# Future of the Classical Music



## Levanda (Feb 3, 2014)

Forgive me if I am silly of my thoughts. Lest say rep music which I am not fan or pop music after hundred years it would be classical music, we would be never find out. So lest say for example Tchaikovsky's music will be yearly music category. How do you imagine future of classical music? For me if is rep or pop of the future classical music nah is not interesting category. Maybe rep music will be like art songs.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Maybe my personal bias against it, but I very much doubt that rap will be seen as art music 100 years from now. On the other hand, I could imagine songs by the likes of Dylan, Cohen, Simon, Lennon/MacCartney, and works by bands such as Pink Floyd to be seen as such a hundred years from now.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Levanda said:


> Forgive me if I am silly of my thoughts. Lest say rep music which I am not fan or pop music after hundred years it would be classical music, we would be never find out. So lest say for example Tchaikovsky's music will be yearly music category. How do you imagine future of classical music? For me if is rep or pop of the future classical music nah is not interesting category. Maybe rep music will be like art songs.


There's a scene in Futurama where Fry is listening to the novelty song 'Baby got back', and Leela comes into the room and says 'Are you just going to sit here all day listening to classical music?!' To answer with another Futurama quote, 'You don't know it won't really happen'.
Already Tin Pan Alley 'standards' seem to have canonical status, which is a bit surprising as the best of them (Cole Porter and the like) seem to offer mildly amusing arch lyrics and catchy tunes, which you would expect from quality pop but which hardly seems like music for the ages.

I doubt that Tchaikovsky's reputation would be in danger, even if Romantic music comes to be lumped in with early music as the centuries go on. Historical and artistic 'periods' are used mostly for convenience as far as I'm aware, although some periods seem to have a 'Golden Age' aura about them,like the Romantic. Sorry if this is a non-answer!


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I don't think rap or pop music will be lumped into classical or even art music; it will just be rap music, just like there is folk music, bluegrass, and other genres of music which are archived, curated, and appreciated by an audience, either large or small.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I just hope there are enough of us around in 100 years to fervently carry the torch for classical music.

Pop music will always be around. Hopefully so will classical and not relegated to some museum.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

There is still classical music being produced today. I don't think people of the future will be silly enough to clump together Lady Gaga and Justin Beiber with John Adams and Takashi Yoshimatsu.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

All types of music develop "classics" over time. We already have Classic Rock, for example. That has nothing to do with Classical music.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

GreenMamba said:


> All types of music develop "classics" over time. We already have Classic Rock, for example. That has nothing to do with Classical music.


Isn't Classic Rock just a euphemism for Dad Rock or MOR? In another couple of generations it will probably be filed under 'Nostalgia' or 'Easy Listening' like most pre-1960s pop is now.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Levanda said:


> Forgive me if I am silly of my thoughts. Lest say rep music which I am not fan or pop music after hundred years it would be classical music, we would be never find out. So lest say for example Tchaikovsky's music will be yearly music category. How do you imagine future of classical music? For me if is rep or pop of the future classical music nah is not interesting category. Maybe rep music will be like art songs.


Rap, perhaps like Elvis P could become classics of those genres, not classical music per se. But you never know, we live in a world where people lke definitions to be challenged and ever changing.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Rap, perhaps like Elvis P could become classics of those genres, not classical music per se. But you never know, we live in a world where people lke definitions to be challenged and ever changing.


I sincerely hope Elvis will never be forgotten! :kiss:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> I sincerely hope Elvis will never be forgotten! :kiss:


Oh wow! Thanks for reminding me! I almost forgot!


----------



## Guest (Nov 11, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> I sincerely hope Elvis will never be forgotten! :kiss:


Elvis? Who he?

Oh, right, I forgot...

View attachment 55693


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

MacLeod said:


> Elvis? Who he?
> 
> Oh, right, I forgot...
> 
> View attachment 55693


AAAAAARGH! That's not funny!


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2014)

Figleaf said:


> AAAAAARGH! That's not funny!


You're right. Of the two Elvis's, it's the Costello variety that I prefer!


