# Is there 'un-classy' classical music?



## ChrisGraham (Apr 10, 2016)

My taste in music, I assume, might be considered as being 'un-classy', in that I prefer the pieces with obvious melodies. My favourites include Debussy's Arabesque 1, Barber's Adagio for Strings and the overture to Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro.

I'm wondering if my taste would be considered unsophisticated (I think I'm getting into the more intense classical music, but struggling at the moment), or if there are unsophisticated pieces/composers out there. (I imagine Einaudi might be considered un-classy, i.e. looked down on by classical listeners, and Rossini's William Tell overture might also be considered annoying in the way it has merged into popular culture). 

Anyway, I am interested to know your thoughts on this.


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

While I get where you're coming from, I'm not fully convinced with the term _un-classy_ here - I see no reason why "obvious" melodiousness (as in the pieces you mentioned) would make a piece less classy (whatever that means) than some other, less-melodious ones.

Stuff that makes me raise my eyebrows occasionally is transcriptions - often for piano - that go to ridiculous levels of virtuosity for virtuosity's sake. I just don't understand why; what purpose does it serve? I used to be fond of hyper-virtuosic paraphrases and transcriptions as a teenager, but as years have gone by I've grown a bit weary of them. That being said, I'd still hesitate to use the word un-classy!


----------



## ChrisGraham (Apr 10, 2016)

Janspe said:


> While I get where you're coming from, I'm not fully convinced with the term _un-classy_ here - I see no reason why "obvious" melodiousness (as in the pieces you mentioned) would make a piece less classy (whatever that means) than some other, less-melodious ones.
> 
> Stuff that makes me raise my eyebrows occasionally is transcriptions - often for piano - that go to ridiculous levels of virtuosity for virtuosity's sake. I just don't understand why; what purpose does it serve? I used to be fond of hyper-virtuosic paraphrases and transcriptions as a teenager, but as years have gone by I've grown a bit weary of them. That being said, I'd still hesitate to use the word un-classy!


Hi there - I'm fairly new to classical music, but perhaps a better way of explaining what I want to say would be this... 
Samuel Barber's 'Adagio for Strings' (a piece I adore) would be considered more listenable and enjoyable to the general public and casual music listener than say a Mahler symphony. I like the pieces which in ways bear similarity to pop - while Satie's 'Gymnopedie 1' is very obviously not pop music, it does have similarities in terms of the repetitive melody and harmony etc. I'm wondering if simpler pieces like these are considered less sophisticated than the great symphonies by Beethoven etc?


----------



## tdc (Jan 17, 2011)

ChrisGraham said:


> Hi there - I'm fairly new to classical music, but perhaps a better way of explaining what I want to say would be this...
> Samuel Barber's 'Adagio for Strings' (a piece I adore) would be considered more listenable and enjoyable to the general public and casual music listener than say a Mahler symphony. I like the pieces which in ways bear similarity to pop - while Satie's 'Gymnopedie 1' is very obviously not pop music, it does have similarities in terms of the repetitive melody and harmony etc. I'm wondering if simpler pieces like these are considered less sophisticated than the great symphonies by Beethoven etc?


The Barber and Satie pieces you mentioned are great pieces by two important composers, nothing remotely un-classy about them. They have different aesthetic aims than the Beethoven and Mahler so it is hard to compare. There are some listeners who consider Beethoven and Mahler far better than Satie and Barber because they are more complex, you will also find listeners who take the opposite view, it depends what you are looking for in music.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

I believe that calling a classical work classy or without class is meaningless. Best to erase that line of thinking.


----------



## ChrisGraham (Apr 10, 2016)

tdc said:


> The Barber and Satie pieces you mentioned are great pieces by two important composers, nothing remotely un-classy about them. They have different aesthetic aims than the Beethoven and Mahler so it is hard to compare. There are some listeners who consider Beethoven and Mahler far better than Satie and Barber because they are more complex, you will also find listeners who take the opposite view, it depends what you are looking for in music.


