# Naming & dispelling the cliches of classical music (Andrew Ford)



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

In his book _In Defence of Classical Music _(ABC Books, 2005), Australian musicologist Andrew Ford lists and discusses some popular misconceptions or cliches related to classical music. I just thought I'd put these out there for members here to comment on. He discusses in detail why these cliches are misleading, but I don't want to infringe copyright by copying all of his chapter, so here is his "list" along with some key quotes detailing Ford's responses to the cliches. Some of them are contradictory, this is simply because many of the cliches out there are exactly like that...

*1. You need a special education to understand classical music.*

"...you don't need a special education, anyone at any time can appreciate classical music, just by listening to it."

*2. With classical music, you should just lie back and let it wash over you.*

"As with any worthwhile music, listening is active, not passive. Classical music will not do all the work for you."

*3. People who like classical music are snobs.*

"Well some of them are. There are also folk-music snobs and techno snobs and blues snobs, God knows, jazz snobs. It is human nature to believe that the things you like are the best."

*4. Classical music, especially Mozart, will make you more intelligent.*

Ford talks about experiments on lab rats - a certain Mozart piece helps them find their way around a maze. He questions the utility of such experiments & whether this can also be applied to people.

*5. Listening to classical music will make you a better human being.*

"This is a particularly insidious myth, but fortunately an easy one to dispel. Here is how you do it. Write a list of all those composers from history who were drunks, drug addicts, lechers, liars, debtors, grasping ingrates, appalling paranoid whingers or insufferably arrogant pricks. Now cross their names off the list of all the composers who have ever lived. You will find you are left with the Abbess Hildegard of Bingen and perhaps three or four others. If classical music is composed by reprobates of that order, why should it be morally improving to listen to it?...Art does not affect your morals. Art is art and life is life and if you cannot tell the difference, you are to some degree deluded. And I include in that category fundamentalist wowsers of every religious and political hue."

*6. Composers are mysterious and unknowable*

"Well, yes and no...I strongly believe that we all compose, all the time. A surprising amount of speech is music. It is how we communicate with each other...The meaning behind human speech is in the music as much as the words. More so, in a way. When we speak, the words can say one thing, the music something else...To that extent, composing is certainly a mystery, but it is a mystery we all share. And the mystery includes saying what music is about."

*7. Symphony concerts are intimidating.*

"It is often maintained that if only orchestral players were cool and wore jeans, people would flock to concerts. Today's orchestras are determined to seem modern and relevant at all costs. And I do mean all costs: the money spent on image, as opposed to music, would probably astonish most concertgoers...The ritual associated with orchestral concerts - when to clap, when not to talk - are part of the experience. Even the black and white clothes are there to aid the audience's concentration on the music. And if the listener is able to concentrate, and assuming there is money left after the orchestra's image makeover to pay for adequate rehearsal time, the music is frequently thrilling..."

*8. Opera is highbrow.*

"...Far from requiring a higher degree to appreciate it, much opera benefits from suspension of intellect as well as belief. The plots of comic operas tend towards farce (with a regular admixture of slapstick), while the tragedies are frequently melodramatic tear-jerkers. Of course if you poke around beneath the surface of even the most popular operas - say, those by Donizetti or Verdi - you may begin to discover some of the same complexities that are present in Wagner. But you don't have to do this to have a good time."

*9. Chamber music is more intimidating than orchestral music and more highbrow than opera.*

"Unless it is intimidating or highbrow to concentrate, this cliche provides yet more nonsense. Concentration is not as easy for people today as it was before television - in other words, when most chamber music was composed. But the concentration required for chamber music is not necessarily just a matter of time - some chamber pieces are quite short - it is an inward sort of concentration...With a few exceptions, chamber music is classical music at its most conversational, at its most intimate and intense. And the experience of chamber music can be equally intimate and intense."

*10. Classical music is better than other music.*

"Western art music is one of the great achievements of our civilisation in the last millenium, there can be no doubt about it. But there is very little point in comparing Rossini with the Rolling Stones, Elgar with Eminem or Stravinsky with the Scissor Sisters because they have so little in common. One type of music is not inherently superior to another...Classical music is not better than other sorts of music, but different..."


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Although No. 1 is certainly a cliche, I don't think it's as indefensible as all the others. The statement: "you need a special education to understand classical music" is obviously far too broad to have any real meaning anyway, but there is admittedly a lot of (20th/21st century) classical music that is almost purely academic, and is largely inaccessible to newcomers.

I'd add to 7, 8, and 9 that audiences ought to feel much more welcomed to such performances as ticket prices (at least in my experience) tend to be so much cheaper than for mainstream 'celebrity' concerts!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Interesting set above. The two that seem to be the most common cliches/perceptions that I happen to experience are #8 and #10.

Opera, at least in this country, seem to suffer most when it comes to perceptions of highbrow/connotations of elitism in the sense that it appeals "only to folks who understand high culture". Much of that undoubtedly come from the limited opera productions we have for a small-ish population of twenty-plus million people in Australia; and in particular, the exercise of monopoly production by _Opera Australia_ centred in Sydney and to a lesser extent, Melbourne. One only needs to read the sponsorship list of productions to see the big name corporations' involvement, the grand building that is the Sydney Opera House (and its premium location), the price of opera tickets and the entire marketing image of productions to realise that opera here can easily be misconstrued as a prestige oriented entertainment. Of course, none of that is at all true about the music itself.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Polednice said:


> Although No. 1 is certainly a cliche, I don't think it's as indefensible as all the others.


I agree. Obviously education is not necessary to enjoy a lot of classical music, but I suspect that it helps. My wife feels that music lessons (performance) while young can have a significant effect as well.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

The problem with classical music for most people is that you _do_ need a bit of education. You at least need to know what is meant by "movement," "string quartet," "symphony," "sonata," "opus," "aria," "concerto," and a hundred other things. You also need a rough knowledge of the history of music, and some small knowledge of music theory.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Opera, at least in this country, seem to suffer most when it comes to perceptions of highbrow/connotations of elitism in the sense that it appeals "only to folks who understand high culture".


I agree. Years ago when she was studying something at technical college, a teacher asked my mother what music she liked. When she answered "opera," she got wierd looks from the teacher. & note that my mother was talking merely of liking opera, not going to see it - she didn't have an opportunity to do that all her life, particularly then when she was raising two children. But of course, this kind of antipathy towards classical music, and opera in particular, has changed since then, with things like the three tenors making opera a bit more mainstream.

Nevertheless, many people think all opera is long, serious and bombastic like Wagner, and (as we know) this is simply not the case. Many people hate Wagner but love say Mozart, who is completely different. There is a misconception that all opera goers are lovers of the Wagner cult, when in truth there is much diversity. Some people like Baroque chamber opera, others like Italian opera or modern opera, or indeed Wagner (or everything).

@ Polednice, mmsbls, Webernite:

I think what Ford was trying to emphasise is that knowledge of music, or being educated about it in some way, is not something that is a prerequisite for enjoying or liking classical music in the first place. In the beginning, everyone is a novice and there is much to learn. I remember when I started getting into classical music as a teenager. I didn't start from scratch because my parents liked classical music, but they weren't experts in it in any way. Now more than 20 years later, I have overtaken my parents in my familiarity with classical music. But then again, compared to some people on forums like this, I am still a novice (aren't we all, to some degree, even musicologists like Andrew Ford would never claim to know everything). I think the most important thing is the passion, not necessarily your level of education or knowledge. The more you are passionate about something, the more you will inevitably learn about it, as your passion grows and develops...


