# Are There "Underying Values" In Classical Music; If So, What Are These?



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

I was perplexed by a member who declared that he was questioning the "underlying values" of classical music. Unfortunately, the member did not specifically state what he meant by "underlying values". 

So, do you think are "underlying values" in classical music? What are these? Are these perceptions? Are they self-imposed? 

I invite your thoughts.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

I noticed that too. Certainly the best music of any era has "underlying values." But these change from era to era, often dramatically. Bach certainly had his value set, as did Shostakovich. There is a correspondence in aesthetic values, of course, but not in "values" in any broader sense.

I don't believe there is a set of "underlying values" in classical music aside from purely musical values, which seem to be invariant -- and are shared by all other genres of succesful music.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I guess to answer that we have to know what the poster meant by "underlying values". Did they mean moral, social, political or religious values? or what? I can't see where music itself has underlying values so it has to refer to either the composers themselves, the musicians and conductors or the classical music culture in general. Without a definition this discussion would be too hard to carry on based on that statement alone.

Kevin


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

The essence of classical music has been elitism. The idea was originally created and continues to exist by contrast to folk and pop traditions. Is the musical analogue to "art." That is the main underlying value that I perceive. 

So then you get into how elitism relates to legitimization of aristocratic power, and delegitimization of democratic government. Classical music has often had something to do with that. Though the particular dynamics of legitimation change over time, piety alone didn't lead the Franks to spread Gregorian Chant throughout their kingdom, Louis XIV didn't dance Lully's ballets merely as a hobby, nor did Frederick the Great employ CPE just for laughs, nor did 19th century wealthy English families make their daughters play piano just for the joy of song, and so on, right up to corporate sponsors of contemporary opera.

It's not just classical music of course: it's all the 'arts.' There is inevitably an element of display, which in a hierarchically stratified society will inevitably involve legitimation of disproportions in power and wealth. 

But things are complicated. A modern day snob knows he'd better show some appreciation for some aspects of pop culture - he might, for example, appreciate "camp," though of course he has to display just the right touches of irony to succeed. 

Thinking about and discussing this kind of thing makes most of us uncomfortable, at least in part because we need to seem unconscious of our social strategies in order for them to work, and the best way to seem unconscious is to be unconscious, or at least not more than semi-conscious. 

Anyway, looking forward, it appears that in North America classical music is rapidly losing its effectiveness as a class marker. The opposite is true in East Asia, and I don't know about Europe or other places. But in North America classical music is being reduced to one of many subcultures, so that membership in it does not confer much status outside of it. Upwardly mobile youth no longer find it very useful. 

Whether that's a good thing or not, I can't say. It's not like elitism itself is going away, only its expressions are changing, as they always have. 

Personally, I think the best approach to art is to keep all of this in mind as context, but also to cultivate aesthetic sensitivity to the virtues of the artifact. After all, we are human, oppressor or oppressed, victor or victim. Except for contingent circumstances, Gandhi, Hitler, you, and I have more in common than in contrast, and the more we're aware of that the more we understand ourselves. So art (understood in context), including music, is a revelation of that common human nature, and when it is well-done, it is the more revealing.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

^^ Nice presentation, and apt in it's description of classical music's 'demotion' in North American society. As a hillbilly I live in a rural subculture, where a love of classical music is mostly regarded as a minor idiosyncrasy of no particular significance.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

Agree with Science's post, with some caveats: the post-CW Boston bourgeoisie, the Isabella Gardiners and such, bankrolled the MFA, frequented the Boston Symphony, and read Henry James in part to culturally shore up its own social and economic power, which was not aristocratic but oligarchic. Definitely agree that CM is decreasingly important as a marker of distinction in the US these days. Billionaire CEO's are more likely to buy a basketball team than underwrite a symphony (but then there's always good ol' Alec Baldwin). For my part, I think the fact that CM is less & less a marker of social distinction makes it more attractive to me. If I lived in a culture where a taste for CM was more deeply interwoven with economic and social privilege I'd probably be alienated from it. Instead, its future (especially chamber music which unlike a symphony is more "mobile" and do-it-yourself) seems to be as a deinstitutionalized "niche," "alternative" musical culture preserved (like bluegrass and folk music) by amateur enthusiasts.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