I was just wondering, if I told a classical listener my favourite classical pieces, they might consider them to be unsophisticated, if they listen to Mozart or Haydn for example


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

ChrisGraham said:


> I was just wondering, if I told a classical listener my favourite classical pieces, they might consider them to be unsophisticated, if they listen to Mozart or Haydn for example


Hold to your own standards and forget what others say or think unless you feel it necessary to have the approval of others.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Yeah that's my motto


----------



## Annied (Apr 27, 2017)

I think I would ask "Does it matter?". Surely the main thing is that listening to music should be a pleasurable experience and whether you achieve that by listening to mainstream classical or the more esoteric works is immaterial.

I also think that a composer who manages to come up with a piece of music that has an enduring mass appeal should be applauded, it's no small achievement.

(A German notary once called me a typical pragmatic Englishwoman - I think he may have had a point.)


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

I very much like Rossini's Wilhelm Tell overture. I don't care if people think it is unsophisticated. In fact I was told this by some person with about 3 years of classical listening under her belt, enough time to reach the period of classical snobbery I suppose.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

Don't do yourself or the music you like down. The only reason those pieces are considered 'un-classy' is down to the fact that they have garnered wide popularity (which, to some contrarian hipsterish types, ALWAYS signifies poor quality) NOT because the music itself is unsophisticated or that a pleasant melody is unclassy.

Just don't think that because you have entered classical via more popular favourites that that means you're not worth the 'serious stuff'. It's about gradation, from music that is more immediately accessible to music that takes a little more effort. Both are satisfying in the end (I happen to find the latter more-so, like the pleasure of eventually cracking a very plentiful safe instead of being told the code, but that might be just me) but both deserve to be separated from their differing social profiles or media associations.

You are a million times more sophisticated for*truly* loving the accessible melodies than if you* falsely* pretended you liked Bartok.

Recommendations based on your tastes so far... some that will hopefully satisfy and some to push you slightly:
Debussy's Children's Corner
Mozart String Quartet no.21 and no.19
Villa-Lobos' Bachianas Brasileiras no.1
Chopin's Ballades
Brahms' Violin Concerto
Bruckner Symphonies no. 4 and 7


----------



## ChrisGraham (Apr 10, 2016)

Tallisman said:


> Don't do yourself or the music you like down. The only reason those pieces are considered 'un-classy' is down to the fact that they have garnered wide popularity (which, to some contrarian hipsterish types, ALWAYS signifies poor quality) NOT because the music itself is unsophisticated or that a pleasant melody is unclassy.
> 
> Just don't think that because you have entered classical via more popular favourites that that means you're not worth the 'serious stuff'. It's about gradation, from music that is more immediately accessible to music that takes a little more effort. Both are satisfying in the end (I happen to find the latter more-so, like the pleasure of eventually cracking a very plentiful safe instead of being told the code, but that might be just me) but both deserve to be separated from their differing social profiles or media associations.
> 
> ...


Thank you for this - I will have a listen to your recommendations! I have to say, I also adore Elgar's Nimrod from his Enigma Variations, and pieces like that or Adagio for Strings always make me cry, even though I'm aware they're probably not as complex as some other pieces, and only communicate one emotion. The thing is that I envy people who can enjoy, for example, Beethoven's 9th or things like this - I just struggle with big symphonic works as there usually isn't an obvious 'singable' melody - not that I'm saying good music needs to have one, but as someone who was brought up with pop music, it's difficult to appreciate music which to me isn't instantly memorable, if you get what I mean.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

ChrisGraham said:


> Thank you for this - I will have a listen to your recommendations! I have to say, I also adore Elgar's Nimrod from his Enigma Variations, and pieces like that or Adagio for Strings always make me cry, even though I'm aware they're probably not as complex as some other pieces, and only communicate one emotion. The thing is that I envy people who can enjoy, for example, Beethoven's 9th or things like this - I just struggle with big symphonic works as there usually isn't an obvious 'singable' melody - not that I'm saying good music needs to have one, but as someone who was brought up with pop music, it's difficult to appreciate music which to me isn't instantly memorable, if you get what I mean.


I think that as you get more accustomed to longer pieces of music, those big symphonies such as Beethoven's 9th will receive your enthusiastic approval. Also, you can be sure that "singable" melodies are all over the place in the larger works. Be patient.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The passage of time--years, decades--will work wonders to expand anybody's musical vocabulary, and to enlarge the universe of classical music you feel easy enjoying. There is no hurry, and are no rules.


