# is it overage classical music is obsolete ...



## ollv (Jun 29, 2018)

this is a dialectical question, just talk about it. 
...


----------



## janxharris (May 24, 2010)

ollv said:


> this is a dialectical question, just talk about it.
> ...


??????????????????????????


----------



## Minor Sixthist (Apr 21, 2017)

I think there's a good chance that a sub-par translator site out there that may have made the structure of the question a little unclear, but I think you're asking "is classical music obsolete?"

'Obsolete' from my understanding means something that's no longer produced, or no longer seen and used; outdated.

As for whether classical is still being produced, I feel like this is a prism of a question on TC that refracts into millions of other questions. There are arguments that classical is 'dead,' in fact that it has been dead for 60 years. Others argue that classical is still a living genre, just that its creators have simply developed it in ways that make it less recognizable as "classical" to the traditional listener.

As for the question, is classical still being 'used', or has it become outdated ... I think I'd argue it is still being 'used;, because we 'use' classical music when we purchase recordings of classical, listen to classical, and perform classical. Perhaps even when we make silly arguments about classical on the interwebs. The idea of that particular 'use' has special clarity as someone who very normally rehearses and performs classical music in the orchestral and chamber setting, with a very healthy number of peers and cohorts, and for enthusiastic and healthy audiences. Even more telling is that fact that I perform with other young people who match my enthusiasm and who seek to interpret our music as closely and seriously as was intended by the composer and past performers - we really do strive for professionalism, and that's sensible as many of us are on track to pursue musical performance, education, or serious study as a career path. I think the idea of young people carrying classical music into their adult lives - and subsequently to the next generation - keeps it very strong in what we call the 'modern day' and therefore puts it very far from 'obsolete'.

Again, maybe translation isn't allowing me to see the exact meaning behind your question, but since you intend to begin a dialectical discussion, I would place myself readily (for now) in favor of the position that classical music is not obsolete.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

I am not sure what this means:



> is it overage classical music is obsolete


Perhaps it is asking if classical music from a couple hundred years ago is obsolete? If that is the questions, the answer is that it definitely is not obsolete.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

First, what is meant by "classical"? If the term encompasses so-called "serious" music from say 1700 to 1950 or so, then yes, it's obsolete. No other art form is so beholden to the past as classical music. Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, and Tolstoy are not on the current best-seller list of books. The nearby movie theaters aren't running Gone With the Wind or Casablanca. Broadway isn't showing Oklahoma! or The Music Man. Even television isn't making profits running Gilligan's Island and Mr. Ed. Every other art form relies on the new, on fresh material. Not classical music. Concert halls are aural museums. New music occupies may 10%-15% of the playing time. New works are by and large given their first and last performances the same evening. It's quite sad and very frustrating. But the simple fact is, composers today just cannot write music that connects emotionally as well as the composers of the past. Try they might, but it's all in vain. But that's ok: we have a vast treasure trove of glorious music to play - at least for those of us who don't care about when a work was written. For the vast majority of people though, classical is out of date, obsolete and old-fashioned; it belongs to the people of the past.


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

Is it English language is overrate? This is ungrammatical question. Just talk about it.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Logos said:


> Is it English language is overrate? This is ungrammatical question. Just talk about it.


English language has been degrading for centuries. When I was a kid google was the sound coming out of a baby's mouth while the baby was drooling. Now people want to know something and they say Google!


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

Well, when I was a kid, google was a name given to a huge number: 10^100. English hasn't been degrading so much as it has changed. The problem with English is that so many people are so effing stupid that they can't use it properly. I can't place any blame on anyone for whom English is a second language; I'm sure their English is far superior to my bad German or Spanish. But listen to young people talk today or try to read what they write. It's frightening. The public schools are a disgrace.


----------



## premont (May 7, 2015)

Is it just a question of generation shift which means that languages are changing with time. English is not my first tongue, but I often get the impression that my written and spoken English is "better" than the English of many young native Englishmen. But on the other hand I have a similar impression when it is about my native language, and I am often accused of speaking in an old-fashioned way, which the youngsters of to day do not understand.


