# Classical Music is Dead (yawn!)



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

It seems that I can't brave the internet these days without seeing one of those "Classical music isn't popular anymore" articles. Which makes me wonder, when was classical music popular?

I'm guessing that the 18th and 19th centuries are the most obvious candidates but it doesn't add up. During the 18th century, attending a concert in Paris meant that you sit in the box or the parterre. At the time, the parterre was just people walking about and socializing. The band played on in the background whilst the parterre folk mingled and socialized. Chatting, flirting, gambling, pick a fight, pick up a courtesan…it all happened in the parterre. They didn't care about the music until they heard a favourite tune and something they could sing along to. Charles Dickens wrote about the same problems in London when he complained that the women's crying babies were drowning out the music.

It would cost you 4 livre to sit in the box or 2 livre for the parterre in 1750. The middle class was probably making about 1 livre a day at the time. However, the problem was that most only had a disposable income of around 2%. The middle class did attend but not frequently. They had to save up enough money to do so. Only a small percentage of Parisians could afford it. Considering that about 80% of the populace lived in the country. Even if they could afford it, how many had access to a concert?

London was much the same. It cost almost 11 shilling to see Handel's Messiah in 1763. The middle class were earning about 9 pence to 3 shilling a week. In 1790, The Professional Concert series had 500 subscribers who were paying 5 guineas (105 shilling) for 12 performances. That's beyond everyone but the rich.

The rehearsals for Music for the Royal Fireworks was a bargain at under 3 shilling but I don't think it was the norm. A lot of concert hall members insisted on higher prices to reduce the riff-raff.
The problem was that wages and disposable income didn't change that much until the 20th century. An 8 concert subscription in London (1830) cost 6 guineas (126 shilling) but the middle class still only had about 3 shilling to spend each week.

To me, it seems that if you worked, you couldn't afford to attend concerts except for the upper middle class on occasion. That doesn't seem very popular at all. The bourgeoisie were very few.
No doubt, this prompted the popularity of music halls which only cost a shilling to get in and they played popular tunes that the working class were familiar with.

So, is the decline in classical music only referring to the 20th and 21st centuries? Sure, it has had to compete with radio/tv/internet which may cause some waning popularity but it has also broken down the class barriers. Classical music is being attended by the working class like never before. It no longer has a niche market. Is it as popular as pop music? No but it never was in Beethoven's day either.

The annual figures for Paris' new concert hall have just come out. http://www.musicalamerica.com/mablogs/?p=30221
It suggests that the music is far from dying. Paris has other concert halls so I expect the figures for them are doing okay as well.

Damn the naysayers. I'm no historian but I'm going to argue that classical music is more popular today than ever before. Thoughts?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Yes, I get the impression from the doomsayers that there was once a magical time (basically from the Big Bang up to the appearance of Elvis) when _everyone_ listened to classical music. Actual data are never provided though, so your information is refreshing.


----------



## GioCar (Oct 30, 2013)

:trp:

For the first time after years, the Italian sales for classical music recordings (CDs, downloads, Vinyls) has registered a 19% increase* (1st semester of 2015 compared to the same period of the previous year).

:trp:

*FIMI data (the Italian branch of the IFPI - International Federation of the Phonographic Industry)


----------



## Guest (Jan 19, 2016)

I'm not sure about other markets but most of the concerts I've attended last year have been packed. And I attended 39 concerts... (in Montreal)


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Whenever I have tried to get numbers on the decline, I have not been able to find anything I felt was close to definitive. Most surveys show the change over the past few decades although one went back to before WWII. The one that went back to WWII or so seemed to indicate that successive generations have a smaller percentage interested in classical music, but I believe they focused on concert attendance rather than other ways to hear music. 

Even though before 1900 concerts may have cost more than middle class people could afford, classical music may have been the music of choice for rich people. Generally people seem to use 3% or so for classical music interest (although that is CD purchases I believe), so if people rich enough to attend concerts constituted 5-10% of the population before 1900, that group could still have exceeded today's interest.

