# Why do people hate classical these days?



## Allegro

I am completely serious, I have to come onto the internet to find other people with a passion for classical music like myself. Everywhere I go in my home town or around school it's all rock, metal, rap, country, those sorts of things. When I say I like classical to anybody they all give me strange looks, act like i'm retarded, then say classical is retard music because there aren't any lyrics. So, why do people hate Classical these days?


----------



## rojo

People sometimes hate what they don`t understand...



Allegro said:


> Everywhere I go in my home town or around school it's all rock, metal, rap, country, those sorts of things. When I say I like classical to anybody they all give me strange looks, act like i'm retarded, then say classical is retard music because there aren't any lyrics.


If anything, I would say the contrary is true; those styles mentioned are easily accessible, with drums pounding the beat, etc. To understand the subtleties of classical music, one needs a certain amount of intelligence...

Having said that, I admit to liking rock music as well as classical. And some jazz.


----------



## Allegro

Still, I could do without the, and I quote: "Your music is retarded man. It isn't even real music since there ain't any words". Classical Music has a passion, and a depth that they cannot understand and it pains and saddens me that they cannot understand it, so they hate it.


----------



## rojo

That`s ridiculous. Instrumental music is music in it`s purist form...even rock music has instrumentals...

Keep in mind that young folks often enjoy listening to the latest music. Classical music is sometimes old (depending on the work), so it`s probably not cool for that reason, in their eyes.

Have you discussed The Lord of the Rings music with them, or other classical-type film music? Sometimes that crosses the boundaries of acceptable coolness... if not, never mind; I`m sure you`ll meet plenty of ppl in your lifetime who enjoy classical music as much as you...right here, for example!


----------



## Chopinson

Let me say this: if bulls can talk, they must think it retarded for humans to say that the world is colorful. Because the bulls only distinguish 5 colors.
But will you be upset if you are appreciating a wonderful portrait while a bull shows no interest?


----------



## Mr Salek

This is the same for me, too. My only refuge is those few (I only know about 3) and this forum. That's the reason why I joined.


----------



## James

it's all music and i don't think people hate classical music... they like it really 

*I say it's more to do with the cocky, arrogant, self-centered musicians that are out there today, who think that they are the best, only the best. Alienating classical "newbs" and discouraging amateurs.*

Like me for example


----------



## rojo

Allegro, do you play a musical instrument? You could always consider joining a music group at school, or in your community...


----------



## Scottie

I've listened to classic music off and on for a few years, and know very little about it. So I guess I can look at both sides.

One of the main reasons is that people are just not exposed to clasic music. You have to go out an find it to listen to it. Yes, theres snippets on tv programs or the odd radio program, but nothing concrete. I would also say that sometimes (certainly at my school) we were forced to listen to classical music and as a result, rebeled against it.

Now (in my very late thirties) I'm begining to appreciate it.


----------



## Allegro

rojo said:


> Allegro, do you play a musical instrument? You could always consider joining a music group at school, or in your community...


I can play piano, not masterfully but I can hold my own.


----------



## Scottie

Sorry about earlier my earlier post...errrr....I was more than a little worse for wear..*hic*


----------



## jack_in_cincinnati

Most people--even a lot of otherwise intelligent people--have had their ears and minds corrupted by the musical vernacular that bombards them everywhere they go. If music has no backbeat or amplification, they can't handle it.


----------



## Scottie

I don't think people hate classical music, I just don't think they give it alot of thought. It seems to me that we are taught that classical music is boring or difficult. My girlfriend refuses to listen to it (thank God for my ipod), as finds it boring.

There are alot of causes for this; the media portray it as elitist, schools (here the UK at least) barely teach anything about it and people don't want to spend the time trying to listen.


----------



## Amy

Just because people have ears it doesn't mean they can hear. They hate it because they're not really listening. To suggest something like Beethoven's 9th is boring can surely not just be a an error of bad judgement? No. I think the selection of over played, commercialised "classical" music that is available to those who claim to hate it, is to blame for this. Have you ever heard someone describing Dvorak's New World Symphony as "Hovis"? *giggles* There is a depth to the purely instrumental that is expressed in such a way that I often find people holding a presumption that because it has no lyrics it is "snobby". This is very frustrating, as if appreciating what I consider to be the worlds most beautiful art form makes you a snob then I really think this culture has gone wrong. As for the lack of lyrics, some of my favourite composers are purely choral. I duno whether anyone likes Thomas Weelkes, but he's a totally kick-*** composer. One of my all time favourite pieces is "When to the Temple Mary Went" by Johannes Eccard. Something so deeply moving, with such sweetness of melody and gentle fluctuations can only be described as pure bliss...


----------



## SchubertObsessive

I think the concern about the media press representing Classical as elite is far less of a concern than the media advertisers who make it difficult for neophytes to consume Beethoven's 9th without having images of overpaid professional sportsman polluting their mind!

In a sense, especially compared with populist music, Classical is elite...but so what? That isn't the same thing as saying, Classical is restricted to elites or whatever.

From my experience, people just can't relate to the depth and(/of) structure in most Classical music, and cannot digest it holistically. It's like me reading a book in French (I'm English!). I'll understand a couple of words and phrases, but not the entire narrative.

That's why, in a lot of Rap and mainstream Metal music I've listened to, where they try to implement Classical styling, it sounds ridiculous. On these Classical music video channels, the only thing remotely 'Classical' about the songs is the instrumentation. It's really pop music.

Also, I recall hearing a rap song with a Schubert-esque violin phrase, but it was totally isolated and repeated in that tedious verse-chorus format that makes me nauseous!

But that leads me to the sociological explanation. These people think in terms of parts, and not a whole. That is one pillar our modern culture. They took some part of a Classical work, and made it the whole. You take your measly individual life, and you make it the whole reality.

If it's noble, it ain't easy or whatever. That's just life, and art.


----------



## SchubertObsessive

I don't agree with the point made about instrumental music being 'purer', and it's definitely not a statement that can be applied across all genres.

Lyrics often become equivalent to notes produced by our vocal instrument, and the fact that these lyrics have relevance to the music simply becomes a matter of convinience for the artist if they want to aid the listener in understanding the ideas of the piece.

But presumably, this point can only apply to honest art.


----------



## Eichelberger

One of the various reasons for this is that people today do not listen to music & appreciate it, they simply hear it. One must have enough intellect & imagination to appreciate the finer music. Some music exists simply for the sake of existing, whilst some pieces tell a definite story (Vivaldy's four Seasons for example). One must be able to hear how the music represents these things, or one can simply let the mind wander (to make of it what you will). The music of today corrupts these creative virtues. When we hear rap & hip hop, we hear a continous beat, which carries on throughout the song without a single change in the tune. This is what sets classical music aside, where one piece can have various tunes. When people cannot appriciate these, their opinion of audio entertainment may as weel be obsolete. The other main reason is that people feel that classical music is very outdated & not very good. The image obsessed cultures of modern society virtually have boundaries well outside of "real music" (despite theirony that classical music inspired virtually all other forms of music from the tunes. Also that many classical tunes feature in songs written today- meaning that music only really exists because of it's predecessor). 
As long as some people can appriciate it, classical music will never die out. It's too good


----------



## hobowu

Ahh, take heart, there are always dedicated lovers of classical music!, right here in this forum!
many people these days prefer non-classical because there are lyrics...and usually lyrics tell a story. Other people simply listen to music for the beat to get them up and going, drive them wild (examples are latino rock/pop, or beyonce's crazy in love)...
However, classical music is very "cultural", has been around for a long time, and has always had and always will have a large portion of people as dedicated followers =)
look at all those people who learn instruments (instruments not including things like guitars...) classical music lives on


----------



## Mahler Maniac

SchubertObsessive said:


> I think the concern about the media press representing Classical as elite is far less of a concern than the media advertisers who make it difficult for neophytes to consume Beethoven's 9th without having images of overpaid professional sportsman polluting their mind!
> 
> In a sense, especially compared with populist music, Classical is elite...but so what? That isn't the same thing as saying, Classical is restricted to elites or whatever.
> 
> From my experience, people just can't relate to the depth and(/of) structure in most Classical music, and cannot digest it holistically. It's like me reading a book in French (I'm English!). I'll understand a couple of words and phrases, but not the entire narrative.
> 
> That's why, in a lot of Rap and mainstream Metal music I've listened to, where they try to implement Classical styling, it sounds ridiculous. On these Classical music video channels, the only thing remotely 'Classical' about the songs is the instrumentation. It's really pop music.
> 
> Also, I recall hearing a rap song with a Schubert-esque violin phrase, but it was totally isolated and repeated in that tedious verse-chorus format that makes me nauseous!
> 
> But that leads me to the sociological explanation. These people think in terms of parts, and not a whole. That is one pillar our modern culture. They took some part of a Classical work, and made it the whole. You take your measly individual life, and you make it the whole reality.
> 
> If it's noble, it ain't easy or whatever. That's just life, and art.


I agree to the previous posts that it takes a person who is somewhat intelligent and has an eye for subtlety to enjoy Classical music. Many times I feel that Classical music is the best way to convey pure emotion, pieces can rouse patriotism or drown you in tears...not too many other forms of music can do that 

SchubertObsessive>>> are you a Therion fan?? Metal with classical undertones is awesome


----------



## Celloman

Classical music takes effort and patience to listen to. Most people don't like to think of music listening as a skill to be developed. They percieve music only as an entertainment, and if it does not bring instant gratification, they become bored and turn it off. People need to see music as more than entertainment. It's an experience that not only sooths and excites, but also educates and enlightens. People should try to get out of their musical comfort zones and listen to music that makes them think.


----------



## Oneiros

I think that classical music stands in direct opposition to modern life (mainly in the city) i.e. walking through busy streets, being bombarded with ads and loud cars, plus the rowdy background music in cafes, etc. And then there is the cinema - this experience is enough to overwhelm anyone's senses.

To then sit down and listen to Bach, for example...

Also, I feel that the emotions expressed in classical music are in general more lofty and refined than those found in popular music. In my own country we are not taught to appreciate this, so most people live on in ignorance (and spiteful judgement follows). After all, not many would search for something higher, when basically all desires are catered for. The only thing to come out of all this affluence is more and more consumerism, rather than more time to pause and reflect on the beauty of life (etc), such as is expressed in classical music.

Sorry for the vagueness - hopefully others can still follow what I'm trying to say.


----------



## linz

Classical music in modern societies is reduced to romantic or bassy string music in movies or as a catchy gingle in a commercial. It is my oppinion that everyone could thoroughly enjoy classical music but it takes a brake from typical society norms being feed to us by the 'Capitalist Giant'. I actually believe that to become a classical fan is more of a humbling experience then anything else, not only because of the tender sentiments it can express, but because of the horrible disconnects you will find in a world obssesed with instant gratifications and material worship.


----------



## Mahler Maniac

Great ideas linz....


----------



## SchubertObsessive

Mahler Maniac said:


> SchubertObsessive>>> are you a Therion fan?? Metal with classical undertones is awesome


'Beyond Sanctorum' is definitely a favourite album of mine. It's not as Classically refined in terms of presentation, but it is their best example of the tendency good Metal has(/had!) to transcend the transience of populist music in its rejection of decadent modernity with narrative structures expressive of a priority for idea(l). A lot of other popular music genres have the same potential since it's unreasonable to assume they're good or bad in themselves. Few have been unlocked and exploited like Metal had been during its apex (1989 - 1996), probably because of its aesthetic sensibilities. Note that most of the finest works from this age were all underground releases - which have still managed to elude all mainstream coverage and journalism of this genre!


----------



## mekaykey

I know this is an "old" thread but I'm somewhat new to the boards, so I thought I'd comment. I have been interested in classical music since elementary school when I decided I wanted to join the orchestra. Being in the orchestra was never a popular thing, but I loved it, and I think it contributed so much to who I am today. That said, now I am in college (as an "older" student) and taking a music appreciation class and I find it sad how little interest most the students take in the class. They don't take it seriously, talking or laughing during the class, and not realizing how much our teacher really knows about music, and I think he actually knows about many, many genres, not just the classical that we are mostly being taught. I love the stories, background, and history of it all, as well as being introduced to many pieces and composers I did not really know. Some of it I like, some I don't, but it amazes me to hear how music progressed and changed, as with most MA classes, we started with the Gregorian chants and are now in the early 1900's, so there is a huge progression there. What I find really humorous though, is that many of the other students thought this was an easy class and they could just show up when they wanted, when they quickly learned that knowing the material is definitely a must in order to pass. It is encouraging though that some of the students that were less than interested in the beginning seem to be finding that the music isn't as "boring" as they thought, and that they don't hate it. Not many, but there are some, which I think is great. I actually listen to many types of music, and try not to dismiss music out of hand just because it doesn't appeal to me. I think that is what many young people do partly because it isn't "cool" to listen to, but when you expand your world outside of what is cool it is amazing to find what is out there and what you might really like. there has to be some sort of value to any music, though I admit sometimes I can't find it in some of the more popular music of today. 

Sorry, I guess I went on a bit there.  

Kay


----------



## Hexameron

Very astute and somehow depressing observations there, mekaykey. I remember when I took a music appreciation class (after I was already a classical music nut) and I can recall similar experiences. The only difference is that the teacher was 80% to blame for the negative responses and poor impressions of the students. Many students had a hard time even caring about music that didn't have a monotonous beat or the F word sung in every line. Many students also wanted visuals because they are so used to MTV giving them an entertaining and vibrant "music video" to go along with their music. I don't pretend to be at some "higher" strata of society, but I must say they made me lose my faith in the youth of our country (and I'm a youngin myself). You're right that it's just not "cool" to like Mozart or Bach, music that only "old people" listen to. I risked being "ostracized" by my peers in the classroom by bringing in some old LPs for the teacher who collected them. I can't stand LPs, so I gave him some Wagner, Handel and Tchaikovsky that my mother was going to throw out. Some of the students then snickered and made jokes that the teacher was such a loser that he would probably spend the rest of his night listening to them on an old player.

Unfortunately, the teacher didn't help any. He was foolish and out of touch. At the time of being in the class, I was only listening to classical music for about a year... I knew what it was like to only understand rock music and rap (I even listened to some before converting completely over to classical). This teacher decided to bust out Mahler's 6th, Wagner's Prelude to "Tristan und Isolde," one of the late Beethoven string quartets, Brahms's Violin Concerto and Schubert's "Death and the Maiden" string quartet. INSANE choices, especially for students like this who had the attention span of a gnat. He even played Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring" for Gods sake... before he even gave them a taste of Mozart. It was sad to see everyone fall asleep or look pained by the music which must have been completely incomprehensible, foreign, and totally alien to their ears.

Despite the teacher's almost "elitist" tastes, he and I became somewhat like friends (as much as the student-teacher relationship allows) and we exchanged items. I gave him some burned CDs of rare piano works and he gave me one of his old books he used to study. His problem was that he failed to reach anyone with his moderately inaccessible choices of works. He failed to revive any "music appreciation" within the students by his asinine selections of Mahler and obscure works from Haydn. His Bach choices were the best: the Dorian toccata and fugue and half of the Goldberg Variations. Most responded positively; they had never heard anything like that before. But the teacher lost them when he decided to throw in Stravinsky's Rite of Spring. Fortunately, no one rioted or threw chairs and books around in the class room... they were nodding off instead...


----------



## mekaykey

Hexameron, funny about the choices you mentioned. We have listened to Mahler, and Wagner's "Tristan and Isolde", and just the other day "Rite of Spring". But all three of those came after hearing Mozart, and he didn't play the whole pieces, just some to demonstrate some of the points he was making in lectures. I can't blame the teacher, because those composers are on the cd's that came with the book, so he is apparently following the set curriculum as far some composer choices, but gives us other works besides what is on the cds, like Tristan and Isolde, which wasn't the piece by Wagner on the cd (it was Die Walkure). I do think that he tries to give us tastes of all the periods and now that we are in the 1900's, he's hitting all the styles, including those atonal composers (Shoenberg, Berg, etc.) even though they are not all included on our required listening. We listened to the very odd Wozzech last week as well. He does try to connect the music to more modern things, as he apparently likes movies and can name several fairly new (though sometimes they are from the early 90s) that the pieces were used in, trying to at least find something the students might know. 

Kay


----------



## Topaz

I think the nail has been hit on the head in the last few posts, namely that many music appreciation teachers in schools often select the wrong material to present to children or older students starting out on classical music education.

I remember my first encounter at school when the music teacher put on a piece of Mozart, details of which I now forget. He himself went into a semi-trance, waving his arm around in conductor fashion, oblivious to the fact that the class was bored stiff and couldn't wait for it to end. And so it went on for a year. At the end of it, I felt even more disillusioned with classical music than at the beginning, as did most others. 

A better method might have been to play a quick selection of pieces across the era/genre divide, and ask the students to vote on what they liked and disliked (scores 1 to 10), in order to keep them interested and focused. Then ask the group to discuss it among themselves and come back with the best unified view they could reach on a ranking. The next step would be to home in on whatever type it was that they enjoyed most. For example, if the most popular was, say, solo piano the next step would be to arrange another vote on a more focused set of pieces among the main composers of such work, in order to show the different styles. Then organise a further sub-vote.

It's basically a question of finding a good starting point on the ladder, as selected by the students themselves. If the group know it's their collective choice that's being investigated, they might "own" it more instead of feeling alienated from it.

After this, a start could be made on the second rung, etc. After a few months of this, I reckon it would produce more budding enthusiasts than the more traditional methods, of the type that I experienced.

Just a thought.



Topaz


----------



## 4/4player

Hello Everyone!
First of all, I wanted to say that all you guys are "Musically gifted"...I guess classical music is hated because people don't simply have the time or money to listen to it....For example, an Athlete would have no absolute interest in classical music due to his "Agressive nature".....I think that classical music is mostly for "Smart People" Scientist, musicians, lawyers,Professors,teachers...anybody that has the right personality or possesses the "gift" or ability to hear classical music....But I must say....I don't care as long as a person listens to any type of music(It'll help them appreciate classical music easier,hehe)

Best wishes in ending this never-ending disscussion,
4/4player


----------



## Hexameron

4/4player - Two years ago I was lifting weights and taking Kendo, so you could call me a semi-Athlete. And I practiced swordplay to Beethoven's "Kreutzer" sonata so I don't think your analysis works there.

Much of classical music can appeal to people with "agressive nature" Just listen to the hardcore virtuoso pieces from Liszt. Fantasie and Fugue on a theme of B-A-C-H and his Fantasy and Fugue on a Theme of Meyerbeer: the most aggressive, thunderous, violent Romantic period piano music I've ever heard. Sometimes I have those pieces playing loudly in my car and when someone drives by with a metal band like Slipknot at full volume, they are actually drowned out by my Lisztian octaves.

Oh, and even though these are fictional, watch the movies _A Clockwork Orange_ and _The Professional_ to see very "aggressive" characters relate to classical music.


----------



## tahnak

Allegro said:


> I am completely serious, I have to come onto the internet to find other people with a passion for classical music like myself. Everywhere I go in my home town or around school it's all rock, metal, rap, country, those sorts of things. When I say I like classical to anybody they all give me strange looks, act like i'm retarded, then say classical is retard music because there aren't any lyrics. So, why do people hate Classical these days?


The masses have always rejected form, uniformity and class in all ages. They will follow the worms of the cesspool more than the lilies of the field.


----------



## kg4fxg

*Younger Generation....*

I am amazed that there are younger kids who love classical music out there. My daughter knows many her age four who play violin.

Her teacher is young and there are many who play in the student symphony here. Just look on line at say Strings Magazine, there have a youth version I believe.

Yes, it can be true that it could appear no one in a particular school likes classical. It was that way for me when I was in High School. You just have to seek out a group outside the school to get connected to.

I don't really want this to come across to snobbish. I went to a very small High School and most did not go on to college. There can have there music and pathetic live, I did even attend graduation. I have never fit in however today I am a successful CPA. I am not better, but as I got older I did find more people who shared my interests.


----------



## UniverseInfinite

this is a trend something like... maybe "Church" and "Science"...

people are "frustrated" in the ever-more-competitive and populated world crowded with human species...
modern tunes and the way of their presentation give the mass a venue to outlet.

also, come on, some "symphonies" are terrible in melody and structure... 

"human nature" tends to appreciate the "first tuneful impression"...


----------



## Yoshi

I think it's impossible to hate classical. The only people I met that claimed to "hate classical" were just popular teenagers from my school who refuse to listen to it because it's not 'cool'. When it's obvious that they only say that, because classical music is often seen nowadays as music for old people.
I think the ones who call themselves 'classical music haters', simply refuse to try to understand classical music before judging it.

Reminds me when I made one of my classmates who "hated classical" from school listen to the whole 4th movement of Beethoven's 9th. There was even a moment I asked him if he wanted me to fast forward to the most 'famous' part and he just said no, because he was enjoying it. Then classmate number 2 came in and said the music we were listening to was so lame and the first one agreed! In the end when classmate number 2 left, the first one told me: "Well... I actualy liked it, will you send me to my e-mail later?"
Ridiculous! Like he's ashamed to admit he enjoyed a classical piece.


----------



## Mirror Image

I never followed any trends and I could really careless if somebody likes what I like or not. I think if someone is naturally curious about music at all and show an affinity for it, then in time, they will learn to appreciate classical music.

I was listening to Miles Davis, Bill Evans, and John Coltrane in high school. I got a lot of strange looks, but I didn't care. I think there's a certain ignorance that people have about the arts.

Since January, I have really become more involved with classical music. I was so into jazz before classical that I finally got around to it. I've always enjoyed classical even though my knowledge of it at that time wasn't that impressive.


----------



## Bach

I still find it slightly odd that from a jazz background, you're not more fond of chamber music. A lot of jazz, especially your favourites - Evans, Miles, Coltrane - is closely related to chamber music. The orchestral heads are more often from a film background, not a jazz background.. just an anomaly.. not a dig.


----------



## Mirror Image

Bach said:


> I still find it slightly odd that from a jazz background, you're not more fond of chamber music. A lot of jazz, especially your favourites - Evans, Miles, Coltrane - is closely related to chamber music. The orchestral heads are more often from a film background, not a jazz background.. just an anomaly.. not a dig.


I love a big orchestral sound. I think it should be said that I do enjoy some chamber works. Like those of Bax, Debussy, Poulenc, Saint-Saens, Mendelssohn, etc., but I'm still developing my tastes in classical music whereas my tastes in jazz are already defined. It takes me many years to finally settle on what I'm after.

I guess it is kind of strange that since I'm from a jazz background that I'm drawn towards orchestral music. I never really thought about it. I can't really explain why I am this way and why I prefer large orchestral compositions over chamber.

It's like I said though, my tastes are still changing, so who knows what I'll be listening to this time next year.


----------



## bdelykleon

Mirror Image said:


> It takes me many years to finally settle on what I'm after


It never settles, at least that didn't happen to me after 15 years of serious listening.


----------



## Mirror Image

bdelykleon said:


> It never settles, at least that didn't happen to me after 15 years of serious listening.


You're right. I guess we never do "settle down" so to speak in what we listen to or at least those that are serious about music and are passionate about like you and I are.


----------



## Cortision

I think there are a number of reasons why people hate classical music, which others have touched on.

1. 'The image problem'. Classical music is seen as elitist, snobbish, stuffy etc. This is an especially big setback in Australia, where if you have a solid grasp of pronunciation, spelling and other such nasties, you are viewed with suspicion (at least in some circles). 

2. 'Lack of a beat'. Of course a lot of classical music has exciting rhythms, but because it doesn't assault your eardrums and bash you over the head, some people can't seem to tell.

3. 'It's really old, so therefore really boring'. I can't work out the logic here! I have heard an opinion expressed that anything that was first put out on vinyl should stay there as it therefore must be really bad. Apparently good music sprung fully formed and whole into the world some time about 1990!

4. 'I can't sing along to it'. I could reply - 'Well, as your singing is horribly off key, that is a mercy to the world'. But that would be rude and unhelpful.

5. You actually have to pay attention and listen. We live in a world of instant gratification, fast food, images replacing words, thoughts replaced by search engines. Anything that requires real effort, and this includes classical music, is automatically in trouble. Pop music doesn't require the effort of listening, in facts its probably best if you don't! (Though I do like some pop music, I admit).

If only people gave themselves a chance, I believe almost everyone could come to love at least some aspects of classical music. But there is so much in the way!


----------



## jhar26

Allegro said:


> Still, I could do without the, and I quote: "Your music is retarded man. It isn't even real music since there ain't any words". Classical Music has a passion, and a depth that they cannot understand and it pains and saddens me that they cannot understand it, so they hate it.


Yeah, but you should see what they say about genres other than classical at this forum.  People are always quick to judge what they don't understand. Always easier to condemn something than to admit that you 'don't get it' or that despite the fact that it may not be for you it might be of value to others. But like I said, I wouldn't single out the attitude of pop/rock/whatever fans towards classical music when it comes to that, vica versa I see the same thing.


----------



## Dim7

"Hate" is a bit of an exaggeration, I don't think most people 'hate' classical, most probably think it's just longwinded, tedious or something. I think the reason for this because the western world isn't as sharply divided into "upper" or leisure-class and working class as it was before. So we have a lot of music made for people who have to go to work but have still enough free time for entertainment. They are often however exhausted after a day of work and don't have the energy for "serious" art or anything too attention demanding. Before there was more people in the upper classes who had devoted their life for art, and wanted something more challenging.


----------



## maestro267

I think nowadays people prefer their music in 3- or 4-minute 'bite size' pieces. (I can't tell you how many rock or pop singles I've found recently to have six or seven-minute album versions, but that's another point). They aren't willing to sit down for an hour or so and listen to a full-length piece of music. Hence the 'excerpt' albums (with cheesy titles such as 'Romantic Classics'), which I despise! The composers never intended their great Symphonies and Concertos to have slices cut out of them. Give me the full-length work any day. The same goes for ballet and opera 'suites'. Even if they are sanctioned by the composer, I'd rather hear the full two or three-hour piece.

PS. My apologies for digressing slightly. Mini-rant over!


----------



## LuvRavel

Well I believe at the core of the problem is the lack of exposure of classical music, if classical music is shown on TV 24/7 as opposed to rap/rock MTV, then I'm sure everyone will listen to classical. People have a tendency to "go with the herd", if classical music is everywhere, people will listen to it. How can people appreciate classical music when they have never in their lives listened to it properly.

I blame the mess media and the "fast food" culture created in the US, it seems the media is only interested in topics like celebrity gossips and other trivials things, anything slightly more intelligent and requires critical thinking is omitted..............


----------



## World Violist

I think the main reason people don't like classical these days is because people like to simplify, make things "feel good" or whatever. Thus we make simple stories such as Harry Potter or Narnia, with just enough twists and turns to make the ending feel even better; we make life easier by making cars and TVs (with remotes, I might add) and such things as that; and we make popular music, which is the simplest of the simple: basic rhythm, extremely basic chord progressions if any, sometimes using modes instead of regular keys.

Pop music is more viscerally exciting (what with the rhythm and such), therefore what people immediately think of as being "classical music" (Mozart, Beethoven, and such) are automatically boring because they don't have bass drums that make you hard of hearing by the age of 15.


----------



## Clancy

Guys, the majority of people have always preferred simple popular music, it isn't much of an explanation as to why classical music's popularity has died off.

Off the top of my head I can see a big tendency that would turn off new listeners; the seeming dichotomy between the popular overplayed classics which have been mined to death for adverts and soundtracks, and the fact that the contemporary alternative is just so abstract as to put off almost all people, or just convince them that it is a case of "the emperor's new clothes" and not worth their time. I think most literate, educated people just listen to literate, educated pop music these days, indie rock that kind of thing - I suspect this is where a lot of the natural audience for classical music has gone.


----------



## nickgray

Mass (popular) culture is to blame, amongst other things. Nowadays people like quick, uncomplicated mediocrity, and not only in music but in pretty much everything. It's a plague of late 20th - 21st century, and I don't think that I'm exaggerating.


----------



## Clancy

hmm look I think you are forgetting that till LPs became commonplace (the sixties) it was difficult for the average joe to even hear a full symphony, and the sixties was in itself an era when popular music was taking off (flowering in fact) so I don't think you can really blame pop culture completely, the technology that has brought about this media deluge has made classical/art music so much more accessible to the interested.


----------



## Mirror Image

Clancy said:


> Guys, the majority of people have always preferred simple popular music, it isn't much of an explanation as to why classical music's popularity has died off.
> 
> Off the top of my head I can see a big tendency that would turn off new listeners; the seeming dichotomy between the popular overplayed classics which have been mined to death for adverts and soundtracks, and the fact that the contemporary alternative is just so abstract as to put off almost all people, or just convince them that it is a case of "the emperor's new clothes" and not worth their time. I think most literate, educated people just listen to literate, educated pop music these days, indie rock that kind of thing - I suspect this is where a lot of the natural audience for classical music has gone.


I think it has to do with wanting to branch out and try new things. People just aren't musically curious anymore or really never have been.

My general outlook of people who listen to pop music or whatever are afraid of stepping out of their musical comfort zones. I don't think this is an intelligence issue at all. There are plenty of intelligent people who listen to pop music, I just think it has more to do with whether a person wants to explore music or not, therefore, being passionate about it leads to discovery.

A case in point: people on this very forum. If none of us were passionate about classical music, then we wouldn't be here. The new members that sign up show an interest in and want to learn about it, so I think this is a good thing.


----------



## jhar26

Mirror Image said:


> My general outlook of people who listen to pop music or whatever are afraid of stepping out of their musical comfort zones. I don't think this is an intelligence issue at all. There are plenty of intelligent people who listen to pop music, I just think it has more to do with whether a person wants to explore music or not, therefore, being passionate about it leads to discovery.


Well, I've been listening to pop(ular) music ever since I was 13, but I've always been very curious and never afraid of stepping out of my comfort zone. Because of that I've fallen madly in love with classical music 25 years ago and since then I've learned to appreciate jazz music as well. I've never felt the need to choose and therefore give up on pop or rock though.


----------



## Mirror Image

jhar26 said:


> Well, I've been listening to pop(ular) music ever since I was 13, but I've always been very curious and never afraid of stepping out of my comfort zone. Because of that I've fallen madly in love with classical music 25 years ago and since then I've learned to appreciate jazz music as well. I've never felt the need to choose and therefore give up on pop or rock though.


That's your prerogative. Jazz and classical are the two genres that I get the most fulfillment out of, so I'll continue pursuing these genres. I'm not looking for instant gratification, I'm looking for emotional and intellectual gratification, which classical and jazz provide for me in spades.


----------



## Sid James

I don't think people hate classical music, but some are indifferent to it. I think that it's limited popularity is an issue of exposure. Other genres like pop & rock get more of it, so they are more popular. The people I know who aren't into classical are not ideologically against it, they are just not interested. But sometimes they actually like some of the music, especially if they have been exposed to it before like from a movie or on television. So I think things are slowly changing, and it's definitely different now than say 20 years ago, when I was in school and was frowned upon by some others for saying I liked classical...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> I don't think people hate classical music, but some are indifferent to it. I think that it's limited popularity is an issue of exposure. Other genres like pop & rock get more of it, so they are more popular. The people I know who aren't into classical are not ideologically against it, they are just not interested. But sometimes they actually like some of the music, especially if they have been exposed to it before like from a movie or on television. So I think things are slowly changing, and it's definitely different now than say 20 years ago, when I was in school and was frowned upon by some others for saying I liked classical...


I agree about the exposure. Classical doesn't hardly get any airtime whatsoever. I can even turn it to my local PBS station and as much as they say it "supports the arts" I don't see much support happening, especially in the way of actual television programs or live concerts. It's quite disappointing really, I certainly think these kids need exposure or else how are they going to find out abou it? I think it's important for schools to provide this exposure too not just television, radio, or magazines.


----------



## Sid James

Well there has been some exposure. Like the biggest Sydney newspaper, the _Sydney Morning Herald_, gives out free cd's every year of classical music played by Australian musicians (called _Life is beautiful_). Everyone I know, even people who aren't into classical big-time, actually like these cd's. I think that's just an example how people, when they give it a chance, can actually warm to classical...

& the same positive response is seen at some concerts I have attended, where the place was packed. I think people who are more flexible enjoy classical for what it offers - a high degree of craftsmanship & an insight into our collective cultural heritage. In the '80's, before this economic rationalism crap came in, there were quite a few free concerts put on here in Sydney, some in the Town Hall, some as part of live radio broadcasts. I was there & I can tell you that these were very well attended. So maybe we should get back into the spirit of those days - the government or council paying for free concerts to let people experience the cream of what our cities have to offer musically. But that kind of socialist ideal is dead in the water now, & it has been damaged greatly by the beancounters in suits...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Well there has been some exposure. Like the biggest Sydney newspaper, the _Sydney Morning Herald_, gives out free cd's every year of classical music played by Australian musicians (called _Life is beautiful_). Everyone I know, even people who aren't into classical big-time, actually like these cd's. I think that's just an example how people, when they give it a chance, can actually warm to classical...
> 
> & the same positive response is seen at some concerts I have attended, where the place was packed. I think people who are more flexible enjoy classical for what it offers - a high degree of craftsmanship & an insight into our collective cultural heritage. In the '80's, before this economic rationalism crap came in, there were quite a few free concerts put on here in Sydney, some in the Town Hall, some as part of live radio broadcasts. I was there & I can tell you that these were very well attended. So maybe we should get back into the spirit of those days - the government or council paying for free concerts to let people experience the cream of what our cities have to offer musically. But that kind of socialist ideal is dead in the water now, & it has been damaged greatly by the beancounters in suits...


Yes, I'm afraid those days are gone, Andre. I would like to go see the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra more, but they aren't really playing anything that I would like to hear. I mean if they were going to play some Sibelius, Ravel, or Janacek, then I might be in the audience, because then I have a reason to be there, but I think a big problem is not only the government, but the people that sit behind these councils that dictate what is played and what isn't. I get tired of the conservatism of music in Atlanta.

I was never interested in say Mozart, Haydn, or Beethoven. I tried to look for composers that appealed to me. I guess where I'm getting at is I had an inner drive to find classical composers that I liked and was attracted to sonically. It's strange that I ended up in Romantic and early 20th Century.


----------



## Sid James

Look around, you might find what you are looking for. I mean, is there a Chamber Orchestra around your parts? Or a university orchestra? Or maybe a good choir connected to a church which gives concerts? Why I ask is because here we have the Australian Chamber Orchestra, and they play not only the standard stuff but others like Sibelius, Bartok, Xenakis, Schoenberg, Walton, Janacek, Britten, etc. I used to go to their concerts in the '90's & now I am preparing to do it again. There is also the Sydney University Symphony Orchestra here, as well as excellent church choirs like that of Christchurch St Laurence (they recently performed Durufle's _Requiem_, which I sadly missed). I think that sometimes these smaller ensembles have more room to move & think outside the square. It seems like the bigger Symphony Orchestras, like the Sydney or Melbourne, are run along much more conservative lines, as you suggest, their aim is to get bums on seats, basically...


----------



## Mirror Image

Andre said:


> Look around, you might find what you are looking for. I mean, is there a Chamber Orchestra around your parts? Or a university orchestra? Or maybe a good choir connected to a church which gives concerts? Why I ask is because here we have the Australian Chamber Orchestra, and they play not only the standard stuff but others like Sibelius, Bartok, Xenakis, Schoenberg, Walton, Janacek, Britten, etc. I used to go to their concerts in the '90's & now I am preparing to do it again. There is also the Sydney University Symphony Orchestra here, as well as excellent church choirs like that of Christchurch St Laurence (they recently performed Durufle's _Requiem_, which I sadly missed). I think that sometimes these smaller ensembles have more room to move & think outside the square. It seems like the bigger Symphony Orchestras, like the Sydney or Melbourne, are run along much more conservative lines, as you suggest, their aim is to get bums on seats, basically...


I'm sure the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra has a chamber symphony that plays, but honestly Andre I would love to hear the Atlanta Symphony play, that is, when they play a composer I enjoy.

In January of next year, Robert Spano will be conducting a performance of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring," which I would love to go see. He is also going to be playing Vaughan Williams "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis." This should be a good show! I might go see this one.


----------



## Air

Mirror Image said:


> I'm sure the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra has a chamber symphony that plays, but honestly Andre I would love to hear the Atlanta Symphony play, that is, when they play a composer I enjoy.
> 
> In January of next year, Robert Spano will be conducting a performance of Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring," which I would love to go see. He is also going to be playing Vaughan Williams "Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis." This should be a good show! I might go see this one.


Ah... I don't envy you, look at my MTT/SFS options:

#1: 
Poulenc Sonata for Piano Four Hands
Stravinsky Capriccio for Piano and Orchestra
Villa-lobos Bachianas Brasileiras No. 9
Ravel Piano Concerto for the Left Hand
Stravinsky The Rite of Spring

#2, #3
Mahler 2, Mahler 5

#4
Stravinsky Threni
Ravel Daphnis et Chloe

#5
Bach Violin Concerto No. 2
Elgar Introduction and Allegro
Tchaikovsky 6

#6
Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto
Ravel Valses nobles et sentimentales
Liszt Tasso: Lament and Triumph
Victor Kissine: World Premiere (?)

