# I'm very worried about the future of classical music.



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

In 1963, Stanford University ceased to teach the traditional Western Civilization courses, in favor of more liberal social studies. The rest of the US soon followed suit, as well as Britain.

Along with everything that came with the counterculture of the 1960s, came a completely new attitude from a vast amount of western-raised people, namely, an anti-western attitude due to the military dominance of western culture over the past 500 years.

I feel like more and more people are readily taking on the viewpoint that western culture is bad because it dominated, and that other cultures are good because they're the "poor, peaceful" victims of the wests arrogance and violence.

I see around me white, American-raised college students who vehemently deny any higher complexity or brilliance in a piece by Beethoven vs. a repetitive, un-notated Mongolian chant, for example.

I have no need for the "*********** structures" to stay in place, or for America to continue to dominate militarily as much as it is, but will a decline in that dominance mean a fading of classical music?

Will "classical music" cease to mean "western classical music," and we'll have to start adding that prefix before it to clarify Which classical music we're talking about? (of course with the implication that it's just another type of music, and no better than any other).

I look at how many classical orchestras there are in the world outside of the US and Europe, and that gives me hope, but I also see huge amounts of foreigners with anti-western attitudes moving into America. If they don't like western culture, why not move to a non-western country? Or why not try and live without any of the things that western culture contributed to the world? (electricity, cars, etc).

Will the "decline of western civilization" mean the decline of classical music?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

macgeek2005 said:


> In 1963, Stanford University ceased to teach the traditional Western Civilization courses, in favor of more liberal social studies. The rest of the US soon followed suit, as well as Britain.
> 
> Along with everything that came with the counterculture of the 1960s, came a completely new attitude from a vast amount of western-raised people, namely, an anti-western attitude due to the military dominance of western culture over the past 500 years.
> 
> ...


Paranoid much?


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Ah yes, America and the UK, where all the great classical composers came from.


----------



## Kowtow (May 2, 2012)

You shouldn't be worried. History repeats itself. Look at how our kids today are listening to the music of the '60's. Eventually they will consider classical music cool.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I've made my own culture for decades. So have others. It's called Coccooning.

I would love to see "them" do well in their cultural endeavors (I pay taxes, donate, and occasionally attend various events), but I'm far from dependent on what organizations and governments choose to feed me.

I would be more involved if "entertainment" was my vocation, but it isn't. 

I have put forth progressive ideas to those who have made it their vocation, but on these numerous occasions my advice has fallen on deaf ears. So be it. I tried, and will continue to try, to combat obvious non-thinking and subsequent blunders. But I don't deny that enthusiasm for helping (financially and verbally) has waned.

Back to my coccoon.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

Firstly, the most popular music in the world is still Western: pop, hip-hop, EDM, soul, R&B, rock, jazz all originate in the West. In non-Western countries with developed infrasctructure you will hear far much more Western influenced music than traditional/local fare. Basically any use of functional harmony shows signs of Westernisation.



macgeek2005 said:


> I look at how many classical orchestras there are in the world outside of the US and Europe, and that gives me hope, but I also see huge amounts of foreigners with anti-western attitudes moving into America. If they don't like western culture, why not move to a non-western country? Or why not try and live without any of the things that western culture contributed to the world? (electricity, cars, etc).
> 
> Will the "decline of western civilization" mean the decline of classical music?


This part of your post is especially a load of ********.



violadude said:


> Paranoid much?


I was thinking 'Xenophobic much?'


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2012)

What have the Romans ever done for us?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Webernite said:


> Ah yes, America and the UK, where all the great classical composers came from.


I think quite a few have emerged from..in spite of states of idiocy and low subsidy.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Im pretty sure what we call " Western Civilisation " will survive as long as there are some of us still spelling civilisation with an s...:tiphat:


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Vaneyes said:


> I think quite a few have emerged from..in spite of states of idiocy and low subsidy.


Far fewer than from Russia, which isn't in "the West."


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

If I came across racist at all, I apologize. This isn't about race in the least. It's about culture.

"Firstly, the most popular music in the world is still Western: pop, hip-hop, EDM, soul, R&B, rock, jazz all originate in the West. In non-Western countries with developed infrasctructure you will hear far much more Western influenced music than traditional/local fare. Basically any use of functional harmony shows signs of Westernisation."

Yes, so far this is still true, but with the backlash against the "big bad west" going on right now, do you not think its possible that that influence will lessen?


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

This topic is so entirely ignorant. You obviously know nothing about the actual attitudes in the world towards the west and you seem to wish to remain in some sort of euro-centric view point. I wonder how we'd get along living without all the stuff Eastern culture "contributed". (Hey guys, we invented electricity and the molecule!)


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Cnote11 said:


> This topic is so entirely ignorant. You obviously know nothing about the actual attitudes in the world towards the west and you seem to wish to remain in some sort of euro-centric view point. I wonder how we'd get along living without all the stuff Eastern culture "contributed". (Hey guys, we invented electricity and the molecule!)


Apparently, mathematics was invented 150 years ago in the US... "Arabic numerals", what a capricious name!


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> If I came across racist at all, I apologize. This isn't about race in the least. It's about culture.
> 
> "Firstly, the most popular music in the world is still Western: pop, hip-hop, EDM, soul, R&B, rock, jazz all originate in the West. In non-Western countries with developed infrasctructure you will hear far much more Western influenced music than traditional/local fare. Basically any use of functional harmony shows signs of Westernisation."
> 
> Yes, so far this is still true, but with the backlash against the "big bad west" going on right now, do you not think its possible that that influence will lessen?


I don't think the topic comes across as racist as such. It just seems alarmist. Classical music has always been a minority interest, and anti-Western senitment is far outweighed by the ongoing Westernization of the whole world...


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

aleazk said:


> Apparently, mathematics was invented 150 years ago in the US... "Arabic numerals", what a capricious name!


I suppose we could try to live without the alphabet as well.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I don't think the OP is aware of how much of "Western Culture" more Eastern countries have actually embraced...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think your original premise conflates popularity and appreciation with dominance and reverence. The latter two are qualities that I would hope to see dwindle, and the reason for the rise in ethnomusicology - or the realisation that we're not the greatest civilisation to have ever lived, with the best art imaginable to offer the world - is that we came to realise that we're all human, we all have things of equal value to contribute to a global culture, though those things may differ greatly in style and purpose with none of them being intrinsically better than any other.

If you genuinely believe that classical music popularity and appreciation is declining, I would very much like to see some figures to back up the claim - there's no use being so pessimistic if you've got no solid reason for it. I suspect that your fear may just be a prejudice you've garnered without realising from fear-mongering snobs (not that you are one yourself).


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Indeed, there is great respect for the western classical tradition in many eastern countries. Even more respect than you'd find in many western countries.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I think the lack of support from liberal democracies is weakening the influence of classic music; The support that Monarchies (for hundreds of years) and Socialist countries (since last century) have offered sufficiently.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> I think the lack of support from liberal democracies is weakening the influence of classic music; The support that Monarchies (for hundreds of years) and Socialist countries (since last century) have offered sufficiently.


Who doesn't support classical music??? Are you talking about the US OF A!?? THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!? :scold:

Oh ya...I guess you are.....


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Arsakes said:


> I think the lack of support from liberal democracies is weakening the influence of classic music; The support that Monarchies (for hundreds of years) and Socialist countries (since last century) have offered sufficiently.


Oops, double post.