Overall, I think this question is very difficult to answer for periods before that last few decades, and even then, the data seem rather incomplete.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

This makes the usual mistake of assuming the "pop music" audience is more working class than it actually is. The working class doesn't have the money to spend or the time to care - as opposed to the petite bourgeoisie, who buy Adele albums today, and went to Mozart and Verdi operas and bought Brahms sheet music back when.

That said, classical music wasn't dead, but then Boulez died, so now it is.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

None of this matters, and that's why I laugh at this and listen to whatever I want, whenever I want. 100 years from now, everyone alive now and everything eventful happening will be in history books or on the history internet. And they will laugh at us, the things we thought, and the things we did. That we waited 15 seconds for Youtube videos to load. That we had to charge iPods. Or owned iPods. Look at a show like _Mad Men_. Moms smoking in the kitchen, in front of the children. Neighbors slapping kids, and when the father finds out and expresses shock, you expect him to scream "Why are you slapping my son?!?!" Instead he slaps the kid too. And *that was only 50-60 years ago*. Some of you WERE that kid getting slapped while your mother smoked and cooked. So why this rant? Because 100 years from now we'll be laughed at for being on an "internet forum" and shopping in "record stores" or arguing whether Steve Reich will be remembered as a great composer. And why should they have an answer? We still can't agree on Bruckner. And if Classical Music "Dies" they day after I do, well that's just fine with me. Until then I have my music.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

scratchgolf said:


> None of this matters, and that's why I laugh at this and listen to whatever I want, whenever I want. 100 years from now, everyone alive now and everything eventful happening will be in history books or on the history internet. And they will laugh at us, the things we thought, and the things we did.


I wish I could be so optimistic. But I personally suspect that scholars of the future will be gathering to give pedantic lectures meant to establish the historical importance of TalkClassical posts in the first quarter of the 21st century.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

More likely they'll dissect brains in an attempt to find why even one, single person found anything that came out of a Kardashian mouth newsworthy. And, speaking of Kanye West, they'll wanna dissect brains on that one too. Basically, the slogan "Don't be like people who lived in 2016" will catch on quickly. Any lectures will be on NEVER repeating history.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Classical music of the past is not an immediate reflection of the present, but it is not "dead," in the sense that it still holds value which transcends the moment and is of permanent value.

To say a music is "dead" implies that it is irrelevant or useless in some sense, but this is true of all music to some degree. I think what is really being implied here is that music should reflect and embody the vitality of now, and should be reflective of current concerns and issues and lifestyles. All such criteria are doomed to become irrelevant and to age and "die" along with the people who embody these criteria.

What we should really be seeking in music, or in any expression of art, are those elements in it which are "undying" and permanent, and are thus universal.

~


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

Classical music is studied in every country in the world. It's far from dead.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

scratchgolf said:


> Look at a show like _Mad Men_. Moms smoking in the kitchen, in front of the children. Neighbors slapping kids, and when the father finds out and expresses shock, you expect him to scream "Why are you slapping my son?!?!" Instead he slaps the kid too. And *that was only 50-60 years ago*.


_Mad Men_ is not about 50-60 years ago. _Mad Men_ is about people 8 years ago creating a fantasy version of 50-60 years ago to make them/us feel good about them/ourselves.



scratchgolf said:


> We still can't agree on Bruckner.


But we can agree about Wagner, whether we like it or not - which makes our inability to agree about Bruckner itself a kind of agreement.


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Harold in Columbia said:


> _Mad Men_ is not about 50-60 years ago. _Mad Men_ is about people 8 years ago creating a fantasy version of 50-60 years ago to make them/us feel good about them/ourselves.
> 
> But we can agree about Wagner, whether we like it or not - which makes our inability to agree about Bruckner itself a kind of agreement.


Fantasy, littered with nostalgic reality. Smoking in the home, sexual harassment at the office, drinking at work. These are not inventions of the show, or any other show. Those were the realities of the 50s - 60s in America. While we're at it, toss in 70s. And 80s. And 90s. And i don't know what next decade is called but toss it in too. And Teens? Seriously! What the hell do you call decades after the 90s?!?!?