These 6 are the forerunners (among others) at the moment as it seems. I plan to only go to one, so this is such a hard decision...


----------



## Mirror Image

airad2 said:


> Ah... I don't envy you, look at my MTT/SFS options:
> 
> #1:
> Poulenc Sonata for Piano Four Hands
> Stravinsky Capriccio for Piano and Orchestra
> Villa-lobos Bachianas Brasileiras No. 9
> Ravel Piano Concerto for the Left Hand
> Stravinsky The Rite of Spring
> 
> #2, #3
> Mahler 2, Mahler 5
> 
> #4
> Stravinsky Threni
> Ravel Daphnis et Chloe
> 
> #5
> Bach Violin Concerto No. 2
> Elgar Introduction and Allegro
> Tchaikovsky 6
> 
> #6
> Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto
> Ravel Valses nobles et sentimentales
> Liszt Tasso: Lament and Triumph
> Victor Kissine: World Premiere (?)
> 
> These 6 are the forerunners (among others) at the moment as it seems. I plan to only go to one, so this is such a hard decision...


I'm not too worried about, air. I have plenty to listen to at home.  I'd probably go see option #2. The Ravel - "Daphnis et Chloe" would be a good one too, but I'm not too impressed with MTT's Ravel, so I'll probably go with one of the Mahler's.

Here are a few of my options with the ASO:

Series No. 1

http://www.atlantasymphony.org/ConcertsAndTickets/classicalseries1.aspx

Series No. 2

http://www.atlantasymphony.org/ConcertsAndTickets/classicalseries2.aspx

Series No. 3

http://www.atlantasymphony.org/ConcertsAndTickets/classicalseries3.aspx

Series No. 4

http://www.atlantasymphony.org/ConcertsAndTickets/classicalseries4.aspx


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

Well, I get a slight impression that we are ranting about the obvious. Of course it has to do with people being too exhausted to go after their real taste and settling for the crap they are served the easy way out of the tele with remote ;-) and most certainly it is also about the fact that people are simply deprived of any classical exposure since crap is pouring from ****** speakers all around. However, I would like to tell you about two interesting phenomena that I can see where I live.

Firstly, we have two practically nation-wide classical radio stations. One is a bit more commercial and plays film music along with most famous classical pieces. The other is strictly "high culture" with real classical and occasional bits and pieces of jazz, folk and literature presented. Interestingly enough, it is perceived as an expression of higher social status or at least good taste to listen to the commercial one. It is perceived as a station for the old but also for the "rich" people 

The other phenomenon is serious classical artists occasionally crossing over into the pop ocean, for example this "shocking" video:


----------



## nickgray

Clancy said:


> hmm look I think you are forgetting that till LPs became commonplace (the sixties) it was difficult for the average joe to even hear a full symphony, and the sixties was in itself an era when popular music was taking off (flowering in fact) so I don't think you can really blame pop culture completely, the technology that has brought about this media deluge has made classical/art music so much more accessible to the interested.


Um, why in the world technology would be connected with popular culture? Sure, LP, CD, DD did (and do) have a positive effect on classical music (at least imo), but that's a whole different issue. What I'm talking about is a widespread phenomena of commercializing almost everything, making a product the cheapest way possible and selling it as much as a company possibly can (obviously, this is not to be taken literally, but you get my point).


----------



## Mirror Image

There's a lot of different ways to think about as to why people aren't that into classical these days, but who really cares? None of us on this forum do, so why are we trying to debate back and forth of what the problem could be when we're all here for the same reason, which is to discuss our passion: classical music.


----------



## Maestro

Classical music and popular music serve different functions, classical music is best enjoyed by dedicating time to listen to it, but these days that isn't what people look for from music, they want music that they can listen to while multi-tasking. Pop music is catchy and simple so if they tune out for a while they won't be lost, but classical music demands attention.


----------



## jhar26

Maestro said:


> Classical music and popular music serve different functions, classical music is best enjoyed by dedicating time to listen to it, but these days that isn't what people look for from music, they want music that they can listen to while multi-tasking. Pop music is catchy and simple so if they tune out for a while they won't be lost, but classical music demands attention.


It works differently for everyone I guess. I for one never listen to music of any kind while doing something else. When I play a pop or rock record I sit down and give it the same attention that I would a classical record. To me the main difference between the two is that after a few listens you kinda know the pop/rock record inside out while the classical one continues to grow on you, and you keep discovering new things you hadn't noticed during the previous listen.


----------



## Ravellian

The majority of people are lazy about their music these days.. they want music that's pretty and sounds nice while being extremely easy to understand. Of couse, half of the reason that pop music is so attractive to most people is that we use 20th/21st century technology to create it: computers, mixing machines, electronic instruments, and so on. That technology creates louder, more forceful sounds; the drum set and electric guitar are much louder, aggressive instruments than any instrument used in classical repertory. I think that if you took away that technology element, 95% of the music out there would sound incredibly boring.. to everybody, not just classical nuts.


----------



## Mirror Image

Ravellian said:


> The majority of people are lazy about their music these days.. they want music that's pretty and sounds nice while being extremely easy to understand. Of couse, half of the reason that pop music is so attractive to most people is that we use 20th/21st century technology to create it: computers, mixing machines, electronic instruments, and so on. That technology creates louder, more forceful sounds; the drum set and electric guitar are much louder, aggressive instruments than any instrument used in classical repertory. I think that if you took away that technology element, 95% of the music out there would sound incredibly boring.. to everybody, not just classical nuts.


I think it's so true that people want music to satisfy them like they do fast food. They're constantly in a big hurry and for what? Are people really that busy? What makes them so busy? Nobody wants to talk to each other anymore, because they have short attention spans and don't have the tolerance and understanding it takes to carry on a decent conversation. They have to have things now. They have to be satisfied now. They have to be happy now.

I mean this mentality just disgusts me as do people's general attitude towards music. They don't have a clue about culture and they certainly don't want to educate themselves with anything. People also don't have any hobbies anymore.

All of this makes me quite sick to my stomach.


----------



## Ravellian

^ I couldn't agree more. Very well said. In Haydn's time, the 20-25 minute symphony or string quartet was the music of choice by everybody, and in that music, there's always some type of intellectual puzzle going on: when does the principal theme return? when the secondary themes return, are they altered? how does the accompaniment add to the texture? But nowadays, the goal is to be entertained as much as possible with the least effort put in by the listener (or watcher, in the case of films)


----------



## Yoshi

Mirror Image said:


> I think it's so true that people want music to satisfy them like they do fast food. They're constantly in a big hurry and for what? Are people really that busy? What makes them so busy? Nobody wants to talk to each other anymore, because they have short attention spans and don't have the tolerance and understanding it takes to carry on a decent conversation. They have to have things now. They have to be satisfied now. They have to be happy now.
> 
> I mean this mentality just disgusts me as do people's general attitude towards music. They don't have a clue about culture and they certainly don't want to educate themselves with anything. People also don't have any hobbies anymore.
> 
> All of this makes me quite sick to my stomach.


I feel the same way


----------



## Mirror Image

Ravellian said:


> ^ I couldn't agree more. Very well said. In Haydn's time, the 20-25 minute symphony or string quartet was the music of choice by everybody, and in that music, there's always some type of intellectual puzzle going on: when does the principal theme return? when the secondary themes return, are they altered? how does the accompaniment add to the texture? But nowadays, the goal is to be entertained as much as possible with the least effort put in by the listener (or watcher, in the case of films)


Thanks. I've been told I'm a brutally frank person. I'm direct and to-the-point, so perhaps this why people don't like talking to me? 

Anyway, I agree people don't want to make any kind of effort whatsoever. I played Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring" the other day for a friend, and this friend claims to be a classical "fan," anyway he got up and walked out. I got up and rushed out the door and said "What's wrong?" He said "I don't know how you can listen to such crap?" I just looked at him and laughed. I told he was exactly what was wrong with the people during the premiere of "The Rite of Spring." They pre-judged it and they never bothered to give a chance.


----------



## Zeniyama

My sister used to date this guy, and all he would listen to was rap music. He kind of scared me a bit because he'd "sing" while doing things, and I always thought he was getting pissed at something because he placed so much stress on the obscenities in the lines he was shouting out.

Well, one day I was listening to a bit of Delius, and he walks into my room and asks "Dude, how can you listen to so much classical music?" to which I replied "Well, how can you listen to so much rap?" He immediately assumes this conceited tone with me: "_I_ like to listen to music that has some _accents_ in it." he said, and I had to restrain myself to keep from laughing in his face.

I just thought that'd be an interesting little anecdote.


----------



## jhar26

Zeniyama said:


> My sister used to date this guy, and all he would listen to was rap music. He kind of scared me a bit because he'd "sing" while doing things, and I always thought he was getting pissed at something because he placed so much stress on the obscenities in the lines he was shouting out.
> 
> Well, one day I was listening to a bit of Delius, and he walks into my room and asks "Dude, how can you listen to so much classical music?" to which I replied "Well, how can you listen to so much rap?" He immediately assumes this conceited tone with me: "_I_ like to listen to music that has some _accents_ in it." he said, and I had to restrain myself to keep from laughing in his face.
> 
> I just thought that'd be an interesting little anecdote.


His reaction probably would have been the same though if you had been listening to, say, jazz, country, blues, folk or even pop/rock from the 50's-70's. Most people are set in their ways when it comes to music and they are unable to look outside their self created box as it were. And it's a fact that to most people music isn't nowhere near as important than it is to the average person on this forum and so they are unwilling to make an effort to get into anything that doesn't sound familiar to them.


----------



## Yoshi

Zeniyama said:


> My sister used to date this guy, and all he would listen to was rap music. He kind of scared me a bit because he'd "sing" while doing things, and I always thought he was getting pissed at something because he placed so much stress on the obscenities in the lines he was shouting out.
> 
> Well, one day I was listening to a bit of Delius, and he walks into my room and asks "Dude, how can you listen to so much classical music?" to which I replied "Well, how can you listen to so much rap?" He immediately assumes this conceited tone with me: "_I_ like to listen to music that has some _accents_ in it." he said, and I had to restrain myself to keep from laughing in his face.
> 
> I just thought that'd be an interesting little anecdote.


I feel your pain.
I have a classmate at school who drives me crazy. I know I should learn how to respect people's opinion sometimes but when he discusses music with me I always lose it. He always tried to convince me that 50 cent was the best musician in the world. He wouldn't even say "in my opinion". Everytime I asked: "what about classical music?" He would just say it's bad, without even listening to it.
I actualy feel sorry for that guy because once I tested his music knowledge by asking for example: "Do you know who Freddy Mercury was?" and he wouldn't know. The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and of course any classical music composer. Absolutely nothing. He was confined in a world where only 50 cent existed.


----------



## Zeniyama

Jan said:


> I feel your pain.
> I have a classmate at school who drives me crazy. I know I should learn how to respect people's opinion sometimes but when he discusses music with me I always lose it. He always tried to convince me that 50 cent was the best musician in the world. He wouldn't even say "in my opinion". Everytime I asked: "what about classical music?" He would just say it's bad, without even listening to it.
> I actualy feel sorry for that guy because once I tested his music knowledge by asking for example: "Do you know who Freddy Mercury was?" and he wouldn't know. The Beatles, Michael Jackson, and of course any classical music composer. Absolutely nothing. He was confined in a world where only 50 cent existed.


Yeah, this guy was alot like that, except he was obsessed with Lil Wayne.

I generally make friends who are more open minded to my intellectual tendencies. I introduced my closest circle of friends to Captain Beefheart (not quite classical, but alot more intellectually demanding than many other rock acts), and, while not completely thrilled with him, they were willing to sit through it, and even deemed the particular song "pretty good".


----------



## Yoshi

Zeniyama said:


> Yeah, this guy was alot like that, except he was obsessed with Lil Wayne.
> 
> I generally make friends who are more open minded to my intellectual tendencies. I introduced my closest circle of friends to Captain Beefheart (not quite classical, but alot more intellectually demanding than many other rock acts), and, while not completely thrilled with him, they were willing to sit through it, and even deemed the particular song "pretty good".


Well exactly... that guy wasn't open minded at all. He would refuse to listen to anyone's opinion and it wasn't only in music it was in everything else. I usualy get along with open minded people, as an open minded person myself.


----------



## Zeniyama

Jan said:


> Well exactly... that guy wasn't open minded at all. He would refuse to listen to anyone's opinion and it wasn't only in music it was in everything else. I usualy get along with open minded people, as an open minded person myself.


Yeah, it's pretty annoying being called pretentious or weird by people who won't even consider your side of things.


----------



## Kevin Pearson

I gave up a long time ago caring whether other people liked the music I liked. It's kind of like movies. There are so many different kinds of movies because there are so many different kinds of people in the world. What if the only kind of movies that were made were Romance Comedies? I'm sure eventually everyone would come to like Romance Comedies but then what if some rebel made an action film and disturbed the cultural norm? Well, like movies music has been an evolving art form. Granted there are some types of music I just cannot stand and I even have my prejudices about people who listen to certain types of music. However, I grant them their right to listen to what they want to. If they ever try and take my classical music from me though they will have a fight on their hands!

Personally I think classical music is music at its finest. There is so much classical music and I think enough variety that anyone can find something they would like if they would take the time to explore it. It's very sad that music appreciation, that exposes kids to classical music, has been mostly abandoned in our school systems. I think music as an "art" form has suffered because of it. Most of what is released could not be called art but might still be entertaining and entertainment is the god of the current age.

Kevin


----------



## Rasa

airad2 said:


> A
> 
> Victor Kissine: World Premiere (?)


This is my analysis teacher, I demand you go and listen to it


----------



## maestro267

I was reading something on the Newsround (UK news programme aimed at kids, for those who don't know) website about how kids feel about classical music, and a fair few of the comments revolved around classical music being 'boring'. What a real shame! If only they knew...


----------



## kg4fxg

*Philosophy*

I remember similar discussions in my philosophy class, what is beauty, was is reality, William James verses Sartre.

I can only speak for USA. I tried at one point to go back to school and get a Masters Degree in Philosophy - can't do that in the South (Atlanta) because those courses at all major Universities are only offered during the day not at night.

It is hard because the culture here does not value education such as Philosophy, Literature, etc. If the degree will make you money fine. I think we have lost so much because this type of education is hard to come by these days.

And so many people miss out on so much. It is just not on their radar screen as a topic of importance.

That said, you could earn a Masters in Philosophy in the North (Chicago). I am sure it is no different in other parts of the world. People read less, use less imagination, and could careless about the "Arts".

Much has to do with public education which is in crisis at the moment.

First we had "Affirmative Action" which prompted hiring unqualified individuals who could not teach. Now we have "No Child Left Behind" as a result of this bungle.

Disagree? Just read this book and you will be completely amazed.

Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action


----------



## Random

Celloman said:


> Classical music takes effort and patience to listen to. Most people don't like to think of music listening as a skill to be developed. They percieve music only as an entertainment, and if it does not bring instant gratification, they become bored and turn it off. People need to see music as more than entertainment. It's an experience that not only sooths and excites, but also educates and enlightens. People should try to get out of their musical comfort zones and listen to music that makes them think.


That's my exact thought, very well said.


----------



## realdealblues

I have a couple of thoughts on this. 

First off, the "masses" while possibly good meaning, are not always made up of the most intelligent people, and I think it does take a fair amount of intelligence to sit down and just "listen" to a 45 minute piece of music ala a symphony with no words and enjoy it on multiple levels. 

Most people don't have an attention span of more than 5 minutes which leads to my second thought that most people like a 3 min & 45 sec song they can dance & sing along too for precisely the same reason. But more important still is probably because most people just want to get laid, so they go to clubs or concerts where they can get wasted and dance in the dark to thumping bass notes and flashing lights. Nobody does that at a Symphonic Concert. And as a side note, the clothing fashions of the Classical time period are no longer fashionable and people like to wear clothes that match current musical trends. Disco, Punk, Metal, Rap...they all had a clothing style to match. You just don't see The Buckle or The Gap selling Pantaloons and Wigs these days.


----------



## Johnny

Could somebody explain to me how listening to music is more than entertainment?

How it is educational?


----------



## starry

Johnny said:


> Could somebody explain to me how listening to music is more than entertainment?
> 
> How it is educational?


Entertainment is fundamental to music and to art in general that I would agree on. Of course there can be different kinds of entertainment, some more complex and some more direct and simpler. It relates to this emotional response which I wondered about in another thread (which nobody picked up on). For some reason the rhythm, melody, harmony of music affects our emotions as well as feeding our desire for stimulus for the intellect (in following the craft and inventive of the artist).


----------



## Johnny

But could somebody explain to me how listening to music is more than entertainment?

And how it is educational?


----------



## starry

What is your definition of 'educational'? Learning about the past, understanding what the human mind has created and how that relates to ourselves?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

could somebody explain to me how listening to music is more than entertainment?

And how it is educational?

Probably not... because that would assume an agreed-upon definition of "entertainment" and "education". I would argue that the primary purpose of all art is pleasure. Even the most challenging or difficult works of art bring a form of pleasure to a given audience who prefers a challenge... perhaps not unlike that resulting from crossword puzzles and the sort. Certainly all art forms can have a didactic message... but it isn't the message but the art... it isn't the "what" but the "how" that matters. I have little doubt that the arts broaden our thinking... but I won't touch the studies which argue the correlation between those who read, listen to "serious" music, study painting and sculpture... and their greater grasp of other subjects. A correlation proves nothing. My own thoughts on the value of music... of all art is best conveyed through two favorite quotes... the first by Walter Pater, the second by Anna Quindlen:

Every moment some form grows perfect in hand or face; some tone on the hills or the sea is choicer than the rest; some mood of passion or insight or intellectual excitement is irresistibly real and attractive to us, --for that moment only. *Not the fruit of experience, but experience itself, is the end.* A counted number of pulses only is given to us of a variegated, dramatic life. How may we see in them all that is to seen in them by the finest senses? How shall we pass most swiftly from point to point, and be present always at the focus where the greatest number of vital forces unite in their purest energy?

*To burn always with this hard, gem-like flame, to maintain this ecstasy, is success in life.* In a sense it might even be said that our failure is to form habits: for, after all, habit is relative to a stereotyped world, and meantime it is only the roughness of the eye that makes two persons, things, situations, seem alike. While all melts under our feet, we may well grasp at any exquisite passion, or any contribution to knowledge that seems by a lifted horizon to set the spirit free for a moment, or any stirring of the sense, strange dyes, strange colours, and curious odours, or work of the artist's hands, or the face of one's friend. *Not to discriminate every moment some passionate attitude in those about us, and in the very brilliancy of their gifts some tragic dividing on their ways, is, on this short day of frost and sun, to sleep before evening.* With this sense of the splendour of our experience and of its awful brevity, gathering all we are into one desperate effort to see and touch, we shall hardly have time to make theories about the things we see and touch. What we have to do is to be for ever curiously testing new opinions and courting new impressions, never acquiescing in a facile orthodoxy...

One of the most beautiful passages of Rousseau is that in the sixth book of _Confessions_, where he describes the awakening in him of the literary sense. An undefinable taint of death had clung always about him, and now in early manhood he believed himself smitten by mortal disease. He asked himself how he might make as much as possible of the interval that remained; and he was not biassed by anything in his previous life when he decided that it must be by intellectual excitement, which he found just then in the clear, fresh writings of Voltaire. Well! we are all condamnés, as Victor Hugo says: we are all under sentence of death but with a sort of indefinite reprieve --_les hommes sont tous condamnés à mort avec des sursis indéfinis_: we have an interval, and then our place knows no more. Some spend this interval in listlessness, some in high passion, the wisest, at least among "the children of the world", in art and song. For our one chance lies in expanding that interval, in getting as many pulsations as possible into the given time. Great passions may give us a quickened sense of life, ecstasy and sorrow of love, the various forms of enthusiastic activity, disinterested or otherwise, which comes naturally to many of us. Only be sure it is passion --that it does yield you this fruit of a quickened, multiplied consciousness. Of such wisdom, the poetic passion, the desire of beauty, the love of art for its own sake, has most. For art comes to you proposing frankly to give nothing but the highest quality to your moments as they pass, and simply for those moments' sake. 

-Walter Pater, conclusion to _The Renaissance_

Books are the means to immortality: Plato lives forever, as do Dickens, and Dr. Seuss, Soames Forsyte, Jo March, Scrooge, Anna Karenina, and Vronsky. Over and over again Heathcliffe wanders the moor searching for his Cathy. Over and over again Ahab fights the whale.Through them we experience other times, other places, other lives. We manage to become much more than our own selves. The only dead are those who grow sere and shriveled within, unable to step outside their own lives and into those of others. Ignorance is death. A closed mind is a catafalque.

One might surely replace "books" with "music" or "art" and suggest that one of the greatest values of music is the ability through music to experience something more than what we are ourselves. This may not appeal to the desire for a simple, material value of music and art... but it is arguable that it opens us up to a greater sense of empathy... an acceptance that the world is more complex than we could ever imagine and that "good" and "bad" may not be so easily defined as we might think... and perhaps it offers an alternative to the thinking which values only that which can be measured in material terms.


----------



## superhorn

I don't think that most people really hate classical music. The problem is that too many people blindly accept the myth that it is stuffy,boring and elitist, and not something that "normal" people would want to listen to.
Many people still have this stereotypical view of classical music in their minds as a boring social occaision for snobbish rich people to attend just to see and be seen and to show off their jewels and finery. 
Also, in opera, many people still think that it's nothing but a bunch of fat people dressed in ridiculous pseudo Viking costumes screaming to each other in some incomprehensible language while rich snobbish people dressed to the nines sit bored in their boxes. 
These myths are desperately in need of being debunked.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Allegro said:


> Still, I could do without the, and I quote: "Your music is retarded man. It isn't even real music since there ain't any words". Classical Music has a passion, and a depth that they cannot understand and it pains and saddens me that they cannot understand it, so they hate it.


I experience the same thing, and have relatively the same views of the music as you do. And what is even worse is when they start calling the music "gay" and other references to homosexuality.


----------



## Argus

superhorn said:


> I don't think that most people really hate classical music. The problem is that too many people blindly accept the myth that it is stuffy,boring and elitist, and not something that "normal" people would want to listen to.
> Many people still have this stereotypical view of classical music in their minds as a boring social occaision for snobbish rich people to attend just to see and be seen and to show off their jewels and finery.
> Also, in opera, many people still think that it's nothing but a bunch of fat people dressed in ridiculous pseudo Viking costumes screaming to each other in some incomprehensible language while rich snobbish people dressed to the nines sit bored in their boxes.
> These myths are desperately in need of being debunked.


I might like opera if it was _all_ performed in pseudo Viking costumes with incromprehensible screaming.


----------



## Andy Loochazee

superhorn said:


> Also, in opera, many people still think that it's nothing but a bunch of fat people dressed in ridiculous pseudo Viking costumes screaming to each other in some incomprehensible language while rich snobbish people dressed to the nines sit bored in their boxes.
> These myths are desperately in need of being debunked.


Such "myths" are not held solely by people who are ignorant of classical music. I recall a famous former member of T-C with a stupendous number of posts and an even more stupendous stock of classical CDs that was growing exponentially saying that he thought opera was a complete waste of time. Those were the days.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I always tell my friends (that hate classical) at least my gay music doesn't repeat the same 4 notes over and over.


----------



## SPR

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> I always tell my friends (that hate classical) at least my gay music doesn't repeat the same 4 notes over and over.


You mean like the 4 notes that open Beethovens 5th?

'Dah-dah-dah dum'.....


----------



## Johnny

I don't think people hate Classical Music these days. At least, no more than any other genre.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

SPR said:


> You mean like the 4 notes that open Beethovens 5th?
> 
> 'Dah-dah-dah dum'.....


I think Salieri was more referring to the fact that most popular music (which I will refer to as filth from now on in the post) simply repeats the same exact notes over and over again throughout the entirety of the "song." The filth is focused on the lyrics and the beat, not melodies or harmonies. Although these exact notes are repeated multiple times in the movement by Beethoven, they are presented through complex melodies and changes in dynamics and tempo to create something well worth listening to. As opposed to the filth, which is monotonous and disgustingly repetitive.

P.S. I'm not saying all popular music is terrible, however it is my opinion that most of it is.


----------



## SPR

...I see my attempt at levity failed miserably....

yes, I understand the difference between Beethovens 5th and Akons version of 'Smack That'. Really. I do.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

SPR said:


> ...I see my attempt at levity failed miserably....
> 
> yes, I understand the difference between Beethovens 5th and Akons version of 'Smack That'. Really. I do.


Well seeing as how I have no idea who you are, I was unaware of that originally. But I apologize for replying as if you were ignorant.


----------



## Argus

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> I think Salieri was more referring to the fact that most popular music (which I will refer to as filth from now on in the post) simply repeats the same exact notes over and over again throughout the entirety of the "song." The filth is focused on the lyrics and the beat, not melodies or harmonies. Although these exact notes are repeated multiple times in the movement by Beethoven, they are presented through complex melodies and changes in dynamics and tempo to create something well worth listening to. As opposed to the filth, which is monotonous and disgustingly repetitive.
> 
> P.S. I'm not saying all popular music is terrible, however it is my opinion that most of it is.


Just out of curiosity, can you recommend me some good popular music.


----------



## SPR

surely - no harm done in the slightest. I should know better...sarcasm doesnt always come across well in a written post. I simply thought I would toss out the (perhaps) most famous 4 notes in all of music history towards Salieris comment.

Back to the topic - I can speak for my own experience only... it takes time sometimes to actually find classical music. Although I can remember enjoying Wendy Carlos' 'Switched on Bach' when I was very young, I didnt really get serious about classical music until I was 40+ years old. Having been through pop, rock, jazz, blues, gospel, funk, disco, celtic, punk, screamo, soul... yikes.. any number of musical styles from top to bottom and an ever bulging CD collection - I suddenly found that classical had real appeal and I am now firmly entrenched in it.

I *really* *really* hate to suggest that one needs to 'graduate' to classical music.... but for me at least, I did need to acquire broad musical understanding of a variety of styles before I came to really start appreciating it. 

I find the more I listen, the more I like. Other than the most excruciating tripe spit out by the pop(ular) machine... there really is some very (very) good music out there of all kinds if you have the dedication to look for it.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Argus said:


> Just out of curiosity, can you recommend me some good popular music.


Haha...you called my bluff. No, I cannot, I just didn't want to start an argument.


----------



## David58117

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> I always tell my friends (that hate classical) at least my gay music doesn't repeat the same 4 notes over and over.


Because one is a *song form* the other is not. Besides - haven't you heard of Rondo form and its predecessor? What about Ground Bass?

Are the pieces composers wrote in simpler forms deemed "filth" and the like, too?


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Recommend me something written by a brilliant composer that has the repetition of Lady Gaga and I will retract my statement.


----------



## David58117

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> Recommend me something written by a brilliant composer that has the repetition of Lady Gaga and I will retract my statement.


Cannon in D comes straight to mind.....


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Pachelbel's Cannon is, in my opinion, not a marvelous piece of music. But nonetheless, Pachelbel's piece builds on the theme that is repeated over and over again and reaches a point of climax. Lady Gaga does not.


----------



## David58117

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> Pachelbel's Cannon is, in my opinion, not a marvelous piece of music. But nonetheless, Pachelbel's piece builds on the theme that is repeated over and over again and reaches a point of climax. Lady Gaga does not.


I'm pretty sure climaxes are part of popular songs as well.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Well I know that a lot of it does not, but I'm not into that type of music. It may climax lyrically, but seldom does musically.

(Well what do we have here, I have entered the very argument I wished to stay out of...the filth thing may have been a little much, and I apologize. It is simply my opinion and does not represent what is right or wrong. Come on, to you, I'm just some idiot on the internet. Is it worth arguing over?)


----------



## Argus

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> Haha...you called my bluff. No, I cannot, I just didn't want to start an argument.


Depending upon your definition of popular music (I'll use the inclusive version that includes most rock, jazz, soul, funk etc), I like more popular music than classical. It's just that the ratio of music I like:don't like in the popular realm is a lot more lopsided than my ratio in classical. So for every 100 pieces of popular music out there I will like maybe 1 or 2 if that, whereas for every 100 pieces of classical music I'll like maybe 40 or 50 if not more. This might be down to the fact that there is a lot more pop music being produced today than classical music ever has.

Also I find popular music more polarising in my opinion of it. I either really like it or can't stand it or find it boring. In classical music there seems to be a lot of middle ground where I quite like something but it doesn't really grab or intrigue me whilst remaining perfectly listenable and enjoyable.



> Recommend me something written by a brilliant composer that has the repetition of Lady Gaga and I will retract my statement.





















 - Harmonically

For the record, I don't like Lady Gaga but isn't the point of her songs that they are catchy. Wouldn't monotony and repetition enhance catchiness?

EDIT - Ha. I also thought of Canon in D before reading David's post.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> Recommend me something written by a brilliant composer that has the repetition of Lady Gaga and I will retract my statement.


J. S. Bach, _Das Wohltemperierte Klavier _, Book 1 Prelude in C major BMW 846.

I hope you at least consider J. S. Bach as "brilliant".

Your thoughts?

Reptitive little piece by design. Love it. Kills Lady Gaga anyday.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Argus said:


> Depending upon your definition of popular music (I'll use the inclusive version that includes most rock, jazz, soul, funk etc), I like more popular music than classical. It's just that the ratio of music I like:don't like in the popular realm is a lot more lopsided than my ratio in classical. So for every 100 pieces of popular music out there I will like maybe 1 or 2 if that, whereas for every 100 pieces of classical music I'll like maybe 40 or 50 if not more. This might be down to the fact that there is a lot more pop music being produced today than classical music ever has.
> 
> Also I find popular music more polarising in my opinion of it. I either really like it or can't stand it or find it boring. In classical music there seems to be a lot of middle ground where I quite like something but it doesn't really grab or intrigue me whilst remaining perfectly listenable and enjoyable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Harmonically
> 
> For the record, I don't like Lady Gaga but isn't the point of her songs that they are catchy. Wouldn't monotony and repetition enhance catchiness?
> 
> EDIT - Ha. I also thought of Canon in D before reading David's post.


Just so you guys know. This "catchiness" doesn't come from the "artist" (I don't view Lady Gaga and the like as artists hence the inverted commas) - it comes from the work of sound engineers that turn crap music into so called earworms.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Argus said:


> Depending upon your definition of popular music (I'll use the inclusive version that includes most rock, jazz, soul, funk etc), I like more popular music than classical. It's just that the ratio of music I like:don't like in the popular realm is a lot more lopsided than my ratio in classical. So for every 100 pieces of popular music out there I will like maybe 1 or 2 if that, whereas for every 100 pieces of classical music I'll like maybe 40 or 50 if not more. This might be down to the fact that there is a lot more pop music being produced today than classical music ever has.
> 
> Also I find popular music more polarising in my opinion of it. I either really like it or can't stand it or find it boring. In classical music there seems to be a lot of middle ground where I quite like something but it doesn't really grab or intrigue me whilst remaining perfectly listenable and enjoyable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Harmonically
> 
> For the record, I don't like Lady Gaga but isn't the point of her songs that they are catchy. Wouldn't monotony and repetition enhance catchiness?
> 
> EDIT - Ha. I also thought of Canon in D before reading David's post.


You seem to have overlooked my statement: "Recommend me something written by a _*brilliant*_ composer..."

The repetition of one note on a piano is something that I could compose, and I am certainly not a brilliant composer. Glass could maybe be considered legitimate by some, but not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination.

Quite frankly, I don't care what Lady Gaga's intentions were in writing her music, in fact, I don't care about what Lady Gaga thinks about anything. I only care about the music itself.

But I can see where you are coming from in the section above the videos, and I can agree completely about the "polarizing" statement. There is certainly a lot of middle-ground with classical music.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> J. S. Bach, _Das Wohltemperierte Klavier _, Book 1 Prelude in C major BMW 846.
> 
> I hope you at least consider J. S. Bach as "brilliant".
> 
> Your thoughts?
> 
> Reptitive little piece by design. Love it. Kills Lady Gaga anyday.


I can do nothing with your last few sentences but agree with them. Yes, the rhythm is repetitive, but the notes change constantly, moving through different broken chords, both major and minor, to create a depth to the work.

And to clear up your hint at inquiry, of course J.S. Bach was a brilliant composer. Beautiful music.

You seem to have a sense of hostility towards me, and I hope it is not long-lasting.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> I can do nothing with your last few sentences but agree with them. Yes, the rhythm is repetitive, but the notes change constantly, moving through different broken chords, both major and minor, to create a depth to the work.
> 
> And to clear up your hint at inquiry, of course J.S. Bach was a brilliant composer. Beautiful music.
> 
> You seem to have a sense of hostility towards me, and I hope it is not long-lasting.


Agree with your thoughts about BMW 846.

I don't have personal hostility towards you (or anyone here, except the trolls). I don't personally know you or anyone here at all. It's just discussion in words in a public internet discussion forum; nothing more, about music that we seriously must have to get through each day of our lives. Bruckner or Bach, it doesn't matter.


----------



## David58117

How about Schubert!?

It probably wouldn't be hard to find pop songs more "complex" than this, either:






Edit -

Don't take my reply to be hostile, either. I enjoy these discussions!


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Oh boy, you have hit a sore spot...Lets just say that if my username weren't Josef Anton Bruckner it may very well have been Franz Peter Schubert.

Repetitive: yes. More complex than Lady Gaga: most definitely.


----------



## alexjems41

I love Classical music. Most of my friends hate it but I don't understand why. I wouldn't say its awesome, or even more complex than today's music. I enjoy classical music from time to time.


___________________________

I quote others only to better express myself


----------



## Johnny

I find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't like ANY Classical Music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Johnny said:


> I find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't like ANY Classical Music.


Yep. They may not consciously know a piece they enjoyed was in fact Classical but more so I think, is they simply would not admit to their friends/family/whoever because of social prejudices that may be associated with Classical music by the ignorant (snobbish, for old people, gay, whatever else). Good old human behaviour for some.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> Yep. They may not consciously know a piece they enjoyed was in fact Classical but more so I think, is they simply would not admit to their friends/family/whoever because of social prejudices that may be associated with Classical music by the ignorant (snobbish, for old people, gay, whatever else). Good old human behaviour for some.


I agree completely. And how sad that is....


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Josef Anton Bruckner said:


> I agree completely. And how sad that is....


Actually, yesterday, while playing footy, I've heard someone whistle/hum (not sure right now) Beethoven's Fuer Elise/Therese - most likely because he had heard it in Nas' "I can".


----------



## Argus

Johnny said:


> I find it hard to believe that anyone wouldn't like ANY Classical Music.


I think it's more that they either don't even give it a chance or that they don't allow themselves to like the music. They may quite like some of the actual music but are so totally against what they believe the music repsresents, that they oppose the concept of classical music more than the sound of classical music.



> You seem to have overlooked my statement: "Recommend me something written by a brilliant composer..."
> 
> The repetition of one note on a piano is something that I could compose, and I am certainly not a brilliant composer. Glass could maybe be considered legitimate by some, but not brilliant by any stretch of the imagination.


Glass being brilliant is debatable but him not being 'legitimate' is an absurd statement. He composes music therefore he is a composer. If you really like his music then he is brilliant, if you don't he isn't.

Repetition is just a technique available to the artist to emphasize certain elements of his music. It's not an insult in any way. A lack of repetition can often be as displeasing as over repetition depending upon the intentions of the composer.

I might try composing a one note piece of music myself. There's still plenty that can be changed in terms of timbre, dynamics and rhythm, and it would be quite challenging to try to make it interesting over a length of time.


----------



## David58117

Argus said:


> I think it's more that they either don't even give it a chance or that they don't allow themselves to like the music. They may quite like some of the actual music but are so totally against what they believe the music repsresents, that they oppose the concept of classical music more than the sound of classical music.


Sounds like Classical Music fans and pop music...


----------



## Johnny

Zing!

*Extra text to make up minimum requirement*


----------



## Argus

David58117 said:


> Sounds like Classical Music fans and pop music...


Sounds like any music fans and any music said fans don't like. Each have their own slurs and stereotypes.


----------



## Ivan_cro

I just can't read all 9 pages, so I don't know what you have written recently, but somewhere on 1st or 2nd page I saw someone wrote that young people don't like classical music.
I have to disagree!

I am 15 years old, I go to a music school, I *love* classical music and I have a lot of friends (from age 14 to 19) that are like me.We play our instruments, sing, even compose!
It's something incredible, I just love it! 

BTW. I am new here, and I must say I love this forums 
There are so many people here and all they talk about is music, and not any music, but CLASSICAL music 

Is there anyone from Croatia here?


----------



## Huge

Age is irrelevant, I agree. Only the old classical music snobs think no young people don't like classical music. I'm in my late 20s, yet I went to my first classical gig when I was 5, and my first non-classical gig when I was 16.