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Andre said:


> @ Polednice, mmsbls, Webernite:
> 
> I think what Ford was trying to emphasise is that knowledge of music, or being educated about it in some way, is not something that is a prerequisite for enjoying or liking classical music in the first place. In the beginning, everyone is a novice and there is much to learn. I remember when I started getting into classical music as a teenager. I didn't start from scratch because my parents liked classical music, but they weren't experts in it in any way. Now more than 20 years later, I have overtaken my parents in my familiarity with classical music. But then again, compared to some people on forums like this, I am still a novice (aren't we all, to some degree, even musicologists like Andrew Ford would never claim to know everything). I think the most important thing is the passion, not necessarily your level of education or knowledge. The more you are passionate about something, the more you will inevitably learn about it, as your passion grows and develops...


I think we're pretty much in agreement.


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

I may slightly disagree with #4. I think either classical music tends to make people more intelligent generally or more intelligent people tend to enjoy classical music. Its the chicken and the egg thing I guess but I find people that I have met that are classical music lovers generally seem to me more intelligent than lovers of say rock, pop, country, blues or techno. (most jazz fans I know also seem quite intelligent). 

I also kind of disagree with #5. If a person can genuinely allow themselves to delve into classical music in a real way, in a profound way, I do believe it will improve them as a person, and as a human being. Will it make them perfect? No. But I feel it will expand an individual and in some ways improve them.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2011)

Polednice said:


> [T]here is admittedly a lot of (20th/21st century) classical music that is almost purely academic, and is largely inaccessible to newcomers.


Hey, look!! _Another_ of them ol' cliches about classical music.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2011)

Webernite said:


> The problem with classical music for most people is that you _do_ need a bit of education. You at least need to know what is meant by "movement," "string quartet," "symphony," "sonata," "opus," "aria," "concerto," and a hundred other things. You also need a rough knowledge of the history of music, and some small knowledge of music theory.


I knew none of that when I was nine and just starting out. I picked up those things and a hundred more, but none of them were ever at all necessary for listening to and enjoying the music.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

tdc said:


> I may slightly disagree with #4. I think either classical music tends to make people more intelligent generally or more intelligent people tend to enjoy classical music. Its the chicken and the egg thing I guess but I find people that I have met that are classical music lovers generally seem to me more intelligent than lovers of say rock, pop, country, blues or techno. (most jazz fans I know also seem quite intelligent).


That's a big call, because we still don't have an accurate measure of intelligence. Even if we did subject listeners of various types of music to IQ tests I doubt that the results would show classical listeners to be more intelligent than those that listen to other types of music.



tdc said:


> I also kind of disagree with #5. If a person can genuinely allow themselves to delve into classical music in a real way, in a profound way, I do believe it will improve them as a person, and as a human being. Will it make them perfect? No. But I feel it will expand an individual and in some ways improve them.


I think that's a very Romantic notion - that art can transform one's life for the better. Ford argues that there's a distinction between art and life. This is a controversial area - John Cage probably thought that art=life. I basically think that the kind of language that is often used to describe classical music - like being "divine" & "good for the soul" is pretty off putting for many people. They become daunted by what they think is always weighty and serious, something to do with the "big things" in life. & yet classical music encompasses everything - from the mammoth symphonies of Mahler to the armchair music of Satie. The more we tell people that classical music will improve their lives, the more they make take this for some kind of almost religious proseletysing, and they may be turned off. As Ford suggests, the more we think of composers as being just like us - often flawed & ordinary human beings - the more we get rid of the unneccessary mystique of classical music and make it something that can engage people "in a real way" as you say...


----------



## Barking Spiderz (Feb 1, 2011)

Webernite said:


> The problem with classical music for most people is that you _do_ need a bit of education. You at least need to know what is meant by "movement," "string quartet," "symphony," "sonata," "opus," "aria," "concerto," and a hundred other things. You also need a rough knowledge of the history of music, and some small knowledge of music theory.


So not. My mum and dad are avid listeners to CM but neither have had a day's music education in their lives. Anyone can pick up a bit of knowledge as they go along but the same goes for any type of music. All you have to do is read the credits and general blurb in the album notes. And you dont need any knowledge of music theory to enjoy CM any more than you need to know your way around an electric guitar to enjoy rock.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Webernite said:


> The problem with classical music for most people is that you _do_ need a bit of education. You at least need to know what is meant by "movement," "string quartet," "symphony," "sonata," "opus," "aria," "concerto," and a hundred other things. You also need a rough knowledge of the history of music, and some small knowledge of music theory.


This isn't really a problem, is it? If I don't know the meaning of a word or term, I LOOK IT UP. With the use of the internet, there is NO EXCUSE for hiding behind such ridiculous concepts. If people WANT to learn what something is about, they will take the trouble to find out.

Simples!


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

> [T]here is admittedly a lot of (20th/21st century) classical music that is almost purely academic, and is largely inaccessible to newcomers.





some guy said:


> Hey, look!! _Another_ of them ol' cliches about classical music.


You are SO right. All this sort of comment reveals (sorry, Polednice, not meant personally!) is the writer's lack of depth of knowledge about the subject. In 20th/21st century classical music we have a greater variety of form and style than at any previous time. I argue vociferously that just about EVERYONE can find 'modern' music they will like if they only take the trouble to look.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Delicious Manager said:


> You are SO right. All this sort of comment reveals (sorry, Polednice, not meant personally!) is the writer's lack of depth of knowledge about the subject. In 20th/21st century classical music we have a greater variety of form and style than at any previous time. I argue vociferously that just about EVERYONE can find 'modern' music they will like if they only take the trouble to look.


I'm not trying to disparage the bulk of 20th/21st century music, but I think it's a bit generous to suggest that all new-comers need to do is listen hard and they'll find something they'll like. A lot of music of that era was concerned far less with the listener, and much more with the endeavour to push boundaries of form at the expense of accessibility. Perhaps you're just being too optimistic about how hard it can be for some people to listen to even mainstream classical stuff!


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> This isn't really a problem, is it? If I don't know the meaning of a word or term, I LOOK IT UP. With the use of the internet, there is NO EXCUSE for hiding behind such ridiculous concepts. If people WANT to learn what something is about, they will take the trouble to find out.
> 
> Simples!


I agree here - if a person has no previous grounding in CM and wants to have more than a passing interest in it then in many cases there is a fair amount of terminology and history that needs to be appreciated and understood in order to make it more of a rewarding voyage of discovery. I was like a fish out of water when I first started buying CM because the sleevenotes may have been in Klingon - quite imposing and often unfathomable. I then got a copy of the Grove Concise Dictionary of Music and started to look up anything I couldn't understand (this was before I got a computer). Eventually the pieces started to fall into place and over 10 years on it's a book I still often refer to and find very useful. To a degree it's the same with certain sports like test cricket or baseball - there's probably less to enjoy and make sense of unless you have at the very least a basic grasp of the rules and some kind of appreciation/understanding of the sport's evolution.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2011)

Polednice said:


> A lot of music of that era was concerned far less with the listener, and much more with the endeavour to push boundaries of form at the expense of accessibility.


A little history here, maybe. The music of the nineteenth century was seen, _in the nineteenth century,_ as being concerned less with the listener and more with pushing the boundaries of music at the expense of accessibility. Read contemporary accounts of things by the composers and the players and the critics and any of the audiences who wrote about music. Their complaints, on either side, sound uncannily like the the complaints of the same people today.

The music of the twentieth century didn't suddenly become more inaccessible. The composers of the twentieth century did not suddenly decide "to hell with the audience." Audiences had been saying "to hell with new music" since early in the nineteenth century (for many reasons, many of them very tangential to the actual sounds of the music). The only thing that happened in the twentieth century was further entrenchment of that perception.