Too bad classical has to be viewed as elitist now. I'd like to change that idea in people's minds. I believe _anyone _can love classical, though that doesn't mean everyone _ought _to, just as with any musical genre. Classical shouldn't be limited to the rich and powerful and what-not even though that's how it once was... it's too wonderful for that.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Classical music is about the elevation of the transitory into an illusory state of perfection.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Hausmusik said:


> not aristocratic but oligarchic


Your whole post seems right to me, but this in particular was important. I should've been more careful. In my own inner thought world I usually do not make much of a distinction, but of course there are circumstances in which the distinction matters a lot. I should probably stop using "aristocracy" altogether in favor of "oligarchy."


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

The old oligarchic values system and ecclesiastical ones from which classical music was "founded" has a very interesting historical persepctive, not least explaining where classical composition and composers came from. Therefore do these values still exist however in today's listening of old music? I think probably not. Do these values exist with new and relatively new music composed today? I think most certainly not. We are in a digital world where classical music can beeasily and freely available to many on the planet.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

I agree that I feel more comfortable with my passion for classical music now that its elitism factor is less powerful in American society. But I think that if I allowed myself to be "open to it," which I have been able to do with genres that I am not as a rule, as fond of, then I would still find a wealth of great music. Lets have some faith in things purely musical.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I don't agree that the underlying essence of classical music has been elitism. Elitism is something that can cling to anything really, that doesn't make it an underlying value. Classical music started as worship music in churches, therefore its origins are spiritual in nature. Christianity is a religion that (at least attempts) to teach equality more-so than elitism therefore any elitist ideas attached to classical music can be viewed as a later distortion of the music's original function. Bach I think was closer to classical music's true essence when he defined it as a way to refresh the spirit and honor the divine.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

tdc said:


> Classical music started as worship music in churches, therefore its origins are spiritual in nature.


I agree with the premise but not the conclusion. If you look at Christianity any time between Constantine and World War One, you have to be aware that it was _at least in part_ a justification of elite privilege. Arts that made it more persuasive, such as music and architecture, are implicated.

I'm not sure what something "purely spiritual" would look like, but it wouldn't look like the Crusades or the wars of religion or the witch trials.



tdc said:


> Christianity is a religion that (at least attempts) to teach equality


Maybe, maybe this is true today. In some places. But it wasn't true in Western Europe from the fourth to the nineteenth centuries, and if it had been true, the aristocracies wouldn't have tolerated let alone sponsored it.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

tdc said:


> Christianity is a religion that (at least attempts) to teach equality


Not so fast. Preaching spiritual equality "in Christ" is not the same as preaching social equality, as witness:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28
BUT
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord." Colossians 3:22


----------



## KRoad (Jun 1, 2012)

Rapide said:


> I was perplexed by a member who declared that he was questioning the "underlying values" of classical music. Unfortunately, the member did not specifically state what he meant by "underlying values".
> 
> So, do you think are "underlying values" in classical music? What are these? Are these perceptions? Are they self-imposed?
> 
> I invite your thoughts.


Such a gross generalisation, so broad as to be almost meaningless. However, A quick and obvious response is: the underlying value of any CM is to prop up and "please" (in a politically correct fashion) whatever status quo it is that is commissioning the music in the first place - be it the church, paying public or even totalitarian state. Sorry guy, but this is a rather naive question that should not be seduced by any idea of listening aesthetics or sense of nobility on the part of the composer.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

The underlying value is complexity.

In various cases, people of various backgrounds appreciated Western classical music, especially given the implication that without recorded music most of them would be lucky to hear it only a few times during their whole life. If there was anything elitist about it, it was the cost of paying for performances that involved large numbers of singers and musicians.

