# Does it annoy you when.......?



## tempo (Nov 8, 2012)

..... people who aren't really particularly into classical music slightly patronisingly refer to classical music as "relaxing"?

I don't know why - and maybe it's just me - but this really gets on my nerves. It just seems like such a glib comment.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Yes! I'm with you 100%. I've thought this exact same thing before. We all know that classical music can obviously be relaxing but these people you refer to seem to be dismissing it as _just_ relaxing, like its simply a replacement for a Tylenol PM and serves no other purpose.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

It is a glib statement, probably ignorant. But I don't let little things like that bother me. If I got annoyed with everyone who had a different opinion than me, if I got annoyed at every little statement I disliked, I'd be a bitter, angry, twisted old man. Don't sweat the small stuff is another glib statement, but perhaps it'll work here. 

I'd rather smile than frown through life.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

senza sordino said:


> It is a glib statement, probably ignorant. But I don't let little things like that bother me. If I got annoyed with everyone who had a different opinion than me, if I got annoyed at every little statement I disliked, I'd be a bitter, angry, twisted old man. Don't sweat the small stuff is another glib statement, but perhaps it'll work here.
> 
> I'd rather smile than frown through life.


Smart man. Positivity is where it's at.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I totally share this frustration as well. It's like when people say classical music is good background music when studying. I then quickly steer their attention towards Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ or Sibelius' 5th Symphony. How's that for relaxing?


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

Winterreisender said:


> I totally share this frustration as well. It's like when people say classical music is good background music when studying. I then quickly steer their attention towards Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ or Sibelius' 5th Symphony. How's that for relaxing?


Haha that's pretty funny. Beethoven's Grosse Fuge would also probably work there.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Classical music: for when you are all out of aromatherapy candles.


----------



## GreenMamba (Oct 14, 2012)

Dustin said:


> Smart man. Positivity is where it's at.


What Classical pieces do you recommend for enhancing positivity?


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

GreenMamba said:


> What Classical pieces do you recommend for enhancing positivity?


Haha I'll let you know once I figure it out.


----------



## Guest (Jun 22, 2014)

tempo said:


> this really gets on my nerves.


You obviously need to relax...let me recommend some soothing , classical listening for you!


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> You obviously need to relax...let me recommend some soothing , classical listening for you!


Lol Beethoven's "Fur Elise" oughta do the trick!


----------



## tempo (Nov 8, 2012)

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting this actually makes me fume with anger! I just mean that it makes me sigh a little inside whenever someone's first (and often only) remark about classical is that it's ''relaxing''.


----------



## tempo (Nov 8, 2012)

Dustin said:


> Yes! I'm with you 100%. I've thought this exact same thing before. We all know that classical music can obviously be relaxing but these people you refer to seem to be dismissing it as _just_ relaxing, like its simply a replacement for a Tylenol PM and serves no other purpose.


I just find it odd that they don't see anything other than this in it. Most people would recognise that popular music has many different facets and moods, yet many people can only see classical music as ''relaxing''.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Sort of. Mainly because I know some people who only listen to it for that person, i.e. during studying or something. So they only play soft dreamy classical music or modern dreamy arrangements of classical. It just makes me wish they'd get into it more. 

But I'd much rather hear "relaxing" than "boring". Sick of people calling it "boring"!


----------



## tempo (Nov 8, 2012)

Tristan said:


> Sort of. Mainly because I know some people who only listen to it for that person, i.e. during studying or something. So they only play soft dreamy classical music or modern dreamy arrangements of classical. It just makes me wish they'd get into it more.
> 
> But I'd much rather hear "relaxing" than "boring". Sick of people calling it "boring"!


That's a good point.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Nope. I'm not bothered - I get it most when listening to polyphony ---- but I find that type of music really dynamic and full of life and energy yet I wonder how many TC-ers would agreee with me?


----------



## StevenOBrien (Jun 27, 2011)

No. I just assume they're talking about/only really aware of the slower, more relaxing pieces.


----------



## brianvds (May 1, 2013)

tempo said:


> ..... people who aren't really particularly into classical music slightly patronisingly refer to classical music as "relaxing"?
> 
> I don't know why - and maybe it's just me - but this really gets on my nerves. It just seems like such a glib comment.


No, no, I passionately agree with them, and then play them stuff like Bartok's Concerto for orchestra, or the Rite of Spring, or some of Prokofiev's piano concertos, to help them relax. Well, it relaxes ME, so surely they'll also enjoy it?