Because that's all we're talking about here is a perception. Even in Mozart's time, which was before any widespread rejection of the new, people were saying that since Bach et al. had tilled all the tillable ground, Mozart was forced to sow in the rocky parts of the mountains. (This was the actual metaphor used. And it was used for Beethoven (since Mozart had already et cetera) and Berlioz (since Beethoven had already et cetera) and so on.) And the idea, if not the actual metaphor, continues down to the present day.

In the meantime, composers continue to write music, and for why? *For people to listen to.* The number of people who listen is sometimes small, but "oh, well."* With few exceptions, I attend only new music concerts, and there always seem to be audiences there for it. Sometimes rather large ones. But even the small ones make up for their size by their enthusiasm.

*According to one writer, "the first movement of the Eroica was applauded by almost eight people, the Funeral March by ten or twelve, the Scherzo by fourteen or fifteen, and the Finale by four or five." (Berlioz writing in 1841, quoted in Barzun's _Berlioz and the Romantic Century,_ 3rd ed., Vol. 1, p. 404.)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> A little history here, maybe ...


I don't deny what you've said about the complaints that were present even in the 19th century, but I think it's important to recognise that there is still a line to be drawn in the development of music between mere perception of new music, and the change in the actual, fundamental structure of music making things more difficult for a listener.

One obvious, oft-repeated example is the shift in emphasis from tonality to atonality. In music where the latter is exclusively present, the work is immediately more difficult for the audience to process, because our responses are altered by a life-time's exposure to sounds (both environmental and musical) which follow certain rules and are essentially predictable (even if only subconsciously), but which interest us by doing unpredictable things at the right time, and in the right amount.

I admit, studies have shown that even a small amount of exposure to works that do _not_ operate on the traditional Western system of tonality can allow a listener to feel those senses of predictability, and so it's certainly not the case that common practice period tonality is the only way music ought to be written; however, these studies also show that a kind of inner-tonality is _still_ essential, even if it's invented by the composer, so taking the traditional system and bending it beyond recognition is _not_ going to be easy to listen to and understand because there's no attempt to construct a fundamental structure of unfamiliar tonality beneath it.


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2011)

Polednice,

You will have to explain, then, how I, at the very least, can listen to all sorts of new music with both ease and pleasure. You will have to explain how I was immediately hooked when I first heard a twentieth century piece, and why I was so enthusiastic about the musics of that century generally, even when--from time to time--I came up against a piece or two I didn't like.

I grew up, just by the way, only exposed to very easy Hollywood music--movies and TV and Lawrence Welk. I loved classical music from my first exposure to that, when I was nine or so--Haydn, Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Beethoven, Tchaikovsky. So my listening background was certainly not with the extreme avant garde. But after a dozen years of immersion in the baroque, classical, romantic world, I fell in love with music of the twentieth century, including all those things you describe as being so intrinsically different and difficult.

Fact is, if you accept actual personal testimony from real live listeners, you will have to acknowledge that studies that find that "a kind of inner-tonality [whatever that could be] is _still_ essential" are perhaps a bit flawed. Most of the music I listen to nowadays has nothing to do with tonality in any regard. It's not difficult. And it's not displeasing. Not to me, anyway. Nor to any of the other people who buy the CDs and download the files and attend the concerts.

You will also, just by the way, have to account for pre-tonal musics. What we call "common practice" has not been around all that long a time. Coupla three hundred years. A lot of good music has been written in tonal systems. But it's not the only way, nor is there anything fundamental about it.

And if a little, lower middle-class kid with non-musical parents whose early exposure to music was solely through Hollywood, but who managed somehow to acquire an abiding love for classical music and then for contemporary art music without any of the problems people selected for studies seem to report, then perhaps there's more to the situation than the standard canards about modern music report as being so.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

some guy said:


> You will have to explain, then, how I, at the very least, can listen to all sorts of new music with both ease and pleasure. You will have to explain how I was immediately hooked when I first heard a twentieth century piece, and why I was so enthusiastic about the musics of that century generally, even when--from time to time--I came up against a piece or two I didn't like.


I'll admit that I cannot explain that. However I think it would be unfair for you to label as 'musically prejudiced' the larger number of us who have genuinely tried to listen to such music and failed to find personal value in it. Perhaps you have a much more malleable brain than the average person!



some guy said:


> You will also, just by the way, have to account for pre-tonal musics. What we call "common practice" has not been around all that long a time. Coupla three hundred years. A lot of good music has been written in tonal systems. But it's not the only way, nor is there anything fundamental about it.


Pre-common practice music isn't atonal in the usual sense because it still has a fundamental structure (the way I described it before is probably too narrow a definition - I'll have to see if I can find a decent source that better explains what I mean).


----------



## Guest (Mar 18, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I'll admit that I cannot explain that.


And I hope that one day you _can_ explain it--as being simply a normal reaction to beautiful music.



Polednice said:


> However I think it would be unfair for you to label as 'musically prejudiced' the larger number of us who have genuinely tried to listen to such music and failed to find personal value in it.


I agree that if I ever had done such labelling, it would be unfair or perhaps at least premature. But since I never have, it does seem a bit off for you to suggest that I have (even to the extent of putting words into my mouth via quote marks, albeit single ones).

I would, however, like you to examine the word "genuinely." What is involved with that? When I first approached the music you have failed to find personal value in, I came to it without any prejudices, it's true. Without any preconceptions is maybe a more neutral way to describe it. There were only the sounds; and I found the sounds to be marvelous, captivating, valuable. Now I don't doubt that other people, without any preconceptions, could hear the same music and be totally unimpressed. That's only to be expected, really. We're all different. But if you _do_ approach it with preconceptions, and I would suppose that most people do, then you have to examine the preconceptions as well as everything else. Is the music itself, for instance, inaccessible? Or is it that some people, with similar backgrounds and similar exposure to prevalent ideas about "modern music," have found it to be inaccessible? (And are the more "malleable" listeners to be discounted because they're not "average"?)

Examine, too, the word "value," qualified or not. What kinds of things do you value now in music, for instance? Do you bring those things to encounters with music that doesn't have those things? This I see quite a lot, too. Listeners with all sorts of expectations, all sorts of needs, as it were, approaching musics that don't meet those expectations, that don't fulfil those needs, and finding somehow something wrong with the music because it fails to be something other than it actually is.

Well, it is what it is. And what it is does indeed satisfy some listeners. (Nothing satisfies all listeners, after all.) That should be enough.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Delicious Manager said:


> This isn't really a problem, is it? If I don't know the meaning of a word or term, I LOOK IT UP. With the use of the internet, there is NO EXCUSE for hiding behind such ridiculous concepts. If people WANT to learn what something is about, they will take the trouble to find out.
> 
> Simples!


Of course they can look it up. But the point is that if they didn't have to look up lots of words, classical music would be less off-putting for people.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

As usual, SomeGuy will have you believe that if one individual can find immediate pleasure in music that the vast majority find difficult to listen to... and appreciate... let alone like, then it wholly negates the possibility that said music is difficult. It is not that SomeGuy and a small number of others are the exception... no, it is everybody else who is close-minded and brainwashed by generations of Romanticism and Post-Romanticism. 