----------



## cbrian (Apr 10, 2013)

GreenMamba said:


> All types of music develop "classics" over time. We already have Classic Rock, for example. That has nothing to do with Classical music.


Now this got me thinking - what will people think of classical music in another century? And would it be (remotely) possible that the classical music known to us becomes the norm in the future?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

The future of classical music is in the past . Basically, the best baroque, classical and romantic composers are the ones, I think, who will survive in the end. I think most people get into classical through one or two composers in these periods, and there's no reason for that to change. Classical may eventually come back to a more Romantic-like sound - I don't think atonal music is drawing much people into the genre, and the farther it goes, the less 'practical' it tends to get. I have to admit, some atonal pieces I've heard do sound interesting from an experimental point of view, but as something that I can come back to on a day to day basis, so far it hasn't 'clicked' for me.


----------



## Guest (Nov 12, 2014)

There is a great deal of institutional infrastructure which supports the regular performance of classical music standards by new generations of musicians. I'm not sure that any of the pop music has similar support. 

Pop music, to the extent it remains popular, will be primarily represented by original recordings by original artists. There may be one or two Pink Floyd cover bands and the like but not much otherwise.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

I think that the future of classical music lies in a return to tonal "harmonic" composing. People cant stand and wont pay for modern atonal classical music.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

stevens said:


> I think that the future of classical music lies in a return to tonal "harmonic" composing. People cant stand and wont pay for modern atonal classical music.


When was this mythical time everyone talks about when people were not composing any new tonal music?

Atonal music is "harmonic" too, it's just organized differently (as are modern tonal works).


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> When was this mythical time everyone talks about when people were not composing any new tonal music?
> 
> Atonal music is "harmonic" too, it's just organized differently (as are modern tonal works).


-I dont have any considerings about "mythical" times. Drop it. 
And by the way, atonal music does not require any harmonic organisation (and, maybe even not any other organisation either)

-And thats why people doesn like it, or do they??


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

stevens said:


> -I dont have any considerings about "mythical" times. Drop it.


You're talking about a time when there were not any major composers writing tonal music. When was this? I can't think of a single year during the whole 20th century when this was true.



stevens said:


> And by the way, atonal music does not require any harmonic organisation (and, maybe even not any other organisation either)
> 
> -And thats why people doesn like it, or do they??


Some people don't like it because it's unfamiliar, or because specific facets of the various styles don't appeal to them. Other people do enjoy it quite a bit. A good piece of atonal music requires harmonic (and other) organization just as much as a good piece of tonal music does. Poorly conceived music may be disorganized, but this is true of tonal works to the exact same degree.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

Yes, thats says it all: "Some people don't like it because it's unfamiliar" ...or whatever reason. And THATS the problem. And they are in a huge majority!


(by the way, A good piece of atonal music does NOT requires harmonic (and other) organization. -The beauty lies in the ear of the beholder)


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

stevens said:


> (by the way, A good piece of atonal music does NOT requires harmonic (and other) organization. -The beauty lies in the ear of the beholder)




Oh, yes, an atonal piece is just some bunch of absolutely random notes in every sense of the word, which, quite arbitrarily, we nevertheless enjoy.

Give me a break, that's one of the silliest things I ever read here.

We enjoy these pieces because there's actually something there, put by the composer.

There's nothing remotely random here:


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

1) "Oh, yes, an atonal piece is just some bunch of absolutely random notes"

-Yes, I agree. Well some atonal pieces arent but many are.

2) "we nevertheless enjoy"

-Yes, I agree, but as I said, the problem with atonal music is that *People dont like* it :tiphat:


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

stevens said:


> 1) "Oh, yes, an atonal piece is just some bunch of absolutely random notes"
> 
> -Yes, I agree. Well some atonal pieces arent but many are.


Do you know what "random" means?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

stevens said:


> Yes, thats says it all: "Some people don't like it because it's unfamiliar" ...or whatever reason. And THATS the problem. And they are in a huge majority!


So what you're saying is people don't like it because they're unfamiliar with it and should therefore make no attempt to become familiar with it?