People who thik it's anything to do with intelligence are generally lacking in imagination. I like a vast array of different genres of music, from hip-hop to pop, to classical. Classical is my 1st love, but I would happily listen to Oasis, or Muse.
There's far more classical influence in non-classical music than many people (in both camps) realise.


----------



## Argus

Age doesn't make a difference as to whether a person likes classical music or not. I was in the car with my 70 year old grandfather this afternoon listening to Radio 3. Pictures at an Exhibition was playing and he told me to turn that rubbish off. I told him I liked it and it's quite a well known and popular piece, but he'd never even heard of it. Then Beethoven's 9th was played and he had the exact same opinion of that. Now, my grandad is a football, crib and pub man, so why should he like something he's had very little exposure to. He has his nice idea of what music should be and anything outside of this he just dismisses as rubbish. I think this to be true of a lot of people. They don't want to be challenged by music but rather have something familiar to them. Music for entertainment not some kind of artistic pursuit.

My grandad also argues that Italy is known more for its attack than its defence and has never heard of Catenaccio, so maybe he's just beginning to lose the plot.



> Age is irrelevant, I agree. Only the old classical music snobs think no young people don't like classical music. I'm in my late 20s, yet I went to my first classical gig when I was 5, and my first non-classical gig when I was 16.


You were fortunate to have been exposed to classical music at an early age so it makes sense that you'd be into it later in life. Most people aren't and usually have no incentive to try to get into later in life. It's just completely outside their musical radar.


----------



## Ivan_cro

Argus said:


> He has his nice idea of what music should be and anything outside of this he just dismisses as rubbish. I think this to be true of a lot of people. They don't want to be challenged by music but rather have something familiar to them. Music for entertainment not some kind of artistic pursuit.


I know many people who think everything they don't like or they don't do is rubbish...
I listen to what I like, I do what I like, but I also approve and respect everything other I don't do.



Argus said:


> You were fortunate to have been exposed to classical music at an early age so it makes sense that you'd be into it later in life. Most people aren't and usually have no incentive to try to get into later in life. It's just completely outside their musical radar.


I was also exposed to classical music very early, because my mom is a music professor, she teaches accordion.I went to concerts with her (and I still do), and when I became old enough I started going in a music school.


----------



## Josef Anton Bruckner

Ivan_cro said:


> I went to concerts with her (and I still do), and when I became old enough I started going in a music school.


I envy you...


----------



## Ian Elliott

They are too much in a hurry. They weren't exposed to it at an early age. They never developed their musical imagination, consequently they need lyrics to tell them what the music is 'about'. All we can do is pity them. You are right to reach out. If you live near a college or university you might meet kindred spirits there, especially in the Music department.


----------



## opus55

I'm guessing classical music is not popular for two reasons

1. No lyrics (or sung in foreign language) - most people can't "listen" if it doesn't contain words to tell them what it's supposed to mean. They can't seem to grasp the idea that music sometimes can be just music and you can add your own meaning to it if you want to.
2. Too long - most people simply have no patience


----------



## David58117

Ian Elliott said:


> They are too much in a hurry. They weren't exposed to it at an early age. They never developed their musical imagination, consequently they need lyrics to tell them what the music is 'about'. All we can do is pity them. You are right to reach out. If you live near a college or university you might meet kindred spirits there, especially in the Music department.


Yes! Find like minded elitist to pity the poor souls who don't realize how unimaginative they are because they don't appreciate classical music. We are *truly* superior because we have more Bach than they do.

Blah I'm sleepy.


----------



## teccomin

Classical to most people is like football/soccer to Americans.


----------



## Ian Elliott

David58117 said:


> Yes! Find like minded elitist to pity the poor souls who don't realize how unimaginative they are because they don't appreciate classical music. We are *truly* superior because we have more Bach than they do.
> 
> Blah I'm sleepy.


Not at all. In fact, I consider myself middle-brow. I don't understand Bach and find Mozart dull. But I regard this as a limitation on my part. When I have had the good fortune to have friends who like classical music and like exploring it, we would get together and simply play music, a sort of musical potluck. We were no more interested in discussing people who lack musical imagination than painters take an interest in talking about the color-blind. Pity does not always mean elitism or snobbery.


----------



## Gymnopédie

Most aren't willing to give it a chance because of their preconceptions. With such diversity I doubt anyone could thoroughly explore classical music without finding something they like. 

As a small child I adored it because I heard the music as what it was. When I went to school, however, I bought into all the peurile nonsense the other kids would say about classical music being "boring" and "lame", and I no longer allowed myself to like it.


----------



## johogofo

I'm guessing classical music is not popular for two reasons

1. No lyrics (or sung in foreign language) - most people can't "listen" if it doesn't contain words to tell them what it's supposed to mean. They can't seem to grasp the idea that music sometimes can be just music and you can add your own meaning to it if you want to.
2. Too long - most people simply have no patience


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*I have my own theory*

Classical music is not disposable...Nowadays everything is disposable...Then...you got the answer!

Martin Pitchon


----------



## Guest

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Classical music is not disposable...Nowadays everything is disposable...Then...you got the answer!
> 
> Martin Pitchon


Oh yes it is. Classical music is a lot like classical cinema. Over time, the uninteresting works have been discarded. We think of older classical as being more durable and of a higher quality because time has filtered out the lesser works, and we are now presented with a refined library of those works that stood the test of time. The same goes with cinema. And the same goes with the classical music being written today. 100-200 years from now, some of it will still be performed and recorded, and some will be forgotten.


----------



## newromantic

2 reasons - it is generally 100-400 years 'out of date' and people are sheep for fashion.
Also there is the class divide and that is why I have been a bit of closet classical fan in the past, it seems the upper classes have tried to claim it as their own.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

I don't think people hate classical music as much as don't care for it.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*people are against culture*

Nowadays the values are:

as you can see in your spams:

- increase your income!
- increase your *****
- Lose 150 pounds in 2 weeks

Be hansome/beautiful, sexy wealthy and possibly healthy...the rest...It doesn't count.
Our society is sick, art is not important anymore unless you're very very rich...and you have everything else.

I am sad about this.

Martin Pitchon


----------



## dmg

We've become an instant gratification society. "If a piece of music doesn't instantly give me a catchy melody or instantly grab my attention, it isn't worth my time."

Rarely are songs over 3 minutes in length any more. No attention span whatsoever.


----------



## elgar's ghost

Some people say they don't like classical music for pretty much the same reasons why others say they don't like cricket (for me, the parallel is exact) - they may be intimidated by something that on first impressions appears over-complicated and goes on for far too long. This suspicion is especially heightened if detractors suffer from a low boredom threshold/attention span. Of course, there are those who have tried but simply can't take to it but those people I know who haven't given either a proper chance usually reply when asked, 'I don't like it cos it's boring...'. I've tried to fight a rearguard action and coax people gently into classical music or cricket by explaining the finer points but my efforts more often than not fall on deaf ears.


----------



## Ivan_cro

dmg said:


> We've become an instant gratification society. "If a piece of music doesn't instantly give me a catchy melody or instantly grab my attention, it isn't worth my time."
> 
> Rarely are songs over 3 minutes in length any more. No attention span whatsoever.


Nowdays it's not about music, actually, it's only about how sexy someone is, is he/or she gay, bisexual or if he/she has an affair with some other celebrity...
Lady Gaga is the best example...


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Wow!*

How people are smart here! I think you have said everything I had in mind...about the 3 minutes...How true...Classical music is rarely under 3-5 minutes, popular music rarely is more...I think you have got the secret...The duration...Orgarsms are not like before either...A quicky is the norm! That's why I like Tristan und Isolde, an opera with two well defined orgasms...But a lot to wait until we arrive to them!

Martin, still a dreamer, stil a boy.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Martin, still a dreamer, stil a boy.


You have a son? You posted a clip just now showing us his music.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*Yes, I did*

Mea culpa...I won't do it again.

Martin


----------



## Ian Elliott

True. I believe one British critic of Tristan complained "Oh, stop going on about it, and get a leg up!"


----------



## jhar26

There is no doubt more than one reason why people 'hate' classical music 'these days.' Come to think about it, 'hate' is probably too strong a word. 'Indifferent' is closer to the truth in most cases I think.

Pop music is always an easy target in these type of discussions. I don't think however that all those kids that love Lady Gaga or Britney would instead be listening to Beethoven or Brahms if there were no pop music. Most of them would probably be listening to nothing whatsoever. But a tiny minority of them that otherwise wouldn't have might get into classical music at some point because they have through pop developed a habit of at least listening to something. But yes, the disposable nature of much of todays pop music and the attitude of it's 'fans' towards it are a problem. When I or other old farts of my generation talk about 'oldies' we're referring to the Beatles or Elvis. Kids today refer to a song that was in the charts six months ago as an oldie, and when they say 'oldie' they usually mean 'outdated.' With that sort of a mindset it's difficult to imagine getting them interested in music from hundreds of years ago.

From the point of view of the naysayers classical music also has an image problem. They go to a pop/rock concert to have a good time and experience a sense of community. By comparison going to a classical concert seems like going to church to them. And pop is visually more appealing to them too. You have all these 'cool' guys in hip clothes and cute girls that wiggle their butts. Looking to a bunch of bald old guys in penguin suits with their funny little guitars under their chins fronted by a spastic waving a stick seems kinda boring in comparison.

Other, more open minded folks who could potentially get interested in classical music stay away from it out of fear that it's too difficult for them and that you have to be educated to appreciate it. Todays radio formats must take at least take part of the blame for not familiarising the casual listener with the classics. In earlier days they might play a Stones record, followed by one of Sinatra and a tune from Carmen after that. Today each radio station focusses on one type of music, so to get familiar with classical music you have to seek it out instead of it automatically being part of the daily menu of the (radio) listener.

Another reason is that 99.9% of the people don't have a clue about what's going on in contemporary classical music. Indeed, most of them just don't know that there actually is such a thing. I can imagine that in the first couple of decades of the 20th century everyone knew the names of then living composers like Strauss, Stravinsky, Puccini, Rachmaninov, Ravel and so on. They may not necessarily have liked the music, or even have been familiar with it, but at least everyone considered classical music a contemporary genre. If you for comparison would now ask the average guy on the street to name some living composers the vast majority of them wouldn't be able to mention even one of them. Hence their opinion that classical music is a thing of the past that isn't relevant anymore.

Having said all that, there's also the question of how many diehard classical music fans that complain about it's lack of popularity among 'the general public' actually really want it to be more popular. If there would for example ever be another composer that becomes as popular as, say, Mozart or Tchaikovsky I'm pretty sure that instead of being delighted by it there would be accusations of 'selling out' or that other composers are more deserving (until they too would become popular of course). It's the same attitude that makes some classical music fans roll their eyes when a newcomer to the genre says that he loves The Four Seasons. It has nothing to do with the music itself (which is actually very good). It's just that some don't like to admit that music that has become part of the mainstream is great.


----------



## Almaviva

jhar26 said:


> Having said all that, etc


Excellent points, but I'd say that it's not that desperate. There are still some avenues for the common man to get in touch with classical music. If you think of phenomena like "The Three Tenors," Andrea Bocelli, Andre Rieu, Lang Lang, etc (regardless of what you think of the quality of these performers which in certain cases is admittedly bad), or occasions such as your Christmas time Nutcracker or Messiah or World Cup opening concerts or New Years concerts and the such, classical music still reaches the masses, here and there.

For instant, my local symphonic orchestra does a series of about 8 summer concerts in an open sky amphitheater, with both light classical pops and serious symphonic works, and it's always packed, with a large crowd of people of all ages (from babies to senior citizens) and all walks of life.


----------



## Ian Elliott

The films 'Amadeus' and 'Immortal Beloved,' especially the latter, sparked some interest in classical music, but it was short-lived. I think an occasional movie could keep the public a little more interested in music written long ago. If the young could develop an interest in history instead of just glorying in 'the now,' there might be some hope for a revival; and then they might discover the contemporary composers, now largely confined to the academic circuit.


----------



## gurthbruins

Ian Elliott said:


> The films 'Amadeus' and 'Immortal Beloved,' especially the latter, sparked some interest in classical music, but it was short-lived. I think an occasional movie could keep the public a little more interested in music written long ago. If the young could develop an interest in history instead of just glorying in 'the now,' there might be some hope for a revival; and then they might discover the contemporary composers, now largely confined to the academic circuit.


Regarding the contemporary composers, have you heard of Michael Rosenzweig?
I met him and heard some of his music: I wonder if he is known to the 'academic circuit.'


----------



## Ravellian

It most likely has to do with the fact that classical is not well-suited for most american lifestyles.. it does not fit well into the background of parties or on a car radio (the constant, pusling beats of pop and rock work much better). And when they're home by themselves, they usually spend their time watching TV or playing video games... and spend much less time doing something like reading a book, where they could have music on in the background. It is even more rare that people will do nothing but listen to music, which is often what classical music depends on for full effect. 

Wow, I sound like an old whippersnapper..


----------



## gurthbruins

Regarding a possible revival in classical music, I suppose I have no reason to complain really.

Even here in South Africa, which I think is now regarded as 3rd world country, there is evidence that music has not been too entirely forgotten. There is a radio program here called Fine Music Radio which provides the public with a constant feast of mostly when not all, classical music.

For instance, entirely free of charge (?) I have just been able to enjoy my semi-siesta to the strains of Stamitz's Trio Op1 No1. I should have put that on my list of "top 20 composers" but of course I had entirely forgotten about Stamitz, and probably never knew much about him anyway.


----------



## dmg

What absolutely blows my mind are people who flat out don't listen to ANY music and prefer to listen to talk radio ALL THE TIME. I would seriously rather people listen to barf music like modern pop country or rap with excessively pricey stereo systems than blah blah blah.


----------



## Guest

Maybe this point has already been made, but there is a lot of chatter on here about "these days" and the problem with peoples' musical tastes today. But when has "classical music" ever been insanely popular? I'm not talking about among the upper crust - I mean by the population at large? Up until the industrial revolution, the majority of the population, even in western countries, was agrarian - it may still be in most of the world. Most people in Europe (where most of the classical music we consider was written) - with the small exception of those who were fortunate enough to be born into the aristocracy - lived subsistence lifestyles, working all day to support themselves and their families. They would pass their whole lives living on the same spot of land. Their only exposure to more than the small radius of their existence may have been when they were forced into fighting for some noble in some war they didn't rightly understand. They didn't know classical music. Their only exposure to anything other than folk music may have been whatever they heard in their church attendance. They didn't have time to travel to some concert hall to hear a performance. Chances are they were probably not invited to the Eszterhazy estate to hear the latest creation of Haydn. They didn't show up in their peasant rags at some Vienna opera house to hobnob with the emperor while listening to Mozart. They didn't save up to go to Bayreuth and listen to Wagner.

If anything, I would predict that a larger percentage of the total population today listens to classical music than at any time in the past - and mainly thanks to the wonders of recording and transmission. People could buy radios and hear wonderful things they never could before. A lot more people can afford a radio, or a phonograph, or an LP, or a cassette, or a CD, or a DVD, than could afford concert tickets in the past (or even today!). 

How broadly was classical music transmitted in the past? How well known was Bach outside of Germany? Or even inside of Germany? And now he is known the world over. Even people that couldn't tell you who Bach or Beethoven were could probably recognize a tune of theirs were they to hear it.

Classical music, in general, has long been the realm for the more affluent. Why? By its nature! A person working a minimum wage job has got a lot more to worry about than a piece of music that is going to take 30 minutes or more to listen to. Classical CD's can be ridiculous in price - and when you get labels like Naxos that put out classical music at reasonable prices, they get highly derided by no small amount of people for cranking out an inferior product - quantity over quality. Classical music concerts aren't cheap. I am not destitute, by any means, but I cringe at what it would cost me just to take my wife out to a night of classical music in Columbus, Ohio, for crying out loud. 

I used to listen to all kinds of crap. Michael Jackson, Van Halen, heavy metal, rock, punk. And yet, somehow, I managed to also turn myself onto classical music. The type of punk I liked, the average song was even shorter than most pop or rap - 2 minutes or less. And yet I also have the patience to sit down and listen to something like Mahler's 3rd symphony in one sitting. I suspect that most of the reasons given here are more an issue of people projecting their own prejudices of other music onto the population at large. Classical music is not as popular as other genres because it never has been to the general population. It is much less accessible. There is no active hatred of it - people just don't care about it. People may hate rap, or people may hate country. But honestly, how many people do you know that actually HATE classical, rather than just not care?

Classical music has always been propped up by the wealthier classes. Were its survival dependent on mass appeal, it would have died a quick death long ago. Not over quality - certainly there are exceptions, but I would say that, in general, classical music is of a higher quality than most popular genres of music. As a rather crude parallel, it is much like the Salvation Army. As I understand it, its creation was a result of someone realizing that while, yes, the salvation of the immortal soul was paramount, people were less interested in learning how to save their soul when they were having a hard enough time trying to save their physical body. People who have more problems in life just getting by are going to care less about some of those finer things that make life a little more enjoyable. A person who can't make ends meet, or who works all day, and then has only a few hours at night to enjoy the company of his spouse and children, is not going to care about going and hanging out at an art gallery, or telling everybody to hush while they put on the latest digital recording of Beethoven's 9th symphony. Maybe they'll listen to some music in the car on their way to or from work. And there is nothing wrong with that.

And the comment about talk radio is just odd - keeping abreast of current events in the world around us hardly seems like a waste of time. Unless you don't like the political leanings of the majority of talk radio, which is another issue entirely.


----------



## dmg

No, it's not odd - there are plenty of ways to keep abreast on current events. TV, the internet, your smartphone. Save the radio for music. And it has nothing to do with politics, as I also dislike sports talk radio as well and I love sports...


----------



## jhar26

DrMike said:


> Classical music, in general, has long been the realm for the more affluent. Why? By its nature! A person working a minimum wage job has got a lot more to worry about than a piece of music that is going to take 30 minutes or more to listen to. Classical CD's can be ridiculous in price - and when you get labels like Naxos that put out classical music at reasonable prices, they get highly derided by no small amount of people for cranking out an inferior product - quantity over quality. Classical music concerts aren't cheap. I am not destitute, by any means, but I cringe at what it would cost me just to take my wife out to a night of classical music in Columbus, Ohio, for crying out loud.


You would be surprised how much it costs these days to go to a concert of one of the top acts in popular music. I don't think that classical cd's cost more than pop or rock cd's either. I think a new cd from, say, Deutsche Grammophon costs about the same as a new album from Madonna or the Rolling Stones would.


----------



## Argus

dmg said:


> No, it's not odd - there are plenty of ways to keep abreast on current events. TV, the internet, your smartphone. Save the radio for music. And it has nothing to do with politics, as I also dislike sports talk radio as well and I love sports...


Talksport has its moments.
















You can't think Radio 4 or 5 are a waste of time. I don't listen to them much but when there's been a big news story they are good listening.

The only music station that is anywhere near decent is Radio 3, and that's because it's got the license fee money behind it so it doesn't have to cater to popular opinion or commercialism. Even then I find about 80% of it not to my liking. Commercial stations are a mix of endlessly repeated songs and constant adverts. Jazz FM hardly plays any proper jazz, it's mostly smooth funk and soul.

Talk shows are probably the most useful format for radio when you consider how much simpler it is to use Spotify or Last.fm and have wall to wall music that you will almost definitely like.


----------



## Jean Christophe Paré

Classical CDs might actually cost less than popular artists'. Popular music CDs are usually around 12$, but range from 10$ to 20$ for regular albums. For this, you rarely get more than 35 minutes. Classical CDs? You can get great ones at 40$ that include hours and hours of music.

And for concerts... The Orchestre Symphonique de Montréal has tickets ranging from 30$ to 60$, whereas you would pay from 25$ - for a well known artist but not excessively popular, something like Andrew Bird - to 100$+ for very famous artists - I'm thinking U2 since I know that's how it costs, though same likely applies to other more recent popular artists.


----------



## gurthbruins

DrMike says:
_People may hate rap, or people may hate country_

I also hate _all kinds of crap. Michael Jackson, Van Halen, heavy metal, rock, punk_ etc.

While the level of the best music remains constant (more or less), the level of the worst continues to plummet, speaking from the 70-year-long perspective of my life. Especially, strident caterwauling has become more and more aggressive, replacing the more gentle-sounding crooning. This seems to be the expression of the liberated female soul.


----------



## Guest

dmg said:


> No, it's not odd - there are plenty of ways to keep abreast on current events. TV, the internet, your smartphone. Save the radio for music. And it has nothing to do with politics, as I also dislike sports talk radio as well and I love sports...


But are there not also multiple ways of keeping abreast on music? The internet, CDs, your smartphone (through download services), as well as the radio? The radio has a long history as a medium for transmitting news. And classical music continues to be broadcast by radio - both terrestrial and satellite. I have satellite radio, and have 3 different stations to choose from for classical. I tend to prefer listening to talk radio while driving to and from work - when I am stuck in traffic, aggravated by those around me, I find I have little or no ability to properly listen to classical music. I do listen to it, though, on longer road trips where traffic is less of a factor (outside of cities).

When you are driving in a car - which is where, I believe, the majority of people listen to talk radio - you do not have the luxury of watching TV, browsing the internet, or checking your smartphone (unless you don't value your life too highly). So that leaves only the radio. When I am at home, then yes, I do use the TV and internet for news. But then I also refer to my music collection. Radio, for me, is predominately a medium that I employ while in a car.


----------



## Guest

Jean Christophe Paré said:


> Classical CDs might actually cost less than popular artists'. Popular music CDs are usually around 12$, but range from 10$ to 20$ for regular albums. For this, you rarely get more than 35 minutes. Classical CDs? You can get great ones at 40$ that include hours and hours of music.
> 
> And for concerts... The Orchestre Symphonique de Montréal has tickets ranging from 30$ to 60$, whereas you would pay from 25$ - for a well known artist but not excessively popular, something like Andrew Bird - to 100$+ for very famous artists - I'm thinking U2 since I know that's how it costs, though same likely applies to other more recent popular artists.


So concert tickets for any type of music are fairly high. At the very least, classical music costs as much as popular music. And it has a much worse advertising campaign. Consider, also, that the average age of a popular music concert attendee is more than likely considerably lower than a classical music concert attendee. They aren't competing for one another. Shut down the U2 concert, and you aren't going to get a flood of people heading off to see their local symphony orchestra (if they have one). And as far as venues, how many more locations are accessible to popular music concerts as opposed to classical music? Here in Ohio, I can think of Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati for classical concerts (somebody help me, if Dayton or Toledo are also venues). In contrast, you can go see a pop music concert in almost any town that has a music hall, club, bar, etc., depending on how big the act is. I've been to punk concerts in shacks.

Classical music is also harder to find in music stores. It isn't stocked as much. Why? I don't claim to know all the reasons - no doubt a large one is that not as many people will buy it. But consider also this - if you want a pop music album, there is just one to get. Say you want Michael Jackson's Thriller. You go to the store, and you get Michael Jackson's Thriller. But what if you want Beethoven's 9th Symphony? Well, what label do you want that on? What director? What orchestra? If you want Karajan's recording, which one? Or do you want a HIP recording? If a record store wants to stock Michael Jackson's Thriller, there is only one kind of album they have to stock in anticipation of sales. If they want to stock Beethoven's 9th, they face an endless selection of albums - they can't stock them all. Someone who doesn't know much about classical music goes in just wanting a recording of Beethoven's 9th, and they will be no doubt confused as to what to get. I admit I was when first getting started. What if I pick a lousy recording? I don't want to waste my money.

Everything about classical music makes it less accessible to the general public than popular music (hence the reason classical is not called popular). That's just the way it is.


----------



## jhar26

...And if you ask for Michael Jackson's Thriller the sales person will say, "sure", whereas if you ask for Prokofiev's third piano concerto he will say, "duh???"


----------



## Aramis

jhar26 said:


> ...And if you ask for Michael Jackson's Thriller the sales person will say, "sure", whereas if you ask for Prokofiev's third piano concerto he will say, "duh???"


That's matter of finding proper shop. Some time ago I found one in my city in which when you ask for for Prokofiev's concerto guy (actually classical hothead himself) at once tells you about 3248742384 other recordings of Prokofiev that he currently has in the store and eventually, if the one you're looking for is not there, offers you that he can order it for you (free shipping) and when you listen to him saying all of this you can enjoy huge portrait of Netrebko hanging on the wall (and many other classical musicians).


----------



## jhar26

Aramis said:


> That's matter of finding proper shop. Some time ago I found one in my city in which when you ask for for Prokofiev's concerto guy (actually classical hothead himself) at once tells you about 3248742384 other recordings of Prokofiev that he currently has in the store and eventually, if the one you're looking for is not there, offers you that he can order it for you (free shipping) and when you listen to him saying all of this you can enjoy huge portrait of Netrebko hanging on the wall (and many other classical musicians).


Cool. Where I live there's one shop like that (no Netrebko picture though ) No matter what you ask for - classical, jazz or pop, they know their stuff. But these days I buy 99% of my cd's online because on average they are cheaper and you can easily find what you want whereas in a shop you have to settle for what they have. I live in the country and I used to go to the city every two or three weeks with a long list of things I wanted to buy. A long list because I knew beforehand that even in the big shops they would only have about one in four or five of the cd's on my list. No such problems with online shops.


----------



## emiellucifuge

I dont know, here in Amsterdam there are many world class pop-venues. For most popular acts a ticket can be around 25 euros, but for the superstars perhaps 80. A ticket for the concertgebouw orchestra or the BPO, Mariinsky or comparable (in the concertgebouw building) will cost upwards of 80 euros, the nice seats perhaps 150. Lesser orchestras around 30-70. The opera here is 120 for the nice seats, for those with a worse view it can go down to 30.

However, we have advertisements for the opera, netherlands philharmonic and concertgebouw orchestras all over town. I will pass maybe 6 or 7 each morning while cycling.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Right next to the Concertgebouw there is a small shop specialising in musical manuscripts and classical CDs - one of my favourite places. They have nearly everything, are extremely knowledgeable and can order anything for you from the publisher. If youre ever here I recommend you visit.


----------



## Guest

I wish I had access to such things. The only place I have found locally that sells classical music is my local Barnes & Noble bookstore - a limited selection that seems to get smaller (I wonder if they stocked it only once, and when it finally sells out, that is it?), but has given me a few nice purchases. Otherwise, my main retail store has been a used bookstore down in Tennessee that I frequent when I visit my inlaws. The used classical section is actually quite good - I got the Bohm recording of Mozart's Figaro in nearly pristine condition for $5. But in general, my only source is either Amazon or iTunes (yes, I purchase quite a lot of my classical music over iTunes). My ears aren't fine enough to detect the deterioration of sound from the digitized music files.

When I was in college, I frequented a small independent music store run by a guy who used to be a roadie for several old-school punk bands, and I could go in there and talk punk with him, and he'd give me all kinds of good advice. Most places like this, though, especially for classical music, are few and far between, and getting scarcer. And usually you'll only find them in larger cities. The U.S. is much more spread out than Europe - for many, a major city is more than just a short train ride away. I lived in Switzerland for a short while - in some smaller towns. But I was never more than 30 minutes by train from a large city (Basel, Bern, or Zurich). That is not as common in the U.S.


----------



## norman bates

i've had a problematic relation with classical music for a long time so i think that i know quite well the problems.

1. It seems music for bourgeois, rich, elegant, snobbish people 
2. it's not presented as music where you can find anything you want, the classical music is bach, mozart and beethoven. If you listen to Mozart and don't like his music you think that you can't like anything else. Nobody in the media says that's there something for all tastes, from delius to matthijs vermeulen, from guillame de machaut to alec wilder
3.It's considered uncool and 
4. tied to the past 
5.it's presented as difficult so if you don't like something you are stupid (if a person doesn't like a piece of avantgarde the problem seems always of him, the listener), the kind of elitist behaviour that pull away a lot of people


----------



## zoziejemaar

norman bates said:


> i've had a problematic relation with classical music for a long time so i think that i know quite well the problems.
> 
> 1. It seems music for bourgeois, rich, elegant, snobbish people
> 2. it's not presented as music where you can find anything you want, the classical music is bach, mozart and beethoven. If you listen to Mozart and don't like his music you think that you can't like anything else. Nobody in the media says that's there something for all tastes, from delius to matthijs vermeulen, from guillame de machaut to alec wilder
> 3.It's considered uncool and
> 4. tied to the past
> 5.it's presented as difficult so if you don't like something you are stupid (if a person doesn't like a piece of avantgarde the problem seems always of him, the listener), the kind of elitist behaviour that pull away a lot of people


Looking to my own experience and that of many people I know, I would subscribe to these observations, rather than to the argument "classical music is more difficult, so only intelligent people can appreciate it" (an argument that is in itself awfully elitist). There is a kind of inverse social stigma associated with classical music, and bringing in even more arguments of alleged superiority only reinforces this.


----------



## Ian Elliott

No I haven't. I am a little behind the times. When I think of someone on the academic circuit, I think of Alan Hovhaness, who is dead. What has Rosenzweig written?


----------



## Ian Elliott

zoziejemaar said:


> Looking to my own experience and that of many people I know, I would subscribe to these observations, rather than to the argument "classical music is more difficult, so only intelligent people can appreciate it" (an argument that is in itself awfully elitist). There is a kind of inverse social stigma associated with classical music, and bringing in even more arguments of alleged superiority only reinforces this.


I don't think it requires more intelligence. I think it is a matter of maturation. You have to learn how to listen to it in childhood, when your mind is more flexible and still taking shape. It requires total immersion of attention, and this can only be brought about through a faculty of the imagination. There is a passage in Hermann Hesse's Das Glasperlenspiel that describes the operation of this faculty at its most abstract, but images and emotions can accompany it as well. A sure sign that one has not developed this faculty is the toe-tapping response to music, and another is the habit of talking during music so that the latter remains in the background, like Satie's furniture music or elevator muzack. If someone develops a taste for classical music after childhood, it is because he or she has developed this faculty early on by some other means, such as myths.



Ravellian said:


> It most likely has to do with the fact that classical is not well-suited for most american lifestyles.. it does not fit well into the background of parties or on a car radio (the constant, pusling beats of pop and rock work much better). And when they're home by themselves, they usually spend their time watching TV or playing video games... and spend much less time doing something like reading a book, where they could have music on in the background. It is even more rare that people will do nothing but listen to music, which is often what classical music depends on for full effect.
> 
> Wow, I sound like an old whippersnapper..


Old or not, you are right. Such people do not deserve to enjoy classical music.



dmg said:


> What absolutely blows my mind are people who flat out don't listen to ANY music and prefer to listen to talk radio ALL THE TIME. I would seriously rather people listen to barf music like modern pop country or rap with excessively pricey stereo systems than blah blah blah.


Such people generally have to have the talk radio playing late at night while falling asleep, or they suffer from insomnia. It's a form of mental illness.



DrMike said:


> Maybe this point has already been made, but there is a lot of chatter on here about "these days" and the problem with peoples' musical tastes today. But when has "classical music" ever been insanely popular? I'm not talking about among the upper crust - I mean by the population at large? Up until the industrial revolution, the majority of the population, even in western countries, was agrarian - it may still be in most of the world. Most people in Europe (where most of the classical music we consider was written) - with the small exception of those who were fortunate enough to be born into the aristocracy - lived subsistence lifestyles, working all day to support themselves and their families. They would pass their whole lives living on the same spot of land. Their only exposure to more than the small radius of their existence may have been when they were forced into fighting for some noble in some war they didn't rightly understand. They didn't know classical music. Their only exposure to anything other than folk music may have been whatever they heard in their church attendance. They didn't have time to travel to some concert hall to hear a performance. Chances are they were probably not invited to the Eszterhazy estate to hear the latest creation of Haydn. They didn't show up in their peasant rags at some Vienna opera house to hobnob with the emperor while listening to Mozart. They didn't save up to go to Bayreuth and listen to Wagner.
> 
> If anything, I would predict that a larger percentage of the total population today listens to classical music than at any time in the past - and mainly thanks to the wonders of recording and transmission. People could buy radios and hear wonderful things they never could before. A lot more people can afford a radio, or a phonograph, or an LP, or a cassette, or a CD, or a DVD, than could afford concert tickets in the past (or even today!).
> 
> How broadly was classical music transmitted in the past? How well known was Bach outside of Germany? Or even inside of Germany? And now he is known the world over. Even people that couldn't tell you who Bach or Beethoven were could probably recognize a tune of theirs were they to hear it.
> 
> Classical music, in general, has long been the realm for the more affluent. Why? By its nature! A person working a minimum wage job has got a lot more to worry about than a piece of music that is going to take 30 minutes or more to listen to. Classical CD's can be ridiculous in price - and when you get labels like Naxos that put out classical music at reasonable prices, they get highly derided by no small amount of people for cranking out an inferior product - quantity over quality. Classical music concerts aren't cheap. I am not destitute, by any means, but I cringe at what it would cost me just to take my wife out to a night of classical music in Columbus, Ohio, for crying out loud.
> 
> I used to listen to all kinds of crap. Michael Jackson, Van Halen, heavy metal, rock, punk. And yet, somehow, I managed to also turn myself onto classical music. The type of punk I liked, the average song was even shorter than most pop or rap - 2 minutes or less. And yet I also have the patience to sit down and listen to something like Mahler's 3rd symphony in one sitting. I suspect that most of the reasons given here are more an issue of people projecting their own prejudices of other music onto the population at large. Classical music is not as popular as other genres because it never has been to the general population. It is much less accessible. There is no active hatred of it - people just don't care about it. People may hate rap, or people may hate country. But honestly, how many people do you know that actually HATE classical, rather than just not care?
> 
> Classical music has always been propped up by the wealthier classes. Were its survival dependent on mass appeal, it would have died a quick death long ago. Not over quality - certainly there are exceptions, but I would say that, in general, classical music is of a higher quality than most popular genres of music. As a rather crude parallel, it is much like the Salvation Army. As I understand it, its creation was a result of someone realizing that while, yes, the salvation of the immortal soul was paramount, people were less interested in learning how to save their soul when they were having a hard enough time trying to save their physical body. People who have more problems in life just getting by are going to care less about some of those finer things that make life a little more enjoyable. A person who can't make ends meet, or who works all day, and then has only a few hours at night to enjoy the company of his spouse and children, is not going to care about going and hanging out at an art gallery, or telling everybody to hush while they put on the latest digital recording of Beethoven's 9th symphony. Maybe they'll listen to some music in the car on their way to or from work. And there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> And the comment about talk radio is just odd - keeping abreast of current events in the world around us hardly seems like a waste of time. Unless you don't like the political leanings of the majority of talk radio, which is another issue entirely.


I don't entirely agree with your comments. I come from a poor family, but was introduced to classical music in childhood. My mother liked classical music all her life. True, she stuck to certain compositions and certain composers, but that was characteristic of a lot of people in her generation and the generation of her parents. Once radio became popular, classical music achieved a level of popularity that it has lost in more recent years. A major radio station was able to run a survey on who was the public's favorite symphonist, and they received voluminous response (the winner was Sibelius).

In the 19th century, classical music had sufficient appeal to support orchestras in every city of any notable size. The lack of broadcasting and recording meant that one might have heard a particular piece only once in one's life, but musicians circulated manuscripts, and in this way creative efforts were not completely isolated. And before we had broadcasting, people made their own music; that is what 'folk music' means. Pianos were in most middle class homes; they were as common as horses. Lower class homes or homes in rural areas had fiddles and other instruments. People made their own music and art and crafts in their spare time, and it was good. There is a vast difference between listening to music and playing it, and between playing it and improvising or creating it on the spot. People used to define their own experience to each other via art. That is why there are so many beautiful things to look at in museums from the past. These were common, everyday objects, utensils, and so forth. They were not ground out by soulless factories in plastic and chrome.

As to your remark that more people listen to classical music these days, are you sure you know what that word 'listen' entails? People are so divided in their awareness these days, so knee-jerked in their sound byte consciousness, that if they do listen to music, they listen with less than half an ear, and only sporadically. Such poor listening can never grasp the meaning of classical music. Nor is it a matter of patience taking one through a Mahler symphony. You might as well ascribe making love to your wife for half an hour to patience. Good music grips the listener and draws in his or her attention from the first note to the last.

Finally, your sympathy for the lower classes is admirable, but your historical sense only goes back to the early Industrial Revolution. In the previous agrarian period conditions were quite different. Under feudalism, those on the bottom of society may have had hard lives, but they each had a pre-defined place in society. After capitalism took over, the poor had to struggle just to find a place in the big machine, and thereafter to keep it, through layoffs and downturns and recessions and firings. The old peasantry of Europe had sufficient leisure to enjoy fairs and festivals, and they did not punch a clock. A tradesman owned his own shop and if he didn't feel like opening on a Monday, no one was surprised, as many took long weekends. People were poor but very few were desperate. Of course, life was hard in time of war, but even wars were part-time affairs, and troops tended to melt away back into the countryside at harvest time. Conditions were not uniformly so bad as you depict them, and we know the common people made music, and it was good and rhythmically complex music at that. Some of it survives in some of the early keyboard works of Couperin.