Even if we accept that tonality or "common practice" as we know it in classical music is a learned thing... in no way more "natural" to music than atonality, microtonality, etc... and barely a couple hundred years old, this in no way undermines the fact that any individual who breaks too far from this common shared language does so at potential cost of accessibility. The novel as we know it is but a couple hundred years old, yet there is no denying that the break from this tradition made by James Joyce resulted in a degree of difficulty and inaccessibility that remains to this day. The same is true of abstraction in painting. Franz Kline, Jackson Pollock, and Mark Rothko remain inaccessible to a vast majority of the audience for the simple reason that they have broke away too far from the common language of painting. 

If we think of music, literature or the novel, and painting from over the last 400 or 500 years (perhaps a bit longer in the case of painting) as employing a common language, the changes and innovations wrought during most of that period amount to a tweaking of the vocabulary... the language, however, remains. With the twentieth century we get a shift that is so drastic it virtually amounts to an entire rejection of the inherited language. Certainly I have no problem with this. The traumas of the twentieth may just have demanded the development of an entire new language to deal with them expressively. It would seem to demand a degree of insincerity or dis-ingenuousness to pretend that such a shift would not result in a great degree of difficulty and inaccessibility.

This is not to say that such prejudices cannot be overcome. I quite like Jackson Pollock and Mark Rothko (although Franz Kline leaves me cold... and I must admit that I'll likely never like either artist as much as I like Bonnard, Degas, Ingres, or Rembrandt). I also like much of what I have heard of Webern, Berg, George Crumb, Krzysztof Penderecki, George Rochberg, György Ligeti, and Giacinto Scelsi... although I would be lying if I did not admit that I found many of them quite difficult initially. I would also be lying if I were to play at be at puzzled as to just why someone raised on Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner and Richard Strauss might find these composers difficult any more than if I were feign surprise that the teen raised on heavy metal and hip hop could not immediately appreciate opera. Indeed, SomeGuy has contradicted himself in the past by admitting to his own inability to appreciate certain non-classical music (jazz? blues? bluegrass? I forget which)


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...A lot of music of that era was concerned far less with the listener, and much more with the endeavour to push boundaries of form at the expense of *accessibility*....





StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...Even if we accept that tonality or "common practice" as we know it in classical music is a learned thing... in no way more "natural" to music than atonality, microtonality, etc... and barely a couple hundred years old, this in no way undermines the fact that any individual who breaks too far from this common shared language does so at potential cost of *accessibility*....


There you go - the "A" word again - accessibility. I think it is useful for us to ask what we mean by this word.

As far as I am concerned, and those in my circle of friends and acquaintances who are classical music lovers and regular concert goers, this word means nothing. It is simply not used in describing certain works or comparing them to others. I went to a concert with a friend last year & we bumped into another friend of mine. It was a chamber concert that featured music of Australian composers Glanville-Hicks (a Neo-Classicist from the 1930's), Nigel Butterley (a contemporary atonal composer of the older generation) as well as works by Schumann & Mozart. We all liked the last two, which were traditional pieces, but funnily enough the consensus amongst our group was that we liked the Butterley more than the Glanville-Hicks. How do you explain that? By the strict or narrow definition of what is "accessible" and what isn't, the Neo-Classical piece should have been more liked than the atonal one. & just because we liked the Butterley, does it mean that we would think that the Mozart and Schumann were "old hat?"

So I doubt that today's classical consumers really care what things are "accessible" or not. Music works on many different levels, in many unexplainable ways. I think the issue is what speaks to us today, whether it was composed last week or hundreds of years ago. The dichotomy between "accessible" and "inacessible" is gone, it went out in the 1960's when serialism was seen to be the only type of contemporary music that was of some value - according to theoreticians like Adorno & Boulez, whose opinions are like relics of the stone age.

We live in an age of plurality in many different ways, and I think that many people are embracing this. Things also change. In the 1960's guys like Glass were driving cabs for a living and doing music on the side. Now they're the highest paid classical composers, and their styles are mainstream. People in the serialist camp at the time like Boulez might have said that minimalism was too "accessible" to be of any value, but now they have clearly been proved wrong. Everything is in a state of flux...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

There you go - the "A" word again - accessibility.

As far as I am concerned, and those in my circle of friends and acquaintances who are classical music lovers and regular concert goers, this word means nothing.

Does it? And yet here on a forum devoted to classical music how many members admit to difficulty with Schoenberg or Crumb or Philip Glass? Because you have developed a taste for something does not mean that others will immediately share your taste.

It is simply not used in describing certain works or comparing them to others. I went to a concert with a friend last year & we bumped into another friend of mine. It was a chamber concert that featured music of Australian composers Glanville-Hicks (a Neo-Classicist from the 1930's), Nigel Butterley (a contemporary atonal composer of the older generation) as well as works by Schumann & Mozart. We all liked the last two, which were traditional pieces, but funnily enough the consensus amongst our group was that we liked the Butterley more than the Glanville-Hicks. How do you explain that? 

There is no accounting for taste?:lol:

Seriously this is not far from the mark. What you and your friends like or dislike has no bearing upon the larger reality that Modernism and Post-Modernism in music (and all the arts) strike a good many in the audience as difficult and forbidding. I would also note that in no way would I suggest that accessibility is a measure of merit. I can imagine that to some Bach's fugues present difficulties... as do Beethoven's late quartets. By the same token, there are composers and works of music that are in no way challenging... but neither are they truly engaging. Perhaps they are too "easy"... or cliche.

So I doubt that today's classical consumers really care what things are "accessible" or not. 

And yet you know as well as any that the music sales would not support you in this. Schoenberg by a great many accounts is one of the 4 or 5 most important composers of the 20th century. Do you imagine that in any way his sales match those of Richard Strauss, Rachmaninoff, or Puccini? Indeed, I suspect that Aaron Copland and even Arvo Part are more popular. And what of the members here? How many threads begin expressing a difficulty with Puccini or Strauss as opposed to Schoenberg or John Cage? How many John Cage discs do you have? Again, I'm not suggesting that accessibility is in any way a measure of merit... but I am saying that it is disingenuous to suggest that you cannot understand why a more difficult work of music... one that greatly breaks with the tradition... be it Beethoven's late quartets, Schoenberg, or Steve Reich... should prove difficult and less popular with the audience.

Music works on many different levels, in many unexplainable ways. I think the issue is what speaks to us today, whether it was composed last week or hundreds of years ago. The dichotomy between "accessible" and "inacessible" is gone, it went out in the 1960's when serialism was seen to be the only type of contemporary music that was of some value - according to theoreticians like Adorno & Boulez, whose opinions are like relics of the stone age.

I don't think accessibility or inaccessibility is gone at all. Perhaps things that were once quite inaccessible have slowly garnered a larger following... but how many today appreciate Giacinto Scelsi, Steve Reich, or Pierre Schaeffer? How accessible is Carlo Gesualdo, Perotin, or Byzantine chant?

We live in an age of plurality in many different ways, and I think that many people are embracing this. Things also change. In the 1960's guys like Glass were driving cabs for a living and doing music on the side. Now they're the highest paid classical composers, and their styles are mainstream. People in the serialist camp at the time like Boulez might have said that minimalism was too "accessible" to be of any value, but now they have clearly been proved wrong. Everything is in a state of flux...

I agree that we live in a pluralistic society. Our view of classical music is no longer dominated by Romanticism. Even the way in which we approach music of the classical and baroque eras has shaken off the "perfume" of Romanticism. We can now appreciate a broad array of music... but even now... if we were to speak of a "common (musical) language" the music of the middle ages and a great deal of Modernism would be seen as pushing the boundaries of this language. I am also suggesting that this is no less true of any of us... no matter how open we pride ourselves upon being. I still don't like Schoenberg. Xenakis has yet to grab hold of me. I have no use for heavy metal or hip-hop, I don't really get into polka music, etc...