----------



## sah (Feb 28, 2012)

> To US students Beethoven's a dog, Michelangelo a virus
> 
> Most young Americans entering university this year can't write in cursive, think email is too slow, that Beethoven's a dog and Michelangelo a computer virus, according to an annual list compiled by two academics at a US college


http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-most-us-students-think-beethoven-dog


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Badinerie said:


> Im pretty sure what we call " Western Civilisation " will survive as long as there are some of us still spelling civilisation with an s...:tiphat:


Oh, Lol you linguistic jingoist white man! So it is Civilization with that Zed (and two noughts?) which has you convinced of the ultimate decline and fall of when the maps were so predominantly pink - and upon which the sun never set?

Lol, oh Lol me matey


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

sah said:


> http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-most-us-students-think-beethoven-dog


The original article is unavailable, so I can't verify the exact extent to which those claims are complete bull, but two points to be made are that two academics from a single U.S. college cannot speak for "most young Americans", and anyone who thinks an inability to write in cursive is a bad thing is a moron.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

sah said:


> http://www.bullfax.com/?q=node-most-us-students-think-beethoven-dog


What empirical/societal value do these 'two academics' place on cursive writing? Based on that prejudice, the rest of their 'compilation' is suspect.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Since ca. 1100 a.c.e. classical music (small c deliberate) has been taking very good care of itself, notwithstanding Stephen and Maude quibbling like the rancorous siblings they were; Guillaume de Machaut lived through nearly the entire 14th century of plagues which reduced the world population by one-third to leave us some of the most stunning, lyrical, masterly and expressive contrapuntal music ever composed; and later music somehow held up under the reformation; the chaotic and mercenary army disrupted Europe of nearly the entire 16th century, and it just relentlessly seems to carry on through to this very moment, rather like this sentence, and all without needing once a nano-watt flare of a scintilla of one of your cerebral tissue neurons applied to worrying about it.

I too, culturally, value polyphony over monophony, but to disparage the equally antique and equally sophisticated musics and the great virtuoso traditions of East Indian Sitar music, ancient 'classical' Japanese and Chinese musics or Balinese Gamelon music, to name but a few, is the height of ignorance skewed by a ridiculous cultural / racial bias, and is insulting to all great highly refined art music from all cultures, including an wolloping insult to the greatest of virtuoso musicians, both composers, improvisers and performers, east, west, south or north.

By the way -- virtually every western musical instrument, other than the universally and simultaneously invented simplest of reed flutes and keyboard instruments, has direct lineal antecedents from an instrument which originated in the east ('the source') and migrated west

You are the sort who make me fervently pray they do determine Beethoven was part negro -- me thinking you are such a pseudo-intellectual prig (just an opinion) that it would completely 'color' your cultural opinion of that great composer. "Oh! So that is what accounts for his strong sense of rhythm; oh, those, *******, ya know." Lol.

ADD: Just for you 





So there.


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

macgeek2005 said:


> Yes, so far this is still true, but with the backlash against the "big bad west" going on right now, do you not think its possible that that influence will lessen?


Not until someone comes up with a more versatile harmonic configuration system than the diatonic one or a more versatile tuning system than equal temperament or a more ergonomical keyboard layout than the seven white-five black.


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Badinerie said:


> Im pretty sure what we call " Western Civilisation " will survive as long as there are some of us still spelling civilisation with an s...:tiphat:


Hahaha. But what is a traditional Western civilisation course? Or indeed a traditional Western civilization course? (Those of us in the former British colonies other than the USA have no idea. Er ... um ... at least I have no idea.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

Argus said:


> Not until someone comes up with a more versatile harmonic configuration system than the diatonic one or a more versatile tuning system than equal temperament or a more ergonomical keyboard layout than the seven white-five black.


I believe that is true. Traditional musics from other cultures do not use harmony in the same sense that it developed in Europe. I have not come across any and would be interested if anyone knows of any. What I mean by harmony is a sense of harmonic _progression _from chord to chord. All music I've heard from other cultures tends to be harmonically static.
I also think that it is a 'discovery' that the rest of the world values just as we all count using the the Arabic system and not the Roman. Once 'bitten' there's no going back.
I've wondered why, if what I say isn't true, all National Anthems sound more or less the same (zzzz) no matter if they're Tongo's, Korea's, Mexico's or Iran's.


----------



## humanbean (Mar 5, 2011)

I think it's great people are interested in music from other cultures. You have to remember that old cultures developed their own systems, and should be respected almost as much as, if not equally, as western classical.

I believe your efforts should be focused against the real scourge of music: American Rock and Roll. This form of music glorifies low-skill, amateurish methods of composition and externals completely unrelated to the music itself (i.e. band image, antics, performance gimmicks, etc.) Yet despite this, it's the most popular form of music. Only in this day and age can some snot-nosed teenager dangling around with his guitar in his parents basement become more popular than a conservatory graduate who has extensively studied all aspects of music composition. What I find most annoying of all, some fans of this music regard it as high level art merely because it "sounds good" and "technical" with no objective backing at all (this especially applies to fans of "complex" 60s/70s progressive rock and heavy metal.)

There's my flame-baiting pop rant of the day.


----------



## LordBlackudder (Nov 13, 2010)

it has already happened because china has a large interest in classical music. so it is more asian than western now.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

LordBlackudder said:


> it has already happened because china has a large interest in classical music. so it is more asian than western now.


Yep. Beethoven is Chinese now.


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Personally I believe in the overwhelming superiority of the western classical tradition, especially as cumulated in the Germanic region in the 1800s, and writers of the above nonsense should ask themselves why they aren't on an Indian classical forum if that tradition is so comparatively rich. I don't claim this objectively of course, I can only offer my extremely good taste in music.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Webernite said:


> Far fewer than from Russia, which isn't in "the West."


Do you really want to continue this pissing match with population, subsidy, etc. stats?


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

LordBlackudder said:


> it has already happened because china has a large interest in classical music. so it is more asian than western now.


They do, and Korea, and Japan, etc. And you can find many of them studying at Indiana University, Juilliard, and other American music schools.

This East vs West debate is passe. Homogeneity occurred long ago.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

macgeek2005 said:


> "Firstly, the most popular music in the world is still Western: pop, hip-hop, EDM, soul, R&B, rock, jazz all originate in the West.


Am I the only one that sees this as just plain wrong? Jazz, soul, R&B and later rock and hip-hop all originated from African American music, did it not? Arguably not originating in the west at all, or are we not going back that far? Classical music certainly goes back that far.



> In non-Western countries with developed infrasctructure you will hear far much more Western influenced music than traditional/local fare.


The spread of Western music is more to do with the spread of the English Language and that has happened for a number of reasons. Even so, I would challenge that idea and wonder what you mean by 'developed infrastructure' and why we should exclude nations that don't fit that criteria. China and India at least certainly have a very dominant musical tradition of their own.



> Basically any use of functional harmony shows signs of Westernisation."


Harmony is relative. There are many modes of scales that don't fit into the classical form, but that nonetheless sound perfectly normal in other cultures.


----------



## Webernite (Sep 4, 2010)

Vaneyes said:


> Do you really want to continue this pissing match with population, subsidy, etc. stats?


No, I don't. I think we're misunderstaning each other any way... My point is only that the thread-starter talks about classical music as if it were mainly an American and Western European phenomenon, when that's clearly not the case.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I don't really see that much difference between _high_ or_ low _art, or music from one tradition/region or another. I enjoy as much of it as I can, don't care for boundaries.

With slinging arrows at rock musicians (or non-classical), quite a few come from classical background (eg. started very young playing classical music, then got into rock). The opposite is also true, there are classical composers now who got into classical from largely rock background earlier on (I think Australian composer Nigel Westlake is a bit like this kind of fusion).