----------



## larold (Jul 20, 2017)

The question, perhaps better stated, is classical music still relevant as an art form? The answer would have to be yes since it is still regularly performed everywhere, it is still recorded and sold new and used as recordings and through downloads and streaming. This makes it as relevant as other musical art forms.

If a secondary discourse is whether or not the current state of the art form is any good, that is more complex. Probably more than most art forms, classical music has a habit of becoming "good" or "better" years after the works are completed. Beethoven was for the most part a success the first time out most of the time but Berlioz Fantastic Symphony, much of Debussy and, of course, Stravinsky's Rite of Spring were not necessarily considered good when they premiered. Mahler wasn't a great hit until 50 years after his death.

While painting can be controversial at its premiere, it is rare for a painter to be identified as a great artist a lifetime after his/her work is all done. The same is true for architecture, sculpture and dance; they are either accepted immediately and rarely are considered wonderful a lifetime later after a half-century in a turtle shell. This happens all the time in classical music. Even Bach's mighty St. Matthew Passion didn't make its mark until Mendelssohn unearthed it in the 1800s.

Which leads back to the relevance discourse. The great fall of classical music can be marked at several intervals: there hasn't been an opera that entered the standard repertory since World War II, there hasn't been a composer comparable to the greatest since Shostakovich died 1975, there hasn't bee a new symphony recording that turned the world upside down since the 1980s, and the biggest things that have happened to classical music since then were arguments over whether or not period performance is good or bad. Since those benchmark periods orchestras all over the world have downsized, lost financial support, gone bankrupt and/or lost seasons to work stoppages. NPR stations in the USA have left the air, lost financial support, and/or quit broadcasting music.

Compared to film and musical theater, classical music has gone backward mightily. It's far from dead but as a thriving art form creating new fans all over the world it has lost ground to principally visual art forms or those that merge music with visuals.


----------



## ollv (Jun 29, 2018)

firstly, I am sorry maybe it was not literate. I'll try to make it more cleary. First question about overage. I meant that genius compositions is not overage. But lot of classic compositions is not interesting. There are many classical compositions is bored at all.
So if we had compare Procofiev 7 sonata with lot of his another compositions we would chose sonata 7. There are few compositions which is realy interesting, but not all.
If we listened antheil it would be jazz sonata and also few sonatas but not all. We able to tell similar thing about all composers ..


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

If you're suggesting that there are too many pieces that are not popular "great" pieces, I don't think that's true. I don't know of any composer who only composed "genius" pieces. Even if all of their works with an opus number are famous, there are most likely many practice pieces that came before them. If you only like a few pieces by a composer, you should think about how those pieces may not exist or be the same if not for all the pieces that came before them. You don't have to like them by any means, but they're still important I think, if only because it shows the progression of a composer.


----------



## Aloevera (Oct 1, 2017)

Well in retrospect, the classical era regarded baroque music as old fashioned and romantic the same way the romantics regarded classical. and i'd imagine that 20th century composers regarded the previous composers so overplayed that they wanted to break out of it. Bach was apparently held in high esteem only by a clique of musicians during the classical period, and only now when we have more of a respect for history and the history of music do we start start to appreciate him. In my opinion I don't think music is purely timeless, but the mixture of the timeless within it's place in history. This is just my perspective, but I find when a performance brings you back into the place in time is more enjoyable than attempts to make historical music contemporary. Not that we want to go back in history, but I think there is magic in listening to those compositions which had not come into existence prior before there was technology. Imo a performance which recreates the feeling of something coming out of nothing within its historical context makes for a more a touching experience. So no, I think will classical music will only go "obsolete" if appreciation for history goes obsolete. I think for the most part people, including those of european ancestry do not find classical europe to be very relatable a lot has changed , and I think trying to modernize it makes it further alienates a lot of people. It's kind of like listening to ancient music, one appreciates it due to the mysteriousness of history and I don't see anything wrong with listening to it this way. In addition, anyone who desires to learn musical theory and composition will eventually find themselves learning classical music for technical training unless they choose the jazz approach but I don't think the former will ever become irrelevant.


----------



## Merl (Jul 28, 2016)

No music is obsolete if you like it.