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

I'd much rather people of that particular persuasion would use terms such as "challenging" or "deeply esoteric" in lieu of "relaxing", which--to me at least--also somewhat implies/assumes that the music is somewhat insipid and boring and thus does not require one's attention to any great degree.
As I think we would all agree--in any case, most of us--this is as far from the truth about our experiences with and feelings for this genre as possible.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

@ Tempo, Great idea for a thread, btw. :cheers:


----------



## Avey (Mar 5, 2013)

For the sake of discussion, we should (psychologically) parse what is _actually_ aggravating about the banal sentiment _Classical Music is Relaxing_.

I would propose -- and I may be off -- that what is frustrating to some (mainly individuals who listen to classical music regularly) in this opinion is that it suggests (1) the commentator does not enjoy classical music beyond some temporary, fleeting reason, (2) the label "relaxing" is trite and cliche and thus suggests the commentator, again, places little value in the music, and (3) possibly perpetuates the image of how _you_ are then seen as a classical music listener in the eyes of others *and* yourself -- i.e. others then assume that _you_ only listen to classical music because it simply _relaxes_ you, and you know, truly, you are so much deeper than that.

And all this is disturbing.

So, I would first say that we all have temporary, fleeting fascinations with art. We should not be so quick to judge and critique. How would you describe a baseball game to a statistician? Relaxing? How would you describe a recent book you read to the author? Interesting? How would you describe the paintings posted at your local coffee shop to the artist? Intriguing, provoking? Anyone who holds _those interests_ close to their heart would similarly take issue with generic, base forms of appreciation.

To points (2) and (3)...

Given that we very much enjoy classical music here, that culture -- composers, compositions, history, etc. -- is _ours_, or for the particular, that culture is _your own_. You feel you must defend this art form, and therefore abhor those that simplify it.

It is a form of _control_ that humans are naturally inclined to -- that what we appreciate and enjoy and what makes us happy must be _controlled_ to its farthest reaches. Thus, when you hear comments that derogate and discredit _that which *you* hold dear_, you are naturally and justifiably perturbed.

So, in turn -- being my ultimate point -- is that at some base level, the music you listen to, or your hobbies generally, is an invaluable portion of _yourself_, and in truth, _you_ are not _you_ without that music. How you view certain works, certain sounds, what composers you appreciate, the community you are a part of it -- *this is you*.

And when someone simplifies that which you love, making trite remarks like _this is relaxing_, the sentiment is internalized, as an attack and debasement of *you*, *your passions*, *your life*.

So, while I still have difficulties doing this, I instead brush aside sentiments inimical to mine, and continue to consider how this instinctual dislike of _simplifying that which I love_ is human, and thus, every one is susceptible to it. That is, I recall the old platitude: do not judge others.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Avey said:


> And when someone simplifies that which you love, making trite remarks like _this is relaxing_, the sentiment is internalized, as an attack and debasement of *you*, *your passions*, *your life*.


Oh Dear - try being a birder as well if you want to know what scorn really is!

Seriously, though, I don't really care what anyone else thinks about what I like to do


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

_senza sordino_ has nailed it. Neither Life in general nor the world in sum are funny, but little bits of them are, and those little bits can be found in the damnedest places.

Laugh lines are beauty marks from the spirit.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

StevenOBrien said:


> No. I just assume they're talking about/only really aware of the slower, more relaxing pieces.


Yes, it's the sort of statement made by someone who's not especially interested in the topic and has no desire to go into any sort of detail about what they mean. Probably when they say "classical music is relaxing" they mean "I'm aware of things like big opera arias and Beethoven's Fifth and that O Fortuna thing and the 1812 Overture and all that other loud and exciting stuff but leaving that aside, there's a whole bunch of classical music - come on, we've both heard it, they play it on the radio or as background music in fancy restaurants, or in movies when a serial killer is butchering his victim - that serves the function of being calm or quiet or soothing or relaxing or just basically not loud or exciting, and the single word I'm going to use to describe this particular subset of classical music, even though there are plenty of words I could use, is "relaxing", and I'm going to assume that you are intelligent enough to know that the four-word phrase "classical music is relaxing" is not meant to be taken absolutely literally or as the be-all and end-all of my entire knowledge of this area of music, but to be honest I don't care enough about the subject to take the time to present you a f***ing doctoral thesis on the topic".
Or something like that.


----------



## Op.123 (Mar 25, 2013)

Yes it does!

Especially when playing loud dramatic pieces (Like one of Brahms' piano concertos) and bieng told to play something "nice" (preferably a piano transcription of the slow movement of Dvorak's 9th symphony, aka. "The one from the Hovis advert")


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

What really bothers me are those people who say, "Oh, you like classical music? That's so dangerously erotic!"