The idea that it was elitist probably became prominent with the rise of commercial pop music. The irony is that if one looks at elitism in terms of financial and secular power, then it's likely commercial pop that's elitist as the industry behind that is much more powerful economically compared to classical, which together with others are marginalized.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Ralfy said:


> The underlying value is complexity.


Really?


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

If the underlying value of classical music is in buttressing a social elite, then the moment it ceases to do so it loses its value, and its meaning.

It no longer buttresses a social elite.

It has not lost its value.

Therefore the underlying value in classical music cannot be to buttress a social elite.

I apologise for the somewhat terse nature of this post, but it seems clearer than my rant which I deleted, and I doubt anyone will be the sadder for a shorter post


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ramako said:


> If the underlying value of classical music is in buttressing a social elite, then the moment it ceases to do so it loses its value, and its meaning.
> 
> It no longer buttresses a social elite.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure that art ever has a single function, but I agree that classical music appears to be losing its association with elite status. But let's not overstate the case:

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/l...-about-more-elite-parties-and-private-schools


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Actually it cannot be complexity either. The usual pro-classical argument is that is more complex and requires longer attention spans than other types of music. This can be true - there are few if any things outside classical music that are more complex than, say Beethoven's 9th, or Bach's B minor mass. However there are plenty of pieces, as Mahlerian as just demonstrated, that are not so complex. Are these not proper classical?

Classical music exhibits a different aesthetic to other musics. The notes themselves make us feel differently, and these feelings are difficult to translate which is why it is impossible (perhaps, I don't know, maybe it is possible) to base a scholarly argument on it. Of course, these aesthetics change vastly from genre to genre within classical music, and to an extent from composer to composer. But they also differ from other sorts of music. It transformed from having religious values to having secular art values over a few hundred years.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

science said:


> I'm not sure that art ever has a single function, but I agree that classical music appears to be losing its association with elite status. But let's not overstate the case:
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/l...-about-more-elite-parties-and-private-schools


Certainly these things exist but my argument is that they are not intrinsic to the music; they matter to us less and less - though they once did. But many of the great aristocratic sponsors of the arts were not sponsors because it was a nice feather in their cap - they did it because they loved the arts, though there were some feather-feeders too.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

science said:


> I agree with the premise but not the conclusion. If you look at Christianity any time between Constantine and World War One, you have to be aware that it was _at least in part_ a justification of elite privilege. Arts that made it more persuasive, such as music and architecture, are implicated.
> 
> I'm not sure what something "purely spiritual" would look like, but it wouldn't look like the Crusades or the wars of religion or the witch trials.
> 
> Maybe, maybe this is true today. In some places. But it wasn't true in Western Europe from the fourth to the nineteenth centuries, and if it had been true, the aristocracies wouldn't have tolerated let alone sponsored it.


True, you have this small group of so-called 'elites' who have for centuries used things like church and various different things to help further their goals, but I don't think that changes the underlying values of the things they are using/corrupting.

This small group of people some call 'elites' and their greed have been the cause of the problems, though I'm sure they would like it if people would blame things like religion and music instead of the underlying problem which is this very small group of psychopaths who will stoop to any level and do anything to stay in power.

But at the end of the day it is generally not these people who have been great composers or spiritually enlightened individuals.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Never mind - tdc said it better first time anyway.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I have no idea what a well-balanced individual or a nutjob might perceive. Different things may trigger different things.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Hey, the elites have not all been psychopaths. There were good guys too, and besides, if it wasn't for them, a lot of music would not be around now, since there would be no one to sponsor it. Now, if today's wealthy folks are not so eager to support the arts, that is a bad sign. 

I think beauty is the chief value in any of the arts and in music as well. Isn't that what all the arts are created for: to satisfy man's need for beauty? It seems to be quite a recent idea that all art has to be some sort of social commentary. 

Sorry if I come across as Captain Obvious


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ramako said:


> Certainly these things exist but my argument is that they are not intrinsic to the music; they matter to us less and less - though they once did.