----------



## ollv (Jun 29, 2018)

Famous it is not important traits. 
But which layer suppose to be the first accepteable? At 17 years old? 12? Or 5th composition ? )) I able to decide myself which compisition is geniously and which is bored. And how am I suppose to listen bored and interesting ? 
In one very smart docs we can read
- You shall not make for yourself an idol of any kind, ...


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

ollv said:


> Famous it is not important traits.
> But which layer suppose to be the first accepteable? At 17 years old? 12? Or 5th composition ? )) I able to decide myself which compisition is geniously and which is bored. And how am I suppose to listen bored and interesting ?
> In one very smart docs we can read
> - You shall not make for yourself an idol of any kind, ...


I think it's up to each of us to decide this for ourselves. There may be an early work that you like but isn't famous. There may be a famous work that you don't like. Something can be said about the societal impact that pieces cause, but that has no affect on how much each of us like any particular piece. In fact, I think it's very bad to let popular opinions affect one's own opinion.

Different composers have different ages where they began to compose or began to mature. For example, Mozart was composing as a very small child, but other famous composers may have only started in their mid-20s. It's different for each composer and for each person who listens to the music.

If you don't like a piece, you shouldn't feel like you have to listen to it until you enjoy it. I would recommend listening to what you enjoy, and maybe occasionally returning to pieces you didn't enjoy to see if your opinion has changed. Sometimes it takes more than one listen to appreciate a piece, but there's nothing wrong with disliking popular pieces or liking pieces that aren't popular.

Bottom line, it's usually not easy or possible to determine a composer's first composition with merit. There may be some consensus of certain composers' first popular piece, but I wouldn't take that as the first piece you "should" like. It seems like your question (if I'm interpreting it correctly) would be more appropriate in regards to non-classical music. In genres like rock music, it's easier to point out when the band really got comfortable with their instruments and developed their style, but that kind of analysis still shouldn't be taken as law. With classical music it's much harder to talk about things like that, because usually a composer is one person continuously learning and developing their style. Many composers have several phases, not just a "beginner" phase and a "genius" phase.


----------



## ollv (Jun 29, 2018)

fantasticall explanation, thanks.
But I did not talk about certain composer and certain age. As for me currently as for me antheil is more interesting, and thelonious monk also more interesting then mozart. But it doesn't mean that I never listen Mozard, I like it, and I can even talk that understand it enough. But I'd like to notify that not all of his composition are interesting. Perhaps for historian who shuold investigarte all steps of Mozart it is important to kno how he was able to achieve his level, but for people who prefer to get only topleveol compositions it's not important. I am sure it can be skipped, and you lost nothing 

We able to say this reason for skip composition for many composers. 

And I would like to determine that currently we have many intereasting music, not classical, classical (it is just depends of suite of instruments). E.g. I never listen good classic composition with sax .. 

So what the main idea which I'l declare. There are many listeners who not allow to sound new interesting more actual more impressive music and still listenning lot of worthless bored music. There are no progress as a fact, it is like of snobism 

So I listened Hamelin which played jazz sonata many times, and what ? there are no listeners for this composition.
but it is bit difference when he play .. rahmaninov, or Chopin. I able to undertood it, antheil more complexity )) But we can tol the same think about many other more interesting composers .. 
And I'd like to say - it is a crisis, welcome... this is the end of many classical\avantgarde\jazz styles, 
no progress no listeners no music. Please listen old music which already is not actual. What about this music ? 
I am sure we should listen many classical old composers but ... It is a loop - start read from begin ))


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

mbhaub said:


> First, what is meant by "classical"? If the term encompasses so-called "serious" music from say 1700 to 1950 or so, then yes, it's obsolete. No other art form is so beholden to the past as classical music. Charles Dickens, Victor Hugo, and Tolstoy are not on the current best-seller list of books. The nearby movie theaters aren't running Gone With the Wind or Casablanca. Broadway isn't showing Oklahoma! or The Music Man. Even television isn't making profits running Gilligan's Island and Mr. Ed. Every other art form relies on the new, on fresh material. Not classical music. Concert halls are aural museums. New music occupies may 10%-15% of the playing time. New works are by and large given their first and last performances the same evening. It's quite sad and very frustrating. But the simple fact is, composers today just cannot write music that connects emotionally as well as the composers of the past. Try they might, but it's all in vain. But that's ok: we have a vast treasure trove of glorious music to play - at least for those of us who don't care about when a work was written. For the vast majority of people though, classical is out of date, obsolete and old-fashioned; it belongs to the people of the past.