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

There are several interesting ideas here. The term "accessible" is not clearly defined, but I would guess that Polednice and StlukesguildOhio mean something like - enjoyable and wanting to hear more. While it's hard to know exactly how many classical listeners find modern music accessible in this manner, I would guess the answer is a relatively modest percentage. I say this because:

1) Radio stations play very little modern music. I just checked the playlist for the station I like (only classical in my area) and today 51 of the 58 pieces were written before 1900. Of the others the composers were: Wolf-Ferrari, Perci Grainger, Shostakovich, Stravinsky, Ravel, Agustin Barrios, and Patrick Doyle. Only one piece was written after about 1930. This station plays relatively obscure composers and pieces (Veracini, Pichl, Fasch), but generally not modern works. Other stations I have listened to play even less than this.
2) Symphony orchestras from small markets play almost no modern music (in my experience).
3) Symphony orchestras in large markets play relatively little. The San Francisco symphony played about 25% 20th and 21st century pieces this year. Imagine any orchestra in 1900 playing only 25% of their program from works written between 1800-1900.

The question is - Why is this the case? Why does the classical music community not want to hear more modern music (i.e. music of the past 100 years)?



some guy said:


> The music of the twentieth century didn't suddenly become more inaccessible. The composers of the twentieth century did not suddenly decide "to hell with the audience." Audiences had been saying "to hell with new music" since early in the nineteenth century (for many reasons, many of them very tangential to the actual sounds of the music). The only thing that happened in the twentieth century was further entrenchment of that perception.


The problem with this view is that music of other centuries became accessible relatively quickly. Composers and pieces that met with derision or distaste were viewed favorably within a few decades. This has not been the case with 20th century music. After all music written in 1950 is 60 years old now.

I believe an important development was the decline of classical music as a dominant art form. I'm not sure exactly when this started, but composers in the 20th century were writing for fewer and fewer listeners (percentage wise). Eventually there became a disconnect between classical composers and the music listening public. I can't say I fully understand exactly what this change caused, but I suspect it is important. I have found no good explanation why modern music (last 100 years or so) is played so little.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

mmsbls said:


> I believe an important development was the decline of classical music as a dominant art form. *I'm not sure exactly when this started, but composers in the 20th century were writing for fewer and fewer listeners (percentage wise).* Eventually there became a disconnect between classical composers and the music listening public. I can't say I fully understand exactly what this change caused, but I suspect it is important. I have found no good explanation why modern music (last 100 years or so) is played so little.


Rock and roll came along from the 1950s, with the baby-boomers generation after WWII.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

I must say, I quite like that there dispelling idea.

If only twere possible.


----------



## Toccata (Jun 13, 2009)

mmsbls said:


> snipped
> 
> ... The term "accessible" is not clearly defined, but I would guess that Polednice and StlukesguildOhio mean something like - enjoyable and wanting to hear more. While it's hard to know exactly how many classical listeners find modern music accessible in this manner, I would guess the answer is a relatively modest percentage. I say this because:
> ...


"Accessibility" in the context of classical music simply means the ease with which it is possible for a typical listener to appreciate a piece, provided of course it contains any value to be appreciated. This is such well-known terminology that it's hardly necessary to spell it out. Whether or not a classical piece contains any value is largely an empirical matter, and here a good yardstick is whether or not the piece in question has a long history of appeal.

There is no mystery whatsover as to why modern classical music features less prominently than music from earlier periods, whether in concerts or radio station playlists. It is simply a reflection of the demand from the audiences, who obviously like modern music less than older material. The shape of the audience frequency distribution is probably not far adrift from a typical bell-shape, with an approximate mean value circa 1850. Some individuals' opinions will obviously differ from that of the majority, and will include for example only those who prefer modern or contemporary to those who are only turned on by baroque, or whatever.

What I find surprising is that some folk still peddle all this modern/contemporary classical music as if there is something wrong with the majority of people whose main preferences lie elsewhere, and who have possibly only a tangential interest in modern material. There is definitely something about many such posts from these people that has that condescending flavour to them. It's always the same tiny bunch of folk spewing out the same tedious old stuff on one forum after another. I would have thought that by now they might have dicovered that, on the whole, their threads or posts are normally greeted with scepticism if not hostility and aggression from most posters. They ought really to be considering what they're doing and why others are questioning their messages.

I can assure them that, as far as I'm concerned, their preaching carries absolutey zero impact on my tastes and preferences. Maybe they think that a few gullible teenagers or other newbies might buy it, if they catch them early enough. But I wouldn't have thought that people who already know a fair bit about classical music are likely to change their minds fundamentally, especially in regard to contemporary classical if they don't already like it.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I completely agree with Toccata's post. I think that it is fully understandable as to why anyone would wish to share with others what he or she loves, but I doubt that one is likely to have much success at this by feigning an inability to understand why certain music is less popular than other music, denying the some music presents a degree of difficulty that a majority of listeners are not willing to struggle with, or ever so subtly insulting the tastes or intelligence of those who fail to share their enthusiasms.

Personally, I find the method employed by Andre to be of the greatest value. I speak of his regular, in-depth reviews of CDs and concerts... quite often including musical selections I am not familiar with. This, as an approach, would seem to me to be far more likely to succeed in at least intriguing other listeners than to be continually preached at. This combined with a link to a performance of such work might be the best means of engaging others. I can say for a fact that I have been introduced to several composers/compositions that I now greatly esteem through just such means. Off the top of my head I can say that my admiration of Tristan Murail and Giacinto Scelsi owes much to the initial introductions to these composers that I first came upon online.

There is a world of difference between being presented with a brief essay in which the individual essentially communicates: "This is a composer that I greatly admire, and here are some of the reasons I admire his or her music and here are a few snippets of said music, perhaps you might give him/her a listen," and on the other side being berated for being close-minded, being told that as weak-minded as I must be, my prejudices/preferences in music owe all to the mass media/recording industry, etc...


----------



## Ralfy (Jul 19, 2010)

Re: taste, some interesting points here:

"Scientists start accounting for taste"

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


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

First of all, as I believe Toccata has already pointed out, there is nothing difficult or deceptive about the word 'accessibility'. All it means is the extent to which a work of art can have an affect on an audience. To cite a literary analogy, the works of the Augustan period are steeped in references to classical civilisation, making it (at least at the time) largely _inaccessible_ because only a select few would have had access to an education which would allow them to understand those references. Compare that to the Romantic movement which followed with the likes of Wordsworth and Coleridge who attempted to use the vernacular without obscure references, and it is clear which - by its structure and style - is more accessible. It is not difficult to apply that to the changing foundations of music.



some guy said:


> I agree that if I ever had done such labelling, it would be unfair or perhaps at least premature. But since I never have, it does seem a bit off for you to suggest that I have (even to the extent of putting words into my mouth via quote marks, albeit single ones).


I wasn't putting words in your mouth, but rather anticipating what you might say, hence why I used the conditional rather than present tense  However, considering the fact that, despite the verbosity of your following paragraphs, you basically accuse people of having certain preconceptions and even lying about them, I think my use of 'musically prejudiced' is apt to describe the way you think of a lot of people.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

Polednice said:


> I wasn't putting words in your mouth, but rather anticipating what you might say


Putting words in my mouth in the present or putting words in my mouth in the future--I don't see any difference in that.



Polednice said:


> the verbosity of your following paragraphs


You realize, don't you, that using ad hominem reveals that you don't have a counterargument.* And I'll bet if I said something you agreed with, my "verbosity" would be pure gold, eh?