Speaking very technically, I'm not sure anything is intrinsic to the music. But speaking culturally, elitism has been intrinsic to the _definition_ of classical music - until very recent times, at least, and to some degree even now.



Ramako said:


> But many of the great aristocratic sponsors of the arts were not sponsors because it was a nice feather in their cap - they did it because they loved the arts, though there were some feather-feeders too.


That's probably what they consciously believed, most of the time. I'll carry this discussion over into my response to tdc.



tdc said:


> True, you have this small group of so-called 'elites' who have for centuries used things like church and various different things to help further their goals, but I don't think that changes the underlying values of the things they are using/corrupting.
> 
> This small group of people some call 'elites' and their greed have been the cause of the problems, though I'm sure they would like it if people would blame things like religion and music instead of the underlying problem which is this very small group of psychopaths who will stoop to any level and do anything to stay in power.
> 
> But at the end of the day it is generally not these people who have been great composers or spiritually enlightened individuals.


I'd be a bit surprised if more aristocrats or other oligarchs are psychopaths than the population as the whole. But anyway, psychopaths are an extreme case. I'm thinking of ordinary humans, and as far as I can tell that includes most oligarchs and most of their supporters.

Ordinary humans, you and I and everyone who reads this, are status-seeking animals: it affects nearly everything we do, nearly every thought or feeling that passes into our consciousness, from our religious experiences to our taste in music to our posture to whether we find a particular joke funny to whether we find a particular argument persuasive to the moral values that compel our consciences. If that is "corrupt," nothing human is "pure," and certainly not art. Of course we must not be conscious of this most of the time: our social strategies generally must be unconscious to be effective. But our consciousness is literally a mere "afterthought" to most of our mental processes; our mind seems to operate our consciousness on a "need to know basis."

From what I can tell, aside from exceptional musical talent most "great composers" are ordinary humans in this respect. Perhaps not "spiritually enlightened individuals." But then, feet of clay.

Anyway, we have to go on living our lives one way or the other, we are mere humans like all other humans, and no matter what my subconscious is up to (which I'm not going to be able to find out in any detail anyway), my consciousness really enjoys a lot of classical music, and wants to enjoy more. And as I'm currently unaware of anything wrong with it, that's what I plan to do.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

By the way, I think behind some of the comments there might be a little bit of unnecessary discomfort with the idea of status seeking. I mean, who cares if Beethoven was seeking status? Of course he was, but so what? I can enjoy his music just as well. 

There are many ways of seeking status, and perhaps the single greatest insight of modernity is that of republican capitalism: we can construct our societies in ways that cause people to benefit each other as they seek status (or, wealth, which is a form of status). Not all that long ago military prowess was the primary way to seek status, and the result was a negative sum game in which there was very little music except for what you and your acquaintances could find time to make together. But now, for the time being at least, we've arranged our incentives more productively, and one result is that we have a lot more music to enjoy than our ancestors did.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

science said:


> Speaking very technically, I'm not sure anything is intrinsic to the music. But speaking culturally, elitism has been intrinsic to the _definition_ of classical music - until very recent times, at least, and to some degree even now.


Well that is of course a different matter which I am not equipped with the terminology to debate. However, if I may define my term in that it is entirely possible to get along with the business of classical music, with or without social status seeking, whereas there are some things necessary to it.



science said:


> That's probably what they consciously believed, most of the time. I'll carry this discussion over into my response to tdc.


Just an example:

Nicholas Esterhazy was a great patron of the arts - his successor disbanded most of the orchestra and indeed cared for music very little. He kept Haydn mostly because of the fame he reflected upon himself - like a nice ornament in his ego. This is a man who used classical music to buttress his social standing. This man had pretty little to do with music in general in fact. Nicholas loved music for its own merit, as is often attested. So here we see one man who patronised classical music because he enjoyed it, and another who did very little to support it but used it as a social buttress.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ramako said:


> Nicholas loved music for its own merit, as is often attested.