----------



## Ian Elliott

The only thing that should be wall-to-wall is wallpaper.



Aramis said:


> That's matter of finding proper shop. Some time ago I found one in my city in which when you ask for for Prokofiev's concerto guy (actually classical hothead himself) at once tells you about 3248742384 other recordings of Prokofiev that he currently has in the store and eventually, if the one you're looking for is not there, offers you that he can order it for you (free shipping) and when you listen to him saying all of this you can enjoy huge portrait of Netrebko hanging on the wall (and many other classical musicians).


You don't even have to be in a large city. I recently lived 20 months in Astoria, Oregon, population 10,000 (20,000 in the summertime). There is a music store there that sells all styles of music, but has a large classical selection. The proprietor is a versatile wind instrumentalist who also organizes and leads a classical wind ensemble of local gifted amateurs. Small towns can surprise you.


----------



## Ralfy

The problem has to do with combinations of factors, mostly a community that doesn't support different types of music, close-mindedness, and ignorance.

There is probably also a neurobiological factor, as the human brain might be easily attracted to short pieces of music that are easy to follow, which is what one can see in much of contemporary pop music, most folk music, and even some classical works. More complex works (not just Western but also Eastern classical music) require greater attention.

I'm reminded of these articles from almost a decade ago:

"Scientists start accounting for taste"

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

"Classical-music fans may have more brains"

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010812&slug=brain12

Of course, such studies can never be conclusive, but they do indicate connections between appreciation of various works of art and neurobiological processes.


----------



## Jacob Singer

norman bates said:


> i've had a problematic relation with classical music for a long time so i think that i know quite well the problems.
> 
> 1. It seems music for bourgeois, rich, elegant, snobbish people
> 2. it's not presented as music where you can find anything you want, the classical music is bach, mozart and beethoven. If you listen to Mozart and don't like his music you think that you can't like anything else. Nobody in the media says that's there something for all tastes, from delius to matthijs vermeulen, from guillame de machaut to alec wilder
> 3.It's considered uncool and
> 4. tied to the past
> 5.it's presented as difficult so if you don't like something you are stupid (if a person doesn't like a piece of avantgarde the problem seems always of him, the listener), the kind of elitist behaviour that pull away a lot of people


1. Yes, music snobbery can certainly turn people off, and it doesn't just happen with classical music. I observed once that the only people I found even more pretentious than the jazz and classical snobs are the indie rock snobs. ;D So, this kind of elitism/arrogance is certainly not limited to classical music, but it perhaps is the most familiar since it has been around the longest.

2. I think I can relate to what you are saying here. I'd say that part of it is that most "accessible" classical music is either extremely iconic/overplayed (like some of Mozart's or Beethoven's pieces), or it all seems so similar that it is harder to distinguish pieces or composers from one another, at least until you become more familiar with the work. You have to "dig" more, so to speak, to find the stuff that really moves you. Also, classical pieces tend to be longer than most modern pieces of music, and so it just takes more time to get through it.

3. I don't know about "uncool" …maybe amongst kids, but with most adults I'd say it's more apathy than anything else.

4. Yeah, perhaps that is a factor, and that it is tied to periods of history that most people in modern society simply cannot relate to. There are many examples of pieces of 20th century music that remain popular today even as they are clearly tied to past eras, but this music is generally more closely connected with our modern culture than classical music tends to be.

5. This is one that I find very interesting, since most of it really isn't all that difficult to understand. Sure, some pieces may be difficult to _play_ unless you have trained for years on a given instrument, but that rarely means that it is difficult to listen to and understand from a structural standpoint. After all, music is just a series of mathematical patterns, and observing those patterns isn't really all that hard. The worst thing for a potential student of _any_ form of music to believe is that they somehow have to be some mathematical genius to understand it. Nothing could be more wrong, and in fact some of the most talented musicians I have ever known were certainly not the best students in school, as the artistic traits of their personalities tended to be more dominant than their practical and rational traits. And there isn't anything wrong with that, if you ask me, as that is how we get our most innovative artists - people who think outside of the box by default.



Ian Elliott said:


> I don't think it requires more intelligence. I think it is a matter of maturation. You have to learn how to listen to it in childhood, when your mind is more flexible and still taking shape. It requires total immersion of attention, and this can only be brought about through a faculty of the imagination.


I completely disagree with this. You absolutely do _not_ have to "learn how to listen to it in childhood". Nothing could be further from the truth. I've known lots of people who easily learned to understand and appreciate classical music as adults, even though they had not been exposed to it during their childhood.

Nor does classical music appreciation require some special form of perception or attention that can only be achieved through intensive study or some advanced cognitive exercise. That kind of idea not only reinforces classical music snobbery and exclusivity, but it also trivializes classical music, making it sound as though it can only be understood mathematically, and not viscerally. That sounds to me like the way a robot would assess music.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Ralfy said:


> I'm reminded of these articles from almost a decade ago:
> 
> "Scientists start accounting for taste"
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1405449.stm
> 
> "Classical-music fans may have more brains"
> 
> http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010812&slug=brain12
> 
> Of course, such studies can never be conclusive, but they do indicate connections between appreciation of various works of art and neurobiological processes.


Interesting. It sounds related to the studies showing that diverse stimulation forms more connections in the brain (i.e. makes you "smarter") than does experiencing the same thing all the time.


----------



## Guest

Ian Elliott said:


> In the 19th century, classical music had sufficient appeal to support orchestras in every city of any notable size.


Yes, but how many cities of any notable size were there?


> The lack of broadcasting and recording meant that one might have heard a particular piece only once in one's life, but musicians circulated manuscripts, and in this way creative efforts were not completely isolated. And before we had broadcasting, people made their own music; that is what 'folk music' means. Pianos were in most middle class homes; they were as common as horses. Lower class homes or homes in rural areas had fiddles and other instruments. People made their own music and art and crafts in their spare time, and it was good. There is a vast difference between listening to music and playing it, and between playing it and improvising or creating it on the spot. People used to define their own experience to each other via art. That is why there are so many beautiful things to look at in museums from the past. These were common, everyday objects, utensils, and so forth. They were not ground out by soulless factories in plastic and chrome.


I never argued that music in general was unknown - rather that formal classical music was not readily available or accessible to the average person. Whether they lived in a remote location, or lacked financial means. They made their own music - yes. And that is reflected today in the myriad varieties of popular music. No doubt, there may have been opportunities for occasional exposure to more formal classical or "art" music. But not like now. 
In the past, "art" was not so pervasive as you imply. What we now see as art was not necessarily so at the time. You talk of the plentiful items in our museums today - taking into account the number of people that have lived, and comparing that to the number of museums today and their combined contents, I'd say we have only a small fraction of the creations of the past. What does mass production have to do with things? A utensil in the past, created by each individual for their own use, was not viewed as a thing of art, but a necessity. For a person that lacked certain skills to produce various necessities, cheap and readily available items would be a godsend. Necessity, no doubt, drove them to produce as best they could for durability - perhaps obtaining the materials to make more was not easy. Perhaps they did not wish to devote more time later to make another. Who knows.



> As to your remark that more people listen to classical music these days, are you sure you know what that word 'listen' entails? People are so divided in their awareness these days, so knee-jerked in their sound byte consciousness, that if they do listen to music, they listen with less than half an ear, and only sporadically. Such poor listening can never grasp the meaning of classical music. Nor is it a matter of patience taking one through a Mahler symphony. You might as well ascribe making love to your wife for half an hour to patience. Good music grips the listener and draws in his or her attention from the first note to the last.


Music may be listened to and enjoyed in whatever way a person chooses. I find it interesting how people claim to know the minds of so many others in these types of areas. And why does one need to grasp the meaning of classical music if, as you said, it should simply grip the listener and draw them in if is is good? I consider myself one who listens to and enjoys classical music, and will freely admit that I don't fully grasp the meaning of classical music most of the time. I only know whether the music I am listening to excites me or is pleasing to me. Sometimes I listen to it while I am engaged in other activities. And yet I still find myself enjoying it. What of older "Tafelmusik," such as that written by Telemann? It was written for occasions like feast and banquets - people would not have been paying complete attention to the music. Did composers like Telemann not intend their audiences to grasp or enjoy the music? What of music written for dances? Certainly there an individual is not giving their undivided attention to the music, particularly if they have a fairly attractive dance partner. Or incidental music to accompany a play? Or ballet music? Or opera? All of these require dividing ones attention away from merely listening to the music - composers have always credited with listeners with being able to do more than one thing at a time.


> Finally, your sympathy for the lower classes is admirable, but your historical sense only goes back to the early Industrial Revolution. In the previous agrarian period conditions were quite different. Under feudalism, those on the bottom of society may have had hard lives, but they each had a pre-defined place in society. After capitalism took over, the poor had to struggle just to find a place in the big machine, and thereafter to keep it, through layoffs and downturns and recessions and firings. The old peasantry of Europe had sufficient leisure to enjoy fairs and festivals, and they did not punch a clock. A tradesman owned his own shop and if he didn't feel like opening on a Monday, no one was surprised, as many took long weekends. People were poor but very few were desperate. Of course, life was hard in time of war, but even wars were part-time affairs, and troops tended to melt away back into the countryside at harvest time. Conditions were not uniformly so bad as you depict them, and we know the common people made music, and it was good and rhythmically complex music at that. Some of it survives in some of the early keyboard works of Couperin.


 A pre-defined place in society? Yes, I'm sure that serfs were quite content to be tied to a piece of land that they did not own and were not at liberty to leave. And I'm sure that they were immensely grateful to their feudal lords that required a certain amount of their crops, regardless of how much it left them. You almost make subsistence living seem like paradise on earth. I'm sorry, but thinking their lives as rosy as you portray them, as compared to what capitalism has done, you would think that slaves would be the happiest workers in the world! Job security. Never having to worry about pay cuts. Room and board supplied. Someone watching after you. Hard work, sure, but at least you don't have to go pound the pavement to find a new job if there are cutbacks. And hey, after hours, you can get together, if your lord/master allows you, to have celebrations, even create some folk music/spirituals.


----------



## bdog

Classical music lovers are often snobs who themselves have a narrow appreciation of music.

My Pops can play by ear, but oh god, to see him move on the dance floor? ouch.

If people want to hate classical music, let 'em. Let 'em find their own way, their own music, their own voice. Too much concern for rightness can kill art, and I speak from experience.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

DrMike said:


> I used to listen to all kinds of crap. Michael Jackson, Van Halen, heavy metal, rock, punk.


:lol: Watch out when using the word "crap" to describe music! As you may know, I use that all the time to describe the weird electronic fart variety and the odd few members here would like to shoot me dead if given the chance, let alone the innumerable fans of MJ, VH etc. out there in this world!!

But yes, I shall quietly agree with you about MJ, VH, whatever.


----------



## jhar26

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: Watch out when using the word "crap" to describe music! As you may know, I use that all the time to describe the weird electronic fart variety and the odd few members here would like to shoot me dead if given the chance, let alone the innumerable fans of MJ, VH etc. out there in this world!!
> 
> But yes, I shall quietly agree with you about MJ, VH, whatever.


I challenge any 'electronic fart' composer to come up with something as catchy as 'Billie Jean' or 'Beat It.'


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

jhar26 said:


> I challenge any 'electronic fart' composer to come up with something as catchy as 'Billie Jean' or 'Beat It.'


True, I can agree with you on that. (The one piece by MJ I still remember that caught my emotion was _You Are Not Alone_ (1995), which has an aria like melody that I probably like ).


----------



## jurianbai

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> True, I can agree with you on that. (The one piece by MJ I still remember that caught my emotion was _You Are Not Alone_ (1995), which has an aria like melody that I probably like ).


with goes to the theory my (yet another not classical) friend always scold me, "they can't write (normal) music..."
(and here is a danger of being shot here)...:devil:

if only modern composer can dismissed the "journey of discovering new music" and started write as simple as Fur Elise.....


----------



## Ralfy

Contemporary pop music is in general 3 to 5 minutes long and usually of a few bars of music, a regular beat, and melody that is easy to follow. That is why several bands can perform various works with very little formal training and are included in karaoke machines and arcade games.

The human brain is probably wired to easily appreciate such works, just as people can with very little effort do things like watch television.

Classical music in general, on the other hand, is much more varied, with very short to very long works, more bars of music, sometimes even requiring dozens of performers, and requires not only much more training but even better recording equipment.

Very likely, much more effort is needed to appreciate such works, esp. if several of them are very long and much more complex than contemporary pop. That is probably why they are not as popular as pop music.

Given that, if we can argue that by default anyone can appreciate pop music but it takes more effort to enjoy more complex works, then we cannot argue that those who appreciate classical music have a narrower view of music but the opposite.

Finally, if we consider another definition of elitist, i.e., the elite are those who possess much economic and financial power, then we can probably argue that at least for the music recording industry it is pop music that is valued by the elite, as that is where much of the money is made (in contrast to classical music, which makes up only a small portion of the market). In addition, we can argue that classical music is as marginalized as jazz, the blues, non-mainstream folk music, and even Eastern classical works.


----------



## myaskovsky2002

*How much can we endure?*



> Contemporary pop music is in general 3 to 5 minutes long and usually of a few bars of music, a regular beat, and melody that is easy to follow. That is why several bands can perform various works with very little formal training and are included in karaoke machines and arcade games.


Usually...we can't endure more than that....

Martin


----------



## jhar26

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Usually...we can't endure more than that....
> 
> Martin


I'm sure you can endure much more than five minutes of your son's music.


----------



## LordBlackudder

because everyone is different.


----------



## rdefazio

I've thought a lot about this. It is not just a cultural issue; for all classical musicians it is a bread and butter issue. Without a paying audience, many artists will have to make a painful and personally disappointing career change after years of doing nothing but teaching and/or performing classical music.

The major factors fall into three areas, I believe. The first and most important one has nothing to do with music at all. It is the disaffection that certain people, the large majority of people to be precise, have with the status quo of life. They have too little money, they aren't in control of their lives, they don't like the government, or whatever else it may be. They aren't happy, and as in politics, if the status quo doesn't provide them the opportunity to share in the benefits of society in the present tense, either they advocate ether a return to a time that is more comprehensible to them or they advocate fairly substantial changes to institutions that are most representative of what they perceive to be the primary forces for cultural stagnation. In the world of music, you see this played out over and over with those who have the least at stake in the secular world's status quo shedding all the earmarks of participation in society as it is. They dislike classical music not because of what it is but rather what it represents to them. If you don't believe this, do a Google search on the words, "I hate classical music," and read the comments made. These are remarks that have the flavor of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The music that classical music haters select is music that appeals to them for many of the same reasons that classical music lovers find Schubert and Chopin appealing. It addresses a visceral, inner need. This understanding of the dislike of classical music has some strong implications for how classical music can be pushed again to the Top 40.

The second area has to do with classical music aficionados. It has become fashionable over the past century, beginning with Wagner and then advanced by cognoscenti such as Mahler and Stokowski, to think that classical music is for people who


> understand


 it. When I use the word


> understand


, I mean those who will agree to the increasingly complex set of manners that are to be observed by the audience during performances. What are these manners? Well, there's the obligatory applause for the concertmaster. Then there's the applause for the conductor. Each of these personalities is treated as if he or she is visiting royalty. To a person who would prefer sitting in front of his television to watch a football game with a beer in hand while wearing a tee-shirt and shorts, being dressed up in a suit and uncomfortable shoes and having to put up with these niceties of the culture of the classical music audience can seem like torture. Then there is the issue of no applause between movements. God forbid that a novice attendee should express his pleasure at hearing music. He might disturb the conductor, and after all the conductor's feelings override everyone else's, don't they. One only needs to recall the tantrums for which Toscanini was famous to find adequate evidence of the deference that is paid to such persons in the classical music world. For the average non-classical music concertgoer if he was to witness such behavior, he would mutter, "Oh, get a life."

While not necessarily a part of the decorum that applies specifically to the music itself, there is also the matter of how people dress, what they drive, how much jewelry they display, etc. Obviously, not everyone who goes to a classical music concert is a friend of Donald Trump, but there is enough of an air of conspicuous consumption that it creates the impression among those who have arrived in a sweatshirt and jeans that they are out of place. It is a common human behavior to employ wardrobe selection not just for the purpose of showing off but also for excluding others. The soiree, which the typical classical music concert is, demands crystal chandeliers, gold leaf ornamentation, and lots of red velvet in the concert hall. It is an environment that most find to be luxurious, but for the person whose daily existence is anything but luxurious and who does not understand or accept the obsequious fawning that classical music lovers direct to those onstage, it is a turn off.

The third area has to do with education. By this I mean the education being doled out in classrooms across the country that has come to be an exercise of passing out self-esteem lollipops for inconsequential achievements. All too often, children (and adults) are rewarded for doing little or nothing. They don't have to stretch or strive for a difficult to attain goal because things are broken down into simple little steps, each of which is portrayed as a meaningful goal in itself. This develops over time into a cultivated expectation that nothing worth accomplishing should require more than short interval of time since anything longer than that would be regarded as an imposition on people's patience. This presumption of the right to instant gratification makes the expectation that novitiates will sit through Mahler's Fourth without making a peep seem a bit of a stretch. Like it or not, however, that is the hand of cards we classical music lovers have been dealt.

Making classical music appealing to the diverse population is not a matter of educating them to like it because that is not what drives anyone to like anything. Music is visceral, and its appeal is a personal matter that is conditioned by one's perception of what such music represents. If classical music is portrayed as something that is performed in concert halls attended by very polite people who have secret decoder rings that tell them when to stand, when to sit, when to clap, and when to be silent; and if such events are frequented by people who arrive in Cadillacs, Audis, BMWs, Porsches, Mercedes-Benzes, Bentleys, and up, it should come as no surprise if classical music continues to decline in popularity. Its visible association with a particular economic stratum would doom it to such a fate.

I have some suggestions for increasing the popularity of classical music. First, classical musicians need to get out of the practice rooms more often and into the world where there is poverty, child abuse, spousal abuse, drug addiction, and crime. They need to be visibly engaged in solving some of these problems by helping out in soup kitchens, attending city council meetings, volunteering at homeless shelters, and doing things that are visibly helpful to society at large that do not necessarily showcase their musical abilities. They need to show that they are a part of society and not removed from it as if they were the reincarnations of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. By demonstrably casting their lot with the rest of the world, they make what they do seem more relevant in the eyes of that same world. In short, more classical musicians need to display a social conscience and a commitment to action where action is needed. A good example is Bono whose private advocacy for causes such as AIDS research and wold poverty have brought downright respectability to what used to be regarded as just a form of musical noise.

Second, performances need to dispense with many of the rituals. Instead of having the concertmaster-conductor do-se-do at the beginning of a concert, why not just have an announcer quickly introduce the orchestra when the conductor is already onstage and get on with the performance? We see this accepted manner at baseball games, at football games, at basketball games, at hockey games, at rock concerts, at country music festivals, and at a whole host of events where people seem to exhibit a lot more degree of comfort with the manner of presentation than they do at traditional classical music concerts. Where we don't see that behavior is at political meetings and conventions, non-profit organization banquets, and book clubs - the places that repulse most people.

Third, venues for classical music performance need to be less glittering and earthier; they need to be held where people already are. Wait a minute, you might say. How can you have a full orchestra play on a Manhattan street corner with all the traffic noise and bustle? The objection itself illustrates the lack of out of the box thinking that has stultified the promulgation of classical music in America. Classical music needs to be incidental, just another dimension of life. Blasphemy? Hardly. If every classical music concert is a big event, it displays over and over again that it is not a part of the fabric of life, making it something that one would assume is not to be tuned in like rap while driving in the car. It needs to become ordinary, part of the stream of living that people experience. As long as it is portrayed as the exception to ordinary life and not a part of it, it will continue to be marginalized until one day when the only place one hears it will be a classical music museum where it can be heard through headsets at an exhibit of dead arts.

Fourth, classical musicians need to emphasize the performance of pieces that affirm the value of living. This might equate to favoring the playing of pieces that are composed in major keys (since we nowadays don't have the inner sense of a difference among the modes - anything in a non-Ionian mode is assumed to be "sad"). This doesn't mean that anything in a minor key should be shunned, but the selection of pieces to be performed needs to be informed by the needs of the people who will comprise the audience and not solely by the music director's desire to show just how arcane his knowledge of music is. Frankly, playing something that could be hummed on the way out of the performance would go a long way to making classical music more broadly desirable.

I can already hear the remarks. Happy music, humming, musicians smashing their instruments like Pete Townshend of The Who fame; is this guy nuts? I assure you that I am not. I have witnessed one classical music organization after another trivialize itself into oblivion by making sure that that their audiences consist of only the purest devotees of the art form. They distilled their loyal followers to the ardent few, and in the course of so doing, they have made it financially impossible to continue. They focused more and more on the performers and less and less on the audience. Musicians' unions and orchestral organizations by agreeing to define compensable events on a service basis (i.e. a service being a rehearsal, a performance, etc.) have driven orchestras to perform more and more in order to drive up the compensation levels of orchestra members. This has resulted in so many performances that the market for the product has become saturated. With each added performance, the risk of not filling the hall becomes greater, and the risk of financial loss increases. (For a good case study of this see "And the Band Stopped Playing: The Rise and Fall of the San Jose Symphony" - http://www.wolfbrown.com/images/books/sanjosesymphony.pdf.)

One final thought is this. As a graduate of a musical conservatory and as a performer, the classical music industry (and it is exactly that) needs to reconsider the classical music conservatory mill. Each year we turn out thousands upon thousands of highly trained classical music graduates from conservatories and music departments of major universities. Each of these students seems to believe that a professionally and economically satisfying career lies ahead. Many of them anticipate a life as solo artists, and others picture themselves as members of major orchestras. Some want to teach at the university level, while others want to teach in public schools. The sad truth is that most of them will not end up working in a musical career. They will work as postal delivery workers, Macy's clerks, computer programmers, or any other than musicians. We continue to accept large numbers of students, not because there the opportunities abound for classical musicians, but because the numbers are required to keep the schools in business and to pay the teachers at those institutions, the very teachers who themselves believed that they would have a life of solo work but who settled for a teaching post. The supply exceeds the demand. In the medical profession, the number of admitted students to medical schools is limited intentionally for a variety of reasons, among which is to support the incomes of those who already are practicing physicians by controlling the amount of new competition coming from medical school graduates. Perhaps the same approach needs to be considered for music schools as well.

Now that I have probably offended nearly everyone, I suppose I should drop my pen. I invite your responses. Classical music is approaching a cliff over which it could fall into a relative obscurity far exceeding what it now endures, or it could avoid it and experience a resurgence based on relevance to life as we know it. I would hope that those who make their careers in this discipline would be willing to see what actually is as opposed to what one wishes would be so that appropriate actions can be taken to ensure its survival.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Suppose we were to do all of that stuff.

Lose the dress codes, tolerate any kind of dress, have an announcer, play only major-key music, incorporate classical music into the fabric of music for ordinary people.

Is this something the wealthier classes would want to associate with? If not then many orchestras will lose their largest contributors.
Is an orchestra that limits their repertoire to easy 'tunes' worth donating to?


----------



## JoeGreen

emiellucifuge said:


> play only major-key music, ?


:lol::lol::lol:

There goes the vast majority of the standard repertoire.


----------



## science

I think we have to embrace our position as an elite minority. It's not a bad place to be.


----------



## Pieck

JoeGreen said:


> :lol::lol::lol:
> 
> There goes the vast majority of the standard repertoire.


None of the Classical Era music will be omitted


----------



## Ralfy

myaskovsky2002 said:


> Usually...we can't endure more than that....
> 
> Martin


It might be the other way round.


----------



## Rasa

Epic first post, rdefazio


----------



## rdefazio

You raise an important issue that does not necessarily have any easy solution. Most orchestral music antedating the mid 19th century resulted from some form of patronage from persons of wealth. They had the money to throw at the composition and performance of such works. Moving into the 20th century, certain shifts in the way composers were kept in business occurred, and more public involvement in the financing of the organizations that were required to play such works occurred as well. In the mid-20th century some watershed moments were the introduction of the electric guitar which allowed a handful of players to produce sufficient volume to compensate for their lack of numbers. Then came music sampling, then electronic replacements for instruments, etc. All this has contributed to the sense that one does not need an entire orchestra to sound like an entire orchestra.

You can see similar patterns in the news media. In the 1920s one could not have imagined that by the end of the century it would be possible for one person sitting in his bedroom dressed in his pajamas (or less) could command as much notoriety and repectability as the New York Times via a blog. Today, would it make sense to tell someone that in order to create an online news presence he would have to gather millions of dollars, rent printing equipment, hire reporters, and pay for advertising? No, simply because you can now do it for free via Yahoo or any number of free forms of Internet self-expression (case in point being Talk Classical itself). 

The root cause of orchestra expense is the way orchestras are run. Musicians unions have taken the customary approaches to getting more benefits for their members by demanding specific amounts for each service. Pressure is applied to make performing organizations produce more performances, hence more services. More performances, when unregulated, yields market saturation, which produces smaller audiences at each performance. With the costs of hall rentals being what they are and the costs of mandatory union stagehands being what they are, that means that each performance has a high builtin threshold at or beneath which the event is a money loser. If you engage in too many such performances, the organization will have to go bankrupt or disband.

One of the phenomenons as of late is Andre Rieu's orchestra. He plays in town squares, football fields, stadiums, and the like with the full cooperation of local political officials and community leaders. They regard his events (which are largely softball cultural events) not only as a way of providing enjoyable music for a large number of local residents but as a way to address community problems related to dissatisfaction with certain defects in local living conditions. Not everyone who attends a Rieu concert in Europe rolls up in a Bentley. Most walk to the site of the performance from their small apartments. They are street sweepers, carpenters, plumbers, store clerks, secretaries, salesmen, and any number or ordinary professions. Numerically speaking, they are not usually CEOs of major companies or the head of a global think tank. It is this populist approach to classical music that makes such concerts something that the average person can embrace. If one doesn't like the music, he might like the spectacle. In any event the seed gets planted, and people who have never entertained the idea of listening to a Bernstein might do so. If he listens to Bernstein, he might listen to Gershwin; and then he might listen to Barber and then Chopin, and so forth. 

Playing classical music demands a level of perfection not seen in many other musical forms. Rap certainly does not, and neither do Rock or Techno. Some musical forms such as Jazz actually assume that distortions of technique are part of its appeal. Attaining the level of playing ability that is required for making the requisite contribution to the final quality of the aural classical product, however, demands years of training. That costs money, and the natural urge of musicians who have committed themselves to this genre is to find a way to get that money back. This leads to the support of unions which in turn sends the industry into the closed loop that it is.

Unions are not bad; they exist for a reason, but there needs to be more out of the box thinking with respect to the best ways to enlarge the market for the classical art form. Being stuffy and elitist is a sure way to shrink the market for it, so the challenge that every music student, music school, and performer, and loyal supporter must accept is to find a way to stop living in the past and to start living in the present. How do we present a convincing case for the relevancy of classical music? How can we stop making it appear to be the bauble that the masters of the status quo wear so conspicuously when they want to flaunt their successes? 

There is a certain guerrilla warfare nature to such an undertaking, but make no mistake. The advancement of classical music is part of a cultural war. Rap with its roots in street and criminal life and jazz with its roots in economic repression have moved forward in the cultural foreground because the forces propelling it were in part social and not just musical. Modern perceptions of classical music have enabled the art form to have a free pass for a long time because it has been regarded as something pleasant and pretty (although classical music itself emerged out of civil strife in Europe). To keep moving forward it needs to recover that sense of having a necessary connection to the people who live their lives in parallel with its creation.

So, I agree that alienating a wealthy class of supporters might risk the financial collapse of orchestras if they engage in an economic boycott, but I have enough confidence in the native good sense of people, rich or poor, that I believe that support would come from surprising places.


----------



## Jacob Singer

Epic second post, rdefazio.


----------



## starry

rdefazio said:


> Playing classical music demands a level of perfection not seen in many other musical forms. Rap certainly does not, and neither do Rock or Techno. Some musical forms such as Jazz actually assume that distortions of technique are part of its appeal. Attaining the level of playing ability that is required for making the requisite contribution to the final quality of the aural classical product, however, demands years of training.
> 
> Unions are not bad; they exist for a reason, but there needs to be more out of the box thinking with respect to the best ways to enlarge the market for the classical art form.
> 
> There is a certain guerrilla warfare nature to such an undertaking, but make no mistake. The advancement of classical music is part of a cultural war.


Perfection is overrated. There is an obsession with perfect performance across the spectrum in music really. It should be more about good technique allied to creative expression.

I wouldn't just blame unions about being stuffy, you could probably say the same for management and others as well.

Does it have to be seem as a cultural war? Can't there be room for everyone?


----------



## Gymnopédie

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070912221359AAW07Ad


----------



## Pieck

*Good answer*



Gymnopédie said:


> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070912221359AAW07Ad


So that's why!!:


> it was written over 200 years ago and we need to leave it alone.


----------



## starry

But it's still being written today. Or maybe that person really meant the style had it's heyday quite a long time ago. But even supposing it did art from the past doesn't stop becoming relevant necessarily, and looking at the past can broaden our perspective.


----------



## rdefazio

Some very kind people have commented favorably, I think, on my posts, and I thank them for that. As you might guess, I find it difficult to express myself with an economy of words, but my verbosity stems from a deep-rooted concern that classical music is on track for a relatively quick demise, except among those who would like the art form to be reserved for the musically elite.

No genre of art breathes life if it is locked up in a museum vault. It may provide no end of enjoyment for the museum's curator, but the people who pay to keep the museum open will be no richer because of its existence. In fact, at some point if the museum begins to specialize in the collection and storage of vault-destined works, the very existence of the museum itself will be threatened. As patrons see less and less evidence of their dollars being put to work in the form of works on public exhibition (or hearing in the case of music), they would likely withdraw their financial support. At some point, the final dollar will withdrawn, and classical music will be as dead Druid hymns.

That would be a real shame. Anyone who has listened to Beethoven's late string quartet compositions or seen one of Verdi's operas comes away with the clear impression that while such music may have been written long ago, the essential human emotions and concerns that drove their creation still communicate today. Those emotions and basic matters of concern are the _lingua franca _ of humankind that cut across historical boundaries.

If classical music is rejected by a generation or two or three, all of society is made poorer. They become the fulfilment of George Santayana's short but telling statement, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And rejection is what is on the plate for most today. The evidence is constantly before us. A grunge band rents out a stadium and fills it with ardent and, well, grungy, followers while the Boston Symphony Orchestra plays in Symphony Hall with considerably fewer seats of which quite a number are empty. A country music star comes into town and fills every seat in the house while the the local choral society can barely fill a quarter of the same house. Don't get me wrong. I happen to like country music because in spite of the nasal twang with which it is so often rendered, it usually speaks of heartfelt emotions that one can understand whether one is a blueblood or a *******. The difference between country musicians and classical musicians, however, or at least the popular perception of that difference is that one group would welcome the other with open arms while the other group would tend to treat its counterpart like a bunch of hayseeds with cooties.

Classical music will die unless classical devotees drop some of the stuffiness and elitism and welcome the presence of people who applaud between movements or, God forbid, in the midst of a movement. Just as in the movie, "Other People's Money," when Danny Devito's character talks about the last buggy whip maker making the best buggy whip ever until it went out of business, so his words have an uncomfortable ring in the ears of people who sense that they are witnessing the last buggy whip maker in the classical music world. The demise of the art form will not be the fault of the music. It will be the fault of the perception of a generation that has come to the conclusion that such music is one of the accoutrements of the status quo, a status quo in which it is not sufficiently vested to care what happens in the way of collateral damage to items of real value.


----------



## Almaviva

rdefazio said:


> The major factors fall into three areas, I believe. The first and most important one has nothing to do with music at all. It is the disaffection that certain people, the large majority of people to be precise, have with the status quo of life. They have too little money, they aren't in control of their lives, they don't like the government, or whatever else it may be. They aren't happy, and as in politics, if the status quo doesn't provide them the opportunity to share in the benefits of society in the present tense, either they advocate ether a return to a time that is more comprehensible to them or they advocate fairly substantial changes to institutions that are most representative of what they perceive to be the primary forces for cultural stagnation.


I think you have a point above.


> While not necessarily a part of the decorum that applies specifically to the music itself, there is also the matter of how people dress, what they drive, how much jewelry they display, etc. Obviously, not everyone who goes to a classical music concert is a friend of Donald Trump, but there is enough of an air of conspicuous consumption that it creates the impression among those who have arrived in a sweatshirt and jeans that they are out of place. It is a common human behavior to employ wardrobe selection not just for the purpose of showing off but also for excluding others. The soiree, which the typical classical music concert is, demands crystal chandeliers, gold leaf ornamentation, and lots of red velvet in the concert hall. It is an environment that most find to be luxurious, but for the person whose daily existence is anything but luxurious and who does not understand or accept the obsequious fawning that classical music lovers direct to those onstage, it is a turn off.


Here (above) on the other hand I believe you're exaggerating a little. I've lived in three major cities and one small metropolitan area. In all four places, people attend classical music concerts in all sorts of attire, from jeans, sneakers, and T-shirts, to tuxedos.


> Making classical music appealing to the diverse population is not a matter of educating them to like it because that is not what drives anyone to like anything. Music is visceral, and its appeal is a personal matter that is conditioned by one's perception of what such music represents. If classical music is portrayed as something that is performed in concert halls attended by very polite people who have secret decoder rings that tell them when to stand, when to sit, when to clap, and when to be silent; and if such events are frequented by people who arrive in Cadillacs, Audis, BMWs, Porsches, Mercedes-Benzes, Bentleys, and up, it should come as no surprise if classical music continues to decline in popularity. Its visible association with a particular economic stratum would doom it to such a fate.


Again, I don't see it as extremely. In my metropolitan area, the local symphonic orchestra performs in parks (8-10 times per year) and people take lounge chairs, picnic tables, food and drinks to those concerts that are very informal and pleasant, performs in churches, stadiums, museums, all over the place.


> I have some suggestions for increasing the popularity of classical music. First, classical musicians need to get out of the practice rooms more often and into the world where there is poverty, child abuse, spousal abuse, drug addiction, and crime. They need to be visibly engaged in solving some of these problems by helping out in soup kitchens, attending city council meetings, volunteering at homeless shelters, and doing things that are visibly helpful to society at large that do not necessarily showcase their musical abilities. They need to show that they are a part of society and not removed from it as if they were the reincarnations of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette.


I do think that people need to engage in charitable organizations (and I do) but I believe it has nothing to do with what profession they belong to or how they earn their living. When I do some of the things you've mentioned, I don't flash my profession. I do charity for the sake of charity itself, not to promote my profession.


> Second, performances need to dispense with many of the rituals. Instead of having the concertmaster-conductor do-se-do at the beginning of a concert, why not just have an announcer quickly introduce the orchestra when the conductor is already onstage and get on with the performance? We see this accepted manner at baseball games, at football games, at basketball games, at hockey games, at rock concerts, at country music festivals, and at a whole host of events where people seem to exhibit a lot more degree of comfort with the manner of presentation than they do at traditional classical music concerts. Where we don't see that behavior is at political meetings and conventions, non-profit organization banquets, and book clubs - the places that repulse most people.


I don't think that this would really help. Whether the environment is solemn or informal, it's the music that counts.


> Third, venues for classical music performance need to be less glittering and earthier; they need to be held where people already are. Wait a minute, you might say. How can you have a full orchestra play on a Manhattan street corner with all the traffic noise and bustle? The objection itself illustrates the lack of out of the box thinking that has stultified the promulgation of classical music in America. Classical music needs to be incidental, just another dimension of life.


Like I said, many orchestras already do this.


> Fourth, classical musicians need to emphasize the performance of pieces that affirm the value of living. This might equate to favoring the playing of pieces that are composed in major keys (since we nowadays don't have the inner sense of a difference among the modes - anything in a non-Ionian mode is assumed to be "sad"). This doesn't mean that anything in a minor key should be shunned, but the selection of pieces to be performed needs to be informed by the needs of the people who will comprise the audience and not solely by the music director's desire to show just how arcane his knowledge of music is. Frankly, playing something that could be hummed on the way out of the performance would go a long way to making classical music more broadly desirable.


Well, now, I completely disagree. It's not by making it all happy and sugary that you'll win fans. Otherwise, to make an analogy, only comedies would succeed in movie theaters.


> One final thought is this. As a graduate of a musical conservatory and as a performer, the classical music industry (and it is exactly that) needs to reconsider the classical music conservatory mill. Each year we turn out thousands upon thousands of highly trained classical music graduates from conservatories and music departments of major universities. Each of these students seems to believe that a professionally and economically satisfying career lies ahead. Many of them anticipate a life as solo artists, and others picture themselves as members of major orchestras. Some want to teach at the university level, while others want to teach in public schools. The sad truth is that most of them will not end up working in a musical career. They will work as postal delivery workers, Macy's clerks, computer programmers, or any other than musicians. The supply exceeds the demand.