Polednice said:


> you basically accuse people of having certain preconceptions and even lying about them, I think my use of 'musically prejudiced' is apt to describe the way you think of a lot of people.


Yep. You've got nuthin'. (Now there's an accusation!) If you'll reread my post to see what I actually said, you'll see that I too know what the conditional is and how to use it. And if you think about it, saying that people have preconceptions is more an observation than an accusation. If you (and some of your colleagues) persist in demonizing me, then it's no surprise that everything I say will seem demonic to you. (Lying about them??) Why, that's kinda like people's attitudes about contemporary music, doesn't it??

Here's the simple truth, I was fortunate enough to have first heard modern music without any preconceptions. Sheer dumb luck is all it was. But given that luck, I was able to hear and enjoy without any fear or repulsion or bewilderment.**

That seems important to me. Modern music *can* be enjoyed, easily. But only if you don't pre-judge it. And that's pretty much true for everything, don't you think? Pre-judging (like anticipating what someone is about to say) can spoil anything. Food, drink, relationships, music, art. But prejudices are very precious to us, aren't they? So precious, we don't even see that they're prejudices. Why, if you pointed out my prejudices to me, I'd probably just as huffily deny that they're prejudices as the next guy.

I love music and like to talk about it with other people who love music. But there's so much hate online. (Why you cannot so much as say the name John Cage without being attacked from all sides, for instance. And saying something nice about him? I just listened to _Aria_ with _Fontana Mix_ again, having recently purchased the Wergo set with that. What a sweet piece! (Talk about anticipating; I can hear the baying of the hounds already. Well, I'd love to stay, but I gotta run.))

*Of course, if you think that your auditors will not notice, or care, then you probably feel pretty safe. (I know I would!)

**That's doubtless why Andre is more effective here than I. I don't understand the fear and repulsion and bewilderment, having never experienced it. Andre has. Andre feels your pain. Still, I like to think I can contribute a word or two here and there, in spite of the demonizers. (Not everyone does that, you know!)


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

*sigh* I'm not going to bother descending into an argument about who's mischaracterising who, because just as you think I've misrepresented you, so too I think that you've entirely misjudged or plainly not understood what I've said.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Delicious Manager said:


> This isn't really a problem, is it? If I don't know the meaning of a word or term, I LOOK IT UP. With the use of the internet, there is NO EXCUSE for hiding behind such ridiculous concepts. If people WANT to learn what something is about, they will take the trouble to find out.
> 
> Simples!


Yes, I agree with that. Although I've never learned to read a score (and never have felt motivated to try to learn it either) I learned about things like genres (symphonic, opera, chamber music, etc), periods (romantic, baroque, etc), some basic understanding of sonata form, the difference between, say, an adagio and allegro very quickly after I became interested in classical music. And this was way before my internet days. Being passionate about the music automatically results in one getting to know about those things.


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2011)

Really?

Man up, Polednice. You say something provoking and then *sigh* when someone's provoked? Come on. You're better than that, surely.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I don't have much brainpower these days, and I like to save it for things more engaging than arguing about arguments


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2011)

Fair enough.

Here's to more brainpower for you; you're an engaging poster.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

A lot of interesting points being made here, so I'll be brief. This thread is now more about "accessiblity" than the list of cliches I posted but that's fine. I think the issue of "accessibility" is related to this debate, and in a way Andrew Ford's list (& the whole book which I am currently reading) speaks to this issue, albeit not as directly as some people have here. It's more of a broad based disscussion about classical music in general (not ony the conemporary variety) & it's relevance/status in Western societies like Australia today.

*@ mmsbls:*

I agree that classical radio stations & the big symphony orchestras tend to only play what we'd call contemporary classical music in a tokenistic way. But as I was arguing, there is much more plurality out there now than there was maybe 50 years ago (or even much less than that).

I can only speak of my city, Sydney in Australia. I have not gone to a Sydney Symphony Concert since the early '90's because I am more interested in what other more "specialist" groups play. This is across the board from artsong, choral music, chamber, electronica and period instrumental ensembles. These play a variety of music from many different eras. I'm more interested in this than the Sydney Symphony, which tends to play the more mainstream kinds of things.

As for radio, yes the classical music stations have relegated contemporary music to the fringes, but they still have weekly programs devoted to it. I used to listen to these, but don't any more because I'd rather listen to non-classical radio. Don't forget that there's also music sharing sites like youtube which have made music of all kinds more "accessible" to anyone with access to the internet. There are also a lot of non-mainstream radio stations you can hear online, I just learned about BBC radio 3 on TC last week. Had a listen & they played all kinds of music - and not a warhorse in sight!!!

Obviously, there's more sources of music now than just the mainstream groups and standard repertoire playlists of classical radio stations. In terms of the concerts, I know I am lucky to live in this city, which has so much going on. I have a limited budget, and have to choose from the many events that are on around town every week. But even in the regional areas of our state (New South Wales) there are a lot of music festivals - from classical, to rock, to techno, folk, blues, you name it - so our country cousins are not missing out by any stretch of the imagination.

*@ stlukesguildohio:*

Well I was obviously speaking of my own anecdotal experience with my friends and colleagues, not on things like sales statistics. You are probably right, in terms of sales the music of SOME composers from the middle of the c20th cannot compare to those of earlier times. But OTHER composers have very healthy sales, like Piazzolla, Glass & the recently departed Gorecki, whose _Symphony of Sorrowful Songs_ went gold or platinum in the early '90's. But sales are only one part of the equation. A lot of the film music we hear today ranges from tonal to atonal, from traditional to experimental, and everything in between. People are being exposed to contemporary music whether they like it or not, whether it's on television, at the movies, at the theatre or even during New Year's Eve light shows and fireworks. The boundaries between so called "low" and "high" art are becoming less and less defined. Sometimes it's better if people "access" classical music from outside the confines of a concert hall or a recording. I hazard a guess that not many people listened to the Gorecki symphony more than once or twice 20 years ago, when it became a sensation. Some would just have used it as a kind of "new age" ambient background music. I'd rather people experience new music say as part of a movie soundtrack than as in a one off concert or on a recording. Often, the new multimedia types of genres can engage people on more levels than just a concert or recording. I think this is quite exciting, everything (including how & in what context we consume music) is changing, and this can lead to new developments outside the traditional paradigms.

*@ Toccata:*

It's not only (SOME) contemporary classical fans that are prone to preaching on these classical music forum websites like this. There are just as many rabid anti-modernists & conservatives if we want to bandy about labels that are cliches in themselves. I've been "preached at" about (say) J.S. Bach and why I am basically a moron if I don't love his music 110% and worship him like a god. This was on another website, and I am obviously exaggerating a fair bit, but there are some people with attitudes like this out there. As Ford in my opening post says, YES there are classical music snobs, but there are also techno, jazz, rock, folk snobs and whatever. I personally try not to pay much attention to the rabid ideologue xenophobes who elevate one type of art and degrade many others. You don't have to do that to appreciate music. I have argued (online) with people like that in the past, but now I think why bother. I have better things to do. If they want to just regurgitate condescending drivel let them. Their opinions would definitely hold zero weight in "real life" conversations I've had with friends about music, which are more focused on discussing opinions than spewing out spurious garbage dogmas...


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've been "preached at" about (say) J.S. Bach and why I am basically a moron if I don't love his music 110% and worship him like a god.

But Andre... liking Schoenberg is one thing. Take him or leave him... it's no big deal. Recognizing, on the other hand, that J.S. Bach is God, is most certainly one of the universal requirements to avoid moron status.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I've been "preached at" about (say) J.S. Bach and why I am basically a moron if I don't love his music 110% and worship him like a god.
> 
> But Andre... liking Schoenberg is one thing. Take him or leave him... it's no big deal. Recognizing, on the other hand, that J.S. Bach is God, is most certainly one of the universal requirements to avoid moron status.