A lot of non-Western things have entered classical. Eg. West African drumming has been big influence on Steve Reich and others. As has been Indian ragas (eg. Philip Glass making an album with Ravi Shankar). Both Reich and Glass where more interested in what guys like Miles Davis and Charlie Parker where doing than say Webern or whatever, who was the rage in the music schools of Europe in mid 20th century. They had to break away from what they saw as shackles of the past, of European tradition.

I just think the classical music industry, and the whole of music of all types, has gone global now. But it's been for a long time. Classical music is no longer more mainstream as it used to be before 1945. Yes, the emergence of rock n'roll is a factor. But so are other things. In any case, they're not mutually exclusive, they continue to enrich eachother. It's all connected.

If you are worried about the future of classical music, just go to concerts in your local area, support your local musicians, buy their cd's, etc. Think local, act global. Put your money where your mouth is. I find this more useful than worrying, but of course sometimes I worry about the future of classical music as well. I can tell you, but I won't.



macgeek2005 said:


> ...
> Will "classical music" cease to mean "western classical music," and we'll have to start adding that prefix before it to clarify Which classical music we're talking about? (of course with the implication that it's just another type of music, and no better than any other).
> ...


But I think that fusion is a good thing. Isn't it good that Debussy heard gamelan music from Indonesia at Paris World Fair in late 19th century? Music was already becoming global then. Those pentatonic scales influenced his own music. He was able to break away fully from Romanticism, and with him and others, music entered the 20th century, the Modern era. So this is more relevant for me than Europe continuing insularly to go on with things that were even by then becoming a little outdated and anachronistic.

In turn, Debussy would influence others to move in previously unexpected directions as well, some from outside of Europe (eg. Toru Takemitsu from Japan, who in turn influenced others, incl. Australian composers - Barry Conyngham studied with him). It's a chain that continues and expands it's web, in a good way, I think.

It's just one view, I also like some of the late Romantics, but it's countering the OP's view. So I think Western Europe is where classical music originally came from, but now it's truly global.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

Lol @ Sid James actually thinking Modern Classical is considered music. Naive.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

Assuming that the main point of the thread was to ask the last question in the OP, "Will the "decline of western civilization" mean the decline of classical music?", I like Polednice's request for any data that shows a decline in the popularity of classical music in the past several decades. I'm not convinced that attitudes toward Western civilization are closely associated with attitudes towards classical music.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

humanbean said:


> I believe your efforts should be focused against the real scourge of music: American Rock and Roll. This form of music glorifies low-skill, amateurish methods of composition and externals completely unrelated to the music itself (i.e. band image, antics, performance gimmicks, etc.) Yet despite this, it's the most popular form of music. Only in this day and age can some snot-nosed teenager dangling around with his guitar in his parents basement become more popular than a conservatory graduate who has extensively studied all aspects of music composition. What I find most annoying of all, some fans of this music regard it as high level art merely because it "sounds good" and "technical" with no objective backing at all (this especially applies to fans of "complex" 60s/70s progressive rock and heavy metal.)


Oh geeze this is just as ignorant as the first post.


----------



## Romantic Geek (Dec 25, 2009)

Webernite said:


> Ah yes, America and the UK, where all the great classical composers came from.


For what it's worth, quite a few great composers came out of America and the UK.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Romantic Geek said:


> For what it's worth, quite a few great composers came out of America and the UK.


Yep, & quite a few composers went to the UK and esp. USA. Handel most obviously with the UK, but guys like Mendelssohn also had strong connections there. & with the USA, goes without saying who went to live there. Eg. Stravinsky, Schoenberg, Milhaud, Dohnanyi to name a few.

Which kind of illustrates what I was saying before. Classical music is global, has been for ages, same as rock or other non classical things are global. _World music _is a specific category but I think it can apply to all musics that are not parochial or insular & hermenuetically sealed off. & that's probably most of the stuff out there now, it's globally connected.


----------



## Lenfer (Aug 15, 2011)

Webernite said:


> Far fewer than from Russia, which isn't in "the West."


*Russia* to the up to the *Ural* mountains is still in *Europe*. I think *Russia* is in "*The West*" if *Russia* is not then *Poland*, *Ukraine* and the *Baltic* states to name a few should not be considered "*The West*" either. Not only that but the influx of *Russians*, *Poles* and other slavic countries contributed much to the cultural development in of *United States*.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

violadude said:


> Oh geeze this is just as ignorant as the first post.


We like our punching bags here. May as well go back and blame guys like Liszt for kind of inventing the rockstar image, before there were _real _rockstars. Women fainted at his recitals just as they did at gigs of _The Beatles._ Critics who didn't like Liszt poo-pooed him for similar reasons as critics of _The Beatles _or Elvis Presley - basically as a threat, lowbrow, vulgar, it's not _real _music or _good_ music, loosening morals or whatever mudball they could throw. But whatever, we just lay into whoever is convenient around here, whether or not it makes sense. & we make up things as we go along, whether it's close to some sort of reality or not.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Sid James said:


> We like our punching bags here. May as well go back and blame guys like Liszt for kind of inventing the rockstar image, before there were _real _rockstars. Women fainted at his recitals just as they did at gigs of _The Beatles._ Critics who didn't like Liszt poo-pooed him for similar reasons as critics of _The Beatles _or Elvis Presley - basically as a threat, lowbrow, vulgar, it's not _real _music or _good_ music, loosening morals or whatever mudball they could throw. But whatever, we just lay into whoever is convenient around here, whether or not it makes sense. & we make up things as we go along, whether it's close to some sort of reality or not.


People often make the mistake of thinking that if it weren't for pop or rock music folks who are now listening to these genres would be listening to classical music instead. I think that if it weren't for popular music the vast majority of them would be listening to nothing whatsoever.

The rise of pop - first by way of singers like Bing Crosby and Peggy Lee plus swing and the pop/swing of people like Glenn Miller and later rock'n'roll coincided almost exactly with classical music becoming less accessible to a majority of listeners who mostly enjoy music because of tunes and rhythm. If composers had continued to provide audiences with music you could whistle or tap your feet to it wouldn't have held back Elvis or the Stones, but classical music would still have in terms of popularity a much bigger piece of the pie. The fact that 20th century composers have preferred "to boldly go where no music has gone before" instead of giving the people what the people want should arguably be applauded, or at the very least respected, but the other side of the coin is that a loss of popularity is the logical consequence and popular music has very little to do with it in my opinion. This whole idea of, "if it weren't for Madonna or U2 everyone would be listening to Carter or Stockhausen" sounds ridiculous to me.


----------



## macgeek2005 (Apr 1, 2006)

PetrB said:


> You are the sort who make me fervently pray they do determine Beethoven was part negro -- me thinking you are such a pseudo-intellectual prig (just an opinion) that it would completely 'color' your cultural opinion of that great composer.


That wouldn't change my view of him or of western culture. It's about the culture, not about the skin color or the "original" cultural origin of anyone partaking in or creating the art. It's simply about the fact that large amounts of the world deny the superiority of western classical music, and that puts it at risk, at least much more than it would be if people didn't have a problem with recognizing that it was superior.

In my ethnomusicology class recently, an American flutist (classical) of Korean decent spoke about how she asked her parents about the music of Korea, and they said "oh, we don't really have music. I mean.. we have some folk music, but it's not a high art form or anything."

And people in the class put on their "oh, the terrible Westerners suppressed the poor Koreans perception of their own music" faces, and the general tone in the class was an implicit agreement that of course their music is just as high and great as Western music, and that it's the Westerners fault that they don't think so.

