire themselves much more than others admire them, but they are generally recognized to be above ordinary pop music. The key to identifying such a genre is that it has a passionate and self-congratulatory fan base, but no radio stations. If an artist from such a genre gets radio time, that artist's status becomes ambiguous.
> 
> ...


And just below the pre-teen pop: John Milton Cage Jr.


----------



## Guest (Jul 24, 2011)

Well, Science, I think you've certainly nailed much of the esoterica of the intellectual snobs who circle "classical music" (I prefer 'art music'). However, I disagree with your heirarchy: I think, yes, classical then jazz but after that the cool sounds of American musical theatre and popular song (Gershwin, Porter, Kern, Berlin, Rodgers & Hart etc.), who were total geniuses and wrote in an extremely sophisticated way. But I loved your subtle distinctions between people in sub-groups who want to play the role of antagonist and become acolytes for the avant-garde - I hasten to add these people are in much larger numbers in the world of visual art. But, a good call Science, and I think you know a lot about HIP and the baroque. Well done.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I was a little uneasy with my placement of the "musical theater" group. I haven't been around enough to know how they are generally viewed. 

I am completely unfamiliar with any of the visual arts since about 1970 (let's say Andy Warhol), and even more completely unaware of the social dynamics therein, but your judgment doesn't surprise me. I'd guess similar dynamics must apply with in the theater community, for instance.

It's a thing humans do whenever status gets attached to something. It's this way with coffee, fashion, theology, literature ... 

Anyway, I was glad you responded. I'm surprised the post didn't get more attention.


----------



## Vazgen (May 24, 2011)

Couchie said:


> And just below the pre-teen pop: John Milton Cage Jr.


Whenever I see the obligatory John Cage Cheap Shot here, I always want to ask how familiar the poster is with Cage's actual music. His prepared piano works? Adapted Renaissance music? Electronic works? Graphic-notated orchestral or percussion work?

I know, silly question.

-Vaz


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Couchie said:


> And just below the pre-teen pop: John Milton Cage Jr.


oh nooo, heck no. You can say you don't like Cage's music all you want, but saying it is worse than pre-teen pop is just wrong...


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

The older I get, the less I think of music as a Top 100 list that has to be organized in order from greatest to least, and the more I look at it as a smorgasbord where different items please me for a while and I have to go back for seconds (or maybe thirds). This could be a product of my feeling I'm running out of time and I need to fill my ignorance before it's too late. 

In proof: In the last six months I have introduced myself to three "Classical" genres about which I knew very little before: Renaissance, Early Baroque and Contemporary; and one "non-Classical" genre: Contemporary European acoustic. I've been immersing myself in them (though not to the exclusion of older loves), but I don't know how long that will last. I've found great stuff in all these genres, along with what I would call "chaff".

Just a slightly different perspective.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Possibly two definitions of elite, i.e., consider medieval troubadours who probably did not become wealthy from their craft and a commercial pop music industry that dominates the market compared to, say, recordings of music once performed by medieval troubadours.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Thank goodness I am no musical snob! Literally... and anyone can complain about that to me.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Just because one listens only to classical music doesn't make one a musical snob. CM, in itself, is extremely diverse, spanning musical styles of centuries and incorporating vocal, orchestral, chamber, solo, electronic etc. musics. About every seventh day, I put on one of my old albums; I still have them. When I changed my collection over to CD from LP, I selected the ones that meant the most to me and got them on CD, too, not just the classical music.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> Just because one listens only to classical music doesn't make one a musical snob. CM, in itself, is extremely diverse, spanning musical styles of centuries and incorporating vocal, orchestral, chamber, solo, electronic etc. musics. About every seventh day, I put on one of my old albums; I still have them. When I changed my collection over to CD from LP, I selected the ones that meant the most to me and got them on CD, too, not just the classical music.