I'm sure that he loved music genuinely; and therefore he gained some status (perhaps even without consciously trying to do so), which has obviously lasted even until this very discussion. His successor evidently loved other things more - probably in part because he (subconsciously) judged that he had more effective ways to buttress his status...


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

science said:


> By the way, I think behind some of the comments there might be a little bit of unnecessary discomfort with the idea of status seeking. I mean, who cares if Beethoven was seeking status? Of course he was, but so what? I can enjoy his music just as well.


This priority of social status seems to me to be valid, but overemphasised as a human motivator. People to do more than justify themselves in other people's eyes.

Of course Beethoven wanted some justification... In fact the majority of great composers according to history seem to have had egos of a size appropriate to their talent. That does not mean he was seeking to support an elite oligarchical social elite.



science said:


> I'm sure that he loved music genuinely; and therefore he gained some status (perhaps even without consciously trying to do so), which has obviously lasted even until this very discussion. His successor evidently loved other things more - probably in part because he (subconsciously) judged that he had more effective ways to buttress his status...


Honestly! - it sounds like you are trying to suggest that the motivator for all human action is gaining status!


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ramako said:


> it is entirely possible to get along with the business of classical music, with or without social status seeking


I'm looking at this more radically than you are. I'm not sure it is possible for a normal human to do anything without an element of status seeking. Maybe something, but not much. Babies smile to seek status. People usually don't poo in public because we don't want to lose status. We speak the dialect of our childhood peers because that is how we gain status among them. We laugh at powerful people's jokes because we're seeking status. We mimic attractive people's body language because we're seeking status. Sometimes our immune system even weakens so that we can get sick so that we can get more attention (status). Art and religion are _par excellence_ status seeking activities.



Ramako said:


> Honestly! - it sounds like you are trying to suggest that the motivator for all human action is gaining status!


Yes! Probably - or, at least, almost.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Mencken Complexity Law*

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." 
H. L. Mencken


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ramako said:


> That does not mean [Beethoven] was seeking to support an elite oligarchical social elite.


You mean, whether he was _consciously_ seeking to do so, right?

Beethoven himself lived in an interesting turning point - for a few generations previous, the social elite had gained status by supporting artists, but in Beethoven's time they were beginning to gain support by _appreciating_ artists.

To what degree was Beethoven conscious of that? To what degree did he realize - consciously and/or unconsciously - that his own status depended on his ability to create music that would be recognized by key demographics as "great," but too challenging or radical for others?

We'll never know. Beethoven himself probably didn't know. And very much to the point: he would almost certainly have indignantly, scornfully, furiously refused to consider such questions.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

science said:


> Beethoven himself lived in an interesting turning point - for a few generations previous, the social elite had gained status by supporting artists, but in Beethoven's time they were beginning to gain support by _appreciating_ artists.
> 
> To what degree was Beethoven conscious of that? To what degree did he realize - consciously and/or unconsciously - that his own status depended on his ability to create music that would be recognized by key demographics as "great," but too challenging or radical for others?


An interesting question, one that Cooper addresses. Most of Beethoven's early works in Vienna were on aristocratic commission, so he was naturally sensitive to their tastes. Still, even at that time he always sold the works to publishers (meaning the broader public) when the specified interval for "sole use and enjoyment" had passed.

By 1810, commissions were drying up as the fortunes of the local aristocracy shrank. From that point on, Beethoven wrote almost exclusively for publication. The major exception was the quartet commission from Prince Nicholas Galitzin, who was of course removed from the scene, in Russia. Even then, Beethoven's negotiations with publishers for the quartets were extended and vigorous. And profitable, too!

Hard to tell what was in Beethoven's head through this change; I've never read any comment that he made.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

You are talking in a psychological model, science, but you have yet to provide proof for it. It seems to me unconvincing. I can think of a fair few motivators on the top of my head which can and frequently do act in direct contradiction to the 'social status' seeking desire, even if that is possibly the most pervasive and subversive to our existence. Not least that humans are not rational and frequently act against their own interests, if not, indeed, most of the time. However I notice that provision is made for that one.