I catch your drift and I think you catch mine. With as drastically as things change, and as fast as technology is moving, who's to say we'll even be here in 100 years, and if we are, who's to say anyone knows who Bruckner was, or cares? I like to think it will be a better world and I can't imagine a better world without music. Bruckner may be studied in primary school in a good future. Look at the way we depicted even the turn of the century in 70s Sci-Fi television. Shouldn't we be wearing silver suits by now and listening to only synthetic noises coming from rainbow boxes? I laugh at those depictions now because they were serious at the time, yet had no way of knowing how dead wrong they were. Who can predict the future? We can only shape it, in the smallest of ways. I know my sons will leave my house with proper musical training and exposure. Hopefully other parents stress it similarly. Then let the composers compose, the consumers consume (whatever they choose), and let history decide what labels to apply, and where.


----------



## Harold in Columbia (Jan 10, 2016)

scratchgolf said:


> Fantasy, littered with nostalgic reality. Smoking in the home, sexual harassment at the office, drinking at work. These are not inventions of the show, or any other show. Those were the realities of the 50s - 60s in America.


True. Also acceptance of spousal and child abuse - not just slapping, but really beating. I would say that is maybe the most significant change of all in mores in America, western Europe, and Japan since the '50s-'60s - and maybe not coincidentally, it's one thing that _Mad Men_ ignores, because it's hard to make that aspect of the bad old days titillatingly shocking, as opposed to just depressing.



scratchgolf said:


> And Teens? Seriously! What the hell do you call decades after the 90s?!?!?


Ha - just wait four more years. Then we'll have to start specifying which "'20s."


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Perhaps they won't roar this time around.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

regenmusic said:


> Classical music is studied in every country in the world. It's far from dead.


Yes. Perhaps there are too many "dead listeners". LOL!!


----------



## scratchgolf (Nov 15, 2013)

Harold in Columbia said:


> True. Also acceptance of spousal and child abuse - not just slapping, but really beating. I would say that is maybe the most significant change of all in mores in America, western Europe, and Japan since the '50s-'60s - and maybe not coincidentally, it's one thing that _Mad Men_ ignores, because it's hard to make that aspect of the bad old days titillatingly shocking, as opposed to just depressing.


Honestly, I spanked my oldest because I was raised that way. Not beating mind you. Good ol' fashion tannings. But my temperament and stance has softened with age. I never spank my youngest and I'm quite opposed to spanking now, although my little guy is spoiled rotten and he knows it. But education on all important tasks begins in the home and that's why people crying "Classical Music is Dying!" is simply a reflection on what's happening around them. In society. I love my sons and I believe I'm raising them well, but I'm scared as hell to turn them loose in this world. I was lucky.

And for smoking in the home today, it's 100% inexcusable if any nonsmokers live in the home, and even if you're single, makes hosting difficult and makes no sense from a resale standpoint. Yet people still smoke in homes and cars around children. In the 50s it was a norm and generally accepted. The people who did it also had jobs and families and cars and paid taxes and had mostly normal lives. When I see a parent now smoking in a vehicle with a child, I question more than their selfishness. I assume that most of the decisions they've made in there life have been equally bad. It's not a stretch, given that literally every single person in the civilized world knows what they're doing is stupid. It might sound judgmental, and I don't care. I'm certain their lives are a dumpster fires, on the whole. Sometimes I'm just not sure what to think and listening to music is a welcomed escape.


----------



## papsrus (Oct 7, 2014)

Where are these articles littering the internet day after day proclaiming that classical music is dead? 

I honestly can't recall reading a single one -- at least one of any significance. I'm much more likely to stumble across articles enthusing about the music. Or at least offering some informed commentary on it, rather than lamenting its demise. 

As with anything, there are always challenges of one sort or another. Demise? I don't see it.


----------



## dsphipps100 (Jan 10, 2016)

I agree completely with Couac Addict.