----------



## bharbeke (Mar 4, 2013)

Those pieces you mention by Barber, Mozart, Satie, Debussy, and Rossini are in the category of "beloved" classical music pieces among the genre listeners. They may be seen as over-exposed, but I would definitely not call them unsophisticated or "un-classy." They obviously have some power and merit, and there is nothing the matter with enjoying them as much as you want. Accessibility and quality don't have a correlation one way or the other.

If you want to try a longer work with some "singable" melodies, try Beethoven's Piano Concerto No. 5 or Dvorak's Symphony No. 9.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

ChrisGraham said:


> Thank you for this - I will have a listen to your recommendations! I have to say, I also adore Elgar's Nimrod from his Enigma Variations, and pieces like that or Adagio for Strings always make me cry, even though I'm aware they're probably not as complex as some other pieces, and only communicate one emotion. The thing is that I envy people who can enjoy, for example, Beethoven's 9th or things like this - I just struggle with big symphonic works as there usually isn't an obvious 'singable' melody - not that I'm saying good music needs to have one, but as someone who was brought up with pop music, it's difficult to appreciate music which to me isn't instantly memorable, if you get what I mean.


Nimrod is the one that comes closest to making me shed a little tear as well, by the way :tiphat:
Though it's not a symphonic work, one of the reasons I love Schubert's String Quintet is that around a quarter of the way through the quartet, there appears for about 1 1/2 minutes quite simply the most sublime melodic passage I've ever heard. But part of what makes it special is the fact that it only lasts for 1 1/2 minutes. Some of life's greatest joys are most pleasurable when rationed. That might be the defining difference between classical and popular music. A lot of popular music will find a really attractive hook or melody and beat you into submission with it. I know what you mean about it being difficult to get into music that's not instantly memorable upon first listen, especially if you arrived out of popular music (as did I). But _getting_ to know a piece inside out from repeated listens can be a huge joy. The first time I heard Brahms' Violin Concerto I was unimpressed, as I found that it didn't have the same vigorous commitment to themes and melodies that Bruch's more accessible VC does. But after a couple more listens, I took (and still take) delight in all of its small, at-first-unnoticeable idiosyncracies, and now the entire piece is one, long, glorious extended melody, and the parts that appeared upon first listen unmemorable and unremarkable appear so wonderfully subtle and intentional.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

OP: So you like music that is the kind of classical music played at Boston Pops concerts, which is basically semi-classical music.

Nothing too "heavy".

No crime in that and certainly NOT unclassy!!! Get that notion out of your head please!!!


----------



## ChrisGraham (Apr 10, 2016)

Tallisman said:


> Nimrod is the one that comes closest to making me shed a little tear as well, by the way :tiphat:
> Though it's not a symphonic work, one of the reasons I love Schubert's String Quintet is that around a quarter of the way through the quartet, there appears for about 1 1/2 minutes quite simply the most sublime melodic passage I've ever heard. But part of what makes it special is the fact that it only lasts for 1 1/2 minutes. Some of life's greatest joys are most pleasurable when rationed. That might be the defining difference between classical and popular music. A lot of popular music will find a really attractive hook or melody and beat you into submission with it. I know what you mean about it being difficult to get into music that's not instantly memorable upon first listen, especially if you arrived out of popular music (as did I). But _getting_ to know a piece inside out from repeated listens can be a huge joy. The first time I heard Brahms' Violin Concerto I was unimpressed, as I found that it didn't have the same vigorous commitment to themes and melodies that Bruch's more accessible VC does. But after a couple more listens, I took (and still take) delight in all of its small, at-first-unnoticeable idiosyncracies, and now the entire piece is one, long, glorious extended melody, and the parts that appeared upon first listen unmemorable and unremarkable appear so wonderfully subtle and intentional.


I will definitely check that out too, and I understand what you mean about the melodies - last year for my A levels, we were studying Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique. Admittedly, as you might gather from my musical taste, on first hearing I thought, 'this is literally the most boring thing ever!' I felt like it was completely forgettable and self-indulgent. Now, having studied it and listened to the symphony many times, I feel like the melodies are really obvious. You're right about the hooks too - with pop music, I have and would usually pick my favourite song based on whether I liked the particular melody, and hoping that it is either repeated various times in the form of a hook or riff, or built up to as a chorus. So agreed, I do need to listen to pieces more than once, and see if anything speaks to me. Thank you so much !