In other words, people think so lowly of Western culture, and feel so apologetic for it, that they have to compensate by going out into the world and trying to convince other people who are ALREADY INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO SEE THAT THEIR MUSIC ISN'T A HIGH ART, that their music actually is a high art.

.


----------



## humanbean (Mar 5, 2011)

Alright alright, perhaps I did go a bit too far in my post. The fact is, one can't help but become frustrated when surrounded by people who worship their "rock gods" for creating such innovative music, but couldn't give a hoot about classical composers, modern or past. I mean, if you guys think hardcore Mahler fans are annoying, these guys are just...

But reality is, I used to be one of these rock junkies and have somewhat of an idea of how these people think. And I am fully aware they too could enjoy classical one day if they just give it a chance. But unfortunately most won't and I am probably not helping the situation with this attitude. :lol:

Do I *really* believe rock music is even remotely a threat to classical? Not at all. My post was simply a rage rant - circlejerk inciting, if you will - and meant for entertainment for those who share my frustration.


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

humanbean said:


> Alright alright, perhaps I did go a bit too far in my post. The fact is, one can't help but become frustrated when surrounded by people who worship their "rock gods" for creating such innovative music, but couldn't give a hoot about classical composers, modern or past. I mean, if you guys think hardcore Mahler fans are annoying, these guys are just...
> 
> *But reality is, I used to be one of these rock junkies and have somewhat of an idea of how these people think. *And I am fully aware they too could enjoy classical one day if they just give it a chance. But unfortunately most won't and I am probably not helping the situation with this attitude. :lol:
> 
> Do I really believe rock music is even remotely a threat to classical? Not at all. My post was simply a rage rant - circlejerk inciting, if you will - and meant for entertainment for those who share my frustration.


I think those people think more or less the same way that fans of other genres often think, namely that the stuff that the're listening to is the best and that everyone who doesn't is clueless. But when we talk about "those people" we're talking about a minority. A significant minority, but nonetheless a minority.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

Without sounding complacent I don’t worry about Classical music’s future too much as it’s just too amazing to ever fade away!
It will always be a minority interest as with classic literature and great Art in general. 
A lot of people come to it as they get older too, I know of someone who used to only love jimmy Hendrix to the point of obsession but now only listens to classical music.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

The frequent tales of the decline of Classical Music sound so Lebrechtian alarmist and the people who argue the contrary position sound so upbeat and forward-thinking that I'd like to have sympathy for the latter camp-

but...


mmsbls said:


> I like Polednice's request for any data that shows a decline in the popularity of classical music in the past several decades.


... I think there *is* some _there_ there.

No, I can't furnish data off-hand. I can give you (inarguably) less reliable impressions. For those old enough to have gone into a place where they sell recorded music, say, 25 years ago... remember the size of the Classical Music section then? Okay, how about now? I live in the 4th largest metropolitan area in America- and the city at the center of it no longer has a full-time Classical Music station (it gives itself over to jazz in the evening). How about when I go to a Met in HD performance at the local theatre... and (even though I've been around for about half-a-century) I'm one of the _youngest_ people to take a seat there. Around the time I was born, the National Broadcasting Company and Columbia Records both had symphony orchestras- led by Toscanini & Walter, no less. A little later, Leonard Bernstein's "Young People's Concerts" were broadcast on a 'Big-3' commercial network (CBS, then called "The Tiffany Network," on account of doing such things). How unthinkable would that be NOW? Hey, even the fact that many of us participate *here* owe some of our more spirited participation to the fact that we have limited opportunities to have face-to-face conversations concerning Classical Music.

I've anticipated some of the rose-colored answers to many of these concerns. Some have more merit than others. Still, I don't want to step on the flow of the dialog... and will take a step back now---


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

macgeek2005 said:


> It's simply about the fact that large amounts of the world deny the superiority of western classical music, and that puts it at risk, at least much more than it would be if people didn't have a problem with recognizing that it was superior.


First, the superiority of western classical music is denied by many because it's _untrue_; second, if anything is going to put it at risk, it's the desire to revere classical music as superior, which reeks of cultural imperialism



macgeek2005 said:


> In my ethnomusicology class recently, an American flutist (classical) of Korean decent spoke about how she asked her parents about the music of Korea, and they said "oh, we don't really have music. I mean.. we have some folk music, but it's not a high art form or anything."
> 
> And people in the class put on their "oh, the terrible Westerners suppressed the poor Koreans perception of their own music" faces, and the general tone in the class was an implicit agreement that of course their music is just as high and great as Western music, and that it's the Westerners fault that they don't think so.
> 
> ...


This is completely and utterly backwards. It's not that people think lowly of Western culture that they go out and convince other cultures that their music is just as good, it's that people _don't_ think disproportionately _highly_ of Western culture. I also don't think this is a question of Westerners convincing others that their culture is equally laudable, it's actually just pointing out to other cultures that - as opposed to how they have been made to feel before - they don't need to continue denigrating their own culture because of the pre-dominance of ours.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

jhar26 said:


> The rise of pop - first by way of singers like Bing Crosby and Peggy Lee plus swing and the pop/swing of people like Glenn Miller and later rock'n'roll coincided almost exactly with classical music becoming less accessible to a majority of listeners who mostly enjoy music because of tunes and rhythm. If composers had continued to provide audiences with music you could whistle or tap your feet to it wouldn't have held back Elvis or the Stones, but classical music would still have in terms of popularity a much bigger piece of the pie. The fact that 20th century composers have preferred "to boldly go where no music has gone before" instead of giving the people what the people want should arguably be applauded, or at the very least respected, but the other side of the coin is that a loss of popularity is the logical consequence and popular music has very little to do with it in my opinion. This whole idea of, "if it weren't for Madonna or U2 everyone would be listening to Carter or Stockhausen" sounds ridiculous to me.


Actually, the progression in the technology of sound recording made it possible for more people than ever to listen to classical music. People no longer had to go to the concert hall to hear it and the opera stars of the day were now portable to your living room. It wasEnrique Caruso sold the first million-selling record. Much of Opera is particularly tuneful, if not something you can dance to. Having lyrics also helps.

It mainly comes down to that too. There has always been more popularity associated with folk music among the general population because that is what was easily reproducable in their own homes and at social events and the words have their own meaning apart from the music. The introduction of recorded sound took away from the concert hall and opera houses, but the sum total of people listening to music of the classical tradition increased to make it more popular than ever among all classes of society. Maybe the issue of relative popularity is important, but it can't be disputed that in the era of Caruso and (much later) Callas, classical music and opera was a huge industry, bigger and with greater outreach than it was a hundred years earlier.

The success of living composers during the 20th and 21st centuries is something I find slightly irrelevant. Classical music has hundreds of years of material to draw from and hundreds of decent composers. Any one of the major composers has produced an output far in excess of any band or solo artist I can think of. People are still listening to Mozart and Beethoven, to Vivaldi and Bach. The so-called decline of classical music is due to people not going to the concert hall with the same frequency or listening to the works of composers, and often the recordings of artists, conductors and orchestras, who are long dead. I don't think it is a choice between living composers providing tuneful material to cater to the public or not, for there is an abundant wealth of material to choose from both among the standard repertoire and living composers. Living composers have been providing accompanyment to film scores (and their themes) since their creation. The soundtrack to Lord of the Rings enjoyed popularity, and the themes to Star Wars and many blockbusters are univerally known. To be honest, those composers who have catered to more popular tastes haven't always been rewarded for their toils by those who are bemoaning the loss of the classical tradition. Unfortunately people see popularism as the 'dumbing down' of classical music and would prefer that classical music maintain integrity than popularity.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Couchie said:


> Personally I believe in the overwhelming superiority of the western classical tradition, especially as cumulated in the Germanic region in the 1800s, and writers of the above nonsense should ask themselves why they aren't on an Indian classical forum if that tradition is so comparatively rich. I don't claim this objectively of course, I can only offer my extremely good taste in music.