----------



## Levanda (Feb 3, 2014)

To me atonal music is like radio play. It gives me imagination of story. I am not expert but I like it.


----------



## cbrian (Apr 10, 2013)

stevens said:


> Yes, I agree. Well some atonal pieces arent but many are.


I wouldn't come to that conclusion. Atonal pieces are lacking in tonality, but that doesn't make it "random". There is no such thing as "random music" in the first place because each note is designated by the composer. It only gives the impression that the music is "random" because a lot of people don't understand it, but I can enjoy atonal music just as much as tonal music.


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

cbrian said:


> I wouldn't come to that conclusion. Atonal pieces are lacking in tonality, but that doesn't make it "random". There is no such thing as "random music" in the first place because each note is designated by the composer. It only gives the impression that the music is "random" because a lot of people don't understand it, but I can enjoy atonal music just as much as tonal music.


This is exactly what I want to find out. What is it that I need to understand in order to appreciate certain music? In another thread that was meant to be a random thoughts thread, I said something to the effect of, it feels like I need a math or music degree to appreciate and understand Bach's music. I guess understanding something doesn't mean you'll like it and vice versa.

For some people atonal music doesn't need to be understood to be appreciated. But for me, I don't get the same enjoyment listening to Berg than I do out of Schubert. So I am thinking to myself, maybe if I understand what's going on here, I will find the appreciation.

Getting back to the original topic, I don't think we will see today's pop music as the way we see classical music today, a 100 years from now. I think the way people think of music really depends on the society and the cultural framework at the time. I think we've developed enough to differentiate and have enough audience to appreciate different types of music in the future. Rap music will be rap music and classical will still be classical. Back in the day, music was one of a few main forms of entertainment. In today's world already, music is a big part of our lives but there are so much more types of entertainment going on nowadays, XBOXes, Netflixes, NFL.....

(I think I've lost track of what I was saying at some point.....haha)


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

The only way classical music has a future is if we on TC all have kids and expose them to classical music often.

Not all will accept it, but many will.

The schools suck at this.

How else is the next generation going to learn about it?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Centropolis said:


> This is exactly what I want to find out. What is it that I need to understand in order to appreciate certain music? In another thread that was meant to be a random thoughts thread, I said something to the effect of, it feels like I need a math or music degree to appreciate and understand Bach's music. I guess understanding something doesn't mean you'll like it and vice versa.
> 
> For some people atonal music doesn't need to be understood to be appreciated. But for me, I don't get the same enjoyment listening to Berg than I do out of Schubert. So I am thinking to myself, maybe if I understand what's going on here, I will find the appreciation.


I think that understanding in one sense is required for enjoyment of any music: an ability to follow what's going on, at least on a subconscious level, to connect events from one to the next, eventually across the scope of a piece.

Understanding in the other sense, of knowing how something was constructed and the theoretical aspects of it, is not necessary for enjoyment of Bach or Berg.

If both Bach and Berg are a problem, I'd suggest that perhaps part of the difficulty is either following dense counterpoint, or following dense counterpoint within complex chromatic harmony. One time I explained to someone that in many composers the line of focus is usually singular: here is the theme, here is the accompaniment, and rarely shall the two exchange functions. The more contrapuntal music is, the less this is true, and the focus of a given moment can change quite quickly between instruments, registers, timbres, etc.

Combined with a style of orchestration that frequently and rapidly breaks up single lines among instruments/registers/timbres, this can lead to an impression of fragmentariness, unless one is accustomed to hearing a line broken up this way as a single line rather than a collection of fragments. The following movement is meant to be heard much like a single melody line that slowly arises out of the orchestral texture, distributed in turn amongst every instrument and every register of the orchestra, before eventually receding into non-pitched percussion once again.
Berg: Three Orchestral Pieces I


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Here's a reduction of the Berg movement to just the main lines. The phrasing isn't correct visually and I didn't put in most of the dynamics or tempo fluctuations (because there are rit. markings all over this score), but it should give you an idea of what I'm talking about. It would be better if I labelled which instruments take over where, but that would take me a while longer.