----------



## Annied (Apr 27, 2017)

ChrisGraham said:


> I just struggle with big symphonic works as there usually isn't an obvious 'singable' melody - not that I'm saying good music needs to have one, but *as someone who was brought up with pop music, it's difficult to appreciate music which to me isn't instantly memorable, if you get what I mean.*


*

I can certainly relate to all of that. Classical orchestral music really doesn't do it for me except for odd pieces here and there. Although I'm not keen on ballet, I do like ballet music, but that's the frustrated dancer in me. In my head I'm moving gracefully and expertly to it, just not balletically. Have you dipped into opera? As far as pop music goes, I've always enjoyed some of the singer/songwriters - I still do. I see composers like Verdi as the songwriters of their day, so it was more of a natural progression for me. Verdi in particular had the lot, he could write beautiful ballads, catchy foot tappers and everything in between. Absolutely my kind of guy. Perhaps you're trying the wrong genre?

(Have you come across "Méditation" from "Thais" in your travels? It's another very well known piece and one of my all time favourites.)*


----------



## ChrisGraham (Apr 10, 2016)

hpowders said:


> OP: So you like music that is the kind of classical music played at Boston Pops concerts, which is basically semi-classical music.
> 
> Nothing too "heavy".
> 
> No crime in that and certainly NOT unclassy!!! Get that notion out of your head please!!!


Hahaa  to be honest, I think I meant that from a harmonic perspective, the pieces with 'catchier' (I don't like that word but you know what I mean) melodies tend to be harmonically simpler (sometimes with repetitive chord progressions e.g. Gymnopedie) than the more adventurous pieces... I was therefore wondering if pieces with more subdued melodies were considered to be greater than the more melodic ones. (E.g. things like Saint Saens' Carnival of Animals was made for kids, and he didn't think it would be popular, but it has become popular with adults too because of the simple melodies which were originally made for the younger ear).


----------



## Joe B (Aug 10, 2017)

ChrisGraham said:


> My taste in music, I assume, might be considered as being 'un-classy', in that I prefer the pieces with obvious melodies. My favourites include Debussy's Arabesque 1, Barber's Adagio for Strings and the overture to Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro.
> 
> I'm wondering if my taste would be considered unsophisticated (I think I'm getting into the more intense classical music, but struggling at the moment), or if there are unsophisticated pieces/composers out there. (I imagine Einaudi might be considered un-classy, i.e. looked down on by classical listeners, and Rossini's William Tell overture might also be considered annoying in the way it has merged into popular culture).
> 
> Anyway, I am interested to know your thoughts on this.


Chris,

I don't believe there is such a thing as "un-classy" classical music. The only music I've ever heard that the term would/should/could be used for is Rap music which denigrates women, promotes violence, etc.. Just because a piece of classical music is well know and has entered the main stream via TV, movies, etc. doesn't make it less classy, just more recognizable.

To me, classy and un-classy would be more appropriately used for the listener rather that the music. That said, I believe you may be referring to "un-classy" classical music as music that does not require much work from the listener. As in any form of art, some works are immediately accessible while others require more from the observer. As you pointed out, most people can recognize and appreciate Rossini's William Tell Overture, but have them give a listen to something avant-garde like George Crumb's "Black Angles" and they'll be hitting the pause button asap. Sophisticated, avant-garde music does not make the listener more sophisticated, though I'm sure all of our egos believe that it does. It just means you've taken the time to acquire a taste for it. I believe the time many put into appreciating "classy" classical music begs for some form of egocentric acknowledgement. After all, didn't I spend lots and lots of time to develop a taste for this stuff? And isn't my collection so cool that others will be awed? I mean, don't I have out of print, limited edition, imported releases that other sophisticates would give their right arm to have?

After it's all said and done, what you like is what you like. There is so much music out there you can't possibly hear it all. We come to rely on each other to be turned on to new things and have our own tastes substantiated. There's nothing wrong with that; it's just the human condition. PLAY ON!