While this is true, it is also true in a wide variety of fields.


> In the medical profession, the number of admitted students to medical schools is limited intentionally for a variety of reasons, among which is to support the incomes of those who already are practicing physicians by controlling the amount of new competition coming from medical school graduates. Perhaps the same approach needs to be considered for music schools as well.


Although laymen always think that this is the case, it is very, very far from the truth. There is no plot by the American Medical Association trying to hold down the number of medical graduates. Much the opposite, there is a movement to *increase* the number of schools and number of graduates (e.g., in my state a new medical school has just been approved, and one of the existing schools has been encouraged to increase enrollment and establish two satellite campi in two other cities) since American graduates have been insufficient to attend the demand for decades - this is why you see professions like physician assistants and nurse practitioners being on the rise. And even if the AMA wanted to restrain the number of American graduates, it wouldn't help, because traditionally the slack has always been picked up by foreign medical graduates. We import thousands of foreign medical graduates per year. The reason why there aren't enough American medical graduates is that medical schools are darn expensive and medical training requires slots in residency programs that just aren't that numerous in those hospitals that are equipped to be teaching hospitals.


----------



## tdc

rdefazio said:


> Some very kind people have commented favorably, I think, on my posts, and I thank them for that. As you might guess, I find it difficult to express myself with an economy of words, but my verbosity stems from a deep-rooted concern that classical music is on track for a relatively quick demise, except among those who would like the art form to be reserved for the musically elite.
> 
> No genre of art breathes life if it is locked up in a museum vault. It may provide no end of enjoyment for the museum's curator, but the people who pay to keep the museum open will be no richer because of its existence. In fact, at some point if the museum begins to specialize in the collection and storage of vault-destined works, the very existence of the museum itself will be threatened. As patrons see less and less evidence of their dollars being put to work in the form of works on public exhibition (or hearing in the case of music), they would likely withdraw their financial support. At some point, the final dollar will withdrawn, and classical music will be as dead Druid hymns.
> 
> That would be a real shame. Anyone who has listened to Beethoven's late string quartet compositions or seen one of Verdi's operas comes away with the clear impression that while such music may have been written long ago, the essential human emotions and concerns that drove their creation still communicate today. Those emotions and basic matters of concern are the _lingua franca _ of humankind that cut across historical boundaries.
> 
> If classical music is rejected by a generation or two or three, all of society is made poorer. They become the fulfilment of George Santayana's short but telling statement, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And rejection is what is on the plate for most today. The evidence is constantly before us. A grunge band rents out a stadium and fills it with ardent and, well, grungy, followers while the Boston Symphony Orchestra plays in Symphony Hall with considerably fewer seats of which quite a number are empty. A country music star comes into town and fills every seat in the house while the the local choral society can barely fill a quarter of the same house. Don't get me wrong. I happen to like country music because in spite of the nasal twang with which it is so often rendered, it usually speaks of heartfelt emotions that one can understand whether one is a blueblood or a *******. The difference between country musicians and classical musicians, however, or at least the popular perception of that difference is that one group would welcome the other with open arms while the other group would tend to treat its counterpart like a bunch of hayseeds with cooties.
> 
> Classical music will die unless classical devotees drop some of the stuffiness and elitism and welcome the presence of people who applaud between movements or, God forbid, in the midst of a movement. Just as in the movie, "Other People's Money," when Danny Devito's character talks about the last buggy whip maker making the best buggy whip ever until it went out of business, so his words have an uncomfortable ring in the ears of people who sense that they are witnessing the last buggy whip maker in the classical music world. The demise of the art form will not be the fault of the music. It will be the fault of the perception of a generation that has come to the conclusion that such music is one of the accoutrements of the status quo, a status quo in which it is not sufficiently vested to care what happens in the way of collateral damage to items of real value.


^ I think making a lot of the changes to classical music you've suggested would likely kill it. Or at the very least make it indistinguishable from everything else - and make it mediocre. It is what it is because of the people that make it up, and I love it just the way it is. Whoever gets it, gets it. I dont believe it will ever die because the people who love it REALLY love it.

The big problem is more of a lack of education in the general populace, not any wrong doing in the world of classical music.


----------



## toucan

rdefazio said:


> a deep-rooted concern that classical music is on track for a relatively quick demise, except among those who would like the art form to be reserved for the musically elite.


The majority has always prefered popular music and the minority has always preferred challenging music. It is the way it is and if an elite of sophisticated people persist in funding orchestras and music schools and attending concerts then we need not worry about any demise of classical music.



> Classical music will die unless classical devotees drop some of the stuffiness and elitism and welcome the presence of people who applaud between movements or, God forbid, in the midst of a movement.


This rage so many people (and, unfortunately, Concert Hall administrators and educators) have of extending the public for classical music beyond those who are spontaneously drawn to it is not only a pipe dream (for reasons hinted at above) - it is a dangerous pipe dream, as it leads them not only to dumb music down, or promote crossover and John Williams as classical - which it is not - but also to promote easy music over challenging scores and therefore William Walton or Dimitri Shostakovich over Gustav Mahler and Pierre Boulez. Far from being secured by democratization Classical music is endangered by it and only if an elite of people capable of understanding and appreciating it perpetuates itself will it survive.



> Just as in the movie, "Other People's Money," when Danny Devito's character talks about the last buggy whip maker making the best buggy whip ever until it went out of business, so his words have an uncomfortable ring in the ears of people who sense that they are witnessing the last buggy whip maker in the classical music world. The demise of the art form will not be the fault of the music. It will be the fault of the perception of a generation that has come to the conclusion that such music is one of the accoutrements of the status quo, a status quo in which it is not sufficiently vested to care what happens in the way of collateral damage to items of real value.


Again, the perceptions - and the intolerance - of people who never have and never will like classical music are irrelevant. They may _want_ it to be a thing of the past but it won't be so long as the well-dressed people who attend concerts at Carnegie Hall or the Theatre des Champs-Elysees keep attending concerts.


----------



## dmg

There we go again with the John Williams reference. He is a classical composer. Deal with it.


----------



## toucan

Only the kind of imitative second-rate the ill-educated public of commercial blockbusters like Star Wars, E.T. and Harry Potter confuses with a Classical composer. Educate yourselves...


----------



## dmg

Only the kind of ill-educated snobbery thinks Star Wars, E.T. and Harry Potter are all that is of John Williams. Educate yourselves...


----------



## toucan

It is for the best to focus on the positive. tdc's post was right on the button:



tdc said:


> ^ I think making a lot of the changes to classical music you've suggested would likely kill it. Or at the very least make it indistinguishable from everything else - and make it mediocre. It is what it is because of the people that make it up, and I love it just the way it is. Whoever gets it, gets it. I dont believe it will ever die because the people who love it REALLY love it.
> 
> The big problem is more of a lack of education in the general populace, not any wrong doing in the world of classical music.


----------



## dmg

I think classical music should be defined by longevity. If it's at least 100 years old and still recorded / performed, it's classical, regardless of style or setting. That way anything that is popular just because of current pop culture trends would get weeded out. Then we'll see what's truly worthy of being classical. Yes, that means compositions by the likes of Shostakovitch and Stravinsky would have to wait, but so? That doesn't mean you can't enjoy them now.

Problems started when people began labeling current compositions as 'classical'. Then, what is classical? Film music is not the first incidental music setting; we have composers like Haydn and Handel who've composed music for plays, which serve the same purpose. If we exclude anything composed for film, we have to exclude that music as well.

As with John Williams, he's composed many other scores besides the mainstream action / sci-fi films that you mentioned (even though I think those compositions will still be performed hundreds of years from now). His music for films like Schindler's List and Memoirs of a Geisha are wonderful and very memorable. He has quite a few concerti, a symphony, solo music for piano and cello, and a number of other works NOT composed for film. So to point to a very small portion of his compositions and use that to somehow demean his accomplishments is unfair and comes across as a sort of snobby, willful ignorance.


----------



## rdefazio

Toucan, you are stating the facts with regard to popular music being preferred by the majority, and the minority preferring "challenging" music. I would point out, however, that there is equally challenging music, at least from a technical perspective in the rock music world. If agility is an acceptable measure of technical prowess, there are certain passages in instrumentation of many popular songs that would qualify as virtuosic. I would assume, then, that what "challenging" is also intended to convey is that classical music is, well, more musical. It's complexity and organization is larger in scope than that of the usual offering from the popular music genres, but I would question whether that makes it more musical or merely pedantic. Some very long pieces of classical music are a joy to listen to, while others tend to make even the diehard classical music lovers yawn and at the same time yearn for that point when it will end.
With regard to whether classical music requires the musical elite to comprehend it and therefore through its enthusiasm contribute to its persistence, I would only reply that in its time most classical music was popular music. It was composed in the idiom of its time, and concerts were attended by people who found the music to be relevant to their daily experience of life. These were new works, and the notion that classical music needs to be studied and understood to be appreciated seems to stand in contradiction to the way it was created and promulgated. I sincerely doubt that the first hearers of Beethoven's, Brahms', and Schubert's symphonies needed to have attended and passed a Music 101 class to legitimize their visceral liking of the music. They simply liked it. Chopin's near rock star status when he toured Europe did not come about because the young people who attended his concerts were all geeks armed wearing pocket protectors and carrying a course syllabus for a music appreciation class. They found the music rapturous, all without the benefit of having to understand it or respect it. It was relevant because it reflected their life orientation. At a time when people wanted to cast off the stiffness of a century before and to embrace not what must be but what must be possible, along came Chopin, Rachmaninoff, Brahms, Schuman, and host of others who found ready audiences for what their minds produced.
The question is whether the preservation of that music requires an understanding mind in the present day. I think not. For instance one could say that Bach's Partita in D minor for the violin requires an understanding of polyphony, counterpoint, medieval dance forms, the concept of a fugue, the difference between a chaconne and a passacaglia, etc. to appreciate what he wrote in this 15 minute long masterpiece. On the other hand, you could simply say that it was written as a memorial to his wife of 14 years, Maria, whose death he only learned of when he returned from a business trip required by his boss. The opening four chords speak immediately to the heart, not the head. In fact, the complicated list of prerequisites that we tend to want to heap on people to do "justice" to the music actually take away the guts of its capacity to speak to us as people who ourselves must one day stare death in the face. 
When we erect obstacles in the path of people to the liking of something heard, we reserve that music to ourselves, true. In the process, however, we will also witness on a steady basis the number of people who are willing to continue to underwrite its expense of its production. Today we have "well-dressed people" who will attend concerts, but it you look carefully, most of them have gray hair. Each year, more of them fall out of view forever. "So what," you may think. "There will be more." Will they have the wherewithal to pay professional musicians what they want? Remembering that most orchestras of any substance require 50 to 80 musicians, each of which has to pay rent, eat, stay healthy, and own one or more rather expensive instruments, and remembering, too, that orchestras in their present configuration require a conductor who usually wants more than the musicians, and that a touring orchestra requires special accommodations for the transport of its instruments and people, I would ask just how much money would be required to achieve this? If you look at an orchestra like the Buffalo Philharmonic, it has an annual budget of approximately $9 million. That's small by some standards, but it is in a smaller market and in an area with a lower average personal income than many areas of the country. The New York Philharmonic's net loss for 2009 was nearly four times greater than the Buffalo Philharmonic's entire annual budget. Both orchestras, and for that matter most orchestras, experience losses year after year and rely heavily on the generosity of people and foundations to offset those losses. At some point, however, the gravy train will come off the tracks. Two very good examples are the relationship with the David and Lucille Packard Foundation and the San Jose Symphony as well as the closure of Opera Pacific.

Believing that each generation will produce a sufficient number of classically-inclined titans of industry to keep on supporting an art form that fewer and fewer people support is neither realistic nor advisable. What is advisable is facing the classical music world as it is now constructed and addressing some of the root causes for its waning acceptance by the public. Like I have said, I don't think it is the fault of the music. I do think it is the fault of the purists who take comfort in classical music concerts and classical music itself as if they were physical and virtual places where people can mingle with their own kind. I think that classical music needs to rid itself of the elitist notions that have unfortunately afflicted some its more notable stars. I think of Leopold Stokowski who said, "We provide the music; you provide the silence." His attempts to expunge applause from the concert experience are legendary, but if he had ever been successful in his efforts, he would have singlehandedly driven the final nail into the coffin of classical music. Such traditions may reach back in time for a considerable distance, but just because something is old does not make it right or desirable. (For a look at how many regard just this single point of concert etiquette, I would invite you to read a recent article by Andrew Druckenbrod, the music critic for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette at http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07035/758706-42.stm.)

I don't want classical music to survive; I want it to thrive, but my friends, I tell you with all respect and appreciation for your love of the art, that unless you open the door of possibilities to the unschooled, the street rabble, the people whose energy keeps the world alive, the art form will die an untimely and tragic death.


----------



## tdc

rdefazio said:


> I don't want classical music to survive; I want it to thrive, but my friends, I tell you with all respect and appreciation for your love of the art, that unless you open the door of possibilities to the unschooled, the street rabble, the people whose energy keeps the world alive, the art form will die an untimely and tragic death.


Either that or the government could actually stop robbing people blind, destroying the environment, end world poverty, release free-energy technology, end the massive scale dumbing down via propaganda --> and the idiot box aka tv. Stop harmful emf's, flouride in the water-supply, harmful chemicals in our air and food. Offer a decent education to the regular person that actually teaches people to be self-sufficient and to live in balance with the earth, and not a slave to a faulty unsustainable materialistic society. Maybe teach people how to strengthen their immune systems instead of destroying them with pharmaceuticals. Yeah, I think deal with all of those issues first and let the chips fall where they may. Just my opinion!


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I was walking down the aisle yesterday of a large furniture shop, which was quite busy with many customers of all ages. The background music was popular rock music. I was then wondering what kind of reaction people would get if say, a Mozart quartet was used instead. Would that generate more interest in the music? Would peopler care? Or would people complain to the store manager? If they do complain, why? And on what reason would they give to have the Mozart music replaced?


----------



## emiellucifuge

tdc said:


> Either that or the government could actually stop robbing people blind, destroying the environment, end world poverty, release free-energy technology, end the massive scale dumbing down via propaganda --> and the idiot box aka tv. Stop harmful emf's, flouride in the water-supply, harmful chemicals in our air and food. Offer a decent education to the regular person that actually teaches people to be self-sufficient and to live in balance with the earth, and not a slave to a faulty unsustainable materialistic society. Maybe teach people how to strengthen their immune systems instead of destroying them with pharmaceuticals. Yeah, I think deal with all of those issues first and let the chips fall where they may. Just my opinion!


Bravo! :tiphat:


----------



## Huge

To answer the original question, because of people like this:



toucan said:


> Only the kind of imitative second-rate the ill-educated public of commercial blockbusters like Star Wars, E.T. and Harry Potter confuses with a Classical composer. Educate yourselves...


The irony in this is all too apparent. Calling people ignorant when he can't even write, not knowing what classical music is defined as, and naming only 3 films for which he wrote the music. Have you even listened to his concertos? His non-film stuff? No of course not. Your other posts solidify this ignorant snobbishness which is a major problem with some classical music fans.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge

Also along the lines of the original theme in this thread: I would like to add a recent observation. Namely - I just happened to realize that over the last few years in the most common societal perception music has been degraded to "ambient noise improving the mood a bit". Just like the tv flashing random images somewhere in the background in the corner of a bar, radio stations simply blast the same mixture of 1980s and 1990s hits as a continuous pulp. Hardly anyone bothers to realize what they are actually listening to - the classical doesn't exist for them, except for movie scores etc. And even then, the "general society" members do not perceive the score as classical music but as part of the movie itself  And instruments such as violins and cellos are not something they would normally listen to - the prevalence of computer generated sounds and electronically distorted vocals are all they know and all they wish to know. But you know what - I do not care as long as the "general society" does not try to damage the classical world. On the other hand, the classical world seems to flourish with ever more new talents, both vocal and instrumental - and I think this is because of the more advanced research, better training and wider availability of CDs than, say, in the first half of the 20th century


----------



## gurthbruins

tdc said:


> ^ I think making a lot of the changes to classical music you've suggested would likely kill it. Or at the very least make it indistinguishable from everything else - and make it mediocre. It is what it is because of the people that make it up, and I love it just the way it is. Whoever gets it, gets it. I dont believe it will ever die because the people who love it REALLY love it.
> 
> The big problem is more of a lack of education in the general populace, not any wrong doing in the world of classical music.


I agree with you, tdc.


----------



## gurthbruins

toucan said:


> The majority has always prefered popular music and the minority has always preferred challenging music. It is the way it is and if an elite of sophisticated people persist in funding orchestras and music schools and attending concerts then we need not worry about any demise of classical music.
> 
> This rage so many people (and, unfortunately, Concert Hall administrators and educators) have of extending the public for classical music beyond those who are spontaneously drawn to it is not only a pipe dream (for reasons hinted at above) - it is a dangerous pipe dream, as it leads them not only to dumb music down, or promote crossover and John Williams as classical - which it is not - but also to promote easy music over challenging scores and therefore William Walton or Dimitri Shostakovich over Gustav Mahler and Pierre Boulez. Far from being secured by democratization Classical music is endangered by it and only if an elite of people capable of understanding and appreciating it perpetuates itself will it survive.
> 
> Again, the perceptions - and the intolerance - of people who never have and never will like classical music are irrelevant. They may _want_ it to be a thing of the past but it won't be so long as the well-dressed people who attend concerts at Carnegie Hall or the Theatre des Champs-Elysees keep attending concerts.


- Just as I have just agreed with tdc, so also I agree with you, toucan. Bravo to you both.


----------



## rdefazio

As with all things in life, there comes a tipping point at which the critical mass required to keep things that are regarded as necessary fixtures of life ceases to exist. As the members of the financial engine that keeps classical music organizations alive today die off, those members being the army of people with wrinkles and gray hair, there comes a point at which those organizations can no longer be sustained. Once young musicians get the message that viable careers in the world of classical music are suddenly far less likely, the number of new entrants into conservatories and music schools would be expected to drop off. When that point is reached, the end of professional classical music will be within sight, representing a tragic end to a great art form. 

For that reason, the economics of the performance of classical music have to be addressed today. As the character portrayed by Danny Devito in the movie "Other People's Money" described the last buggy whip maker in an age of automobiles finally going out of business, so classical music is running the same risk by not acknowledging the sea change in our culture and addressing it in ways that could potentially offend artistic sensibilities for the sake of the survival of the art.

Unless the classical music world stops putting up virtual signs that read "Not Welcome Here" to persons who don't know anything about concert rituals, there will be no generation to step in to replace those patrons who are dying off with each passing year. Persisting in rituals created by Mahler and honed by Stokowski that limit applause, rituals that Mozart himself specifically contravened, and continuing the relative absurdities of having the concertmaster receive applause just to tell the oboist to play an A, something that is meaningful to neither the concertmaster (unless he or she is truly self-esteem challenged) nor the audience, will only widen the gap and increase the size of the hurdles that the classical music industry is voluntarily placing in front of potential supporters. 

We don't live in an age any longer where people bow and scrape obsequiously to members of a privileged class. We are beyond that, yet classical music seems not to have noticed that fundamental shift in modern attitudes. It is as if our collective heads are buried in the sand. If we persist in this willful blindness, in a couple of decades the rest of our musical bodies will join our heads.


----------



## mmsbls

rdefazio said:


> As with all things in life, there comes a tipping point at which the critical mass required to keep things that are regarded as necessary fixtures of life ceases to exist. As the members of the financial engine that keeps classical music organizations alive today die off, those members being the army of people with wrinkles and gray hair, there comes a point at which those organizations can no longer be sustained. Once young musicians get the message that viable careers in the world of classical music are suddenly far less likely, the number of new entrants into conservatories and music schools would be expected to drop off. When that point is reached, the end of professional classical music will be within sight, representing a tragic end to a great art form.
> 
> For that reason, the economics of the performance of classical music have to be addressed today.


I too am worried that classical music is slowly dying off. My wife was a violinist in a part time symphony, and my daughter is a college student majoring in performance (cello). I have seen symphonies close due to lack of support. There are many smaller ensembles, but the little data I have seen supports the notion that classical music is less and less popular.

I have pointed to the disconnect between modern composers and the general listening public (classical radio stations play very little modern music, symphonies play more but still little compared to works composed before 1900 or so). I feel this has to hurt classical music, but I don't have a solution. Without significant interaction between composers and the public, composers are working in a vacuum and can become irrelevant.


----------



## kmisho

Some interesting points in the last two posts. I agree on the ritual thing. There exists, essentially, a set of performance practices for the audience, and this is just horrible! I've been going to the symphony since I was a kid and these STILL make me nervous. "What if I'm the only one who applauds?" "You idiot! Are you the only one in the building that has not memorized Wolfgang Kripotkin's 112th Symphony in C minus?! I literally feel as if I am soiling myself by standing near you!"

At the same time, I think there are too darn many orchestras. There are four within two hour's drive of me. California has some 20. This is ridiculous. Orchestras are expensive. Maybe there'd be more money to sell orchestras to an audience if there weren't so many.

Now my opinion. I think the average music lover, and I'm thinking American, is simply not comfortable with the range of expression an orchestra can make and hence invoke. It's too personal. I'm not sure what to do about this short of outlawing pop culture and free market fundamentalism!


----------



## rdefazio

mmsbls, 

I agree with your concern. Anyone who is studying for a career in classical music would seem to have a death wish or a desire to take a vow of poverty. A few composers of modern classically-oriented music have actually assisted in creating part of the current disconnection between audiences and the music played. I don't think, for instance, that there are many people who are so deaf or so indifferent that they could stand a steady diet of John Cage. Most people want tonality, and they want to enjoy a musical experience. Today's concerts, however, have a medicinal, father-knows-best tone to them that make one feel as if he is going to group therapy.

If I could change three things about classical music they would be to allow people to respond to the music without fear of reprisal for applauding at the "wrong" moment, getting rid of the concertmaster's stroll onstage to cue the oboist, and to make as part of one's membership in an orchestra some form of community involvement that has little or nothing to do with music. The second item in my list is so easy to achieve that it is hardly worth mentioning, but its persistence in concert behavior is indicative of the kind of genuflection to custom that makes newcomers sense a lack of synchronicity with modern life. After all, what does the concertmaster do that merits applause from the audience other than to stand and point? 

The first item in my list is a bit more difficult to achieve. There are those who would insist that since conductors write multi-movement works as single entities, those works should be given a full hearing before they are approved of with applause. I dispute the notion that each movement of a multi-movement work is conceived simultaneously. Having written music of this type, I can say that composition is an evolutionary activity. When one movement is written, it tends to be written as a composition in its own right. It might be modified in light of thematic material in subsequent or previous movements to unify the piece, but that unification process is more academic than visceral; and it is the visceral component of music that communicates most with listeners and provokes them to applaud. Mozart wrote to his father in 1778 from Paris with considerable pride that when the audience heard his music, "To hear and to applaud were one." Bear in mind that this was only two years after our own revolution against England and only ten years before the French Revolution. Mozart was very much a product of his time and not one to stand much on the unassailability of tradition. 

Somewhere between Mozart and Wagner, attitudes changed. When Mahler came upon the scene, audiences began to be regarded as somewhat uncivilized beasts requiring lessons in manners. By the time Stokowski arrived, audiences were supposed to regard classical music as reverential, quasi-religious experiences in which applause was the ultimate profanity. Today, it has become conventional wisdom to assert that applause is only acceptable at the end of a piece and shouting "Bravo" is the appropriate vocal expression of approval, and such is espoused by persons who seem not to be aware of Mozart's own fundamental disagreement with such a notion. (Incidentally, it is curious that shouting "Bravo" to a soprano is regarded as acceptable when it is foreign word with the wrong case ending.)

The third point is likely to get some real resistance, but I think it is important. How many people have seen the television program "Secret Millionaire" or "Undercover Boss?" The premise of these programs is that they are actually educational programs for the wealthy or the powerful designed to teach them about the people that they dominate. From their experiences they emerge more humble and appreciative of the efforts of ordinary people, making them more human and approachable. The same needs to take place with classical musicians. They tend to spend the majority of their time doing things musically oriented at the expense of gaining any real visibility among the people in the communities where they need popular support in order to make a living. By devoting time to the community in ways that make a difference and which win friendships and fans, it can serve to woo more listeners to classical music. Isn't it much easier to say to a friend, "Would you come to my concert," than to say the same to a perfect stranger and expect the same results? A good number of the classical musicians I know would without a moment's hesitation turn up their noses at the mere suggestion that they should descend from their pedestals to rub elbows with the unwashed masses. Only a few would consider doing so and even fewer would actually do it. Classical music is not just a music business; it is a public relations business. Just as "soup nazi" from the old Seinfeld television program didn't win friends and influence people by his conduct, so classical musicians follow the same path by not understanding that they are in an increasingly unpopular professional field desperately in need of public relations repair.


----------



## mmsbls

rdefazio said:


> They tend to spend the majority of their time doing things musically oriented at the expense of gaining any real visibility among the people in the communities where they need popular support in order to make a living. By devoting time to the community in ways that make a difference and which win friendships and fans, it can serve to woo more listeners to classical music. Isn't it much easier to say to a friend, "Would you come to my concert," than to say the same to a perfect stranger and expect the same results? A good number of the classical musicians I know would without a moment's hesitation turn up their noses at the mere suggestion that they should descend from their pedestals to rub elbows with the unwashed masses. Only a few would consider doing so and even fewer would actually do it. Classical music is not just a music business; it is a public relations business. Just as "soup nazi" from the old Seinfeld television program didn't win friends and influence people by his conduct, so classical musicians follow the same path by not understanding that they are in an increasingly unpopular professional field desperately in need of public relations repair.


I agree with your thoughts on public relations. I don't know to what extent people can be drawn to classical music through such efforts, but at this point it almost certainly could make a difference. My wife has always felt that classical music is vastly easier to appreciate if you have been exposed (either by hearing a lot or by playing instruments) when young. I had very little exposure (although I did play piano for a couple of years), and probably would not enjoy it now if I had not married my wife.

In the US pro sports such as basketball and football have huge followings, and yet they do more public relations than just about anyone. I do think you are correct when you say many classical musicians and composers have no desire to "advertise". I think most outreach is focused on bringing in money (for obvious reasons) than in bringing in converts.


----------



## rgz

jhar26 said:


> I challenge any 'electronic fart' composer to come up with something as catchy as 'Billie Jean' or 'Beat It.'


Assuming we're talking about electronic music here, I'd say there's plenty that imo qualify  Robert Miles - Children; Paul van Dyk - For an Angel; Mason - Exceeder; the entire Aphex Twin - SAW v1 album, and that's just off the top of my head. Not to say I don't like Michael Jackson.

I've read through this thread with interest and found myself, seeing many unfamiliar names (since I frequent the Opera subforum primarily) if a similar question to the thread topic could be asked to those here: Why do you like Classical music but not opera? (Operating on the assumption that people here who don't post in the Opera forum tend not to listen to opera, which may be incorrect).


----------



## mmsbls

rgz said:


> I've read through this thread with interest and found myself, seeing many unfamiliar names (since I frequent the Opera subforum primarily) if a similar question to the thread topic could be asked to those here: Why do you like Classical music but not opera? (Operating on the assumption that people here who don't post in the Opera forum tend not to listen to opera, which may be incorrect).


I am one who tends not to listen to opera. For various reasons having nothing to do with how much I like it, I have heard vastly less operatic music (expense of opera, relative frequency of opera on radio, etc.). I can not say why, but I have not responded to vocal classical in the same way I have responded to non-vocal. I do find that very odd and don't see why that would be the case. I loved vocal pop music before turning to classical, but for some reason arias have not so far struck me as beautiful as non-vocal music. Incidentally I have had a similar response to classical songs (Schubert, Mozart, etc.). There are some I find gorgeous, but in general they do not effect me as I thought they would. I have no good explanation why.

Overall, I do suspect that if I were to listen (and especially watch on TV or at the theater) to more opera I would start to find much of it enjoyable - perhaps wonderful. I would like to start listening more.


----------



## rdefazio

Kmisho, you are right about the number of orchestras with respect to the economics of classical music and given the current diminishing support for it. If this were to be described in advertising terms, it would be called "market saturation." It has multiple dimensions to it, but the simple truth is that when you produce more goods or services than your target market can absorb, it buys less of what you make. The perverse logic of classical music organizations, however, is that unlike clothing manufacturers, car dealers, furniture makers, or computer consultants who reduce their prices in the face of smaller market, symphony orchestras actually raise their prices.

The cost structure of the professional symphony orchestra encourages this. First, most symphony orchestras are locked into contracts with union musicians that guarantee their musicians a given number of "services." A service is a rehearsal, a performance, or some other event whose occurrence can be defined by a block of time. It is not the same as a given number of dollars per hour; it is better described as an occasion when musicians assemble to do specific tasks oriented toward either preparing for or conducting a performance from which revenues are derived. The service concept is itself a compromise since no contract can anticipate the amount of work that must be achieved in a specific rehearsal for the performance of any given work. Two, three, six, or even more rehearsals might be required to produce an acceptable performance of some particular composition, so from the musician's point of view it would be unfair to be paid solely on the basis of public performances.

The throttle on the number of public performances, therefore, is the musical director's decision with respect to the difficulty of the pieces selected for the concert season. If very complex works are selected, the number of performances would be less that for a season of relatively easy works since more rehearsals, i.e. services, would be required to prepare for a season of difficult compositions. If the orchestra tends toward "pops" music as its standard fare and if it is locked into a contract requiring many services, its management may think that the way to earn the money to pay the musicians their contractually required payments is to stage more concerts. If you are in an area such as Los Angeles where there is the Los Angeles Philharmonic, the Pacific Symphony, the San Diego Symphony, and numerous other smaller both professional and non-professional symphony orchestras plus chamber music groups, solo artists, university orchestras and chamber groups, touring groups and soloists, etc., you quickly discover that you cannot simply continue to increase the number of performances in order to make more money. People get bored with what you produce because you sound the same as you did last time; the pieces change, but the orchestra's sound which is more of a reflection of the conductor's skill than anything else tends to be relatively static.

So, what choices does a professional orchestra have? There are very few other than to raise the price of tickets. This, of course, has the exact opposite effect of what is intended. People don't flock to concerts because of the higher ticket prices. In the music world Geffen's paradox often seems not to apply once you have crossed that point of market saturation. Instead, people don't buy tickets and they don't attend.

In the meantime the orchestra has rented the hall, paid the stage crew, hired the ushers, and printed the programs, and in the unforgiving economics of business in the real world in order to break even, you have to sell a certain number of tickets just to pay for the overhead for the production costs, and you have to sell even more to meet your contractual obligations to the musicians, and even more has to be sold to make a profit to give you some breathing room in the budget for the remainder of the season.

Now, considering that there are so many performing groups, many of them being student and non-professional, that don't do this for the money but rather for the experience of playing before the public and whose ticket prices reflect that, it creates a relativistic spectrum of events and admission prices from which the public forms its opinions of value. Some performances are free and quite good, though often not professional in quality. At the other end of the spectrum are performances that are of professional quality with big names and big egos that cost as much as your car payment. The public decides where the balance between cost, quality, and repertoire is best struck. Almost invariably it is not struck at either the high end or the low end.

One more thing to keep in mind is that for professional orchestras in particular grants, charitable contributions, how top heavy the compensation is for the organization, and the demographics of its marketing area can have a heavy influence on ticket prices. The more successful an orchestra is in securing grant money and donations, the less a ticket is likely to cost. For instance, the average cost of a ticket for a performance by the Los Angeles Philharmonic in its 2007 season was $88, but in its 2009 season after the beginning of the recession and when donations fells off the average ticket price went up to $113. In the same 2009 season the Pacific Symphony's average ticket price was $56. The Pacific Symphony's primary marketing area is smaller and overlaps with that of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, but the Pacific Symphony's music director salary was also nearly one-third of that of the Los Angeles Philharmonic.

One of the best examples I can think of with respect to providing a blow by blow account of the destruction of an orchestra is available at the following link:

http://www.wolfbrown.com/images/books/sanjosesymphony.pdf

The San Jose Symphony, founded in 1877, went out of business in 2002, a victim of its own mismanagement, bad public relations, the withdrawal of contributions, and its death struggle with the way that musicians were paid. Some have contended that it was the withdrawal of charitable support and the dot com collapse in Silicon Valley that precipitated the crisis, but such suggestions exhibit a form of denial with respect to the distorted notion on the part of the classical music industry that it is and should continue to be an object of charity rather than a self-supporting enterprise that caters to the tastes of the people who are expected to support it.

Classical musicians, music directors, and boards of directors, who believe that classical music is the pinnacle of musical art forms and therefore deserves the perpetual largesse of public institutions, must change their framework of thought. Welfare recipients, whether they are indigent people roaming the streets in search of a quarter or organizations run by extraordinarily wealthy people and which pay handsome salaries to musicians and their directors, at some point in time discover that the public's patience with their intransigent ways runs out. That ultimately forces them to accommodate to the real world in what is usually a painful process. I think that time has come.


----------



## Ralfy

Mass entertainment is dominant because corporations sell what is most popular. In some countries, governments spend a significant portion of the national budget to support culture and the arts, but most support what corporations want in return for more tax revenues.

Such a scheme, though, is possible only given a global capitalist system that is dependent on abundant resources such as oil. Unfortunately, global oil production has remained relatively flat since 2006 and several, from the U.S. military to Lloyd's of London, are warning of a major and permanent drop in production by 2015 (possibly, 2013). Since much of the same system is dependent on oil not only for energy but also for petrochemicals (which cannot be obtained from other sources of energy) then it is likely that economies will start falling apart by then, if they are not already doing so because of increasing debt, environmental damage, etc.

In which case, it is very likely that the same mass entertainment system will collapse, and with any available resources and time societies still have, we will see the prevalence of localized, performed folk and some classical music.


----------



## Ian Elliott

I think your analysis of the situation is mostly cogent. We are fortunate to have been born early enough to know what classical music was. Its spirit reflects the aristocratic ideals of nobility and chivalry (as exemplified, for instance, in the biographies of Plutarch). If newer music only reflected a similar spirit, it wouldn't perhaps be quite so serious that classical music is passing away. A similar phenomenon can be observed in the late Roman Empitre with respect to classical sculpture and painting. There is evidence of a new style of painting emerging then that resembled Impressionism; but it died on the vine. All people wanted were cheap imitations of what remained of Greek sculpture and painting from centuries before. The true villains emerge from this parallel: they are the entrepeneurs and remnant audiences of 19th century classical warhorses. These goofs can never get beyond Tchaikovsky, and a recent comment on this thread that Debussy was 'too weird' typifies their wilfull ignorance of music written after 1890 (The Afternoon of a Faun was composed in 1894). These are the birds who killed classical music. If Stravinsky and Bartok etc had ever achieved the popularity of the old Romantics, classical music would have continued evolving and it would still be with us. Support for an art form, ultimately, comes from below, from the continuing interest of the people. No Sol Hurok is going to appear these days and produce a concert of post-19th-century music without the assurance of a good return on his money. Another cause has been the axing of school budgets, leading to the dropping of music appreciateion classes and school orchestras from grade school curricula. Let's face it; without the availability of downloads on the internet of virtually every sort of music, we would have to hug to ourselves our old vinyl in order to hear classical music. Thinking that the fault lies with laclk of patronage from above is like the government putting up Lincoln Center as a way of boosting the arts. "Build the ball field and they will come" may work with movie ghosts, but it is not the way to revitalize a dying art. 
But there is hope nonetheless. Every flowering of culture can be shown to have come from a concerted effort to salvage the remnants of an old culture that was vanishing. Some very old examples come to mind: the tablets excavated from the library of Assurbanipal were collected by him from ruins and old archives around Mesopotamia. They had been copied from Sumerian originals some 1100 years before by Rim-Sin of Larsa, the savior of the vanishing Sumerian culture. The demise of Assyrian civilzation buried the final results for us to dig up and be enriched thereby. I am currently reading the I Ching and was interested to learn that it was compiled from scattered sources a little before Confucius' time, by scholars who were endeavoring to salvage what they could of the disappearing Chou civilzation. We must do the same for classical music. It is up to us. And as we cannot afford to fund large concerts, the best focus for us, I think, is to save classical chamber music, collecting manuscripts offline and online, and organize small groups for playing it in local communities. Who knows, it might catch on again in a small way?


----------



## Barking Spiderz

I think people here are right is saying that the main reason most people don't like or bother with CM is because it's alien to them as they've never heard it on mainstream radio and TV. These people, regardless of age, have similar attitudes towards jazz, bluegrass, klezmer, drum & bass, dubstep even instrumental rock music of the Joe Satriani or Tangerine Dream ilk. In a nutshell most people who arent really music lovers but don't mind it like catchy familiar songs under 4 minutes they can hum along to. Such people are also likely to be the sort who go on holiday/vacation in the same place every year, who never eat 'foreign muck', who go to the same pub/bar every Friday and Saturday night and who've never deviated from their routines for a minute.


----------



## Ralfy

Related?