I actually have some sympathy for this viewpoint...


macgeek2005 said:


> It's simply about the fact that large amounts of the world deny the superiority of western classical music...
> 
> 
> Polednice said:
> ...


Question:

if, in the first phrase (from *Couchie*) we substitute the phrase "undeniable excellence" for "overwhelming superiority," and in the second phrase (from *macgeek2005*) we again insert "excellence" instead of "superiority," would those positions trouble you less?

I don't think it takes much away from the points of those two posters to tweak their word-usage in such a way. Even should the latter prove unwilling, the response leads to a place I'd rather not go, i.e.: "if you think Western Classical Music is *the best*, then you harbor an _untrue opinion_ and should be made to RECANT, you cultural imperialist, you!":lol:


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Eh, classical music still exists and it's doing okay.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

It is a statement of _fact_, not opinion, to claim that Western classical music is superior _and everyone else should think so too_.


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2012)

jhar26 said:


> People often make the mistake of thinking that if it weren't for pop or rock music folks who are now listening to these genres would be listening to classical music instead. I think that if it weren't for popular music the vast majority of them would be listening to nothing whatsoever.


There has always been "popular" music. And in Haydn's time, popular music and art music appeared on the same concerts. Then, the audience wasn't necessarily more homogeneous, just that everyone expected that everyone's tastes could be catered to in the same concert.



jhar26 said:


> The rise of pop - first by way of singers like Bing Crosby and Peggy Lee plus swing and the pop/swing of people like Glenn Miller and later rock'n'roll coincided almost exactly with classical music becoming less accessible to a majority of listeners who mostly enjoy music because of tunes and rhythm.


You can't have it both ways, really you can't. If you posit an audience for popular music that would never listen to "classical," who would listen to nothing, instead (perfect description of my mom, by the way), then by what alchemy do you then suggest that Crosby, Lee, and Miller served people who weren't getting what they wanted from the classical music that was just then becoming less accessible?

The audience for Crosby, et al., was not the same audience for Beethoven, et al., for one. For two, "classical" music started becoming inaccessible right around the time that the word "classical" was first applied to music, around 1810. Only by forgetting (conveniently) that historical fact, can one manufacture such a coinciding. And even so, your dates don't really match up, do they? I know you don't mention any dates in your post, but I think most people who share your views of music would put the beginning of inaccessibility around 1910. Certainly by the mid-twenties at the latest. When did Crosby, Lee, and Miller first "rise"? Crosby, mid thirties. Lee, early forties. Miller, late thirties. The disingenuous "and later rock'n'roll" conceals how _much_ later. (Late forties. Not all that much later than Lee, but significantly later than either 1910 or the mid twenties.)



jhar26 said:


> If composers had continued to provide audiences with music you could whistle or tap your feet to it wouldn't have held back Elvis or the Stones, but classical music would still have in terms of popularity a much bigger piece of the pie.


You mean like the opening to the overture to _The Marriage of Figaro_ or Beethoven's _Grosse Fuge_ (a real toe tapper that one)?

In any event, this scenario is equally flawed. You're talking about two completely different economic models here. In one, 90% of the effort goes into advertising and ten into the product. In the other, 90% of the effort goes into the product and maybe ten, if you're lucky, into the advertising.



jhar26 said:


> The fact that 20th century composers have preferred "to boldly go where no music has gone before" instead of giving the people what the people want should arguably be applauded, or at the very least respected,


Agreed.


jhar26 said:


> but the other side of the coin is that a loss of popularity is the logical consequence and popular music has very little to do with it in my opinion.


Except for the coincidental rise of pop to supply what classical music was no longer supplying.... (What IS your opinion, really? Hard to tell in this thicket of contradictions.)



jhar26 said:


> This whole idea of, "if it weren't for Madonna or U2 everyone would be listening to Carter or Stockhausen" sounds ridiculous to me.


Probably sounds ridiculous to everyone else, too. (The word "everyone" includes the people who have supposedly proposed this ridiculous proposition....)


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Chi_townPhilly said:


> No, I can't furnish data off-hand. I can give you (inarguably) less reliable impressions. For those old enough to have gone into a place where they sell recorded music, say, 25 years ago... remember the size of the Classical Music section then? Okay, how about now? I live in the 4th largest metropolitan area in America- and the city at the center of it no longer has a full-time Classical Music station (it gives itself over to jazz in the evening). How about when I go to a Met in HD performance at the local theatre... and (even though I've been around for about half-a-century) I'm one of the _youngest_ people to take a seat there. Around the time I was born, the National Broadcasting Company and Columbia Records both had symphony orchestras- led by Toscanini & Walter, no less. A little later, Leonard Bernstein's "Young People's Concerts" were broadcast on a 'Big-3' commercial network (CBS, then called "The Tiffany Network," on account of doing such things). How unthinkable would that be NOW? Hey, even the fact that many of us participate *here* owe some of our more spirited participation to the fact that we have limited opportunities to have face-to-face conversations concerning Classical Music.




Interesting that you offer these arguments and then say that they are arguably incorrect without stating any of the flaws in your own evidence. Is this bait?  Also being brief, I would say that:

1. 25 years ago we didn't have the internet. That excludes the digital revolution in both legally and illegally downloaded music. This has impacted on the economy of record stores, leading to cutbacks. It also doesn't account for the size of the classical download market. Is the market declining or shifting?

2. Connected to this, it is much more economical, and more convenient, to order CDs online. ALL record stores have been suffering over the last decade in all genres, not just classical. It is also usually cheaper to purchase chart albums from the supermarket, which now have a larger share of the market. I haven't bought a CD in a shop for a long time.

3. 25 years ago, they probably sold both vinyl and CDs. Perhaps a greater selection can now be stored in a smaller space, even aside from the general shrinkage of record stores?

4. Radio stations... I don't know how that works in America. A classical station for a particular city seems strange to me. We have national classical radio stations that operate just fine and there are many online classical stations. I'm not aware of any local classical stations ever existing in the UK, but I don't really listen to the radio when I have such a large personal collection of music. I would guess that the main function of a local radio station is for local events and current popular music. I see both functions as irrelevant for a local classical station.

5. Met in HD. I am new to the idea of opera in the cinema. Surely the veiwing of the MET into hundreds or thousands of cinemas accross the world is evidence of expansion, or have there been precusors to MET HD? As far as the age group goes, I would only have to blame the internet once again. I rent all my opera discs through an online service. The older generation (50+) does not have the same confidence to use a similar service or stream it online.

6. The decline of orchestras, I think, has a lot to do with the fact that many of us are still listening and purchasing old recordings. New recordings of works by existing orchestras are unlikely to top the highest rated versions of the standard repertoire. Supply is exceeding demand, ATM, but this is not the same thing as a general decline in interest. The Beatles are still popular, Led Zepplin are still popular, but there is no demand for them to still be alive and recording better versions. New and improved recordings of classical works were still being recorded in the 70s due to developments in recorded sound. Many people, myself included, just find it easier to sit at home and listen to the great conductors and orchestras rather than regularly pay many times the cost of a disc to see an orchestra.