----------



## ChrisGraham (Apr 10, 2016)

Annied said:


> I can certainly relate to all of that. Classical orchestral music really doesn't do it for me except for odd pieces here and there. Although I'm not keen on ballet, I do like ballet music, but that's the frustrated dancer in me. In my head I'm moving gracefully and expertly to it, just not balletically. Have you dipped into opera? As far as pop music goes, I've always enjoyed some of the singer/songwriters - I still do. I see composers like Verdi as the singer/songwriters of their day, so it was more of a natural progression for me. Verdi in particular had the lot, he could write beautiful ballads, catchy foot tappers and everything in between. Absolutely my kind of guy. Perhaps you're trying the wrong genre?
> 
> (Have you come across "Méditation" from "Thais" in your travels? It's another very well known piece and one of my all time favourites.)


Thanks for the reply - as for opera, I adore Nessan Dorma (or however you spell it!) and a few other pieces too, never had the time to sit through a full opera and admittedly... this might sound bad too... I really do get sick of their style of singing sometimes!!! Maybe I will get used to it however, but I do feel a bit of disconnect with not being able to understand what they are saying.

Never heard Méditation but I will listen now!


----------



## ChrisGraham (Apr 10, 2016)

Joe B said:


> Chris,
> 
> I don't believe there is such a thing as "un-classy" classical music. The only music I've ever heard that the term would/should/could be used for is Rap music which denigrates women, promotes violence, etc.. Just because a piece of classical music is well know and has entered the main stream via TV, movies, etc. doesn't make it less classy, just more recognizable.
> 
> ...


Joe, your comment is my thoughts exactly, but said much more eloquently! Thank you! Funnily enough, I actually made this post because I'm going off to university to study music, and as part of it some pieces are forced on to us (things like Beethoven's 9th), and I'm really struggling to appreciate the music which isn't so instantly memorable/requires more work to enjoy. I'm just hoping this doesn't turn me off classical music :/


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Chris:

You worry too much. Just enjoy the experience; the rest of it will come naturally.


----------



## Tallisman (May 7, 2017)

ChrisGraham said:


> I will definitely check that out too, and I understand what you mean about the melodies - last year for my A levels, we were studying Berlioz' Symphonie Fantastique. Admittedly, as you might gather from my musical taste, on first hearing I thought, 'this is literally the most boring thing ever!' I felt like it was completely forgettable and self-indulgent. Now, having studied it and listened to the symphony many times, I feel like the melodies are really obvious.


Well, then you're ahead of me in that regard! I'm getting to like Schoenberg's indomitable piano concerto, and yet even after two listens of the Symphonie Fantastique (which by all rules should be much more accesible) that opium dream of a symphony remains a mystery to me!


----------



## Janspe (Nov 10, 2012)

ChrisGraham said:


> -- (things like Beethoven's 9th), and I'm really struggling to appreciate the music which isn't so instantly memorable/requires more work to enjoy. I'm just hoping this doesn't turn me off classical music :/


There's only one way to get there - listen, listen and listen, again and again. Give yourself time. If tackling a one-hour symphony feels too intimidating at first, maybe split the piece into pieces and listen to one movement a day? And once you've gotten to know them, try your luck with the whole thing. Don't let yourself be discouraged if big works don't open themselves up to you immediately - a symphonic texture can take time to get used to! But it's so rewarding once you get there, *I can guarantee that*. It's also fun to listen to musicians (composers, conductors, singers, instrumentalists...) talk about the music they champion and perform - that can really give you some excellent insight that might make the listening more interesting! Following a score, provided one can read music, can also be a great help.

The only thing you need is patience to listen and - most importantly - _the will to do it_, the will to learn.


----------



## Annied (Apr 27, 2017)

Try these, they've all got instantly discernible melodies


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think you can just hang out on sites like this and see what people get in trouble for liking. Barber's _Adagio for Strings_ is a fine example, although I think you'd've gotten more flack for that a generation ago than now. More options are the Strauss family waltzes, Philip Glass, Jennifer Higdon, the old pops repertoire, anything performed by Kronos Quartet or Lang Lang or Vanessa Mae or Andrea Bocelli, postmodern choral works (i.e. Eric Whitacre, Morten Lauridsen, Ola Gjello), film music (especially John Williams), perhaps video game music (I don't know about it), rock-classical crossover (Frank Zappa, Rick Wakeman, Jon Lord).... There must be so much more....