"Finland's Bold Musical Ambitions Produce a Multitude of Maestros"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990DEEDA163EF936A35752C0A9659C8B63

"Full Steam Ahead"

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/higgins/story/0,12830,995357,00.html


----------



## Jacob Singer

Barking Spiderz said:


> Such people are also likely to be the sort who go on holiday/vacation in the same place every year, who never eat 'foreign muck', who go to the same pub/bar every Friday and Saturday night and who've never deviated from their routines for a minute.


Yeah, and that could _never_ describe classical music listeners, could it? 

No, they're a wild bunch, always open to new ideas. They aren't conservative at all, are they?

Surely not.

:devil:


----------



## rdefazio

*Philadelphia Orchestra Files For Bankruptcy*

The classical music world will hear more instances of orchestra failures again and likely in the not too distant future. Syracuse, Honolulu, New Orleans, and Florida were the cracks in the dike. Then came the failure of Opera Pacific in Los Angeles. Since then one arts organization after another in the classical music world has begun to feel an extraordinary financial pressure that has been brought on by a combination of forces, the least of which is the recession itself.

The recession is a convenient target because it is supposed to be the bogey man for all that is bad in the economy, and to be sure, the recession has had an effect on classical music organizations. Disposable income has declined, and ticket sales which are a reflection of disposable income to some extent have suffered in some markets. In other markets, however, ticket sales increased in spite of the recession. The tendency in such markets is to assume that the orchestra is popular, thus making those who know little of the finances of an orchesta to think that something is not right within the organization when it still claims to have a dire situation.

Orchestras operate, and in particular, the Philadelphia orchestra operates in ways that often defy logic. In 2009, the orchestra's music director Charles Dutoit was paid $1.16 million, the concertmaster David Kim (the person who walks on stage and nods to the oboist to play an A for tuning purposes) was paid $402,000, James Undercofler who was the president and CEO of the orchestra for a time was paid $427,000, and principal players of various sections of the orchestra were paid approximately $269,000 each. Ordinary players earned significantly less, but all involved had substantial pension plans. Add it all up, and the orchestra spent nearly $47 million in 2009 to stage 230 concerts. All but 38 of those concerts were held in Philadelphia at various venues. In rough numbers, that amounts to one concert slightly more frequently than every other day for the entire year.

Now look at what happens when a concert is staged. You have to rent the facility, or if you own it, you have to amortize its expense over the number of uses you make of it. You have to pay stagehands who are usually union members, pay for heat or air conditioning, lighting, and parking facilities. You have to staff it with ushers, janitors, cleaning crews, and the like. Then you have to print programs, pay for merchandise that you plan to sell at the venue, advertising for the event, transportion for the large instruments, hire people to operate the sound systems, and in some instances, you have to pay for law enforcement in high traffic areas.

Let's lay that aside just for the moment and go back to the issue of compensation. How is a musician's pay determined? In most orchestras, it is not a matter of being paid so much per hour. It is a matter of being paid for each "service," defined as a rehearsal or a concert. Each service, which is not necessarily limited in time, has a specific dollar amount attached to it, and in union contracts for musicians, it is the number of guaranteed services that negotiators are focused on. Some organizations have migrated from service calculations and moved to basing payment on the number of weeks the person works. This comes closer to what we ordinary folk understand to be the reasonable method of computing one's salary, but it is still not quite the same. In order to meet the terms of a union contract, how does the typical orchestra fulfill its quota of services? Does it have a thousand rehearsals and 10 performances? No, it tends to produce many performances under the belief that the more performances you have, the more money you can make to pay the musicians. After all, the pedal doesn't really hit the metal until someone pays to hear what the orchestra produces.

Now let's put the pieces together. In 2009 the Philadelphia Orchestra staged nearly 200 performances in the city. Was the city's appetite for classical music as large as the supply created by the orchestra? No. Many or most of the concerts were not full house events. To the extent that tickets sales for an event were inadequate to cover all the allocated costs of staging the event which includes the items listed above and the allocated costs for the musicians to play and the conductor to conduct, the orchestra would lose money. The more concerts it would produce, the more money it would lose. Most orchestras in the United States never earn enough money to pay the bills. In fact, most orchestras rely on ticket sales to cover only 67% of operating expenses. The rest has to come from donations, investment income, and government subsidies from organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts and other charitable foundations. When the ratio of ticket sales to contributions begins to decline, thus exposing an increasing addiction to grants and donations, that's when the executives and the board members of an orchestra should begin to be concerned.

In the case of the Philadelphia Orchestra, they should have been concerned going back as far as 2005. Things got progressively worse as time passed, and only when things were impossible did it consider filing bankruptcy. Only a few years ago, the percentage of contributions nearly matched ticket sales, pushing it considerably outside the customary margins of the financial profile for a typical orchestra. The growing dependence on government and private largesse took a major setback in the recession, thus exacerbating the already out of balance arrangement of ticket sales, government grants, and charitable donations.

Looking at the orchestra from a financial perspective only is like looking at a potential spouse and only seeing his or her contour; there's more than meets the eye. Classical music has severe public relations problems instigated and perpetuated mostly by itself. Most people have never attended a concert of a symphony orchestra. If a novice were to attend a concert, he would be presented with rituals of concert behavior that are rather off putting. The theatrics of awaiting the concertmaster who is to be greeted with applause so that he can tell everyone to tune up, followed by the arrival of the conductor, the silence, then the noise, then the climactic ending...of the first movement of a four movement piece, followed by more silence, etc., etc. smacks of a feudal age in which the serfs eagerly awaited the appearance of their baron, duke, or king. Frankly, we are past that, and we have been past that for more than 200 years. We don't pay obeisance to anyone, and the same would hold true in most non-monarchical democracies. Stokowski, one of the most famous of Philadelphia's conductors, helped in large measure to shape modern concert conduct. Building on the legacy of Wagner and Mahler, he expressed the desire not to have any applause at all, and he felt in many ways that a concert of classical music was tantamount to a religious experience. Most would not go quite as far as he did, but in spirit many in the professional music sector have done things this way for such a long time, it is hard to get them to envision a different concert protocol.

Mozart certainly would not have endorsed the modern concert mannerisms. When he visited Paris before the city undertook to chop off the heads of people it didn't like, he wrote his music to provoke applause in the midst of it being played. In a letter to his father from that city he bragged, "To hear and to applaud were the same." It would seem that the sentiments of Mozart would be more in line with modern culture than those of Wagner, Mahler, and Stokowski who have essentially told audiences to shut up until the conductor says he is done. It is like putting out the *Not Welcome *mat.

Life changes, and music changes with it. In the 1970's Leonard Bernstein said, "Whence is new music?" Where is new music to come from? Modern concerts specialize in the performance of pieces written by dead people. The music is melodic, the harmonies are predictable, and like a piece of apple pie they remind us of the good old days when things were not so stressful. Unfortunately, for those who feel that way, there are many more people who would like their music to reflect the times, who look forward to the future with the belief that it has to be better than today, and whose manners are less gentile - they clap their hands over their heads, they whoop and shout, and they stomp their feet. "How base, how crass, how undignified," some might say, but this is the audience of the present and the future, and unless symphony orchestras learn to speak its emotional language, the only place we will hear classical music in 50 years will be through a set of headphones in a music museum.

Orchestras try to make themselves relevant by playing modern songs using symphonic arrangements. It makes them sound like the U.S. Marine Corp band trying to play acid rock. It makes them look a bit foolish because it is so far afield from their artistic comfort zone. To survive and to thrive, orchestras need to start acknowledging the changing demographics of our country. The aged well heeled folks with gray hair, wrinkles, and canes or walkers who have been the financial lifeblood of orchestras are dying faster than they are being replaced. There are more Latinos in our population today, and playing music that fails to reflect their own life experiences has the effect of shutting them out of the loop even further.

Finally (and thankfully), each year there are nearly 4,000 graduates from music conservatories that emerge into the music scene looking for work. Add to that the tens of thousands of graduates from music departments at private and public universities, and then realize that in the past year there were perhaps only a handful of openings in orchestras for professional musicians. Most of the music graduate population will end up teaching privately or at a public school (if the schools can afford any arts programs at all), or they will do what so many before them have done which is to work as a waiter, a postal clerk, a salesman, or some other profession.

The classical music industry needs to listen to society, not to scold it; it needs to drop the elitism, restore some financial sanity to the way orchestras are run; and it needs to play what people want to hear and for which they are more than willing to pay.


----------



## mmsbls

rdefazio said:


> The classical music world will hear more instances of orchestra failures again and likely in the not too distant future. Syracuse, Honolulu, New Orleans, and Florida were the cracks in the dike.
> 
> The classical music industry needs to listen to society, not to scold it; it needs to drop the elitism, restore some financial sanity to the way orchestras are run; and it needs to play what people want to hear and for which they are more than willing to pay.


Many years ago when I was a student, I attended Philadelphia Orchestra concerts. One night a week you could wait on line and possibly get in free if you were early enough. Hearing that they will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is very sad.

I firmly believe Orchestras have to change to stay solvent. They probably will have to reduce salaries and pensions somewhat, reduce staff, and find other cost savings in operations. The question of increasing ticket sales is a difficult one. They do have to play what people want to hear. but I'm not sure I know exactly what that is.

Almost everyone I know who likes classical music (admittedly a modest number of people) does not especially like modern music. Classical music radio stations play almost no modern music (at least the 3 or 4 I have heard in the past few years). Orchestras generally play relatively little. In fact the smaller the orchestra the less modern music seems to be played.

On the other hand I don't see how an art form can remain vibrant without having a relationship between those who produce the art (composers for music) and those who consume it (concert goers in this case). I'm just not sure how to get people to enjoy modern music more. I'm one of those who don't appreciate modern music remotely as much as "old" music. I'm trying to change and learn to enjoy newer music, but it apparently takes work. It may "just" require more exposure, but it's not clear how to do that without potentially driving the present listeners away.

Perhaps orchestras will have to go through an evolution where they gradually change their listening public and lose a modest number of people who regularly attend concerts but pick up a newer group who can grow faster. Maybe there's a way to change without reducing the present audience. I hope there is, and I hope orchestras figure out how.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

rdefazio said:


> Orchestras operate, and in particular, the Philadelphia orchestra operates in ways that often defy logic. In 2009, the orchestra's music director Charles Dutoit was paid $1.16 million, the concertmaster David Kim (the person who walks on stage and nods to the oboist to play an A for tuning purposes) was paid $402,000, James Undercofler who was the president and CEO of the orchestra for a time was paid $427,000, and principal players of various sections of the orchestra were paid approximately $269,000 each. Ordinary players earned significantly less, but all involved had substantial pension plans. Add it all up, and the orchestra spent nearly $47 million in 2009 to stage 230 concerts. All but 38 of those concerts were held in Philadelphia at various venues. In rough numbers, that amounts to one concert slightly more frequently than every other day for the entire year.


:lol: Sounds like the remuneration of certain key personnels and players are outside the economics of the rest of the "real world" corporations and businesses aimed at delivering expected results to owners/stakeholders. Granted there is a need to attract the best talent in whatever field, the fact that orchestras are going insolvent left, right and centre suggest they are run by people who generally have little to no business sense whatsoever.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: Sounds like the remuneration of certain key personnels and players are outside the economics of the rest of the "real world" corporations and businesses aimed at delivering expected results to owners/stakeholders. Granted there is a need to attract the best talent in whatever field, the fact that orchestras are going insolvent left, right and centre suggest they are run by people who generally have little to no business sense whatsoever.


Exactly!

The fact is, the Recession is probably the chief cause of these bankruptcies besides lack of popularity: people simply can't afford to go to these concerts as often. If those members of the orchestra would want to keep their positions, why not settle on a salary cut? It could be enough to last them a few years longer. If the principals are making a honestly great living of $250,000 a year, why not cut it just for now? I think it's a lot more loss to the city to lose the whole group.

Either the end of the Recession needs to come, or the end of the world.


----------



## mmsbls

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> :lol: Sounds like the remuneration of certain key personnels and players are outside the economics of the rest of the "real world" corporations and businesses aimed at delivering expected results to owners/stakeholders. Granted there is a need to attract the best talent in whatever field, the fact that orchestras are going insolvent left, right and centre suggest they are run by people who generally have little to no business sense whatsoever.


Certainly reducing salaries will help reduce expenditures, but I'd be interested in seeing the budget of an average large symphony. I wonder how much goes towards salaries (and benefits) of active performers. The salaries listed by rdefazio are much higher than I expected, but I don't know what the average performer makes. Are salaries 50% of expenditures, 60%, 70%? I wonder if there are other areas where significant cuts could be made.

I guess the bottom line is: can you cut salaries, benefits, and other expenditures in a straightforward, reasonable way and not run a deficit? Or do you have to raise revenue in some way?


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

mmsbls said:


> Certainly reducing salaries will help reduce expenditures, but I'd be interested in seeing the budget of an average large symphony. I wonder how much goes towards salaries (and benefits) of active performers. The salaries listed by rdefazio are much higher than I expected, but I don't know what the average performer makes. Are salaries 50% of expenditures, 60%, 70%? I wonder if there are other areas where significant cuts could be made.
> 
> I guess the bottom line is: can you cut salaries, benefits, and other expenditures in a straightforward, reasonable way and not run a deficit? Or do you have to raise revenue in some way?


You can easily find numerous, numerous examples of CEOs and government/public servants running corporations who are on million dollar salaries and incentives, paid to deliver results of institutions that have turnovers and number of employees that would easily outnumber the annual figures of the orchestra in question in this example. The arts is almost always a subsidised economic entity, which makes the remuneration demanded by those leading the orchestral business appear absurdly unjustifiable, as far as competitively remunerated labour is concerned. It seems the question upon casual reading of the interesting post by member rdefazio above is not about the budget of the particular orchestra in question; to me, it seems there is an over supply of orchestras in their already subsidised position to continue to command such premium figures relative to the economic worth of what they actually do (remember that society on a whole, does not value classical music as much). Perhaps orchestras should be amalgamated or some disbanded, and we should do away with less state/city based patriotism (i.e. not have a "symphony orchestra of world calibre" out of major every capital city), until the time comes when there is demand to justify its own existence based on what it can deliver that society finds it worth paying.


----------



## Lucas Vigor

Interesting topic. I am obviously late to the thread, but here is my take. 

I don't really care if other people don't like it. As long as the recorded music is available for me to listen to, I selfishly keep it to myself. However, I am often suprised to find people I least expect to enjoy classical music! Don't underestimate people!

Though I play in an orchestra, I don't really enjoy attending one as a member of the audience. Too many rules and regulations. Can't leave to go to the bathroom once the piece has started and then expect to return to your seat until the movement is over. No booze allowed in your seats. 

Really, they should amplify the orchestra fully so that audience noise is not an issue. This should be about entertainment. Quit treating classical as though it is something you view in a museum. That plus continued exposure to classical music for the masses at an early age should increase attendance at concerts. People actually do like the music....they just don't know it! I once at at a Taco bell, and instead of the nonsense hip-hop and pop music piped in over the musak system, it was Mozart! No one complained!

Often I find myself looking down on "Pop classical" acts such as Il Divo, Bond, and any other non conforming classical music act....but maybe we all should re-think that attitude!

Ex stray-cat Brian Setzer made an album of re-worked classical music in the rockabilly style, and it sold very well! And never forget ELP selling out colliseums back in the day!

I think Mozart would have approved of all the adaptions, modernizations and changes!

As to a symphony going out of business, or declaring bankrupcy...that is sad....but there are always string quartets and chamber orchestras which are smaller and more cost effective!

It would also be nice to see more hollywood movies about classical composers. There are some great stories still to tell! Has anyone done a movie about Charles Ives yet?


----------



## An Die Freude

Allegro said:


> I am completely serious, I have to come onto the internet to find other people with a passion for classical music like myself. Everywhere I go in my home town or around school it's all rock, metal, rap, country, those sorts of things. When I say I like classical to anybody they all give me strange looks, act like i'm retarded, *then say classical is retard music because there aren't any lyrics*. So, why do people hate Classical these days?


So would they like Beethoven's Ninth then?


----------



## rdefazio

*Budget composition and salary cuts*



mmsbls said:


> Certainly reducing salaries will help reduce expenditures, but I'd be interested in seeing the budget of an average large symphony. I wonder how much goes towards salaries (and benefits) of active performers. The salaries listed by rdefazio are much higher than I expected, but I don't know what the average performer makes. Are salaries 50% of expenditures, 60%, 70%? I wonder if there are other areas where significant cuts could be made.
> 
> I guess the bottom line is: can you cut salaries, benefits, and other expenditures in a straightforward, reasonable way and not run a deficit? Or do you have to raise revenue in some way?


In the case of the Philadelphia Orchestra, in 2009 its budget broke down like this:

(millions)
Salaries, pensions, payroll taxes $28.5 
Travel 6.5
Artistic expenses 5.0
Other expenses 6.5
Marketing/fundraising 0.5
-------------------------------------------------
Total 47.0

What is interesting to note is that the orcestra spent just about the same amount of money on marketing as it did on computer services. I'm obviously not in charge of the orchestra's finances, but one of the things I would consider doing is bumping up the marketing allocation in the budget.

Insofar as making cuts in the orchestra's salaries and pensions, that is likely the object of filing for bankruptcy. Under bankruptcy provisions, things that were previously sacrosanct can now be addressed, specifically changing the magnitude of the compensation given to the orchestra members, officers, and conductor(s). As it stands now, approximately 61% of the orchestra's total revenue is spent on salaries, pensions, payroll taxes, etc.

You can see the figures yourself by going to http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2009/231/352/2009-231352289-066323ff-9.pdf. Access to the site may require you to register, but registration is free.

Make no mistake. Most professional orchestras that are not cooperatives in which the musicians own the orchestra by sharing in its profits and losses but instead are hired by a management team are run as if patronage by a wealthy class of individuals is the normal way that arts organizations should be run. The failure of those most heavily invested in the art form represented by symphony orchestras with respect to communicating the importance of what they do to the general population becomes most evident in their financial statements.


----------



## Ian Elliott

I can't remember when I have been more lucidly educated. It was a pleasure to learn all this. As an expositor you rival Bertrand Russell. 

Though I can no longer hear the top octave and a half (I use my memory to fill in the missing notes), I still enjoy classical music as much as I did when I was young. I played piano for fifty years but finally let it go when my profession, computer programming consultant, required me to move around too much. A piano is a little harder to transport than an accordion or violin. I suffered a sudden decline in hearing at age forty which led me to re-focus on history and other interests, but I continued with piano for another decade.

I mention these minutiae as a lead-in to a related topic, namely, why do classical music lovers gradually lose their enthusiasm for listening to classical music? I think the single greatest factor in my case was having to listen to noise and popular music, drum beats from televised sports events, and similar intrusions. America is full of noisy boorish people. I am retired now and living in Norway, where, outside of Oslo, all is peace and quiet. We have more quiet here than Astoria, OR has rain. After an initial period of six months' grieving for my lost aural acuity, I came to appreciate no longer having to hear neighbors, traffic and, especially, barking dogs. I came to prefer silence. The American way of existence killed my desire to listen to music except on rare occasions.

There were other factors, of course. One enjoys listening to music with friends who love it also. These friends have gradually gone the way of everyone's college friends after college. Some are now dead, the rest are flung to the far horizons, especially me. Only one went in for music as a profession, teaching piano at the University of Fargo, ND. My wife being the sort who talks during music, I was left with a solitary pleasure, and while music can be appreciated that way better than, say, humor (one doesn't belly-laugh at jokes in solitude), the social element cannot be subtracted without some loss of appreciation. Above all, one feels isolated and unsupported. Once in a while a concert is televised here in Norway, and about one time out of ten it includes a piece written after 1900 that hasn't become a war-horse. When the audience applauds at the end, I confess to a few tears. If I am trypical of those who love classical music, we are far from elitists: we hunger and thirst after commonality, acceptance and understanding from the multitude.

This is why the proposal to change the menu of concerts to fit what most people want to hear will not save classical music. It will be the final coup de grace. An acquaintance of mine here in Norway, a former blues guitarist from NJ, has joined a choral group and accompanies them in their occasional performances. He wanted me to attend to support the team, but I found an excuse to skip it: the choir was going to sing arrangements of Beatles songs. I rather like the Beatles, but not in castrated format. I imagine this is how the revised fare of future orchestras would affect me.

So, what is the solution? There is no solution. Your admirable exposition offers no real solution to the problem, since replacing classical music with something more widely appealing is tantamount to throwing in the towel. 

Ian Elliott


----------



## Lucas Vigor

Ian Elliott said:


> I can't remember when I have been more lucidly educated. It was a pleasure to learn all this. As an expositor you rival Bertrand Russell.
> 
> Though I can no longer hear the top octave and a half (I use my memory to fill in the missing notes), I still enjoy classical music as much as I did when I was young. I played piano for fifty years but finally let it go when my profession, computer programming consultant, required me to move around too much. A piano is a little harder to transport than an accordion or violin. I suffered a sudden decline in hearing at age forty which led me to re-focus on history and other interests, but I continued with piano for another decade.
> 
> I mention these minutiae as a lead-in to a related topic, namely, why do classical music lovers gradually lose their enthusiasm for listening to classical music? I think the single greatest factor in my case was having to listen to noise and popular music, drum beats from televised sports events, and similar intrusions. America is full of noisy boorish people. I am retired now and living in Norway, where, outside of Oslo, all is peace and quiet. We have more quiet here than Astoria, OR has rain. After an initial period of six months' grieving for my lost aural acuity, I came to appreciate no longer having to hear neighbors, traffic and, especially, barking dogs. I came to prefer silence. The American way of existence killed my desire to listen to music except on rare occasions.
> 
> There were other factors, of course. One enjoys listening to music with friends who love it also. These friends have gradually gone the way of everyone's college friends after college. Some are now dead, the rest are flung to the far horizons, especially me. Only one went in for music as a profession, teaching piano at the University of Fargo, ND. My wife being the sort who talks during music, I was left with a solitary pleasure, and while music can be appreciated that way better than, say, humor (one doesn't belly-laugh at jokes in solitude), the social element cannot be subtracted without some loss of appreciation. Above all, one feels isolated and unsupported. Once in a while a concert is televised here in Norway, and about one time out of ten it includes a piece written after 1900 that hasn't become a war-horse. When the audience applauds at the end, I confess to a few tears. If I am trypical of those who love classical music, we are far from elitists: we hunger and thirst after commonality, acceptance and understanding from the multitude.
> 
> This is why the proposal to change the menu of concerts to fit what most people want to hear will not save classical music. It will be the final coup de grace. An acquaintance of mine here in Norway, a former blues guitarist from NJ, has joined a choral group and accompanies them in their occasional performances. He wanted me to attend to support the team, but I found an excuse to skip it: the choir was going to sing arrangements of Beatles songs. I rather like the Beatles, but not in castrated format. I imagine this is how the revised fare of future orchestras would affect me.
> 
> So, what is the solution? There is no solution. Your admirable exposition offers no real solution to the problem, since replacing classical music with something more widely appealing is tantamount to throwing in the towel.
> 
> Ian Elliott


Possibly. But I think of these watered down, pop classical styles as being the "gateway drug" for most people getting into "real" classical.

I for one, started listening to "jazz fusion" many years ago first, then got interested and curious and worked my way backward to real, traditional jazz. Now, I hardly ever listen to modern jazz fusion at all, prefering the original sound of early jazz.

Same with my love for classical. When i was younger, I could not stand the "stuffy" elements of classical, and really only liked modern classical...the more bombastic and "rock" like, the better....years later, I grew to find out that I did indeed like Mozart, Bach, beethoven, Brahms, etc....but it took one to apreciate the other...had I only been presented with classical period music, I would have pooh-pooed it!

That's why I don't have a real problem with "re-imaging" modern classical music concerts to give them more appeal for the lumpen masses!

Years of bombastic rock music, generation after generation, have ruined people's ears for real art. To get that back, you have to wean them from themselves, so to speak!


----------



## rdefazio

*Response to Ian Elliott*

Ian, I was touched by your candid expression of your experience with music, and I find some remarkable similarities between our life experiences. I, too, am a programmer who has been programming for longer than I care to admit. Let's put it this way: I started programming before there was PC-DOS.

I trained for the opera stage, and along the way I met some well known conductors who wanted me to sing lieder and to tour Europe. I rejected the offers because I was more intent on a different career involving the study of ancient languages. I ended up in the stock market and in computer work, but my interest in the classical music world never abated. It did, however, change. Like you, my enthusiasm for listening to it waned a bit, but not for the reasons that affected you. Mine centered around the influences that led me away from classical music while still in the conservatory environment. I found, to be quite blunt, that many of the musicians I knew including the wannabes, the day to day professionals, and the luminaries seemed to share a common personality trait of being eager to elevate themselves in their own estimations by finding fault with others. They seemed to specialize in being critical and not appreciative.

In my thirties and forties I found classical music to be energizing. When I heard the _Hallelujah Chorus_ or listened to Barber's _Adagio for Strings_, I felt something that nothing else in life could give me. When I reached my sixties and started to consider what life is actually made of and when I started reading books like The Black Swan by Nassim Taleb, I became a bit more skeptical, and gradually I found that my optimism was being replaced with perhaps not pessimism but certainly skepticism. Sometimes I find myself thinking much like the writer of _Ecclesiastes _ in the Bible: there is nothing new under the sun. Then I snap out of it, and I look around me and realize that while some things are truly hopeless, there are many things that are not. In that moment, I am once again a twenty year old and have regained my right to emit the global warming gas carbon dioxide.

My objections to the elitism of classical music and classical musicians has at its root the yearning for a more meaningful interaction with people. I don't want life for me, at least, to devolve into entries in a blog. I want to feel that life is lived completely and fully. For me that includes not admitting defeat until such is an accomplished fact. When I see orchestra musicians, conductors, concertmasters, and audiences going through the motions every time there is a concert, for me it is like watching the ever so slight yet irresistible denigration of the music they have worked so hard to produce because the rituals that surround its performance seem to take on a disproportionate importance.

I recognize that human society is in many ways defined by its rituals. Weddings, birthdays, graduations, funerals, and other events are signposts along life's way that we are passing through events and times to which we have assigned meaning that goes beyond the perfunctory recitations that comprise them. BUT...so often we allow the perfunctory to become the substance, and in the process the interaction that such events should promote becomes as trite as the well rehearsed occasions themselves.

Concerts have become like that for me: standard works played over and over, played to death, played to the point that all some of us listen for any more are the mistakes and not the music. When the music is over, we rush to the parking lot to get in our cars instead of using the event as a place where people from all stripes of life can interact and experience the other dimension of a concert that has been so suppressed under the iron rule of Mahler and Stokowski - socialization, conversation, and the enjoyment of others. Music can be a religious experience for many, but if it is to be an experience that can continue, it must accommodate human beings and not try to force an ill fitting suit of concert manners on a generation that is accustomed to making noise and lots of it when its hears something that it likes.

Okay, perhaps I am showing my age, but a zest for living is much of what lies at the root of music. Why shut out the evidence of life as it really is from the concert hall for the sake of enshrining the ideals of certain musicians whose span of influence when viewed from a wider angle in history is so amazingly brief? I would like to go to a concert where people applaud and yell and shout, "Way to go!" instead of the incredibly trite "Bravo!" (especially when the commendation is directed to the orchestra as a whole, then requiring the speaker to shout "Bravi" if he wished to be perfectly correct). In one case one would get the sense that people have been shaken to the core while in the other it tends to look rather much like a script being acted out.

This is a bit much. Your comments are appreciated, and they provide me with the occasion to clarify my own thinking.


----------



## Xaltotun

How to put meaning in an empty ritual? I guess you'll have to be a pure fool and enlightened by compassion for suffering, and then put a spear in a cup.


----------



## Ian Elliott

gurthbruins said:


> Regarding the contemporary composers, have you heard of Michael Rosenzweig?
> I met him and heard some of his music: I wonder if he is known to the 'academic circuit.'


No, I haven't. But I will look for his stuff. I am retired and living in Norway now, and most of the new music available here in library recordings is Norwegian. I have listened to some of it but found it rather vacuous neo-Impressionism. But that is based on a small sampling.


----------



## Ian Elliott

I don't think we can get very far with this question by focusing on liking. What is more illuminating is how people listen to music. Personally, I wouldn't enjoy a concert if a number of people in the audience started cheering, or tapping their feet, or humming along with the theme. Nor do I think it would work to start them out on Boston 'Pops' classical pieces. That was the mistake made in the now largely defunct 'Music Appreciation' classes in middle school. After sitting through 'Rodeo' and 'Billy the Kid', most of the students in my class did not go on to 'Appalachian Spring' but instead turned on Chubby Checker (yes, I am dating myself!). When I complained to the teachers about the selections, they invariable said that students had to start on the 'simple' works before they would progress to the more complex. I replied that cultivating a taste for schlock does not lead anywhere except for the door. One teacher characterized me as 'that brash young man.' 

In those days I identified with my tastes in music as a sort of defense mechanism, and I can see young people nowadays doing the same with their Heavy Metal or whatever the hell they are listening to these days. I think this identification is what prevents people from exploring other musical genres and styles. When I discovered Jelly Roll Morton in 1968, I went nuts over early jazz. My mother, a true musical racist (it did no good to argue that Jelly was Creole), objected highly to my involvement in 'colored' music. I told her that music, apart from Scriabin, had no color. Besides, she liked war horses like those by Peter Idiot Tchaikovsky.

Over the years I have changed quite a few of my attitudes. I now think it possible that someone carried away by the Beatles or Pink Floyd is having just as profound a musical experience as someone listening to Bach or Beethoven; different, perhaps, but not necessarily inferior. It all depends on how they listen.

I also no longer think that appreciating classical music somehow makes me better than other people. A painter who prefers light listening, for instance, is at least as creative as a musician who enjoys looking at Norman Rockwell or Granda Moses. Small children may not be able to articulate their pleasure in pictures and music, but if we try to remember our own childhood, we may recall feelings of appreciation at least as intense as any we have enjoyed since growing up,

The best remedy I can think of for the decline of music and the arts in our culture is to encourage everyone to learn to sing or play an instrument, but preferably not the guitar!


----------



## vamos

I have a most accurate view of this.

I believe that a good portion of the public will eventually grow sufficiently tired of the 'crap' forced down their throats by the critical machine.

At this point a new breed of classical music will be able to flourish. The audience will be available. And the 'new breed' will be one that has successfully integrated the modern pop aesthetic with the avant garde.

I believe this.


I think Schnittke said something to this effect as well.


Regarding the concert halls and Mozart, I don't know. I can't see that ever going away. I think worrying about something like that is silly. Perhaps live performances will slow, but the recordings will always be there.

What is the true purpose of 'live performance' anyway? I don't completely understand it. If I have the files and the music in it's great form, why should I go to the trouble of venturing out to hear the music?

If it was a modern group doing something truly new, that might be different. But if it's Bach...well. I don't know. It will all work out in the end.


----------



## Stasou

I think it's a stereotype. Many of the people who claim to hate classical music have probably never taken the time to actually listen to it without focusing on something else, so they simply follow everyone else.


----------



## dmg

I think classical music is simply not understood by most people. I hear things like "Classical music makes me sleepy" all the time from people. That shows a general ignorance about classical music, and it's one of the things that I blame our education system(s) on, as well as radio stations who mostly play music from a specific era or eras. They have one set idea about how classical music sounds, and don't understand that it actually contains a very vast and very wide variety of styles - including things that will definitely jar you awake.


----------



## jhar26

Stasou said:


> I think it's a stereotype. Many of the people who claim to hate classical music have probably never taken the time to actually listen to it without focusing on something else, so they simply follow everyone else.


Something that also plays a part compared to the past is the competition that there is these days from things like the internet, playstation and so on. In the past a youngster after coming home from school might have listened to the latest album from his favorite band. Today he might prefer shatting to his friends or playing video games. And if they don't develop a habit of listening to music - ANY music - at a young age the're less likely to become interested in music (let alone classical music) later on in life.


----------



## Vaneyes

I can't possibly read 17 pages of "Why do people hate classical these days?" to inspire an answer, so I'll simply say because marijuana is illegal and the music of Maderna, Ligeti, Berio, and Schnittke isn't played in concert halls nearly enough.


----------



## Ian Elliott

*Live Performance*

Ian Elliott: I like a lot of what you say above, but I must disagree with you about live performance. As with live theatre, there is a certain presence, almost a physical awareness of the performers, that one obviously cannot get from recordings. The Hindus call it darshan. The only thing I dislike about them is the high volume of sound. I can remember going with my grandmother when I was a boy to summer band concerts in the field back of Sewanakah high school on Long Island. The mellow tones of the horns especially stick in memory, even though they were probably playing "Stardust". Some composers have honored this outdoor experience by writing for it, notably Poulenc in his Concert Champetre for harpsichord, and Martinu in his Field Mass, arguably his best composition.

But you hearten me with your prophecy of a resurgence of classical music in the future, however modified.



vamos said:


> I have a most accurate view of this.
> 
> I believe that a good portion of the public will eventually grow sufficiently tired of the 'crap' forced down their throats by the critical machine.
> 
> At this point a new breed of classical music will be able to flourish. The audience will be available. And the 'new breed' will be one that has successfully integrated the modern pop aesthetic with the avant garde.
> 
> I believe this.
> 
> I think Schnittke said something to this effect as well.
> 
> Regarding the concert halls and Mozart, I don't know. I can't see that ever going away. I think worrying about something like that is silly. Perhaps live performances will slow, but the recordings will always be there.
> 
> What is the true purpose of 'live performance' anyway? I don't completely understand it. If I have the files and the music in it's great form, why should I go to the trouble of venturing out to hear the music?
> 
> If it was a modern group doing something truly new, that might be different. But if it's Bach...well. I don't know. It will all work out in the end.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Exactly!
> 
> The fact is, the Recession is probably the chief cause of these bankruptcies besides lack of popularity: people simply can't afford to go to these concerts as often. If those members of the orchestra would want to keep their positions, why not settle on a salary cut? It could be enough to last them a few years longer. If the principals are making a honestly great living of $250,000 a year, why not cut it just for now? I think it's a lot more loss to the city to lose the whole group.
> 
> Either the end of the Recession needs to come, or the end of the world.


OK - I must disagree with you on almost everything you said here.

First: Orchestras have been in danger far before this recession. Maybe this foreshadowing by the NYT can help you see that. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/29/arts/music-how-to-kill-orchestras.html?src=ISMR_AP_LI_LST_FB

Second: Principal's making $250,000 - and you're complaining about that? So basically, in the best orchestras, you're telling the people who have the absolute best skills in the world that they're relegated to high middle-class rather than upper-class society? For me, that seems completely deranged. If the second bassoonist was making 200k, I'd be furious...but principal's - especially concertmaster deserves that kind of money. If the pay's not there - the musicians will disappear.


----------



## Romantic Geek

For me, there are two things that really have destroyed classical music.

First and foremost, the modernist movement spearheaded by the Second Viennese School has a large role in this. If anyone disagrees with me, I think you're conveniently overlooking events that occurred during that time period. In the early 20th century, classical music was still king, but "popular" music began making its rounds. But the matter of the fact is, "popular music" was still notated, and very often required some sort of compositional training - or at least really good intuition. Scott Joplin didn't rake in the dough on the Maple Leaf Rag through concerts! 

However, coincidentally (or not...which is what I believe), as the modernist music grew in the classical world, the popular music world started to explore. All of the sudden, you have composers working in "Tin Pan Alley," most of whom were never trained classically (and some who were notoriously bad musicians, like Irving Berlin.) Sheet music sales skyrocketed (2-3 million pieces of sheet music sold for the biggest hits in TPA, when the American population was around 100 million.) However, the were still plenty of composers doing well in the situation. George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue was a HUGE success. More Romantic composers who lived a bit later, like Rachmaninoff, were also doing just fine. However, the more radical the music, the less the typical consumer was going to the concerts. 

Hell, now they had radio and sheet music of popular Broadway shows, they had discretionary money for instruments like pianos and trumpets and trombones. Jazz exploded as a "taboo" music which still sounded pleasing to most people's ears...and thus why I think jazz's popularity exploded. Then moving into the music of the electronic composers and ultimately those of the concept composers, like John Cage, the connect was completely lost with the general audience. 

I think it's easy to draw the connection, but I'm sure I'll get flack from those who enjoy Schoenberg and Webern and Berio and Stockhausen. Which is great...but remember, most of us here have fond over classical music and some people didn't like that music at first and only now has an appreciation for it. Put yourself in the shoes of a middle class couple in 1950 who has no music training - and tell me that they'd enjoy Berio on the first listen - my bet is...they wouldn't.

Second! Enough with symphony orchestras playing THE SAME OLD PROGRAMS! Honestly, how many times on earth does a symphony have to play some the standards to death. (I.E. Beethoven 5, 6, + 9, Brahms 4, Any of the Beethoven piano concertos, and so on and so forth.) It's been FOREVER since I've seen a serious program incorporate works of those composers underappreciated who wrote fantastic sounding music for the layman to enjoy! Particularly, no one playing anything American before Charles Ives in concert (save one or two pieces). I have yet to see a major orchestra take on some of the great works of the middle to late-Romantic era pieces composed here in America. Or even the music of forgotten composers who were popular in their heyday (Raff comes to mind as a big one.) There is SO much music out there that I think the common person could really enjoy.