7. Limited face-to-face opportunities - This is true, but it is also true of many things that are not in decline. I used to spend a lot of time on a fantasy literature website, but that was not and is not something in decline. The internet is just a better vehicle to seek out and discuss a cornucopia of different opinions rather than limit ourselves to the views of the few people we might know who share our interests. I find it a lot harder to find intelligent conversation in real life and also harder to be as coherent and analytical face-to-face.

Longer than I thought. I will add that I will not exclude the idea that classical music is in decline, but that the growth of other sources should be borne in mind when considering the evidence. I personally, and many, many thousands or millions of others, do not use record shops or go to many concerts because they are becoming outmoded. Does this mean that I have any less of an interest in the genre than anyone else? A couple of major music shop chains have collapsed in the UK in the last few years and others are noticably shrinking or shifting more towards selling movies, games and books. The singles market has already all but disappeared. Much of evidence above would equally point to a decline in music in general, which I don't think is true at all. The fact that classical pieces are rerecorded and given new interpretations makes the market different and I think the demand for new versions is waning rather than general interest. of course, that may result in a serious decline, or it may not. I can't turn the TV on for an hour without hearing at least some classical music. It is still there and still being used.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

crmoorhead said:


> 4. Radio stations... I don't know how that works in America. A classical station for a particular city seems strange to me. We have national classical radio stations that operate just fine and there are many online classical stations. I'm not aware of any local classical stations ever existing in the UK, but I don't really listen to the radio when I have such a large personal collection of music. I would guess that the main function of a local radio station is for local events and current popular music. I see both functions as irrelevant for a local classical station.


If you're talking about BBC Radio 3, it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the government subsidy through the license fee. As for Classic FM, horrible audio compression to reduce dynamics but that's a different rant.

On the general topic...

As far as I can see, Classical music always was and probably always will be a minority pursuit. Once upon a time it was the preserve of the church or the court. Composers were paid by the church or by a wealthy patron. Later, public performance became more frequent for those who could afford it and were interested. The rest of the population had folk music, dancing, singing, music hall and still, the church.
What has changed? Nothing really except the invention of recording and the spread of ideas. 
We live in the information age and any kind of musical grunt or masterpiece that humans make is now available in some form to anyone who wants to listen.

As for the relative merits of classical and pop music. They are two different animals and should not be compared. I will say though, if anyone is under the impression that no skill is involved in the production of popular music you are mistaken. Different skills than those required to produce symphonic works yes, but there are many breathtakingly skilled and creative musicians who work in pop, rock and jazz. And as an aside, if it wasn't for the fact that 'classical' composition as taught throughout the 60s, 70s and beyond hadn't disappeared up it's own orifice, more highly talented musicians may have gone down that route.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Of course, the key, mildly depressing difference between then and now is that classical music used to be completely closed off to the majority of the population regardless of their wants, whereas it is now theoretically open to all, but few people want it.


----------



## crmoorhead (Apr 6, 2011)

Petwhac said:


> If you're talking about BBC Radio 3, it wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the government subsidy through the license fee. As for Classic FM, horrible audio compression to reduce dynamics but that's a different rant.


As I say, I don't listen to the radio often, but Classic FM certainly does serve a purpose for many people and Radio 3 has some really great broadcasts that I have listened to. I forgot that it was paid by the licence fee, although several other nations do pay licence fees too. That's a whole other issue and I don't know if the assumption that classical music in the US receives no public funding at all is correct or not. Regardless, I don't know what the history of the demand for local classical stations has been or if there has been a significant decline in the UK. As far as I can find out, Classical FM started in 1992 and I am not old enough to know what the predecessors for both Classic FM and Radio 3 were. Some quick research shows that Radio 3's predecessor was something called the Third Programme which ran for 24-42 hrs a week, which would indicate that we have significantly more access to classical music now than we did 50 years ago. The main thrust of this thread is that we are meant to have seen a decline in classical music interest and accessibility by the 50s, yet it seems that programming has increased since the late 60s in the UK. Am I reading this incorrectly?


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

some guy said:


> What IS your opinion, really? Hard to tell in this thicket of contradictions.


I don't think there are any contradictions there. I'm not saying that popular music pushed classical music aside and took it's place in the marketplace but that classical music voluntarily gave up it's place itself. I don't think that the audience for post 1920's classical music would be that much bigger without popular music. That's the core of my argument - nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

crmoorhead said:


> Interesting that you offer these arguments and then say that they are arguably incorrect without stating any of the flaws in your own evidence.


Guilty as charged! [I don't want to treat the topic so comprehensively as to leave no-one else with anything to say!]


cmoorehead said:


> Actually, the progression in the technology of sound recording made it possible for more people than ever to listen to classical music.


Yup! But then there's *Polednice*'s gold-star contribution:


Polednice said:


> Of course, the key, mildly depressing difference between then and now is that classical music used to be completely closed off to the majority of the population regardless of their wants, whereas it is now theoretically open to all, but few people want it.


To paraphrase Eliot, between the availability and the absorption falls the shadow. Or to directly quote Dorothy Parker as I've done before, "You can lead a wh0re t'culture, but you can't make 'er think!"


----------



## Argus (Oct 16, 2009)

crmoorhead said:


> Am I the only one that sees this as just plain wrong? Jazz, soul, R&B and later rock and hip-hop all originated from African American music, did it not? Arguably not originating in the west at all, or are we not going back that far? Classical music certainly goes back that far.
> 
> The spread of Western music is more to do with the spread of the English Language and that has happened for a number of reasons. Even so, I would challenge that idea and wonder what you mean by 'developed infrastructure' and why we should exclude nations that don't fit that criteria. China and India at least certainly have a very dominant musical tradition of their own.
> 
> Harmony is relative. There are many modes of scales that don't fit into the classical form, but that nonetheless sound perfectly normal in other cultures.


You quoted macgeek but those are my words, so I'll respond.

1. The United States of America is a Western nation. Jazz, rock, R&B, soul, hip hop and most styles of EDM originated in the US. That makes them Western, whether or not they were created by African Americans or Anglo Americans or any other non-indiginous Americans. If we are talking about culture then there is no doubt American culture as a whole has stronger links to Europe than Africa.

2. By specifying developed infrastructure I ruled out countries like Papua New Guinea or Vanuatu, where the exposure to Western culture is limited by the fact there are still groups of their population living traditional rural lifestyles unchanged for eons. India and China do have historic musical traditions, but look at modern India and China. The introduction of the harmonium into Indian classical made the tones fixed which in turn lead to the fusion found in Bollywood soundtracks and eventually things like bhangra. Similarly, I would venture a guess that there are more young Chinese learning the piano, concert flute and violin than the erhu, dizi or guqin.

3. That is why I specified functional harmony. All music that isn't monophonic has harmony but in the case of non-Western folk musics it is incidental and arises from vertical combinations of melodic tones (like counterpoint but without a structural basis). The idea of harmonic regions (I, ii, iii, IV etc) is very much linked with the development of classical music.

Also, remember I'm one of the least likely people here to blindly defend classical music because I have no particular affinity for it over other styles.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> I don't think there are any contradictions there. I'm not saying that popular music pushed classical music aside and took it's place in the marketplace but that classical music voluntarily gave up it's place itself. I don't think that the audience for post 1920's classical music would be that much bigger without popular music. That's the core of my argument - nothing more, nothing less.