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

I see Schubert's String Quintet was mentioned, but I think I would recommend you explore some of his other works, starting with the 8th and 9th Symphony, the Octet and the Trout Quintet. All are full of marvelous melodies. Schubert's earliest successes were lieder - song settings of a range of poets, and his melodic gift is evident in so many of his works.

Another composer who could write a good tune was Mendelssohn. (I happen to be listening to him now.). Try the Songs Without Words (for piano), and also the Italian Symphony and the Viloin Concerto.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

ChrisGraham said:


> Hi there - I'm fairly new to classical music, but perhaps a better way of explaining what I want to say would be this...
> Samuel Barber's 'Adagio for Strings' (a piece I adore) would be considered more listenable and enjoyable to the general public and casual music listener than say a Mahler symphony. I like the pieces which in ways bear similarity to pop - while Satie's 'Gymnopedie 1' is very obviously not pop music, it does have similarities in terms of the repetitive melody and harmony etc. I'm wondering if simpler pieces like these are considered less sophisticated than the great symphonies by Beethoven etc?


There is of course this version of the Satie:






(For some reason my iPad allows me to link videos, but not embed them.)


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

ChrisGraham said:


> My taste in music, I assume, might be considered as being 'un-classy', in that I prefer the pieces with obvious melodies. My favourites include Debussy's Arabesque 1, Barber's Adagio for Strings and the overture to Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro.
> 
> I'm wondering if my taste would be considered unsophisticated (I think I'm getting into the more intense classical music, but struggling at the moment), or if there are unsophisticated pieces/composers out there. (I imagine Einaudi might be considered un-classy, i.e. looked down on by classical listeners, and Rossini's William Tell overture might also be considered annoying in the way it has merged into popular culture).
> 
> Anyway, I am interested to know your thoughts on this.


I'm pleased you've got such a positive response. Pleased and surprised, because it seems to me like you're the sort of person who would enjoy radio stations like the UK's Classic FM, which mostly play the sort of music you're referring to, and I know there are plenty of people on TC who look down on those stations. Einaudi is most certainly looked down on by many, and not even regarded as a proper classical composer.

But the more time you spend on TC, the more you'll realise that no matter what the music, there's always someone out there who thinks it's rubbish! So just follow your own path.


----------



## Agamemnon (May 1, 2017)

I think the most accessible or poppy or 'less distinguished' classical music is when the orchestra gets into playing a 'groove' (the orchestra is transformed into one big rhythm section which hammers a simple, repetitious rhythm) upon a melody is sung or played like perhaps especially Italian opera composers (Rossini, Verdi) like to do.


----------



## Guest (Sep 2, 2017)

ChrisGraham said:


> My taste in music, I assume, might be considered as being 'un-classy', in that I prefer the pieces with obvious melodies. My favourites include Debussy's Arabesque 1, Barber's Adagio for Strings and the overture to Mozart's The Marriage of Figaro.
> 
> I'm wondering if my taste would be considered unsophisticated (I think I'm getting into the more intense classical music, but struggling at the moment), or if there are unsophisticated pieces/composers out there. (I imagine Einaudi might be considered un-classy, i.e. looked down on by classical listeners, and Rossini's William Tell overture might also be considered annoying in the way it has merged into popular culture).
> 
> Anyway, I am interested to know your thoughts on this.


Yes, I get it. I might not agree with your choice of terms, but the idea that there is a 'popular' or 'easy listening' section in the classical genre is fairly obvious. However, as you might have noticed, some classical listeners who like to swim in the shallow end would prefer not to be described as 'non-classy' or 'unsophisticated'.

Me, I like the shallow end too, but over time have ventured into the middle of the pool, and even gone up the deep end (with water wings securely attached). I can safely say that I have classy and sophisticated tastes wherever I swim, whether anyone else recognises it or not!


----------



## Annied (Apr 27, 2017)

Nereffid said:


> But the more time you spend on TC, the more you'll realise that no matter what the music, there's always someone out there who thinks it's rubbish!


But by the same token, there's also always someone who shares your taste.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

"I listen to Bach often, but not Offenbach."


----------