I also think that composers today will realize that success will come to those who write music that can cross the boundaries of classical and popular music. Avant-garde is not the way to go anymore. (I feel like most of the concept art has been conceptualized already!) Which relates to the earlier posts about John Williams as a classical composer. 

Anyone who doesn't think John Williams is a classical composer is NUTS! He went through the same training most of his contemporaries in classical music did in their studies. Whatever you think of Williams personally, you cannot deny the influence classical repertoire had on his movie scores (Holst's Planets anyone?) But these scores are complex and really have many subtleties...but no one is focusing on that because the fact is, his music is so popular that it must be "bad." This guy is a bonafide classical composer. And if you're going to knock him for being a film composer, you might as well knock Ralph Vaughan Williams and Copland just to name a few of many who have written extensive movie scores in their lifetime!

The fact is John Williams bridged that gap between classical music and popular music. Everyone knows his name! He's uber rich too! I commend him for what he did - and we as a classical society should thank him. Think about how many people, when they discovered Holst's Planets and thought "this sounds like Star Wars" and then started doing what Williams did in reverse (with the study of repertoire) now enjoy classical music on a larger setting. I can tell you, quite a few of my friends did that!

Finally, if classical music wants to grow - it needs to go where it can best be supported academically and financially. You may not like the answer - but the future of classical music lies in bands. Yes, the kinds in high school and colleges. The fact is, it's not feasible nor worth any money to compose symphonies and operas. Only a select few composers today can make that stage successfully. However, bands are HUNGRY for new music. And the best part about it - they're more open to newer types of music. Yet, a lot of their repertoire is still very tonal. Kids will keep playing instruments - and with bands...if more beautiful and great music is written for them, then the parents (and the kids!) will gain a greater appreciation of classical music as a whole. Maybe you think I'm crazy...but this is where composers should focus their large repertoires. Not at the orchestra. At bands!

That's my proposal to fix classical music. A few of my friends here at CCM agree with me. I think it's important to see how we got away from the public and fix it by reversing the damage done by finding our easiest root into the public (which besides movie scores...which I guess are no longer considered classical music would be bands.)


----------



## rdefazio

*Why go to a live performance?*



vamos said:


> What is the true purpose of 'live performance' anyway? I don't completely understand it. If I have the files and the music in it's great form, why should I go to the trouble of venturing out to hear the music?


The reason there are live performances is to make money for the people who perform it. That's obvious. What is not so obvious is that most of the music played by symphony orchestras is in the public domain, so producing a CD, an MP3, or a streamed performance over the web is something for which they do not have exclusive legal and monetary rights. It is very different for popular music performers. Most of their music is new music, so when they copyright it, it is protected for at least 20 years and can be extended for another 20 years. During that time, every play of the music, whether it is on a radio station, on a television broadcast, or a part of some community's annual chicken dinner concert, a payment must be made to the composer. For musicians in this situation, it is perfectly fine for them to have limited live performances since the real purpose of such performances is simply to fuel the sales of the CDs and other media for which they receive payment.

For classical artists, the situation is reversed. The net amount paid to a classical artist from CD sales is very tiny with most of it going to the production company that manufactured the media. The CDs in such cases serve as the advertisement for the artist. He hopes that a radio station will play his recording to give him some name recognition so that when he comes to town to perform live, people will turn out to hear him. He receives nothing for the radio play; the live concert is really his only source of income. That is why there are so many live classical performances.

The frequency of concert offerings and the inconvenience of having to drive to a concert, find parking, and paying a high price for tickets (because staging a concert isn't cheap) combine to produce disincentives for audiences to attend. (The more concerts, the greater the market saturation and the less interest there will be in concerts in general since the preponderance of concerts tends to make them into cultural background noise.) The lower the attendance, the more losses incurred. Eventually, if market forces are fully operative (which they are not), the number of concerts would be expected to drop to a level that can be economically sustained by the available audience.

Market forces are not operative, however, because of union contracts that require performing organizations to produce a specific number of services by union musicians. If the contract with the musicians' union requires 1,000 services per annum, then the orchestra will likely have about 300 concerts per year to meet that contractual requirement. The more concerts, the organization offers, however, the lower the attendance per concert and the greater likelihood of net losses for each fiscal year. The truth of this is borne out by looking at any major orchestra's IRS 990 tax filings. You can see them at www.guidestar.org.

Then there are the people who assume that recordings are permanent. Actually, they are not. Eventually, they disappear by accident, through wear and tear, loss, etc. The only reason that we continue to hear recordings from the 1930s is because some radio station has an archive of those recordings that it plays occasionally, and were it not for the fact that it has annual pledge drives from listeners, those stations would cease to operate, and those recordings would be lost forever to the listening public. The same will eventually happen to today's recordings by Starker, Ax, Ma and others unless there continues to be a viable business model under which it remains possible to attract an audience to live performances. Given the rate of audience attrition, however, I am not optimistic about the chances of that happening on a continuing basis.

A legal remedy exists, but it would go against the grain of nearly every classical music listener of whom I know. If classical pieces in the public domain were altered or arranged in an unusual enough manner, such recordings could be copyrighted, and it would fundamentally change the business model for performing organizations. It would require hiring a staff composer to churn out modified versions of Beethoven's Fifth, Mahler's Fourth, etc. Those modified versions would then have to be copyrighted, and arrangements would have to be made with ASCAP to ensure that fees were collected for each performance of the modified pieces. If each play of the modified piece became compensable, the dependence on live performances would diminish in importance.

An example of this was Igor Stravinsky who struggled throughout his composing life to keep changing his works sufficiently every 20 or so years to ensure that his copyrights would be preserved. It is what kept him from having to resort to the kind of mendicant life that most classical artists today must endure.

The ultimate solution for classical artists is to redefine the word "classical" to include works of a more thoughtful nature that are contemporary. This may sound a bit like political correctness, something that I loathe with all of my being, but it is necessary if audience tastes in music are to be shifted forward to accept newer compositional styles. Doing so does not guarantee success. No matter how much one may wish to cram John Cage down my throat, he will never succeed, and for some who find Anton Berg unpalatable, Chopin and his contemporaries will likely remain the only diet he will ever accept. Music is a highly individualistic matter when it comes to preferences, especially music that is to be supported by ticket purchasing patrons, but change has to start somewhere, and the place where it needs to start is in the concert hall and on the composer's desk.


----------



## CaptainAzure

Because they JUST DON'T KNOW!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## kv466

I don't know that they necessarily hate it but rather are ignorant about it. Also, to some it may even seem as if you know something they don't because your mind can appreciate such beauty and they know it so instead of recognizing, they hate and try to make you feel dumb. Eithery way, I think deep down the grand majority of souls that inhabit this Earth know very well the depth and quality of classical even if they'll never sit down to listen to a single piece in it entirety.


----------



## Pieck

After trying to make my friend listen to Mendelssohn's Op. 80 (6th SQ) I understood yesterday that hating classical music has nothing to do with the music itself.
After half a minute she told me she cant get along with CM, so I got a little bit angry, and said it has nothing to do with CM and that piece's saddens is so great, that even THE greatest (The Bach, Mozart, Bee, Schu Wag....) couldnt write. So she ask me if it aint classical, and I say 'No, it's Romantic'. It said nothing to her but it made me understand that the hatred is not connected to the music, or the genre.
Their bias is so strong that they even dont consider there are genres in art music that are miles from each other. They hear a violin and something in their heads makes them reject it. 
If someone would try to make me listen to Metal, and I'd say 'Nah, I cant listen to Pop light ****', I'd be considered kind of stupid, 'What are you talking about?! Metal and Pop is so different, it's not even close!!!' would be a likely answer, and all people would agree with it (Dont reject one genre, because you dont like another).
But now lets I try to make one listen to art music, he listenes to Bach and rejects him very quickly, so I tell him listen to Brahms, and then again he rejects it immediately. Renaissance - again. Stravinsky - again. Shoenberg - agian.
He says he just dont like claassical music. But is Mozart's music close to Stravinsky or Schoenberg or Tallis or Brahms?
It's just has nothing to do with the music, it's the bias they have about some instrumentations.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Romantic Geek said:


> Second: Principal's making $250,000 - and you're complaining about that? So basically, in the best orchestras, you're telling the people who have the absolute best skills in the world that they're relegated to high middle-class rather than upper-class society? For me, that seems completely deranged. If the second bassoonist was making 200k, I'd be furious...but principal's - especially concertmaster deserves that kind of money. If the pay's not there - the musicians will disappear.


Well, I meant cut it _temporarily_. I think it cool that a musician could possibly make more than an engineer, and I would love to have a job like that (however impossible that actually will be). Personally, I would be happy with $100,000, but that's just me.


----------



## science

Romantic Geek said:


> For me, there are two things that really have destroyed classical music.
> 
> First and foremost, the modernist movement spearheaded by the Second Viennese School has a large role in this. If anyone disagrees with me, I think you're conveniently overlooking events that occurred during that time period. In the early 20th century, classical music was still king, but "popular" music began making its rounds. But the matter of the fact is, "popular music" was still notated, and very often required some sort of compositional training - or at least really good intuition. Scott Joplin didn't rake in the dough on the Maple Leaf Rag through concerts!
> 
> However, coincidentally (or not...which is what I believe), as the modernist music grew in the classical world, the popular music world started to explore. All of the sudden, you have composers working in "Tin Pan Alley," most of whom were never trained classically (and some who were notoriously bad musicians, like Irving Berlin.) Sheet music sales skyrocketed (2-3 million pieces of sheet music sold for the biggest hits in TPA, when the American population was around 100 million.) However, the were still plenty of composers doing well in the situation. George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue was a HUGE success. More Romantic composers who lived a bit later, like Rachmaninoff, were also doing just fine. However, the more radical the music, the less the typical consumer was going to the concerts.
> 
> Hell, now they had radio and sheet music of popular Broadway shows, they had discretionary money for instruments like pianos and trumpets and trombones. Jazz exploded as a "taboo" music which still sounded pleasing to most people's ears...and thus why I think jazz's popularity exploded. Then moving into the music of the electronic composers and ultimately those of the concept composers, like John Cage, the connect was completely lost with the general audience.
> 
> I think it's easy to draw the connection, but I'm sure I'll get flack from those who enjoy Schoenberg and Webern and Berio and Stockhausen. Which is great...but remember, most of us here have fond over classical music and some people didn't like that music at first and only now has an appreciation for it. Put yourself in the shoes of a middle class couple in 1950 who has no music training - and tell me that they'd enjoy Berio on the first listen - my bet is...they wouldn't.
> 
> Second! Enough with symphony orchestras playing THE SAME OLD PROGRAMS! Honestly, how many times on earth does a symphony have to play some the standards to death. (I.E. Beethoven 5, 6, + 9, Brahms 4, Any of the Beethoven piano concertos, and so on and so forth.) It's been FOREVER since I've seen a serious program incorporate works of those composers underappreciated who wrote fantastic sounding music for the layman to enjoy! Particularly, no one playing anything American before Charles Ives in concert (save one or two pieces). I have yet to see a major orchestra take on some of the great works of the middle to late-Romantic era pieces composed here in America. Or even the music of forgotten composers who were popular in their heyday (Raff comes to mind as a big one.) There is SO much music out there that I think the common person could really enjoy.
> 
> I also think that composers today will realize that success will come to those who write music that can cross the boundaries of classical and popular music. Avant-garde is not the way to go anymore. (I feel like most of the concept art has been conceptualized already!) Which relates to the earlier posts about John Williams as a classical composer.
> 
> Anyone who doesn't think John Williams is a classical composer is NUTS! He went through the same training most of his contemporaries in classical music did in their studies. Whatever you think of Williams personally, you cannot deny the influence classical repertoire had on his movie scores (Holst's Planets anyone?) But these scores are complex and really have many subtleties...but no one is focusing on that because the fact is, his music is so popular that it must be "bad." This guy is a bonafide classical composer. And if you're going to knock him for being a film composer, you might as well knock Ralph Vaughan Williams and Copland just to name a few of many who have written extensive movie scores in their lifetime!
> 
> The fact is John Williams bridged that gap between classical music and popular music. Everyone knows his name! He's uber rich too! I commend him for what he did - and we as a classical society should thank him. Think about how many people, when they discovered Holst's Planets and thought "this sounds like Star Wars" and then started doing what Williams did in reverse (with the study of repertoire) now enjoy classical music on a larger setting. I can tell you, quite a few of my friends did that!
> 
> Finally, if classical music wants to grow - it needs to go where it can best be supported academically and financially. You may not like the answer - but the future of classical music lies in bands. Yes, the kinds in high school and colleges. The fact is, it's not feasible nor worth any money to compose symphonies and operas. Only a select few composers today can make that stage successfully. However, bands are HUNGRY for new music. And the best part about it - they're more open to newer types of music. Yet, a lot of their repertoire is still very tonal. Kids will keep playing instruments - and with bands...if more beautiful and great music is written for them, then the parents (and the kids!) will gain a greater appreciation of classical music as a whole. Maybe you think I'm crazy...but this is where composers should focus their large repertoires. Not at the orchestra. At bands!
> 
> That's my proposal to fix classical music. A few of my friends here at CCM agree with me. I think it's important to see how we got away from the public and fix it by reversing the damage done by finding our easiest root into the public (which besides movie scores...which I guess are no longer considered classical music would be bands.)


This was a great post.

I will add that this is not something that "happened to" classical music, in which the composers and audience were passive or helpless. We intentionally set ourselves up as an elite minority, so it's no good complaining about our minority status. The modernists were really just an elite minority within the elite minority, the next step in the competitive appreciation arms race. The same thing took place in the other art forms as well: we have _Pierrot Lunaire_, they have _Finnegan's Wake_ and Duchamp's _Fountain_. The rejection of the working class masses was intentional in every case. In fact, the main source fo funding for art in the anti-populist tradition is the university, precisely because it is the traditional gateway to elite cultural status.

What we really need is to relax. It's ok if other people don't like our music. They are under no obligation to like it.

I suspect it will be a good thing for our culture when the artists (and their champions) have lost all sense of entitlement and see themselves again as cratfsmen, answerable both to their inner muse and to the public.

I am personally fed up with the condescending attitude that implies that I have a duty to appreciate some work of art.

I like classical music very much, but I think I don't like many of its fans. The competitive appreciation aspect of it turns me off.


----------



## Argus

I don't like this 'us and them' mindset some people have here. As if classical music and its fans are seperate from music as a whole. (Not necessarily in a negative snobbish way either). There will always be good music being produced, and I don't care whether it is for orchestras or electronics, bands or found objects, or whatever. The key thing people need to do is learn to appreciate music. Not classical music, or rock music, or jazz music, just music. I'm not saying people have to like every kind of music, but they should at least be open minded and think about the bigger picture rather than focussing on just one part of the it.

Romantic Geek - so the 'modernists destroyed classical music' as you say. Maybe it's possible they had a goal other than popularity. Jazz was on the rise across N America and Europe in the first half of the 20thC, by the 50's it had matured and diversified, then rock and roll was forming. Why does music have to be a contest? People hugely enjoyed jazz, R&R, skiffle, then came rock, punk, disco etc. The public was already getting what it wanted from other areas in the musical world, so why should some composers not be allowed to do what they want and cater to the minority of the public who didn't like the popular stuff and wanted something different and esoteric? If anything it created a niche for itself, whilst there nothing against composers making music that can be popular too, e.g. Philip Glass, Arvo Part.

I half agree with the orchestras repertoire point, except they should be replacing the tired classics with works from living composers, who you know need some money to eat and stuff. Playing forgetton Romantic pieces is all well and good for increasing the repertoire but that just seems like your personal preference taking over.

John Williams may be described as a classical composer, but why not describe him as what most people know him as, a film composer. Why do you load the word 'classical' with extra meaning?

To summarise, I don't see the problem with most people hating classical. It's just a name.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Classical is associated with a lot of dubious concepts, like "genius" and "great men", that our information age has largely grown out of. Everyone has skeletons in the closet, everyone has flaws. Many cannot see the human element of classical music because its aura and the culture surrounding it remains so elevated and bourgeois. There's something patently false about that.

On the flip side, whenever some record company marketing genius tries to make Tchaikovsky and Beethoven "down" with the "kids", it's truly embarrassing.


----------



## Tapkaara

It's boring and slow!


----------



## Vazgen

Romantic Geek said:


> For me, there are two things that really have destroyed classical music.
> 
> First and foremost, the modernist movement spearheaded by the Second Viennese School has a large role in this. If anyone disagrees with me, I think you're conveniently overlooking events that occurred during that time period...I think it's easy to draw the connection, but I'm sure I'll get flack from those who enjoy Schoenberg and Webern and Berio and Stockhausen.


The problem with this analysis is that you're telescoping entire decades of music together. Even before WWI, Debussy, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg were making music that spearheaded the revolution in art music. Schoenberg and Webern started composing in the twelve-tone idiom in the Twenties, before Berio and Stockhausen were even born.

In retrospect, the music of Second Viennese School sounds much more traditional than its reputation would suggest. It's hardly what anyone should consider avant-garde music in this day and age. It's a shame that Schoenberg and Webern get lumped in with real avant-garde composers like Stockhausen, instead of being understood in the same musical context as Debussy and Stravinsky.

It's unfortunate enough that listeners dismiss Schoenberg and Webern on the basis of their reputations, instead of realizing that they composed music of great appeal, ingenuity, and emotion. But it's silly to declare that they destroyed classical music.

-Vaz


----------



## kv466

Argus said:


> I don't like this 'us and them' mindset some people have here..


But you do like Us and Them by Floyd, don't you?


----------



## mmsbls

Argus said:


> I half agree with the orchestras repertoire point, except they should be replacing the tired classics with works from living composers, who you know need some money to eat and stuff. Playing forgetton Romantic pieces is all well and good for increasing the repertoire but that just seems like your personal preference taking over.


I agree. Several people on TC have talked about the need to program contemporary music in classical concerts (I am one). This move would help to establish (increase?) a connection between composers and the greater classical music audience. In addition many people (here and outside TC) have said that hearing music played live can help them appreciate a piece.

Given the paucity of contemporary music played these days, composers can't receive much money from live performances. Does anyone have numbers on where composers' salaries come from? I imagine they get very little from Cd sales or internet downloads. How much money can be made from live performances (either from commissions or just played works)? One problem I suppose is that symphonies are rather stretched as it is financially. Is paying to perform living composers works one reason symphonies play very little contemporary music?


----------



## mmsbls

Vazgen said:


> In retrospect, the music of Second Viennese School sounds much more traditional than its reputation would suggest. It's hardly what anyone should consider avant-garde music in this day and age. It's a shame that Schoenberg and Webern get lumped in with real avant-garde composers like Stockhausen, instead of being understood in the same musical context as Debussy and Stravinsky.
> 
> It's unfortunate enough that listeners dismiss Schoenberg and Webern on the basis of their reputations, instead of realizing that they composed music of great appeal, ingenuity, and emotion. But it's silly to declare that they destroyed classical music.
> 
> -Vaz


I asked my daughter (cellist in music school) and wife (former violinist in part-time orchestra) if performers enjoyed playing modern works. My daughter said pretty much no one wants to play composers like Schoenberg, Webern, Xenakis, Cage, Crumb, etc. They want to play more "beautiful" music. My wife also said that as far as she knew no one enjoyed playing most modern pieces. I have read a few places a similar sentiment, but of course, my statistics are quite low. I think the issue here is not that the pieces are "modern", but that they are too removed from what the performers find beautiful or perhaps they are not beautiful enough compared to the music they love.

Interestingly, the composer students adore many modern composers, *and* they find their works beautiful. There is clearly (at least at my daughter's university) a large divide between composition and performance majors.

To those in music school or other performers, do you think this is true of most performers today? Do they essentially not enjoy playing modern (Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, etc. excluded from this) music anywhere near as much as older works? I realize there is a difference between modern and contemporary, and some contemporary composers are nothing like Schoenberg, Crumb, Xenakis, etc. Still if this feeling of vastly preferring tonal / "beautiful"/ perhaps older works significant among performers?

*If* this sense about modern works is truly prevalent amongst performers, I think that would be a real problem.


----------



## Vazgen

mmsbls said:


> I asked my daughter (cellist in music school) and wife (former violinist in part-time orchestra) if performers enjoyed playing modern works. My daughter said pretty much no one wants to play composers like Schoenberg, Webern, Xenakis, Cage, Crumb, etc. They want to play more "beautiful" music. My wife also said that as far as she knew no one enjoyed playing most modern pieces.


I'm not surprised that "modern" works challenge the performer as well as the listener. So the only works that should be played are the ones that don't tax the performers or the listeners?

-Vazgen


----------



## mmsbls

Vazgen said:


> I'm not surprised that "modern" works challenge the performer as well as the listener. So the only works that should be played are the ones that don't tax the performers or the listeners?
> 
> -Vazgen


I don't think it's a question of taxing them. Whether it does or doesn't, if listeners don't like the music, they will not listen to it (attend concerts, buy CDs, or download them). If the number of listeners gets too small, available work for performers, conductors, and composers will lessen or disappear.

People here have suggested playing more modern music would increase listenership. I'm not sure. I would like to think that, but I believe it depends greatly on what music is performed. Too much "difficult" music would almost certainly drive down listenership (IMO).

The performers are an interesting situation. Most art involves one person - the artist. Sculptors, painters, writers produce their art and do not depend on other artists to deliver it to the audience. Composers require (generally) performers to play their works. If performers do not like/appreciate/enjoy composers works, that presumably would be a problem. Simply telling them they have to play it won't change their views on it. Again, I don't know if this view of performers is true in general.


----------



## Vazgen

You appear to be making the same mistake as Romantic Geek, in that you're putting Schoenberg and Webern in the same category as avant-garde composers like Cage and Xenakis. Anyone with some degree of familiarity with the Second Viennese School realizes their work was fairly traditional, with certain exceptions. But people are more used to dismissing it than actually listening to it, so one can hardly be surprised by the frequency with which we hear such opinions presented as fact.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

These are all valid comments about the impoverished state of contemporary music performance and reception. I agree that the 2nd Viennese school of composers should not be confused with Cage, Xenakis, Ligeti, Stockhausen, Ferneyhough etc. But, in time, I feel these latter composers will join "maintstream" to the extent that Schoenberg, Webern and Berg have today. I'm not sure that all musicians dislike performing this music - Brendel, Pollini and many other internationally famous (and very conservative) performers have recorded modern works, especially Pollini. There are plenty of examples, on U-Tube alone, of very talented musicians tackling such works. These works are not particular favourites of mine - with some few exceptions - but in amongst a truckload of compositions there will be some which have an enduring legacy. I suggest that Ligeti is one such composer. I couldn't listen to it for long periods of time, but it does have a place in one's listening psychology.


----------



## mmsbls

Vazgen said:


> You appear to be making the same mistake as Romantic Geek, in that you're putting Schoenberg and Webern in the same category as avant-garde composers like Cage and Xenakis. Anyone with some degree of familiarity with the Second Viennese School realizes their work was fairly traditional, with certain exceptions. But people are more used to dismissing it than actually listening to it, so one can hardly be surprised by the frequency with which we hear such opinions presented as fact.
> 
> -Vaz


I think you are mistaking what I said. I do not believe that Schoenberg and Webern wrote similar music to Cage, Xenakis, and Crumb. That does not matter at all to my point. My understanding from the small sample of performers I know (and performers they know) is that they don't enjoy playing any of those composers. They know that Schoenberg and Webern are different from Cage, Xenakis, and Crumb, but they don't like playing any of them because *they feel* that their music, in general, is not beautiful. What I'm stating is a fact about certain people's tastes rather than an objective assessment of composers music. The only category that matters is the category of music not, in general, liked by performers.

I'm not sure in what sense you say the Second Viennese School is traditional, but again that does not matter. Country music is fairly traditional, but I do not like it. Apparently, the group of performers that my wife and daughter know do not, in general, like music of the Second Viennese School. Since my sample is small, I'm interested in knowing if other performers share this sentiment.


----------



## rdefazio

In my previous posts I have focused on the economics of classical music, and if one were to look at how symphonies operate, most would come to the same conclusions I have about how they work and why they are failing...from an economic point of view. The real issues for me, however, are (1) what "classical music" is supposed to be and (2) why there is such a visceral aversion to it.

I can't say that my definition of classical music is any better than anyone else's. Some want to include Cage and Stockhausen while others call them avante garde. Some want to carve up the music from the late 1600s up to modern times into periods - baroque, classical, romantic, impressionist, etc. One has said that he cannot define classical music but that he knows it when he hears it. I suppose my definition is somewhat process-oriented. I think the difference between classical and non-classical music is analogous to the difference between a college term paper and a text message. One is expansive while the other is condensed. One covers more emotional ground while the other tends to be focused on a single topic or thought. One explores various methods of saying perhaps the same thing while the other perhaps says the same thing using concise musical conventions. It is the difference between reading an essay versus a tweet, an exposition published in a scholarly journal versus graffiti scrawled on a wall. This last sentence is likely a bit pejorative, but I think it carries the flavor of the mutual perceptions of those on either side of the issue when looking at the musical idiom they dislike.

This leads me to the second issue - why people dislike classical music so much. One person in a post said that he thought the reason for the visceral distaste for classical music was the instrumentation, and I think it touches on the hem of the matter, but I think it goes deeper than that. I think that the dislike is so prominent because sometimes large swaths of humanity simply don't like to consider what it is that they do in life. They simply want to do what their urges prod them to do, and they want to do it without much thought behind it. Most people are not self-evaluators: they are actors on autopilot. To spend a great deal of time thinking through their responses to life is not what they are inclined to do, so listening to music that makes them wait to get to its "point" requires them to engage in a more willing form of contemplation about the music and perhaps themselves. This would be in stark contrast to the kind of music that triggers their emotional release mechanisms in other non-symphonic or non-chamber environments.

Have you ever observed how a person walks into a night club and with the first beat of the music that strikes his tympanum begins to wave his hands over his head or starts some form of dance movement when there is yet no one with whom to dance? Have you ever been to the taping of a television show and been "warmed up" by one or more people whose job it is to get the audience psyched up to respond to the live performance? There is an intrinsic need in most to be a part of a group, and the urgency of that need in some demands a quick and powerful stimulus to provoke the seemingly autonomic responses that are so often associated with human behavior at a concert of swing, pop, rock, reggae, grunge, rap, and other forms of non-classical music.

Classical music concerts, on the other hand, seem to provide an entirely different set of stimuli that "work" on a different group of people. A classical concert's dynamic is less prone to accept a person acting out based on a need to express oneself. It is, in fact, its expectation is that one's behavior is to be submerged in deference to the group's need to hear the music. For the classical music lover, the concert ritual (concertmaster's appearance, then tune-up, then the conductor, then the silence, then the music) is part of the anticipated and welcomed experience, much akin to delighting in the fussing that a waiter makes over every little detail before serving one's food in a high end restaurant. (For the classical music hater, the same experience could be frustrating and very much like wanting to grab a Big Mac but being prevented from doing so because the fries aren't up yet.)

Concert conduct further illustrates the point. Whooping in the middle of Barber's _Adagio for Strings_ would be an offense so egregious as to demand one's escort from the theater amid being pelted by finger sandwiches and hors d'oeuvres, yet I could see such happening in the performance of the same piece of music in a high school auditorium filled with excited students tossing paper airplanes who have never heard a single piece of live classical music. The conduct would likely still be disapproved by the majority, but the inclination to do it by some would be irresistible. It is the same phenomenon that one sees when the National Anthem is sung by a country singer at a baseball game. As the phrase, "O'er the land of the free," is sung, some in the audience will break out in applause never once realizing that the entire first verse of this particular piece of music is a question being asked of the hearer by the singer that is not answered until later verses (which are never sung). In essence, the music is an icon of some larger emotion, and when that music is performed, it provokes a specific response. It is not quite at the level of Pavlov's dog, but for some it comes close for many.

It is not a high brow vs. low brow issue, nor is it a matter of rich vs. poor. It is not even a matter of the elite vs. the unwashed masses. Though the latter comparison comes a bit closer, it is not really accurate either. I believe it is more a matter of classical music appealing to people whose personalities tend to be more reflective and more contemplative than to those who spend less time thinking about life and more time living it. Even this seems to be a vast overstatement since I can think of many who love classical music whose lives also reflect a certain lack of forethought, some of them being among the best known classical musicians of all times. Perhaps it is the willingness to be contemplative or the ability to temporarily submerge one's urges for an hour at a time that enables some to pay attention to a slowly developing piece of music and others not to be able to bear it for a second.

What I can say is that one's response to music is visceral. I detest rap, and while some call it music, I call it noise. Others, however, whom I typically see sitting in their cars with their windows down and the volume control set at its maximum would disagree with me. Am I right and the other person wrong, or am I as parochial in my musical tastes as the he is? At the heart of this lies the question as to whether or not there is an objective truth about values that would enable one to say categorically that one form of art represents a higher and better form than another. To assert such would likely touch off a firestorm of clearly divided opinions, and it would be that division itself that would illustrate just how intractable the hating of classical music really is for some.

With all this said and even if we could determine the reason for the musical attention deficit disorder that afflicts the majority of the population with respect to classical music, the survival of art form still comes down to economics and marketing. Finding the people who have not yet encountered it and who would become its future patrons is the job of the classical music industry's marketers, a job they have not done too terribly well to date. The evidence is too massive to deny it. Audiences are declining, funding is disappearing, and there seems to be no new generation with the same determination to preserving it that has yet stepped forth. Classical musicians in well established orchestras are pricing themselves out of a career and forcing ticket prices up at a rate that is much larger than the rate of inflation in other economic sectors. The business model for classical musicians who play for the most part music that is in the public domain is the polar opposite for that of modern music performers whose music is copyrightable and which earns money for the composer every time it is played.

I would like to believe that classical music will survive, and I hope it does, but I don't think it is highly likely unless there is a significantly greater willingness to understand the motivations that people have when they select the music they wish to hear than now exists. What I see now is an eagerness to divide into camps, to put up walls, and to throw stones. Perhaps that is why human society advances so slowly in all other ways as well.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

rdefazio said:


> It is not a high brow vs. low brow issue, nor is it a matter of rich vs. poor. It is not even a matter of the elite vs. the unwashed masses. Though the latter comparison comes a bit closer, it is not really accurate either. I believe it is more a matter of classical music appealing to people whose personalities tend to be more reflective and more contemplative than to those who spend less time thinking about life and more time living it. Even this seems to be a vast overstatement since I can think of many who love classical music whose lives also reflect a certain lack of forethought, some of them being among the best known classical musicians of all times. Perhaps it is the willingness to be contemplative or the ability to temporarily submerge one's urges for an hour at a time that enables some to pay attention to a slowly developing piece of music and others not to be able to bear it for a second.


I liked the entire post, but this part I liked the most. Because classical music is becoming more widespread in more countries because of recordings, it's no longer an issue of a "class" or "society" that would like it. I completely agree that it's a personality thing, as well as an experience thing. And this would be how classical music will live on, if more people simply are exposed to it in various places, there's always a chance it will catch someone's attention because of this inclination to study or contemplate music at a deeper level.


----------



## Vazgen

mmsbls,

Sorry if I misconstrued your point. But it's just that whenever I hear someone make a distinction between "beautiful" and "difficult" music, it always ends up with Schoenberg and Webern getting lumped in with avant-garde noise.

The Second Viennese School always gets a bad rap from people who aren't familiar with their work. Schoenberg, Berg, and Webern were basically Romantic composers to start out with, and composed a lot of emotional work that shouldn't scare away anyone who likes Strauss or Mahler. Their free-atonal period was where they earned their reputation for fearsome creations, but again the common mythology is an oversimplification. For every truly scary piece like _Erwartung _Schoenberg composed in this era, there were plenty of lovely, dramatic works like _Pierrot Lunaire_ and his _String Quartet #2_ with soprano. I consider Webern's _Five Movements Op.5_ the finest work for string quartet of the 20th century; anyone who thinks Webern wasn't emotional should listen to this and his _Six Pieces for Orchestra Op. 6_.

The transition to twelve-tone writing was a return to classicism, and produced works of clarity and beauty as well. Berg's _Lyric Suite_ and _Violin Concerto_ were complex but comprehensible; Schoenberg's _Wind Quintet_ was full of charm, and the masterful _Variations for Orchestra_ was very traditional in form. Despite his reputation for being a mad scientist, Webern's twelve-tone work was all about balance and symmetry, like the kaleidoscopic _Piano Variations_ and the suspenseful _Symphony Op. 21_.

-Vaz


----------



## Romantic Geek

Huilunsoittaja said:


> Well, I meant cut it _temporarily_. I think it cool that a musician could possibly make more than an engineer, and I would love to have a job like that (however impossible that actually will be). Personally, I would be happy with $100,000, but that's just me.


The top 1% of engineers are making way more than the top 1% of musicians. It's unfair to say that the principle of a top orchestra is making more than an engineer in general. You have to compare them on the same level - and for that, I still disagree with your statement.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Argus said:


> I don't like this 'us and them' mindset some people have here. As if classical music and its fans are seperate from music as a whole. (Not necessarily in a negative snobbish way either). There will always be good music being produced, and I don't care whether it is for orchestras or electronics, bands or found objects, or whatever. The key thing people need to do is learn to appreciate music. Not classical music, or rock music, or jazz music, just music. I'm not saying people have to like every kind of music, but they should at least be open minded and think about the bigger picture rather than focussing on just one part of the it.
> 
> Romantic Geek - so the 'modernists destroyed classical music' as you say. Maybe it's possible they had a goal other than popularity. Jazz was on the rise across N America and Europe in the first half of the 20thC, by the 50's it had matured and diversified, then rock and roll was forming. Why does music have to be a contest? People hugely enjoyed jazz, R&R, skiffle, then came rock, punk, disco etc. The public was already getting what it wanted from other areas in the musical world, so why should some composers not be allowed to do what they want and cater to the minority of the public who didn't like the popular stuff and wanted something different and esoteric? If anything it created a niche for itself, whilst there nothing against composers making music that can be popular too, e.g. Philip Glass, Arvo Part.
> 
> I half agree with the orchestras repertoire point, except they should be replacing the tired classics with works from living composers, who you know need some money to eat and stuff. Playing forgetton Romantic pieces is all well and good for increasing the repertoire but that just seems like your personal preference taking over.
> 
> John Williams may be described as a classical composer, but why not describe him as what most people know him as, a film composer. Why do you load the word 'classical' with extra meaning?
> 
> To summarise, I don't see the problem with most people hating classical. It's just a name.


This topic was started as a classical thread, so in that vain, I was trying to be honest. While I applaud your sense of being able to appreciate music for music (as do most of us on here do) there is a general sense that the reverse of the "classical music" crowd do not understand that - and for that reason we have "music appreciation" classes. I think, because of that reason, you're view is a bit jaded. We're beyond music for music's sake - culture has made the division between art music and popular music (and yes...I know there are in betweens)


----------



## Romantic Geek

Vazgen said:


> The problem with this analysis is that you're telescoping entire decades of music together. Even before WWI, Debussy, Stravinsky, and Schoenberg were making music that spearheaded the revolution in art music. Schoenberg and Webern started composing in the twelve-tone idiom in the Twenties, before Berio and Stockhausen were even born.
> 
> In retrospect, the music of Second Viennese School sounds much more traditional than its reputation would suggest. It's hardly what anyone should consider avant-garde music in this day and age. It's a shame that Schoenberg and Webern get lumped in with real avant-garde composers like Stockhausen, instead of being understood in the same musical context as Debussy and Stravinsky.
> 
> It's unfortunate enough that listeners dismiss Schoenberg and Webern on the basis of their reputations, instead of realizing that they composed music of great appeal, ingenuity, and emotion. But it's silly to declare that they destroyed classical music.
> 
> -Vaz


Lol, I know I'm clumping huge bounds of music together. Also, I think you're misunderstand my point. I know the SVS is more traditional - but regardless, the layman cannot make that distinction - and there is our problem. Music written from Mahler until today has become significantly harder to digest. No longer is the music based on schemata and harmonic syntax which we receive through all sorts of different environments we grow up on. Some people can appreciate it from day 1, but the layman has to develop that syntax, where for tonal music...it's already developed and refined.

Schoenberg and Webern were influential composers. But as far as music of "great appeal" - human psychology would beg to differ.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Vazgen said:


> You appear to be making the same mistake as Romantic Geek, in that you're putting Schoenberg and Webern in the same category as avant-garde composers like Cage and Xenakis. Anyone with some degree of familiarity with the Second Viennese School realizes their work was fairly traditional, with certain exceptions. But people are more used to dismissing it than actually listening to it, so one can hardly be surprised by the frequency with which we hear such opinions presented as fact.
> -Vaz


Fairly traditional in what sense? Form - sure. Schoenberg - his compositions sound Romantic. But that's not the point. It all has to do with the human psychology and how we develop our inner ears. I've personally listened to tons of Schoenberg and Webern - but if you ask me what I'd prefer to listen to, I, like the vast majority of people in the West, would pick music from Mozart or Beethoven or Brahms.