And yet pretty much any Dickens novel is a much better read, to my eyes, than anything being cranked out by Stephen King. (And let us note that writing has not fallen into anything as extreme in terms of development as has modern classical music or painting.) And I would much rather watch Casablanca once again, or A Man for All Seasons, or the Philadelphia Story, or a hundred other titles than whatever might be the latest formulaic orgy of CGI featuring some Marvel comic-book hero against a cosmic villain seeking to conquer the universe. Gilligan's Island is hardly a high-point in television (I did enjoy it when I was a child), but it was vapid and silly when it was made, and there are certainly far better shows than most of what the networks are pushing down our throats today. I may well be a minority here in my appreciation for a beautifully composed black and white film (even a fairly minor effort, like Anthony Adverse), or a brilliant silent film (Metropolis), but just as I prefer to enjoy the best art of the last several thousand years, I do not consider any historical product of art to really be "outdated."


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

For all practical purposes, 'classical music' means common practice period music--i. e. music composed between 1650-1900. Classic Hollywood (movies from roughly 1915-1950) forms a much better analogy with classical music than movies in general.


----------



## LezLee (Feb 21, 2014)

Did you mean to say ‘average’ rather than ‘overage’ ?


----------



## Logos (Nov 3, 2012)

LezLee said:


> Did you mean to say 'average' rather than 'overage' ?


I thought he meant outdated, but who knows?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Logos said:


> I thought he meant outdated, but who knows?


It just means we go off topic a lot sooner than most threads do.


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

I think classical (serious) music is just as alive than ever but have to admit some of to days composers seem to have lost the way but thank goodness some are writing good music, I am not really knocking them because only a handful of composers have stood the test of time and there must be thousands that are at best very ordinary.


----------



## DeepR (Apr 13, 2012)

Amazing. The questions of the topic starter are very unclear, yet some TC members are eager to interpret the questions and present their views on it. I mean this in a positive way. I think on most forums on the internet this would've been ignored or would have led to nothing but jokes and ridicule. This speaks volumes for the TC community. Keep it up!


----------



## Dan Ante (May 4, 2016)

Respect is due as English is obviouly not the OPS native language.


----------



## ollv (Jun 29, 2018)

> Respect is due as English is obviouly not the OPS native language.


thank you very much . Ys it is obviously not my mother tongue 


> Did you mean to say 'average' rather than 'overage' ?


I mean average. I would like to ask dialectic question. If we read topic about Ravel and Debussy we will see what people telling about composers. They are able to compare and decided who are more interesting, or more bored. It is not strange for them .. ))
But if I asked them about which compostion is more interesting, it become strange )) 
I tried ask about antheil and for example about Chopin )) as for me second one very bored .. but nobody who agree with it. (if look into this thread )


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

ollv said:


> firstly, I am sorry maybe it was not literate. I'll try to make it more cleary. First question about overage. I meant that genius compositions is not overage. But lot of classic compositions is not interesting. There are many classical compositions is bored at all.
> So if we had compare Procofiev 7 sonata with lot of his another compositions we would chose sonata 7. There are few compositions which is realy interesting, but not all.
> If we listened antheil it would be jazz sonata and also few sonatas but not all. We able to tell similar thing about all composers ..


I agree Prokofiev Sonata #7 makes a lot of other music tonal and atonal just boring. Are you sure you're not my shadow account?


----------



## ollv (Jun 29, 2018)

Phil loves classical said:


> I agree Prokofiev Sonata #7 makes a lot of other music tonal and atonal just boring. Are you sure you're not my shadow account?


Hi, I am sorry I forgot about this thread, I was in vacation and hadn't internet .. )

So what interesting, it is enough provocative question. But it is like of advertisement, ...


----------