http://musescore.com/user/84716/scores/439676/s/a87586


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

You might call Pop music musical fast food and classical slow food . Pop music is intended for casual entertainment; nothing wrong with that .
It's written to be short and comprehensible . But the Bruckner 5th is anything but short,, nor is it comprehensible on first hearing . Apples and oranges . De gustibus none est disputandum .
It's fun to get takeout food at McDonalds or Burger King , but 
there's nothing like a leisurely meal at a fine restaurant ! But it's 
also a lot more expensive than Burger King !
The music of Beethoven, Bach, Mozart, Schubert, and other great composers will be played as long as civilization lasts . It will never go out of style . However, it's impossible to know which of today's composers, or recently deceased ones, will be played most often in the future .
When Mahler died , many critics and prominent ocmposers acknowledged that while he was a truly great conductor, his music was doomed to be gorgotten soon . How wrong they were ! 
There were also composers form the past , such as Spohr ,
Spontini , Gossec , and so many others , who were widely performed in their lifetimes but are pretty much forgotten today excpet for recordings . 
The repertoire of classical music is amything but "ossified". In fact, it's in constant flux . It always has been and always will .


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

superhorn said:


> Pop music is intended for casual entertainment; nothing wrong with that .


I like Classical for both casual and intense entertainment, so I'm hardly ever listening to pop (except for exercising). Unless you call Jazz pop, which I'm a bit iffy on that.


----------



## cbrian (Apr 10, 2013)

hpowders said:


> The only way classical music has a future is if we on TC all have kids and expose them to classical music often.


That's what my parents did to me!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

cbrian said:


> That's what my parents did to me!


Same with me. My dad had the radio on classical all the time and he had some classical albums-Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto #1,
Franck Symphony in D minor, Beethoven Emperor Concerto, etc; I was naturally curious and played his albums and I took to the music.
Without that proximity to classical music in the house, I would probably be just another classical music illiterate.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Without that proximity to classical music in the house, I would probably be just another classical music illiterate.


I never got it from home. We were an immigrant family and making money, not listening to music, or any other kind of recreation, was the priority. We didn't even get a record player until I was in my teens. We had one LP: a Christmas carols album. We had music education in elementary school and even went to hear the symphony orchestra once on a school outing, but I never discovered classical music until I was 18. A girlfriend's ex and I became good friends. He had every kind of music imaginable and was into promoting all of his interests, which were exclusively cultural: he used to wear a lapel button with a beanpole guy on it, with the caption, "fight physical fitness" :lol: Prose, poetry and music were his specialties. We had quite a long association and these interests rubbed off on me... and the rest of our post-high school crowd. Were it not for him, I wonder if I would ever have discovered classical music or literature. I was listening to top 40 radio then and reading fantasy and adventure novels of mass appeal.

To my credit, I guess I was fertile soil  I was always very curious and interested in knowledge. I was already tiring of rock music, that I heard as being formulaic and devoid of lasting interest. Similar with superficial novels. It was a timely association.


----------



## stevens (Jun 23, 2014)

violadude said:


> Do you know what "random" means?


..ok? Is this an argument againt me or against "aleazk"?

Some atonal pieces are *NOT* a bunch of absolutely random notes!

Godbye talkcalssical forum! Last post for me here


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

If they were, Schoenberg's Piano Concerto, which I love, would make no sense to me!


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

stevens said:


> ..ok? Is this an argument againt me or against "aleazk"?
> 
> Some atonal pieces are *NOT* a bunch of absolutely random notes!
> 
> Godbye talkcalssical forum! Last post for me here


Well, since you aren't coming back I guess there isn't much point in responding. But I'll do it anyway.

Serialism is a highly ordered musical device, period. It doesn't matter what it sounds like to you, by definition, it's not random. Notice I'm not nessicarilly equating ordered with good or random with bad or vice versa but serialism is simply not random in terms of note selection.

The only truly random music would be Cage's compositions, for example, where he uses the I Ching to choose the notes. That's random note selection in the true sense, in the same way that a random number generator would be.

http://www.random.org/


----------