I would also go on to suggest that "classical" (or perhaps I should be more specific and say "orchestral") music is very much alive in the movie soundtracks of today. After all, the world's best composers are (mostly) going to go where the best composer paychecks can be found, and at this moment, that's in movie soundtracks.

(For those of you who doubt, you might want to read up on how Beethoven's and R. Strauss's publishers used to complain about what a hard bargain they both drove. Strauss even had jokes told about him - how he was sitting in back of the stage counting ticket receipts while the orchestra onstage was blasting forth his latest tone poem with an even bigger orchestra than the last tone poem called for. A smaller orchestra sells smaller ticket receipts, after all....)

I'm not saying that ALL movie soundtracks should be considered "art", because there's obviously plenty of garbage in the soundtrack business, but some of it has already entered the "classic" repertoire, like Erich Korngold's Robin Hood, Max Steiner's Gone With the Wind, Prokofiev's Alexander Nevsky. And given enough time and perspective of history, I would bet that some soundtracks from people like Miklos Rozsa, Bernard Herrmann, Elmer Bernstein, John Williams (and I could name a few more) will wind up being viewed at least partially as classical repertoire, just as Beethoven's Egmont, Schubert's Rosamunde, Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream, and Bizet's L'arlessienne have all done. (Incidental music, after all, is basically just a soundtrack that was not recorded on celluloid film since it didn't exist yet.)


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

If you consider opera alone in the USA , things are vastly different now from the past . Until recent decades, the only major centers for opera in America were New York, Chicago and San Francisco .
But today , there are important opera companies in Los Angeles, Dallas, Houston, Washington DC,
Pittsburgh, Seattle, Minneapolis, Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia , and all over the country, plus 
important opera festivals in Santa Fe, New Mexico, Cooperstown, NY (the home of baseball !),
Cincinnati , and elsewhere . 
The number of opera companies has grown exponentially from the past . Yes, some of these companies are having trouble financially, and several have gone under , but there is still a bigger audience for opera than ever before in America .


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Seems like the only place was Italy, where the quality and function of opera was that of a broadway musical or TV show. 

Today's paradise is Asia, where people can't distinguish K-Pop from Ravel.


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

papsrus said:


> Where are these articles littering the internet day after day proclaiming that classical music is dead?


Here's one. http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/...les_decline_is_classical_on_death_s_door.html
Though you could just as easily google "classical music is dead" and you'll find plenty of moaning".



superhorn said:


> The number of opera companies has grown exponentially from the past . Yes, some of these companies are having trouble financially, and several have gone under , but there is still a bigger audience for opera than ever before in America .


Definately. The Americans have worked miracles considering the budgets they have to work with. I suspect a lot of these articles are coming from the USA. That doesn't mean that the music is dead, it's just horribly underfunded. It's hard to promote classical music to people who have never been introduced to it. Music is compulsory in France and it starts in your first year of school.
In Paris, the federal budget allocates 117€ per person to the arts and Paris adds 50€ on top of that. I'm not sure what the local governments adds to it. 
The US allocated 45 US cents per person...and the states aren't contributing. Unless you think that Georgia's 6 cents is doing anything meaningful. Seriously, how is Puerto Rico the #2 largest arts budget?!?
http://theartnewspaper.com/news/news/us-arts-funding-by-the-numbers/


----------



## Couac Addict (Oct 16, 2013)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Today's paradise is Asia, where people can't distinguish K-Pop from Ravel.


I think you're right. There is definitely something brewing in Asia (or already brewed). We toured there a few years back and received a big reception. We're not even Paris' #1 orchestra...not even the #2 haha. Not as wild as the Berlin Philharmonika in Taiwan but still good. (fast forward to them exiting the hall)


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

regenmusic said:


> Classical music is studied in every country in the world. It's far from dead.


Hear, hear:tiphat:


----------



## Iean (Nov 17, 2015)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Seems like the only place was Italy, where the quality and function of opera was that of a broadway musical or TV show.
> 
> Today's paradise is Asia, *where people can't distinguish K-Pop from Ravel.*


Welcome to Asia:angel:


----------