Agreed... I listen to about 75 percent classical music but that's all I have time for... so much variety to catch through.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Years ago, when I was in my twenties, it was about 80-90% rock and 10-20% classical. By the time I was into my thirties, I'm sure I was up to about 30% classical; in my forties, getting past 50% classical; and in my fifties, it's shot up to become my dominant musical genre. I simply followed my interests. I discovered less and less rock artists that I liked and, likewise, discovered more and more classical composers I liked. I didn't decide to ban non-classical from my hearing, but the non-classical I knew was getting older and older and less a part of what I was currently into. Lots of those old bands have made comebacks, but those just doesn't interest me. I still like the old songs, once a year  but there's a whole world of music that interests me right now... and it happens to be classical. Rock, now my second-most dominant genre, is mostly song and dance music and that's just not what I usually want to hear.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> Years ago, when I was in my twenties, it was about 80-90% rock and 10-20% classical. By the time I was into my thirties, I'm sure I was up to about 30% classical; in my forties, getting past 50% classical; and in my fifties, it's shot up to become my dominant musical genre. I simply followed my interests. I discovered less and less rock artists that I liked and, likewise, discovered more and more classical composers I liked. I didn't decide to ban non-classical from my hearing, but the non-classical I knew was getting older and older and less a part of what I was currently into. Lots of those old bands have made comebacks, but those just doesn't interest me. I still like the old songs, once a year  but there's a whole world of music that interests me right now... and it happens to be classical. Rock, now my second-most dominant genre, is mostly song and dance music and that's just not what I usually want to hear.


Indeed, for example, Steely Dan hasn't had a new album since 2004! Shows you how picky those dudes are about quality.


----------



## Dave Whitmore (Oct 3, 2014)

albertfallickwang said:


> Thank goodness I am no musical snob! Literally... and anyone can complain about that to me.


I agree with this so much. I don't think about musical superiority. I just love the music.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Dave Whitmore said:


> I agree with this so much. I don't think about musical superiority. I just love the music.


I love the music because its superior._ ;D_


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Dave Whitmore said:


> I agree with this so much. I don't think about musical superiority. I just love the music.


Me too. I just throw on random music stuff most of the time (except for this March due to MFM). It just happens that I have lots of classical music lately.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

A couple of years ago, I tried to find out about some newer rock bands and I discovered _Godspeed You_! _Black Emperor_. They're ok, but I just don't see myself listening to that in my house. At a night club, it would be wild, but at home, that's just not what I would care to hear. I'm not at a non-stop party; I'm at home. Different environments and different needs require different music.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

It's interesting but I think that the percentage of quality album releases per year is in classical music to be honest and probably jazz too.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

I did just finish listening to Richard Strauss' Elektra yet again and now I really do have Godspeed You Black Emperor on:

Mladic

It's definitely the kind of thing that would be good at a party!  It's kind of a cross between Velvet Underground, but without vocals and less beat, and Hawkwind, with the spacey drone.


----------



## Dave Whitmore (Oct 3, 2014)

I suppose now I really think about it I am a bit snobbish about music these days. I only listen to classical music now. No other music touches me the same way.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Please .... let's have less of this discriminatory behaviour that criticises us middle-aged, white, middle-class folk for being snobs :devil:

Heck, 'snob' is a badge of acknowledgement that some of us have striven for years to achieve :lol:


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> Just because one listens only to classical music doesn't make one a musical snob. CM, in itself, is extremely diverse, spanning musical styles of centuries and incorporating vocal, orchestral, chamber, solo, electronic etc. musics. About every seventh day, I put on one of my old albums; I still have them. When I changed my collection over to CD from LP, I selected the ones that meant the most to me and got them on CD, too, not just the classical music.


I quite agree. Not to mention that it's not like there is much inducement for many people to display an exclusive interest in art music. When's the last time a wealthy, famous, and powerful person (outside of the classical music industry) publicly mentioned spending a disproportionate amount of their time listening to classical music? It's been awhile since an American President thought it wise to show off his cultivated views about art, and I hear that these days even British politicians can admit to listening to Lang Lang without risking electoral embarrassment.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I love my classical music with a passion. It moves me and I cannot live without it.

That is not snobbery; it is necessity.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> I hear that these days even British politicians can admit to listening to Lang Lang without risking electoral embarrassment.


What???  That's outrageous - its an election year - name and shame them!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

hpowders said:


> I love my classical music with a passion. It moves me and I cannot live without it.
> 
> That is not snobbery; it is necessity.


Amen, that is right. I can't really live without any form of music anyways.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Hi, my name is Cosmos, and I was once a music snob

Haha but yeah. Back in grade school and high school, I was kind of snobby. I really didn't like the pop, metal, or rap that all the other kids went on about. And since I nearly only listened to classical, which is considered the "best music", I thought I was better then everyone else because I listened to "good", "real" music.