We grow up in an environment conducive to learning and internalizing the syntax of tonal music. So yes - I guess if you want to pick apart my argument and say that I'm putting Schoenberg and Cage in the same category...then yes - but it's not of ASSOCIATION but of DISASSOCIATION. The vast majority of the repertoires for those composers is not in an idiom which humans who are raised in the Western world are nurtured to. It's not because they're the same, but because collectively Cage/Xenakis/Schoenberg/and whoever else are different. And that's not the same thing...

It's like all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. I hope you're understanding my point of view.

I'm really taking the road of psychology and physics on this matter - not personal preference.


----------



## Romantic Geek

CountenanceAnglaise said:


> These are all valid comments about the impoverished state of contemporary music performance and reception. I agree that the 2nd Viennese school of composers should not be confused with Cage, Xenakis, Ligeti, Stockhausen, Ferneyhough etc. But, in time, I feel these latter composers will join "maintstream" to the extent that Schoenberg, Webern and Berg have today. I'm not sure that all musicians dislike performing this music - Brendel, Pollini and many other internationally famous (and very conservative) performers have recorded modern works, especially Pollini. There are plenty of examples, on U-Tube alone, of very talented musicians tackling such works. These works are not particular favourites of mine - with some few exceptions - but in amongst a truckload of compositions there will be some which have an enduring legacy. I suggest that Ligeti is one such composer. I couldn't listen to it for long periods of time, but it does have a place in one's listening psychology.


I think you should read the article I posted on my first post in this thread. I think it will contest the idea that Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg are in the "mainstream." The idea that we still have to give a long explanation prefacing an early Schoenberg atonal work that's 100 years old defeats the idea of that piece being "mainstream." Maybe to us heavy classical listeners, yes...he's mainstream...but that's not mainstream to the common person. And the fact that Beethoven became mainstream almost instantly makes me think that Schoenberg, Webern, and Berg have watched their torch go out in terms of becoming "mainstream" to the masses.


----------



## Vazgen

Romantic Geek said:


> I'm really taking the road of psychology and physics on this matter - not personal preference.


Oh, right, it's a matter of _hard science_, not your personal prejudices. Nothing could be more obvious.

-Vaz


----------



## Vazgen

Romantic Geek said:


> It all has to do with the human psychology and how we develop our inner ears.


Nothing amuses me more than hearing pseudoscientific rationales for someone's taste in music. But the notion that the popularity of the Second Viennese School should be judged on the same historical basis as Beethoven comes close.

Concerning the lack of popularity of the SVS, I don't think arguments based on cognitive science hold as much weight as ones that focus on cultural factors. Audiences have internalized Debussy and Stravinsky just fine, because their works have been played much more often. It has nothing to do with the technical tonal structure of the music, it has to do with plain old familiarity. You've already said you resent Schoenberg being worshipped as some sort of Modernist god, so there's obviously a lot more than music at stake here. Though it may afford you a schoolboy thrill to accuse Schoenberg, et. al., of composing forgettable works and destroying classical music (and to cite bigoted music critics to reinforce your opinion), you're being outrageously unfair to some extremely enjoyable music.

-Vaz


----------



## Guest

I actually agree with much of what you've said Vazgen - though I don't think suggesting to somebody that an opinion may "afford you a schoolboy thrill" is edifying argument. Just use good old-fashioned, reasoned argument and this will carry the day. Too much of what passes for debate on the internet is merely egotism, vanity, sarcasm and bullying in thin disguise. People use the cloak of anonymity to say to people what they would never dare to verbalize to their faces. A good principle regarding internet discussions is to ask yourself whether you would say that same thing to somebody face to face. 

I'm reading a book on Alban Berg, as I've only become recently interested in the 2nd Viennese School. I heard the Berliner Philharmoniker play Berg's Three Orchestral Pieces last year and I was blown away by the work and a lot of this had to do with the phenomenal playing and musicianship of the BPO and Rattle. They "sold" it to me!! The book I'm reading actually places Alban Berg front and centre in the 2nd Viennese School. But, I do take your point about the music being very romantic - that it most certainly is, particularly Webern IMHO. But I cannot tolerate Pierrot Lunaire or Erwatung and the 'sprechstimme' idiom. There's something faux about it, sorry. I appreciated your earlier comments about the generic confusion, too, between 2VS and avant-gardism. Also, when you refer to "the masses", I think this anathema to western art music anyway - this music was never intended for the consumption of "the masses". If this sounds vaguely snobbish, it isn't meant to be - I merely suggest that composers were writing for the cognoscenti, not mass audiences.


----------



## mmsbls

To me these issues are fascinating, and I do not believe I understand them fully. There are 2 questions:

1) Is it true that the _general_ listening audience does not like the SVS music?

No one I know likes the SVS music (relatively small sample). They are *never* played on classical radio stations I listen to. From my cursory exploration, these works are very rarely played by live ensembles. Many other works from the same period are played live and on the radio (Debussy, Ravel, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, etc.). Based on discussions like this one on TC it would appear that even those who do like the music seem to feel many others do not. It seems to me that the _general_ listening audience probably does not much like this music.

2) If so, is it primarily due to lack of exposure, or is it because the music is in some way inherently difficult to understand/enjoy?

Certainly the SVS works have significantly less exposure. That certainly is not because they are new - many are or are approaching 100 years old. I have listened quite often to Schoenberg in the past year or so. While I do not have the same reaction as I first did, I still would say I do not enjoy the music. I enjoyed Mahler, Wagner, and Strauss immediately. I understand that one hears music throughout one's life, and is influenced by music on TV, movies, etc. so I could have heard music similar to those composers without directly listening to them. If people have been exposed to Mahler, Wagner, and Strauss by society, why have they not been exposed to the SVS?

My current best guess is that the SVS is not easy to enjoy and probably takes significant effort by *most* listeners, and perhaps many will never be able to enjoy these works remotely as much as more accessible (I know this is a loaded word) works. In other words cultural factors have a smaller impact on this question than inherent features of the works.



Vazgen said:


> Nothing amuses me more than hearing pseudoscientific rationales for someone's taste in music. But the notion that the popularity of the Second Viennese School should be judged on the same historical basis as Beethoven comes close.


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. How can popularity be judged on anything other than the number if listeners who enjoy the works? Works are popular if many people enjoy them. Note that this is true whether people have heard those works or not. If no one has heard a work, it is by definition not popular.



Vazgen said:


> you're being outrageously unfair to some extremely enjoyable music.
> -Vaz


You obviously love the SVS works. Did you struggle and listen many, many times to these works before you began to like them? If you did, it would seem that gives evidence to the view that the works are hard to enjoy. If you did not, why do you think many others have so much trouble, but you did not?

Is it possible that the works of the SVS are intrinsically harder for people to understand/appreciate/enjoy and that just exposure itself is not enough to overcome that added complexity (difficult features?) for the average person?

I have a strong desire to learn to like the modern works (not just SVS) that I currently do not. I think it may be easier to like the SVS than avant-garde composers, but the jury is still out on whether I'll be successful.


----------



## Argus

Firstly, I do not like like the music of the SVS. I find their music for the most part stiff, square and unenjoyable. 

I can say I have heard their music played on Radio 3 on numerous occasions. I don't find it inaccessible or hard to get at all, if anything it's too traditional and close to borelords like Mahler. Varese, Cowell, Partch, Cage and some others were all creating more interesting music to me at that time. These seem to be beyond the cutoff point for most mainstream classical radio except for specific programmes.

Taste is too complex a subject to tackle here, but familiarity, from a young age especially, will definitely play a part to some people. To others, like me, familiarity can get boring and I like the sensation of hearing new different music.


----------



## tdc

When I first began exploring 'classical' music I honestly found the music of the SVS to sound very good, unique and intriguing. I came across some Schoenberg on youtube one day, liked what I heard, and immediately went out and purchased some of his music, thinking here was quite a unique composer with some intriguing artistic statements, since then I've gone on to explore the music of Webern and Berg, and have enjoyed them as well. It wasn't until I came to this forum that I discovered there was a bit of a divide with these composers. 

I also enjoy many modern composers who compose in a more traditional style, and in no way do I think that 'tonal' systems of music are outdated, I actually just enjoy both forms of musical expression. 

So for myself I never had to 'try' to like the music of these composers, and I think there are many other people out there who probably also could appreciate this music on first listen. The fact is the music of the SVS gets practically no support from the media right now, so it is hard to place the blame on this style of music for classical music's current state of popularity as most people don't really even know anything about this music, due to lack of exposure to it. But I just wanted to chime in and say that I enjoyed this music right away without having to 'try' so from my view I feel there certainly must be others out there who would enjoy it as well - not as a reaction against anything else, not necessarily better or worse than other forms of music. Just something to be enjoyed on its own terms as good music.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Vazgen said:


> Nothing amuses me more than hearing pseudoscientific rationales for someone's taste in music. But the notion that the popularity of the Second Viennese School should be judged on the same historical basis as Beethoven comes close.
> 
> Concerning the lack of popularity of the SVS, I don't think arguments based on cognitive science hold as much weight as ones that focus on cultural factors. Audiences have internalized Debussy and Stravinsky just fine, because their works have been played much more often. It has nothing to do with the technical tonal structure of the music, it has to do with plain old familiarity. You've already said you resent Schoenberg being worshipped as some sort of Modernist god, so there's obviously a lot more than music at stake here. Though it may afford you a schoolboy thrill to accuse Schoenberg, et. al., of composing forgettable works and destroying classical music (and to cite bigoted music critics to reinforce your opinion), you're being outrageously unfair to some extremely enjoyable music.
> 
> -Vaz


There's nothing pseduoscientific about the study of music cognition and music psychology - both which are advanced degree opportunities in America. In fact, University of Chicago's music theory program is almost entirely based on the study of music cognition. Same with Ohio State.

There's not much debate that people who grow up in the West are more accustomed to and more likely to prefer tonality. It pervades everything we encounter - TV ads, radio jingles, pop songs, national anthems, etc. What really helps demonstrate this though is that those who live in African societies where their music is based on complex rhythmic patterns, which are very difficult to understand and internalize in the Western world, is almost second nature to those who grow up with that type of music around them.

If people grew up listening only to twelve-tone and serialist music, they would consider that normal. Or let's say that a child grew up in a world only hearing just temperament. The music we have today based on well temperament would sound incredibly bad. So I know you're saying that cognitive science doesn't hold as much weight as cultural factors - but you have to realize that it's the cultural factors which drive the cognition of what we understand.

Audiences have internalized Debussy and Stravinsky because for the most part, they're work is masked well as tonality. For Debussy, the use of modes is something we encounter a lot in pop - and especially planing technique, which is pervasive in rock music as power chords. Stravinsky's use of dual tonalities is still comprehensible. Is't mchu lkie hwo oru brian cna fnuctoin redaign tihs snetnece bceuase all teh frist lttesrs aer in teh rghit sopt adn all teh lttesrs aer in echa wrdo. And of course Stravinsky's neoclassicalism is very understandable because of many obvious reasons.

Now - I'm not sure where you're pulling this idea that I said that I resent Schoenberg being worshipped as a modernist god - I certainly didn't phrase it like that. I think you're misunderstand me if you're paraphrasing. I think Schoenberg's music is interesting to look at - especially as a theorist - but my ear still drives me nuts when I listen to it. I'm not one to make a quick opinion about the music I dislike - so I hope you realize that my judgement has been a while in the making. Actually, the first time I listened to Schoenberg ever, I thought it was interesting. But over time, that diminished on me.

Also - I love how you take a shot at the music critics I cited. Let me remind you that article was written in 2003 - and today in 2011 alone, we've seen the Syracuse and the Philadelphia Orchestras go bankrupt. You can call them bigoted - but to me, they're prophets. They saw this coming. And if you're going to criticize just those two examples, maybe you should investigate the other symphony orchestras around the country. A lot of them are hurting...and hurting bad.


----------



## Romantic Geek

tdc said:


> When I first began exploring 'classical' music I honestly found the music of the SVS to sound very good, unique and intriguing. I came across some Schoenberg on youtube one day, liked what I heard, and immediately went out and purchased some of his music, thinking here was quite a unique composer with some intriguing artistic statements, since then I've gone on to explore the music of Webern and Berg, and have enjoyed them as well. It wasn't until I came to this forum that I discovered there was a bit of a divide with these composers.
> 
> So for myself I never had to 'try' to like the music of these composers, and I think there are many other people out there who probably also could appreciate this music on first listen. The fact is the music of the SVS gets practically no support from the media right now, so it is hard to place the blame on this style of music for classical music's current state of popularity as most people don't really even know anything about this music, due to lack of exposure to it. But I just wanted to chime in and say that I enjoyed this music right away without having to 'try' so from my view I feel there certainly must be others out there who would enjoy it as well - not as a reaction against anything else, not necessarily better or worse than other forms of music. Just something to be enjoyed on its own terms as good music.


Certainly an honorable opinion. I definitely was warm to my first receptions of post-tonal music. My opinions have since changed, but I've been where you've been before and I know that feeling.

I think people just get too caught up in the idea that tonality was exhausted. Tonality is not exhaustive - and I think the minimalists like John Adams really put a good perspective on that after the music from experimental music from 1900-1960.
I also enjoy many modern composers who compose in a more traditional style, and in no way do I think that 'tonal' systems of music are outdated, I actually just enjoy both forms of musical expression.


----------



## Vazgen

Romantic Geek said:


> There's not much debate that people who grow up in the West are more accustomed to and more likely to prefer tonality. It pervades everything we encounter - TV ads, radio jingles, pop songs, national anthems, etc.


I'm not sure why this necessarily means that audiences can't appreciate nontonal music. If art music doesn't sound like pop songs, we should reject it?



> Now - I'm not sure where you're pulling this idea that I said that I resent Schoenberg being worshipped as a modernist god - I certainly didn't phrase it like that.


In the "Top 20 Composers" thread, you said: 
_
Schoenberg's music isn't worth 2 cents in my opinion. Overglorified crap._

_I'm not a 100% hater on Schoenberg. But I hate people who put him on the pedestal as all that's great with modern music. The fact is, he wasn't that special._

Are we supposed to read claims like this and believe you're being objective about the matter of this well-regarded composer and his work? The kindest thing I can say about such comments is that you're entitled to your opinion.



> Also - I love how you take a shot at the music critics I cited. Let me remind you that article was written in 2003 - and today in 2011 alone, we've seen the Syracuse and the Philadelphia Orchestras go bankrupt. You can call them bigoted - but to me, they're prophets. They saw this coming. And if you're going to criticize just those two examples, maybe you should investigate the other symphony orchestras around the country. A lot of them are hurting...and hurting bad.


But blaming modernist composers for the economic woes of orchestras is misguided. There's a lot to be said about classical music's decline in the twentieth century, when it was made to compete with the suddenly-lucrative pop music industry and turned into a museum. You're entitled to believe that the audience's dislike of modernist works was the death knell of the symphony orchestra, but the reality is that the way the industry has lost relevance by pandering to the audience's nostalgia is a much more likely cause of death.

-Vaz


----------



## jackstein

It's not that they hate it exactly, it's just they haven't learned to appreciate it. Classical has a sound to it that has to be acquired before it can be truly enjoyed. It's like giving a child an expensive wine and telling him to down a few glasses; of course they're going to find it repulsive at first but wait for them to mature, give it to them in small doses, teach them to swirl it, etc. and then they'll be able to enjoy it.


----------



## Romantic Geek

Vazgen said:


> I'm not sure why this necessarily means that audiences can't appreciate nontonal music. If art music doesn't sound like pop songs, we should reject it?
> 
> In the "Top 20 Composers" thread, you said:
> _
> Schoenberg's music isn't worth 2 cents in my opinion. Overglorified crap._
> 
> _I'm not a 100% hater on Schoenberg. But I hate people who put him on the pedestal as all that's great with modern music. The fact is, he wasn't that special._
> 
> Are we supposed to read claims like this and believe you're being objective about the matter of this well-regarded composer and his work? The kindest thing I can say about such comments is that you're entitled to your opinion.
> 
> But blaming modernist composers for the economic woes of orchestras is misguided. There's a lot to be said about classical music's decline in the twentieth century, when it was made to compete with the suddenly-lucrative pop music industry and turned into a museum. You're entitled to believe that the audience's dislike of modernist works was the death knell of the symphony orchestra, but the reality is that the way the industry has lost relevance by pandering to the audience's nostalgia is a much more likely cause of death.
> 
> -Vaz


What the poster above me said. It's not that they are predispositioned to hate modern music - it's just that they have to learn to appreciate it. It doesn't come naturally to most. I was hoping you could make that connection yourself...but there, explicitly stated.

Yes - I did post that about Schoenberg. See, I have a love-hate relationship with Schoenberg. He was one of the greatest theorists and has come up with one of the most valid methods of analyzing tonal and atonal music (which is grossly underutilized) - his concept of _Grundgestalt._ Now as a composer, Schoenberg's music is exactly what I said above. See, Schoenberg is a bleeding Romantic. Yet, he had to "invent" a new system to keep the German tradition alive. He saw himself as the future of music, and really...in a way, restricted a lot of innovation and was very despotic about his place in music. Of the three in the SVS - it's Schoenberg who I hate the most. But don't turn that into me hating the SVS. I love Berg because he was the anti-Schoenberg by including references to tonality in his music. Berg's music is just easier to listen to in the SVS and it is as complex as Schoenberg's. And I love Webern. He's the hyper-Schoenberg. If there was someone to point as the next person in the great line of German composers, it would be Webern, not Schoenberg. Webern did everything better than Schoenberg - in every single aspect. His music is revolutionary! And I think the fact that his complete works can fit on 2 CDs attests to his diligence in his composition.

See, I think Schoenberg should be a footnote in the composition world. Instead, he's the front page of modernism. And he should be one the front page as a theorist, and not a footnote (well he's not a footnote, but a small paragraph.)

But I am not misguided for blaming modernist music for the demise of orchestras. Have you ever thought back to the point of why there was a divide between "popular" music and "classical" - you know, back in the day, they were synonymous with each other. If you haven't yet, you should read Schoenberg's _Style and Idea._ I think it's a brilliant book - but one thing you'll pick up on very quickly, Schoenberg viewed classical music as an art that only the elite of the elite could truly appreciate.

Now, maybe you're thinking that I'm putting all of the blame on modernist music, which is not the case if you look at my OP. It would be stupid to not factor in many other things, like poor programming and poor fundraising and the changing global economy - or maybe the fact that Mahler wrote 2 hour long symphonies and Wagner wrote 4-5 hour long operas! Certainly at least public interest probably starting shifting then (but don't you think when we moved from tonality to modernism, there was the idea of "you're replacing this with that?"...it's like if you went to a restaurant and wanted only Budweiser...but they only had Coors Light...and then they changed up their beer menu to be only Natty Ice. Lol)

Trust me - there is a lot of blame to go around - but I think modernist music does have a significant role (among other factors) to the general misconceptions of classical music today. I think this is hard to swallow for anyone who is a die-hard modernist...but there are plenty of scholarly sources (that even come from some of these people mentioned...like the one above) that really shed light on the subject.

If you haven't read _Style and Idea_, please do it. Let me know what you think about the chapter on Opera and Film...


----------



## Vazgen

Romantic Geek said:


> I think modernist music does have a significant role (among other factors) to the general misconceptions of classical music today. I think this is hard to swallow for anyone who is a die-hard modernist...but there are plenty of scholarly sources (that even come from some of these people mentioned...like the one above) that really shed light on the subject.


 No, you've just made modernism the convenient scapegoat for the financial problems in the classical music industry today, because you personally dislike Schoenberg's music. And your "scholarly sources" are just people who happen to share your prejudices and reinforce your misguided analyses.

The notion that modernism was a major factor in the destruction of the classical music industry is bigoted bluehair rhetoric, nothing more.

-Vaz


----------



## Romantic Geek

Vazgen said:


> No, you've just made modernism the convenient scapegoat for the financial problems in the classical music industry today, because you personally dislike Schoenberg's music. And your "scholarly sources" are just people who happen to share your prejudices and reinforce your misguided analyses.
> 
> The notion that modernism was a major factor in the destruction of the classical music industry is bigoted bluehair rhetoric, nothing more.
> 
> -Vaz


So I guess Schoenberg just likes sharing his prejudices and reinforces my misguided analyses?

You stopped reading my posts because you just don't want to agree, even slightly, with what I say because you think I hate all modern music which is _so far from the truth..._


----------



## Vazgen

Romantic Geek said:


> So I guess Schoenberg just likes sharing his prejudices and reinforces my misguided analyses?
> 
> You stopped reading my posts because you just don't want to agree, even slightly, with what I say because you think I hate all modern music which is _so far from the truth..._


I never said you hate all modern music. I only ever pointed out the bizarre hatred you display for Schoenberg, and wonder whether it demonstrates a lack of objectivity in the matter of the current state of the classical music industry. You even made the odd claim that Schoenberg somehow created the divide between pop music and classical. I apologize for not simply accepting claims like this at face value.

You originally declared that this wasn't about your personal dislike of Schoenberg (and his school of Modernism that has destroyed classical music), it was about psychology and physics. I've already stated that I think the business plan of contemporary orchestras and broadcasters (i.e. pander to the audience's nostalgia and conservatism by becoming a museum) has brought about the ruin of the industry. But I'd love to hear you expand upon this notion that audiences have become cognitively unable to process the weird new sounds of contemporary composers.

If that's not what you meant, what did you mean?

-Vaz


----------



## Romantic Geek

It's not that they're cognitively unable - it's that there's a level of learning which needs to be done. It's just like if a child isn't exposed to multiple languages when growing up, they have to have a significant learning process to become bilingual. If people aren't introduced to works of post-tonality at a young age, there is that learning gap to understand the syntax behind the music. It comes easier to some than others.

This really isn't disputed at all in the music cognition world. It's just a matter of how brains work.


----------



## Vazgen

Romantic Geek said:


> If people aren't introduced to works of post-tonality at a young age, there is that learning gap to understand the syntax behind the music. It comes easier to some than others.


This seems like a pretty equivocal bit of evidence to use to support your claim that the shift away from tonality somehow _decimated the classical music industry_. Audiences couldn't put in a little effort to relate to a new musical language? Audiences shouldn't be challenged, ever? It's too much to expect that listeners meet a composer halfway?

Your appeal to _human psychology and physics_ doesn't seem as persuasive as you make it sound.

-Vaz


----------



## Romantic Geek

Maybe to you, but to the rest of the board here who have trouble "warming up" to post-tonal music may agree with me. I get it - you gun-ho about post-tonal music, but the majority of people are not. And this is a scientific reason why.

It's not science causing people to not like it - it's just science offering a strong hypothesis of why people don't like it. As far as audiences putting in effort - that goes to each individual listener - but in a world of diminishing attention spans, I'd say yes - it is a little much to expect a listener to meet a composer halfway in this world, today.


----------



## Vazgen

Romantic Geek said:


> Maybe to you, but to the rest of the board here who have trouble "warming up" to post-tonal music may agree with me. I get it - you gun-ho about post-tonal music, but the majority of people are not. And this is a scientific reason why.


All you seem to have is an excuse for refusing to make even a modicum of effort to appreciate post-tonal music. Calling it "scientific" is still pretty comical.

And it's not that I'm only interested in nontonal music. I love Bach, Beethoven, and Schubert. I'm just not convinced that there's a magic dividing line after Mahler (as you suggest) after which music takes superhuman effort to appreciate. I approach the Second Viennese School the same way I do Beethoven: by listening intently.



> As far as audiences putting in effort - that goes to each individual listener - but in a world of diminishing attention spans, I'd say yes - it is a little much to expect a listener to meet a composer halfway in this world, today.


Okay. So we've established that audiences should resent any music that could be construed as challenging, and concoct pseudoscientific rationalizations for dismissing it.

How very open-minded.

-Vaz


----------



## samurai

Just to put a little different spin or emphasis on the original question posed by this thread vis a vis people "hating classical music". This is coming from a non-musician who was raised from earliest childhood in a household which played only classical music to the exclusion of all other genres. As part of my rebellion against what I saw at the time as my father's unwillingness to accept any other forms of music, I quite deliberately and aggressively sought out other music {jazz, prog rock} in order to demonstrate to him that other music has intrinsic worth and value as well. Largely unsuccessful--I might add--in that quest. I thought I had him with some elegiac Emerson Lake and Palmer from _Tarkus,_ but he never asked to hear them again. 
I think the point I am trying to make is that--unlike myself--who was exposed to classical music from the time I was a baby, most people are probably unfamiliar with it and its many beautiful and intriguing aspects. So, too, I think many of them regard it as "high-brow", arcane and something only the wealthy are meant to understood and enjoy. 
To my understanding then, it is less an issue of "hating" as much as being unfamiliar--and thus uncomfortable--with somthing unknown to them. It is only now--as I approach my 60th year on this earth--that I have suddenly developed a most ravenous appetite for classical music. I am like the kid in the proverbial candy store who can't wait to try the next treat; indeed, now I am borrowing from my father's vast cd collection, and having interesting and exciting conversations with him about works and composers in which I have become interested. Each listening experience has become a journey of discovery for me. Not that I enjoy everything--that's probably impossible--but I am willing to open myself up and try. 
Again, perhaps using my personal experience as a template for other people is a mistake, but I still maintain that classical music is not so much hated, but feared for being "the unknown." I have come to it of my own volition, not because I was supposed to or had to.And this-- IMHO--makes all the difference in the world.


----------



## mmsbls

Vazgen said:


> I'm just not convinced that there's a magic dividing line after Mahler (as you suggest) after which music takes superhuman effort to appreciate. I approach the Second Viennese School the same way I do Beethoven: by listening intently.
> 
> Okay. So we've established that audiences should resent any music that could be construed as challenging, and concoct pseudoscientific rationalizations for dismissing it.
> 
> How very open-minded.
> 
> -Vaz


You may approach all music by listening intently, and you may not have trouble appreciating modern music. I would be shocked to find that even a majority of classical music listeners approach music by listening intently. I think most people listen for pleasure, and do not work at it (just as they do not work at other pleasurable things - books, vacations, parties).

I don't think audiences resent difficult music. I think they just don't like it as much as music that they can appreciate easily. You seem to feel that people ought to work at music especially if they don't appreciate it. Why? If people can adore classical music from the Baroque through the Romantic period without working hard or at all, why ought they work hard at appreciating modern music?

I have tried to understand modern (difficult) music, but so far, I still do not enjoy that vast majority of it. I continue to try, but I don't see why others ought to do so as well.


----------



## Vazgen

mmsbls said:


> You may approach all music by listening intently, and you may not have trouble appreciating modern music. I would be shocked to find that even a majority of classical music listeners approach music by listening intently. I think most people listen for pleasure, and do not work at it (just as they do not work at other pleasurable things - books, vacations, parties).


By all means, people should listen to whatever they want, for whatever reason they want.

Let's just be honest about it. Audiences at classical music concerts hear virtually nothing that isn't some familiar selection from a familiar composer. Commercial broadcasters play basically the same repertoire. Recorded media sales are overwhelmingly geared toward the same old standards. As Romantic Geek said in his manifesto, a reliance on a narrowly-defined standard repertoire is making the classical music industry less relevant with each passing year.

However, your opinion (and, paradoxically, that of Romantic Geek) is that expecting the audience to go outside its comfort zone is unacceptable. Listeners shouldn't have to put in a modicum of effort to appreciate unfamiliar music, or be challenged in any way. Isn't this exactly the notion that caused this dire situation in the first place?

I love Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Strauss, and Mahler. I'd never want their music to go away. But I'm at a loss to understand why listeners get to refuse to listen to modern composers alongside the masters. The notion that people intelligent enough to appreciate Beethoven can't understand new music (and need to dismiss it as "crap" or concoct weird pseudoscientific excuses for avoiding it) is insulting. I can't relate to an audience that expects to be pandered to, and never challenged.



> If people can adore classical music from the Baroque through the Romantic period without working hard or at all, why ought they work hard at appreciating modern music?


No one says they need to "work hard," they should just listen. You don't actually consider _listening without prejudice_ hard work, do you?

-Vaz


----------



## mmsbls

Vazgen said:


> Let's just be honest about it. Audiences at classical music concerts hear virtually nothing that isn't some familiar selection from a familiar composer. Commercial broadcasters play basically the same repertoire. Recorded media sales are overwhelmingly geared toward the same old standards. As Romantic Geek said in his manifesto, a reliance on a narrowly-defined standard repertoire is making the classical music industry less relevant with each passing year.


I agree wholeheartedly with this. I think it is critical that contemporary composers have a closer link with the greater classical listening audience.



Vazgen said:


> However, your opinion (and, paradoxically, that of Romantic Geek) is that expecting the audience to go outside its comfort zone is unacceptable. Listeners shouldn't have to put in a modicum of effort to appreciate unfamiliar music, or be challenged in any way. Isn't this exactly the notion that caused this dire situation in the first place?


I believe it would be useful/beneficial for listeners to put some effort into listening. People simply don't do that in general. If new, better cars were marketed that required owners to learn significantly about how to operate the vehicle, I think those vehicles would have poor sales. If new TV shows were broadcast in a different language, most viewers would not watch them. Consumers don't want to work to appreciate what they consume (music in this case).



Vazgen said:


> I love Bach, Beethoven, Schubert, Strauss, and Mahler. I'd never want their music to go away. But I'm at a loss to understand why listeners get to refuse to listen to modern composers alongside the masters. The notion that people intelligent enough to appreciate Beethoven can't understand new music (and need to dismiss it as "crap" or concoct weird pseudoscientific excuses for avoiding it) is insulting. I can't relate to an audience that expects to be pandered to, and never challenged.
> 
> No one says they need to "work hard," they should just listen. You don't actually consider _listening without prejudice_ hard work, do you?
> -Vaz


Consumers always get to refuse[/I] to purchase products. Unless we live in a totalitarian state, that's the way the world works. Products that don't give people what they want sell less.

Depending on exactly what you mean, "listening without prejudice" is either impossible, definitely hard work, or not good enough to get the average listener to enjoy much modern music.

As far as I can tell, I am exactly the kind of person you think a classical listener should be. I very much want to enjoy modern music. I have listened to an enormous amount of modern music in the past year. I joined TC explicitly to "learn" how to better appreciate modern music through understanding more about it, getting exposed to more modern music, and finding out how others began to better appreciate it. The bottom line is that I still do not enjoy the vast majority of Schoenberg, Berg, Xenakis, Cage, Crumb, etc. I believe I have made progress and do enjoy much more modern music (the vast majority is what I would call neo-romantic), but enjoying music farther removed from what I presently enjoy has mostly eluded me.

Because you like modern music, you seem to assume others should just be open to it, and they will enjoy it like you. I think the reality is that some will enjoy it, but the majority will either not work to like it or will work but not end up liking it (or at least much of it). I wish it were as easy as you seem to believe it is. I would love to find a way to appreciate much more modern music, but so far I not not found that way.


----------



## Vazgen

mmsbls said:


> Consumers don't want to work to appreciate what they consume (music in this case).
> 
> Consumers always _get to refuse_ to purchase products. Unless we live in a totalitarian state, that's the way the world works. Products that don't give people what they want sell less.


How interesting that the appreciation of art music is nothing more spiritual than _consumption _for you. That certainly clarifies the difference between the way you approach art and the way I do.

I don't think it's being fair to Bach or Beethoven to reduce the fruits of their musical gifts to mere _product_. And it's certainly not fair to many sincere, talented composers whose work isn't considered "marketable" to an audience with so little artistic imagination.

-Vaz


----------



## mmsbls

Vazgen said:


> How interesting that the appreciation of art music is nothing more spiritual than _consumption _for you. That certainly clarifies the difference between the way you approach art and the way I do.
> 
> I don't think it's being fair to Bach or Beethoven to reduce the fruits of their musical gifts to mere _product_. And it's certainly not fair to many sincere, talented composers whose work isn't considered "marketable" to an audience with so little artistic imagination.
> 
> -Vaz


Well, it's clear that we are arguing vastly different things here. Based on my previous post, I obviously do not view music appreciation as mere consumption. I have spent too much time, gone too far out of my way, and worked too hard trying to understand and appreciate modern music. No one would do that simply to buy things. Clearly I, personally, in no way view modern music (or any classical music) as a simple consumer product.

Having said that, I think it is useful to view the *average* classical music listener as a consumer of classical music. I do not think the average listener works anywhere near as hard as I have to try to expand their classical music listening experience. If they do not enjoy something, I think they move on. Obviously I could be wrong.

I don't understand what fairness has to do with whether people enjoy modern music or whether they should work to enjoy it. Beethoven, Schoenberg, Crumb, and others are/were talented, hard-working composers who produced works that many find interesting and enjoyable. *If* it is true that most listeners do not appreciate Schoenberg, Crumb, and other modern composers, that is simply a fact. Fairness is not an issue. *If* it is true that most listeners are not willing to work to appreciate Schoenberg, Crumb, and other modern composers, that is also simply a fact. Fairness is not an issue here as well.

As I said, I don't think we are discussing the same issues. Probably we should move on.


----------



## mmsbls

@Vazgen: Given your enjoyment of modern composers, I would greatly appreciate any contribution to the thread Exploring Modern and Contemporary Music (http://www.talkclassical.com/11807-exploring-modern-contemporary-music.html).


----------



## Vazgen

mmsbls said:


> I don't think we are discussing the same issues. Probably we should move on.


Fair enough. It's just that every time I read someone's blanket condemnation of "all music after 1900" or his excuse for not appreciating modern or "difficult" music, I can't help but think of my kids refusing to eat Brussels sprouts.

-Vaz


----------



## Romantic Geek

Vazgen said:


> Fair enough. It's just that every time I read someone's blanket condemnation of "all music after 1900" or his excuse for not appreciating modern or "difficult" music, I can't help but think of my kids refusing to eat Brussels sprouts.
> 
> -Vaz


Except Vaz, you continue to ignore my statements which are beyond a blanket condemnation of music after 1900 and also the fact that I never said it was *unacceptable* for audiences to be challenged.

First, there are plenty of composers I love listening to that wrote the majority of their content after 1900. I don't care to list them all, but they are there and well represented.

Second, of course it's acceptable for audiences to be challenged. I merely said that should you expect that audiences want to be challenged - and I said no. Acceptable, expected - sound similar, two entirely different meanings. I think mmsbls is right - you're really talking about two different things, which is what I've been trying to point out, but alas I feel like I've fallen on deaf ears.

I'm done talking about this. I think it would be good to reread the OP to see the issue at hand and what I mentioned was one facet of the OP (and if you can't remember it's only one facet of my approach, reread my OP.)


----------



## Curiosity

Simply put, because most people are thick. They treat music as nothing more than a background noise to accompany them while sitting at an office desk or having a crap. They lack the attention span or cognitive capability to appreciate music of any depth or substance. They cannot relate to music that doesn't have an overt message repeated in annoyingly simple lyrical terms ad nauseum. They can't be bothered with music that doesn't have a specific, defined image or subculture associated with it. I don't think it's entirely to do with upbringing/education and I'm not sure much can be done about it, to be honest. My opinion is that your innate intelligence has alot to do with whether you will ever be able to enjoy classical or not.

For example, I grew up in an extremely working class household on a council estate. Music was rarely heard in our household, and when it was it was my brothers rap and garage, or my mothers country or southern gospel music. I was never educated in music theory or appreciation and I dropped out of school when I was 11. Logically I should be listening to what the other people who come from circumstances akin to mine are into. That's what all of my siblings do. In my early teens I did listen to a plethora of popular music but I knew I wanted more than what The Beatles or Guns N' Roses could offer me. It took me a long time and a lot of effort to come upon the realisation that classical music had so much more to offer. And I think that to understand classical music you need to have that attitude of wanting more out of music. More depth, structure, more emotional expression etc. Classical music is an investment but in the end it pays more dividends than any verse-chorus-verse-chorus, love-you-forever-baby, 4/4 time, C-Am-F-G, image-based piece of commercial music ever can. And I'm not saying that stuff is completely without merit, we just have to learn to distinguish between Mcdonald's and proper nutrition.


----------



## Aristotle

i think one of the reasons is people never let themselves to listen to classical music (i mean "listen" not just hear and prejudge then stop it playing)that can have so many reasons


----------



## Curiosity

Also, people nowadays seem to expect/want one consistent mood or atmosphere from a piece. Instead of listening to the music and taking in _everything_ about it, every emotion conveyed, every dynamic change etc, they want something that is clearly definable as representative of one thing or another. They want their "sad" pieces to be plodding and minor-key, for example, not being able to recognise that even an uptempo major key composition can convey great sadness. Most people want that kind of quick (generally meaning cheap) emotional fix. It's again a result of the inability to invest in or truly appreciate the music.


----------