I might add that, which also applies to all Baroque / early music in particular, HIP recordings do a world of a difference. Listening to Bach or Handel etc. on modern orchestras and heavy vibrato simply don't work as well. Don't under estimate it.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Andre said:


> "*5. Listening to classical music will make you a better human being.*"


A couple of people have picked up on this. I find it a tricky one, because the issue isn't restricted to merely classical music, but concerns all art.

The first I want to do is remove that word 'will', and instead consider the statement: "Listening to classical music _can_ make you a better human being." Obviously it's possible to listen to Beethoven and then go and murder people afterwords, so that 'will' is absurd.

But then we have all these issues about art and life, and how they fit together, or whether they're separate, or whether they're aspects of the same thing, and I've no chance of resolving all that in the space of a 5 minute post. But I think - and of course I speak purely for myself - that insofar as art is a vehicle for communication, it has the potential to be a vehicle for 'good'. By that I mean that art can widen perception and improve understanding of how other people respond to the world, in a way that nothing else can. It's CS Lewis's point about 'when I read great literature I see with the eyes of a thousand men, yet it is still I who see'. So with all art, including music. Seems to me that on the whole, it's better for us to see more clearly and understand each other, than not. And if art can nudge us towards better understanding, it has the _potential_ (I say no more than that) to make us better people.

I hope it's obvious that I'm not at all talking about likes and dislikes here. Whether I like Wagner or Bach is irrelevant to the point I'm making. But there is something in Bach, and something in Wagner, that can open windows and help us to see more, or further, or more clearly. I think that's a kind of 'better' worth having.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> But Andre... liking Schoenberg is one thing. Take him or leave him... it's no big deal. Recognizing, on the other hand, that J.S. Bach is God, is most certainly one of the universal requirements to avoid moron status.


I know you are joking but the J. S. Bach issue was just one example of condescension by some classical music listeners on these internet forums. Another well-loved activity (not so much on this forum, but another I am a less active member on) is arguing and bickering for pages and pages about which is the "best" or "definitive" recording of a particular work. Rather than agree on say that you like Mahler or someone like that, or just discussing his music or the actual piece, these people spend inordinate amounts of time arguing over which cycle of the dozens available on the market is the "finest" etc. etc. This I find very boring. To make matters worse, these people like to endlessly compare recordings of the dozens of cycles they own and listen to & the message I get is that they assume that they are superior to the mere hoi polloi who say only own one cycle or maybe even own none, having heard the works on radio or on youtube or whatever.

I am of the firm belief that you don't have to own 100's or 1000's of recordings to have a fairly good appreciation of classical music. I have now overtaken my parents in knowledge of much obscure repertoire, that is outside of the classic warhorses. Does that make them ignorant compared to me? I don't think so, they had just as much a passion for classical music, and passed that on to me at an early age. It doesn't matter if you love Bach or Schoenberg or whoever, what matters is the engagement and passion. I'm probably a total ignoramus in many areas of the repertoire compared to you or others on this site (eg. say choral or art-song in your case). What matters to me is that I am engaged by those genres, even if my knowledge of them is not that great. I've gone to see a number of choral and art-song concerts, and I have enjoyed them immensely. I am not worried in comparing recordings or performances endlessly and needlessly. It might be important for some people, but it's not for me. & judging from those who like classical in my circle of friends, they're the same or even less sophisticated (if you can call it that) than me. I have a close friend who heard Monteverdi's Vespers last year for the first time at a concert here in Sydney. Despite her inexperience, she absolutely loved it. Last week she heard the Sydney Symphony play Mahler's 1st again for the first time, and it knocked her out. In real life, I enjoy talking to such "inexpert" people about what matters to me (& them) how the music appealed to them (or maybe didn't). It simply doesn't get to the stage of one of us elevating ourselves above the other with our supposed superior knowledge. That to me is just pure garbage.

I just think that if a person's sole activity outside work, family duties, etc. is amassing thousands of recordings and comparing them to eachother, then maybe that person should think of getting a life. I know this is quite a judgemental and negative generalisation of said people, but when you've been on the other end of their put downs online, it's not a good space to be in. Of course, not all people who like comparing recordings are like this, maybe it's just a small minority. I think that the appreciation of music is based on experience, whatever that may be, not on the quantity of recordings you own.



> I might add that, which also applies to all Baroque / early music in particular, HIP recordings do a world of a difference. Listening to Bach or Handel etc. on modern orchestras and heavy vibrato simply don't work as well. Don't under estimate it.


I'm actually coming to appreciate J.S. Bach, Handel, Monteverdi, Boccherini, Haydn, Mozart, etc. by listening to both HIP and modern performances. I'm not firmly in one camp or the other. I just borrowed Anne Sophie Mutter's coupling of the Bach concertos with the Gubaidulina, and ended up enjoying the Bach immensely, and have mixed feelings about the Gubaidulina. But it's difficult to compare them since one is Baroque, the other is contemporary. I have attended a HIP concert last year here in Sydney, the Conservatorium Early Music Ensemble lead by Dr. Neal Peres Da Costa, an expert in this field. They played Purcell, Geminiani and Handel. I enjoyed that equally. I am now getting rid of my former preconceptions about Baroque music and beginning to enjoy it a lot. I probably never will become an "expert listener" of it like yourself, but my appreciation of it is growing all of the time.



> So with all art, including music. Seems to me that on the whole, it's better for us to see more clearly and understand each other, than not. And if art can nudge us towards better understanding, it has the potential (I say no more than that) to make us better people.


Yes, classical music does have the *potential* as you say to positively impact on one's life and ways of thinking. But by the same token, mass murderers like Hitler and Stalin were avid classical music fans, they probably had large record collections and went to many concerts. In comparison, someone like Khrushchev, who admitted that he was a total ignoramus regarding art, was much less of a harmful leader as Stalin (though Khruschev was by no means perfect himself, of course).

I don't think that classical music can enhance one's life more or less than other types of music. Different types of music have different purposes. "Low art" is now very much intermingled with "High Art." I think that Andrew Ford was trying to kind of question the supposed superior and mystical status of "High Art" as a thing that can be seen as something to improve one's life. For some people, it does improve their lives, others just continue to do what they were doing before, whether good or bad.

Yes, "potential" is they key word here, there are no absolutes...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Andre said:


> I don't think that classical music can enhance one's life more or less than other types of music. Different types of music have different purposes. "Low art" is now very much intermingled with "High Art." I think that Andrew Ford was trying to kind of question the supposed superior and mystical status of "High Art" as a thing that can be seen as something to improve one's life. For some people, it does improve their lives, others just continue to do what they were doing before, whether good or bad.


Yes I'm sure you're right that that's what he was getting at. For me the key issue is whether significant personal change occurs as a consequence of the exposure to the music. That's why I'm excluding the notion of personal _taste_ from my comments (i.e. issues of liking and disliking). If exposure to this music (or this book or this painting) enables me to perceive (I use the word in its broadest sense) something that I couldn't perceive before, then this potential for change is there, with all its ethical implications. If on the other hand I'm merely in search of 'more of the same because that's what I like', then the potential for change is virtually zero (because all I'm exposed to is my own pre-existing personal taste), and there's little potential for ethical change in that.