I'm cringing at the thought of this. I was one of THOSE kids, who thought, "at least I listen to REAL music, not the FAKE music everyone else likes" and "I don't need to waste my time listening to "vapid pop", I have Rachmaninov!" And I'd roll my eyes at Ke$ha fans, or the Black Eyed Peas. It wasn't until 11th grade that I realized this was douche behavior

I think, during younger years, kids feel intimidated by being in large groups. They want to be individuals, they want something they can identify with to make them stand up above the crowd; to be the protagonist of their own story, in an exaggerated way. I wasn't friends with anyone in band or orchestra, so I assumed I was the only one at school who even liked classical, and I used that as my balloon.

There are music snobs all over the place, whether it be immature classical fans who think they're better than other fans, or intra-genre snobbery; metal fans who argue their favorite bands are best, pop fans debating Katy Perry v.s. Lady Gaga based off of album sales. But really, it's all for nothing. Listen to whatever you like, don't try to justify it by declaring yourself the Sultan of music listening. You're not better just because you like black caviar over red


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Cosmos said:


> Hi, my name is Cosmos, and I was once a music snob
> 
> Haha but yeah. Back in grade school and high school, I was kind of snobby. I really didn't like the pop, metal, or rap that all the other kids went on about. And since I nearly only listened to classical, which is considered the "best music", I thought I was better then everyone else because I listened to "good", "real" music.
> 
> ...


Agreed with you. Thanks for sharing with us your story. I was similar when I was younger. Now I am not scared to listen to heavy metal since joining this group.


----------



## Ajayay (Mar 11, 2015)

I would say in response to the OP that it's just different tools used to convey similar messages. You can marvel at a chef's work in pastry or in fusion cuisine, they're different and come from different origins and contexts but ultimately both feed your body and (when done well) your imagination and soul. I'd say it's the same with music. The famous Mozart A major piano concerto (is it no. 23?) is tremendously poignant and moving in the second movement. Rachmaninoff gets a similar result in his famous 2nd concerto, but with far more notes and completely different harmony. Ultimately it's wonderful to explore music and discover the gems that say something to you in whatever style or period.


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

Ajayay said:


> I would say in response to the OP that it's just different tools used to convey similar messages. You can marvel at a chef's work in pastry or in fusion cuisine, they're different and come from different origins and contexts but ultimately both feed your body and (when done well) your imagination and soul. I'd say it's the same with music. The famous Mozart A major piano concerto (is it no. 23?) is tremendously poignant and moving in the second movement. Rachmaninoff gets a similar result in his famous 2nd concerto, but with far more notes and completely different harmony. Ultimately it's wonderful to explore music and discover the gems that say something to you in whatever style or period.


The true snobbery isn't whether or not one likes classical music... it is whether you are open to share your love of it with others and being open about your opinions and thoughts in fact. For me, that is snobbery. And needless to say, if we knew what the girl posse in Mean Girls had if they had heard Britten then we are some serious trouble here.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

The status of my musical snobbery is an unending swinging pendulum.

I start out only liking classical music and being a snob. then I become open-minded to some other genres of music. Then after a while of listening to other genres it just starts to remind me why I like classical music so much better and I become a snob again.

Wash, rinse, repeat.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

science said:


> Culturally, it seems to me that classical music is still widely recognized as the most elite music, followed by jazz. The next rank down is the older pop, stuff from the 60s or earlier, rock or blues or R&B or country or whatever. As long as it's old.
> 
> Probably the next level down is the subcultures: world music, electronica (or whatever it's called now), musical theater, and so on. Fans of a subculture genre admire themselves much more than others admire them, but they are generally recognized to be above ordinary pop music. The key to identifying such a genre is that it has a passionate and self-congratulatory fan base, but no radio stations. If an artist from such a genre gets radio time, that artist's status becomes ambiguous.
> 
> ...


As far back as 2011 I had realized all this. I'm getting old now!


----------



## Albert7 (Nov 16, 2014)

science said:


> As far back as 2011 I had realized all this. I'm getting old now!


You and I are in the same boat fella


----------



## TradeMark (Mar 12, 2015)

Perhaps snobs just simply like good music.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

TradeMark said:


> Perhaps snobs just simply like good music.


I know it's true in my case!


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

violadude said:


> I start out only liking classical music and being a snob. then I become open-minded to some other genres of music. Then after a while of listening to other genres it just starts to remind me why I like classical music so much better and I become a snob again.


Amen. I've got nothing to add, that statement could've been written by me, seriously.


----------