----------



## Hausmusik (May 13, 2012)

The following classic essay might be of interest to participants in this discussion:
Walter Benjamin, "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Ramako said:


> You are talking in a psychological model, science, but you have yet to provide proof for it. It seems to me unconvincing. I can think of a fair few motivators on the top of my head which can and frequently do act in direct contradiction to the 'social status' seeking desire, even if that is possibly the most pervasive and subversive to our existence. Not least that humans are not rational and frequently act against their own interests, if not, indeed, most of the time. However I notice that provision is made for that one.


I didn't mean to suggest that social status is the only motivation we have, or that it is always dominant. Drug addiction alone proves that wrong. And of course human behavior has yet more mysteries.

I am by inclination extremely cynical, so I am probably overstating the case. It may well seem unconvincing to you just because you're less cynical than I am. But I think the ideas I've mentioned here would in general at least not be surprising to most academic psychologists, but I admit that I am more confident in them than I have a right to be, in terms of pure, strict science.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

I probably took issue with you more than necessary science, partly because I misunderstood you. I also think it is partly a terminological thing (anything with the word 'social' in sends warning bells ringing in my brain), and we might be closer in agreement than at first sight.

I can be fairly cynical, but also fairly trusting, so I cede the cynic prize to you!


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> Really?


Of course, unless what you just presented represents the majority.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Ramako said:


> Actually it cannot be complexity either. The usual pro-classical argument is that is more complex and requires longer attention spans than other types of music. This can be true - there are few if any things outside classical music that are more complex than, say Beethoven's 9th, or Bach's B minor mass. However there are plenty of pieces, as Mahlerian as just demonstrated, that are not so complex. Are these not proper classical?
> 
> Classical music exhibits a different aesthetic to other musics. The notes themselves make us feel differently, and these feelings are difficult to translate which is why it is impossible (perhaps, I don't know, maybe it is possible) to base a scholarly argument on it. Of course, these aesthetics change vastly from genre to genre within classical music, and to an extent from composer to composer. But they also differ from other sorts of music. It transformed from having religious values to having secular art values over a few hundred years.


I believe that Western classical music extends from simple works that are only two minutes long to others that are many hours long, but I think complexity still represents the genre given the type and quality of instruments involved, the type of recording equipment, the quality of the audio equipment needed, and the level of concentration needed to appreciate many of them.

Very likely for those who are not fond of classical music, Beethoven's 9th and Bach's B minor Mass are more than enough in terms of complexity.

In contrast, Western commercial pop music is fairly steady, i.e., several bars and several cords for a three-minute or so performance, usually regular beat, etc. That's why pop music is very easy to appreciate and similar to Western folk tunes.


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Something I shared previously (probably more than once) in this forum:

"Scientists start accounting for taste"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1405449.stm

No conclusions can be made from this, but it does lend to interesting views concerning art and the human brain. I recall Fred Turner point out how the human brain is generally attracted to a fairly steady beat, catchy tunes, vivid images, etc., and might explain why people will generally have no difficulty, say, watching television or listening to pop music, but will require more effort in reading a book or listening to Western classical music.

The implication is that the human brain is by default wired to easily accept less complex works, and that includes simple forms of classical music as well as much of commercial pop. This might also explain why the latter in general follows a standard pattern. I'm not sure if it was Joseph Epstein who said it, but I recall one essay that referred to the ff. characteristics for pop music: a regular beat, usually major scales, around fifteen bars or so of music, around three minutes long, easy-to-follow melodies or maybe three-or-so chords, etc. Of course, there are things like "baroque rock" and concept albums, but I think they are more exceptions than the rule.

And since various religious songs are structured in the same way, that one can have "feelings" towards such works, etc., that they can also be seen as "aesthetic," etc., then I'm afraid the only thing that will explain the "underlying value" of classical music and why it is considered elitist is complexity. That is, most people won't appreciate it because it requires effort to do so.


----------