The boundaries between 'low' and 'high' art are so blurred these days that it would be impossible to discuss this sensibly in those terms. I might be tempted to turn the tables right over and get these concepts of 'high' and 'low' right away from the notion of being an attribute of the art itself. It might be more helpful to think of the 'high art experience' - which involves significant perception change - and the 'low art experience' which offers merely 'more of what I like'. In that sense, a lot of my recent listening to Haydn symphonies would be really only a 'low' art experience. This is no assessment of Haydn's music, but merely an observation about my response to them: I gobble 'em up like lollipops, and ethics, or perception-widening, doesn't come into it at all. At least, I _think_ so. Sometimes it might.

I'm just floating thoughts, you understand. I don't claim to have the answers.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I might add that, which also applies to all Baroque / early music in particular, HIP recordings do a world of a difference. Listening to Bach or Handel etc. on modern orchestras and heavy vibrato simply don't work as well. Don't under estimate it.


I like HIP performances in many cases, but I do think it's a matter of taste. In fact, I think one of the reasons Andre (and many other people) might have trouble with Bach is that some HIP performances, particularly of vocal music, can be underwhelming and perhaps even seem a bit folk music-y. Some people just find this sort of thing more appealing:






I mean, I think Bach would have been impressed.  I've often wondered why Bach on modern instruments is so much more of a taboo than Beethoven.


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2011)

Elgarian said:


> If exposure to this music (or this book or this painting) enables me to perceive (I use the word in its broadest sense) something that I couldn't perceive before, then this potential for change is there, with all its ethical implications. If on the other hand I'm merely in search of 'more of the same because that's what I like', then the potential for change is virtually zero (because all I'm exposed to is my own pre-existing personal taste), and there's little potential for ethical change in that.


This is why I love your posts so much.

(And your shifting the focus from the work to the listening is spot on, I think.)

Thanks for this, Elgarian!!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

> If exposure to this music (or this book or this painting) enables me to perceive (I use the word in its broadest sense) something that I couldn't *perceive* before, then this potential for change is there, with all its ethical implications. If on the other hand I'm merely in search of 'more of the same because that's what I like', then the potential for change is virtually zero (because all I'm exposed to is my own pre-existing personal taste), and there's little potential for ethical change in that.


Well that was a very perceptive comment!  I agree, developing perception is the key to fully absorbing any work of art. I had a drawing teacher in university where I did a drawing subject and she said "Anyone can see, but not all people can perceive." I've remembered that for more than 10 years, and it applies not only to visual art (as in that case) but to all of the arts. This is why I like to read books about visual art and music (I've never been that interested in literature). They have taught me how to appreciate these things, and also more importantly demystify things a bit (hence me reading the Ford book, and I was also able to attend a free lecture of his last year). I think anyone can do this, you don't have to have a degree or be "intellectual." I think that the passion is the most important thing.

& I agree with you it's a good idea to try to immerse oneself in a wide range of musics, either if you're a beginner or intermediate or advanced. There's a lot of potential for discovery in the wide world of classical music. Some people think it's just the three B's but - although they were undoubtedly great in terms of innovation and contribution to their art - there's a lot more out there to discover. I really like to make connections between things I already know and things that are new to me. Classical music is largely about tradition, and the more I get into it, there's connections all over the place between composers you never might have thought were influenced or inspired by one another. & this can go back for centuries...


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> Yes I'm sure you're right that that's what he was getting at. For me the key issue is whether significant personal change occurs as a consequence of the exposure to the music. That's why I'm excluding the notion of personal _taste_ from my comments (i.e. issues of liking and disliking). If exposure to this music (or this book or this painting) enables me to perceive (I use the word in its broadest sense) something that I couldn't perceive before, then this potential for change is there, with all its ethical implications. If on the other hand I'm merely in search of 'more of the same because that's what I like', then the potential for change is virtually zero (because all I'm exposed to is my own pre-existing personal taste), and there's little potential for ethical change in that.
> 
> The boundaries between 'low' and 'high' art are so blurred these days that it would be impossible to discuss this sensibly in those terms. I might be tempted to turn the tables right over and get these concepts of 'high' and 'low' right away from the notion of being an attribute of the art itself. It might be more helpful to think of the 'high art experience' - which involves significant perception change - and the 'low art experience' which offers merely 'more of what I like'. In that sense, a lot of my recent listening to Haydn symphonies would be really only a 'low' art experience. This is no assessment of Haydn's music, but merely an observation about my response to them: I gobble 'em up like lollipops, and ethics, or perception-widening, doesn't come into it at all. At least, I _think_ so. Sometimes it might.
> 
> I'm just floating thoughts, you understand. I don't claim to have the answers.


I am willing to bet you might be surprised by how much of Haydn's symphonies helped you to perceive 18th century Classical music aesthetics, without even reading a book about it, compared with listening the same number of symphonies by 20th century composer Leif Segestam (who wrote over 200). I have listened to a few by Segestam, and really, my perception hasn't really changed much. And no, I never expected Segestam's symphonies to have any particular type of sound but walked away feeling rather underwhelmed, as far as changing my perception/widening my artistic appreciation senses are concerned.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

Webernite said:


> I like HIP performances in many cases, but I do think it's a matter of taste. In fact, I think one of the reasons Andre (and many other people) might have trouble with Bach is that some HIP performances, particularly of vocal music, can be underwhelming and perhaps even seem a bit folk music-y. Some people just find this sort of thing more appealing:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think that quite often the heavy, Romantic approach to older music ends in losing the muscularity and the drive of the music in the sludge of a romantic syrup. Of course there are great performances in the "old style" and in the case of many of my favorite pieces I often have both an older school recording and one that is HIP. This is true of this particular work (which I have in Klemperer's great recording... as well as Gardiner's.

As for Beethoven... I think that we often think of Beethoven as a Romantic composer. He certainly started the trend toward the more grandiose and theatrical. I'll admit that I find it almost difficult to heard his piano concertos played on piano forte as opposed to the grand piano.

Ultimately, if a performer/conductor can give us new insight into the work of the composer, I am all for it.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

I think it's also important to listen to some big orchestral performances of Bach just so that one can understand who Bach was for previous generations. After listening to Klemperer or Karajan, it's much easier to understand how Mahler and Brahms, for example, were influenced by the cantatas.


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I am willing to bet you might be surprised by how much of Haydn's symphonies helped you to perceive 18th century Classical music aesthetics, without even reading a book about it.


Well, actually I've come to Haydn very late, having done things backwards, as it were, arriving at Haydn after prolonged exploration of (and enthusiasm for) Mozart. But I take the essence of your point, and indeed, early in my recent exploration of the symphonies there was a distinct shift in my perceptions of the kind you describe.

However, my comments above were related rather to my _present_ situation, where, having listened to a few dozen of his symphonies, my inclination to continue is based more on the 'I want more of these lollipops' principle, than on a hopeful quest for enlightenment. But importantly, when I compare listening to Haydn with eating lollipops, I'm not talking about Haydn at all, but about my Haydonian gluttony. And this is the point really: whether a piece of music can make us a 'better person' depends not so much on the music as on our attitude to it. The ethical implication lies not in the music, but in how we receive it.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> In his book _In Defence of Classical Music _(ABC Books, 2005), Australian musicologist Andrew Ford lists and discusses some popular misconceptions or cliches related to classical music. I just thought I'd put these out there for members here to comment on. He discusses in detail why these cliches are misleading, but I don't want to infringe copyright by copying all of his chapter, so here is his "list" along with some key quotes detailing Ford's responses to the cliches. Some of them are contradictory, this is simply because many of the cliches out there are exactly like that...
> 
> *1. You need a special education to understand classical music.*
> 
> ...


That's a beautiful list. It really made me feel good to read that and remember all those things.


----------