 What you said in the second paragraph of your post 46 was that if classical music had not gone off in new directions in the 1930's (when early pop/swing started) classical music today would have a bigger market share. Do you mean to imply by this that there wasn't already enough classical music of the old type (as written by all the previous generations of composers) to keep the fans satisfied, and hence they drifted off towards pop/swing etc because more of the same old school classical music was not forthcoming from classical composers in that period who were instead venturing off into new areas? If so, this proposition sounds implausible.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Of course, the key, mildly depressing difference between then and now is that classical music used to be completely closed off to the majority of the population regardless of their wants, whereas it is now theoretically open to all, but few people want it.


There's plenty of evidence in Vivaldi, Bach, Mozart, Beethoven periods (four examples) that classical music was available to all in various venues. Mozart particularly enjoyed the raucous activity surrounding his music when played in more modest locations.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Sid James said:


> We like our punching bags here. May as well go back and blame guys like Liszt for kind of inventing the rockstar image, before there were _real _rockstars. Women fainted at his recitals just as they did at gigs of _The Beatles._ Critics who didn't like Liszt poo-pooed him for similar reasons as critics of _The Beatles _or Elvis Presley - basically as a threat, lowbrow, vulgar, it's not _real _music or _good_ music, loosening morals or whatever mudball they could throw. But whatever, we just lay into whoever is convenient around here, whether or not it makes sense. & we make up things as we go along, whether it's close to some sort of reality or not.


Women swooned over Nelson Eddy, Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra. Then along came Bill Haley and his Comets, Elvis Presley, Jerry Lee Lewis, Bo Diddley, Little Richard, James Brown. Music of the Devil, all. :devil:


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Very Senior Member said:


> What you said in the second paragraph of your post 46 was that if classical music had not gone off in new directions in the 1930's (when early pop/swing started) classical music today would have a bigger market share. *Do you mean to imply by this that there wasn't already enough classical music of the old type (as written by all the previous generations of composers) to keep the fans satisfied, and hence they drifted off towards pop/swing etc because more of the same old school classical music was not forthcoming from classical composers in that period who were instead venturing off into new areas? If so, this proposition sounds implausible.*


I don't know why you all seem to think that I mean to imply that the rise of popular music ala Jolson, Crosby or swing had anything to do with classical music today having a smaller market share than it could have. I'm saying in fact the exact opposite of that, or I tried to anyway, but it seems that I failed miserably. Post 46 was just a response to the quite popular line of thought that the blame of why classical music isn't more popular lies with popular music. In my opinion it doesn't.

The bold part - yes, and I don't think it's that implausible. Without a regular influx of works that have popular appeal the population at large stops thinking of classical music as something that is happening here and now but rather as something of the 18th and 19th centuries. And with popular appeal I don't necessarily mean Johann Strauss type of popular appeal but pieces that find their way to a substantial audience. Many often say, "yes, but this problem has always existed. This piece or that composer only achieved popularity decades or even centuries later." Yes, but the difference is that despite of that 90% or more of the art music that people listened to in those days was current. Now 90% of the art music that people listen to by composers who died ages ago. In the 19th century people may have rejected the music of some then current composers. In the second half of the 20th century music of living composers was rejected en masse by the public at large. I don't think that such a state of affairs helps the popularity of classical music one bit.

And finally - contrary to what people may think, my posts on this thread are NOT a criticism of 20th century music or the value of the compositions by living composers. I'm not talking about artistic value but only about popular appeal. Neither am I saying that classical music is in danger of disappearing or anything as dramatic as that. But since the debate is about why it's market share is getting smaller I don't think that my opinion is that far of the mark. It's probably not the only reason, but it's at least a part of it.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

^ I didn't have any trouble with the first part of your post 46, which seemed fine. It was the second paragraph of that post which confused me as it seemed to contradict the first paragraph. With reference to the part of my text which you enboldened, I would suggest that your suggestion is implausible for two main reasons: (1) Even if old-style classical music production had ceased altogether after the 1930s, this wouldn't necessarily have led to a reduction in interest in that kind of music, given the fact that most people like the music of composers of old anyway (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et al); (2) In fact, old-style classical music of the tonal variety didn't stop being produced after the 1930's as you imply, but rather a steady supply continued (eg Vaughan Williams, Tippett, Britten, Barber, Shostakovich, to name a few composers that readily spring to mind), albeit alongside newer styles of classical various types. In any event, one could equally argue to the contrary that if classical composers hadn't introduced new styles after the 1930's (or whatever time you are talking about) then the share of classical music overall might have dropped, especially if all they were doing was reflecting new demands against a backdrop of an increasingly saturated market for all the tonal types of music.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> I'm not talking about artistic value but only about popular appeal. Neither am I saying that classical music is in danger of disappearing or anything as dramatic as that. But since the debate is about why it's market share is getting smaller I don't think that my opinion is that far of the mark. It's probably not the only reason, but it's at least a part of it.


I think it's safe to say that the "market share" of _all_ music is getting smaller. If you are referring the size of the classical slice of the pie that represents all music consumption, I think it was always much smaller than popular music of any era. However, before recording was invented there wasn't much of a 'market' for popular music. But many, many homes had a piano!


----------



## jhar26 (Jul 6, 2008)

Very Senior Member said:


> ^ I didn't have any trouble with the first part of your post 46, which seemed fine. It was the second paragraph of that post which confused me as it seemed to contradict the first paragraph. With reference to the part of my text which you enboldened, I would suggest that your suggestion is implausible for two main reasons: (1) Even if old-style classical music production had ceased altogether after the 1930s, this wouldn't necessarily have led to a reduction in interest in that kind of music, given the fact that most people like the music of composers of old anyway (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven et al); (2) In fact, old-style classical music of the tonal variety didn't stop being produced after the 1930's as you imply, but rather a steady supply continued (eg Vaughan Williams, Tippett, Britten, Barber, Shostakovich, to name a few composers that readily spring to mind), albeit alongside newer styles of classical various types. In any event, one could equally argue to the contrary that if classical composers hadn't introduced new styles after the 1930's (or whatever time you are talking about) then the share of classical music overall might have dropped, especially if all they were doing was reflecting new demands against a backdrop of an increasingly saturated market for all the tonal types of music.


Good well argumented post.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant (Mar 11, 2010)

macgeek2005 said:


> ...Will the "decline of western civilization" mean the decline of classical music?


It seems to me you're more worried about culture, or even society. Yes, there is much to be worried about in the general dumbing down of all cultures (and not just western ones) - the inevitable spread of globalisation inevitably leads to the triumph of the lowest common denominator. It's such a shame that Marshall McLuhan is so out of fashion because he had so much to say on this subject that is helpful.

I think people will continue to compose because they are personally driven to do so. The electronic society we are in means it has never been easier for these people to get a hearing (if not live, at least in a variety of digital formats).

What depresses me is the quality of much contemporary "classical" music that is put before the public. A lot of it so simplistic (and I don't mean honorably minimalist) as to make one weep.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

jhar26 said:


> ....Neither am I saying that classical music is in danger of disappearing or anything as dramatic as that. But since the debate is about why it's market share is getting smaller I don't think that my opinion is that far of the mark. It's probably not the only reason, but it's at least a part of it.


Classical music market share is an elusive animal...always has been, but in a not too long ago Mr. Naxos interview, he said it was never more than 4% overall (from 1980's onward), and now he estimates 3 to 3.5%. Seems reasonable for the latter, since I read 3.2% in a 2010 Telegraph article.

So, I think it's fair to say CM's fared better than most types of music, and worse than a few.

Sidenote: What isn't measured in market share is the selling of used CDs. I think classical music may be the leader in this regard, but i have no data to support my suspicion.


----------



## Very Senior Member (Jul 16, 2009)

^ The figure of circa 3-4% accords with the results of a very limited and highly amateurish investigation I carried out a few years ago by scanning the internet for any relevant statistics I could find on the subject. The main countries for which I could find data were the USA and UK. This is a notoriously difficult area of research as it's by no means clear how to define a fan of classical music, e.g. exactly how interested does one have to be in classical music relative to other genres to be included amongst the classical membership? What are the appropriate measures of "interestedness" to use? Does reliable data exist? Do these measures overlap so that double-counting issues become problematic, etc? I found it way too difficult to resolve any of these problems, and gave up the task of trying to finesse the results of what turned out to be a very uncertain overall picture. Nevertheless, for what they may be worth, very low figures of about 3-4 % overall seemed to be indicated. I wouldn't mind betting that if one included only hard-core classical fans whose primary musical interest is classical (I guess like many T-C members) then that percentage is probably much lower. Looking at merely one aspect of all this, one fairly reliable recent statistic I've seen is that in the UK the combined share of Radio 3 and Classic FM (the UK's only mainly classical music stations) in total radio broadcasting is just under 5%, and this has possibly fallen over the past decade or so.


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2012)

Jeremy Marchant said:


> It seems to me you're more worried about culture, or even society.


I don't think he's worried about anything. I think he just wanted to vent.



Jeremy Marchant said:


> What depresses me is the quality of much contemporary "classical" music that is put before the public. A lot of it so simplistic (and I don't mean honorably minimalist) as to make one weep.


What depresses me is anonymous generalizations like this. Without some specific examples, we cannot weep with you, you know (unless we already--generally--agree with you (i.e., rant about the same things)); we can only watch you weep, and wonder.

'Course, if you do give us examples, you run the risk that we will not only NOT weep with you, but will think you're a noodlehead for choosing such great music to be depressed about. That's a risk you're simply not willing to take, isn't it?

Perhaps you don't really weep over the poor quality of "much" contemporary classical music, any more than mac worries about the future of classical music. Perhaps you're just venting, too. If so, never mind!!


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2012)

See "reason" below.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

I like your avatar


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

There has been an awful lot of discussion on this thread
However, who decides what is classed as classical music ?
Are we just using the "western" influence here, if so why?
Have we got the trademark here ?


----------



## Operadowney (Apr 4, 2012)

You shouldn't be worried. The pendulum will always swing back. I like to turn to the idea that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

jhar26 said:


> ... In the second half of the 20th century music of living composers was rejected en masse by the public at large. I don't think that such a state of affairs helps the popularity of classical music one bit.
> 
> ...


Not to totally contradict you, but there are still a good deal of living classically trained composers who are popular, esp. in film music and stage musicals. John Williams and Andrew Lloyd Webber are two that come to mind, most people in the West (& also elsewhere) know their stuff. Also, many rock musicians and those of other genres have had some deal of classical training, as I said earlier. I think now we are in a new kind of era, it's different than it was before 1945, or even before 2000. Things are changing all the time. I think the way I see it is there's more links between all types of music than differences. It's all connected in some way.



Petwhac said:


> ...However, before recording was invented there wasn't much of a 'market' for popular music. But many, many homes had a piano!


There was a market, in the form of sheet music for people playing those upright pianos in their homes, to things like sing alongs for family and friends gathered around the instrument. That's been lost. Now we have more individualised thing - eg. ipods with earphones. Not new, eg. started with walkmans. But I think music is less communal now, it's not like earlier last century when people couldn't wait to snap up the latest Gershwin or Jerome Kern song to play and sing at home. It's become mechanical and alienating now. I think that's part of the problem, music is not as integrated into everyday life now.


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

Sheet music was massive. The first million-seller ever was 'After the Ball' is over which came out in 1888 and sold over 5 million copies. Classical music sold well too. 
People forget the like History Classical music is 'fluid' Its not done yet! Im more worried about how I can get away with bringing more Opera and Classical music into the house without her indoors moaning lol!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Which makes me think, with those sing alongs of yesteryears, when the whole family gathered around the piano. Do you think the concept of generation gap came with the baby boomers (after 1945)? Eg. the rock n'roll generation and all that. Since that there's been disco, rap, techno, metal, dubstep, you name it, now so many new things and branches of all these. A kind of tribalism even among youth. So many bands and sub-cultures to choose from. Also retro, things coming back.

So what I'm saying is that before 1945, the whole family sang Schubert (in translation of local language if not German), also Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, the Gershwin brothers. Then also popular song and operetta. But now? Even if they sang, they wouldn't know what to agree on to sing, lol. Even in the one family, eveyone likes different things.

So, the generation gap and tribalism - can we add those to the list of things changing the music landscape since 1945?...


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2012)

Good points, Sid. But I think people (particularly in the US) were singing Stephen Foster and music-hall stuff rather than the more demanding Schubert. That was a bourgeoise pursuit, essentially. (I hope my spelling is correct). Not to forget that George Gershwin himself was a 'song plugger' at Remick's music publishers in NY before he was a composer. People came in to hear him play sheet music before they purchased it. Often they were just cheesy old songs. Operetta was beyond the remit of ordinary people at that time, playing-wise anyway. 

I've followed this discussion and its rather circuituous journey from the opening gambit. I agree with the opening comments of the thread as they show a concern for the future in a young person. Most of the following comments were glib essays from the morally vain who have shown contempt for somebody daring to share an honest opinion. Yawn. Comments about 'xenophobia', 'paranoia'. You don't get that anywhere but the USA, hey? Especially not in Asia, the Middle East or Venezuela!!!!


----------



## Moira (Apr 1, 2012)

Sid James said:


> ^^Which makes me think, with those sing alongs of yesteryears, when the whole family gathered around the piano. Do you think the concept of generation gap came with the baby boomers (after 1945)? Eg. the rock n'roll generation and all that. Since that there's been disco, rap, techno, metal, dubstep, you name it, now so many new things and branches of all these. A kind of tribalism even among youth. So many bands and sub-cultures to choose from. Also retro, things coming back.
> 
> So what I'm saying is that before 1945, the whole family sang Schubert (in translation of local language if not German), also Cole Porter, Jerome Kern, the Gershwin brothers. Then also popular song and operetta. But now? Even if they sang, they wouldn't know what to agree on to sing, lol. Even in the one family, eveyone likes different things.
> 
> So, the generation gap and tribalism - can we add those to the list of things changing the music landscape since 1945?...


I grew up in a home, and an extended family, where it was common to gather round the piano and sing. This was a feature of family life right up to the late eighties or early 90s when my aunt gave her (family) piano to one of her daughters. My father died in 1994 and he was the last of the family pianists who did that type of sing along at the piano. At that point I took possession of the piano which had been purchased for me as a child and which was officially given to me when I left home in 1975.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

Considering all Metal and 90% of rock as 'insanity' doesn't help this topic, but I should say ...

I blame hippies, electric guitar, singers as 'celebrities' and 'idols', and DJs!


----------



## emiellucifuge (May 26, 2009)

Music is more integrated now, Sid. I dont need to wait till I get home and play the piano from a limited selection of pieces. I can now listen to music anywhere and with a vast choice.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2012)

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> Most of the following comments were glib essays from the morally vain who have shown contempt for somebody daring to share an honest opinion.


Hahahaha, good one, CA. (Tell us how you _really_ feel!)


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Future? It never even had a past.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

I don't know about you guys but my family love to gather around the piano and spend a delightful evening singing songs by Berio, Xenakis, Maderna and our favourite, The Darmstadt Songbook.


----------