After that, I have to go listen to an hour of music just to relax.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Nereffid said:


> ...and I'm going to assume that you are intelligent enough to know that the four-word phrase "classical music is relaxing" is not meant to be taken absolutely literally or as the be-all and end-all of my entire knowledge of this area of music, but to be honest I don't care enough about the subject to take the time to present you a f***ing doctoral thesis on the topic".
> Or something like that.


Oh no, now whenever I hear somebody say "It's relaxing," I'm going to slink away in defeat and despair...


----------



## Mister Man (Feb 3, 2014)

I've seen "Classical" referred to as "troll music" on websites like Twitch. I couldn't imagine the world-view of a person who would say such a thing. To essentially call it illegitimate because it doesn't sound "modern".


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

amfortas said:


> What really bothers me are those people who say, "Oh, you like classical music? That's so dangerously erotic!"
> 
> After that, I have to go listen to an hour of music just to relax.


Myself, I have no problem with people who need to smoke a cigarette after listening to Chopin.









To each his own.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes, you're right...it is relaxing...now, you just lay back there and relax, and I'm going to put on Haydn's "Surprise" symphony...I'm gonna turn it up real loud, because this first part is very quiet and relaxing...that's it, just close your eyes and relax...:devil::lol:


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

Dustin said:


> Lol Beethoven's "Fur Elise" oughta do the trick!


Only if played on the accordion.


----------



## Dustin (Mar 30, 2012)

amfortas said:


> What really bothers me are those people who say, "Oh, you like classical music? That's so dangerously erotic!"
> 
> After that, I have to go listen to an hour of music just to relax.


I need to move to Illinois if that is a line you regularly hear.


----------



## Antiquarian (Apr 29, 2014)

Yes, hate it when people generalize classical music as "calm and relaxing". This topic reminds me of a time when I was at work, listening in my office to some Debussy. One of the new office workers comes in: an attractive female in her early twenties:
She says: "I really like that music you're listening to."
I say: "It's Debussy"
"It's so calm and relaxing..."
"Yes. I find that it helps me get through the day."
"I really don't know much about classical music, but is there more music like that, with the harp?"
"Oh yes! There's Debussy, Satie, Ravel, they all have composed music like that."
"I don't suppose... you could lend me some?"
"Of course, um... since you like this so much, you can borrow this."
I proceed to lend her the Debussy.
Then she proceeds to tell me; "Thank you so much! My husband and I have been trying to find somthing for our new baby, to help him get to sleep at night!"
This, needless to say, ended up to be the last time that I set my eyes on that particular CD.
So when someone comes up to me and tells me how "calm and relaxing" classical music can be, my response can be a bit subdued. It seems that a segment of the population views classical music as something that chiefly appeals to infants, and then only so they can nod off to it. Then when they grow up they can graduate to more "adult" music like Mylie Cyrus and Justin Biber. Yes, it makes me frustrated when people generalize.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

It annoys me seeing Mozart, Chopin and specially Beethoven (!) being used as "relaxing" or studying music on Youtube...


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Thanks for pointing it out, OP. I believe I am guilty of saying that classical music is relaxing  Obviously, there is a lot of CM that I could not possibly read, relax or meditate to: it is far too active and energizing. Also, much CM has extremely varied tempos, so what might start out to be relaxing is definitely not further on, etc.

What I mean when I say that CM is relaxing is that CM, as a genre, suits my listening needs, my temperament, my expectations, my interest, my intellect, etc. I don't get upset about listening to CM, as I do about a lot of other genres. It doesn't make me want to turn it off 

I'm going to have to think about how to be more precise in my appraisal.


----------



## DrMuller (May 26, 2014)

I can't understand how anyone can study while listening to classical music, no matter who the composer is. If I were studying and listening to classical music I wouldn't be able to concentrate on the books because I would be too wrapped up in the music.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

tempo said:


> ..... people who aren't really particularly into classical music slightly patronisingly refer to classical music as "relaxing"?


 It annoys me so much I want to pull out my _Maschinengewehr_.


----------



## Xaltotun (Sep 3, 2010)

Sure annoys me a lot. Almost as much as the notion that CM is music "for musicians".


----------



## Badinerie (May 3, 2008)

DrMuller said:


> I can't understand how anyone can study while listening to classical music,


What if your studying classical music?

Anyhoo... I need to relax now where did I put that 1812 overture cd?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

Were talking "classical" music as in Ludovico Einaudi right?


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde (Dec 2, 2011)

DrMuller said:


> I can't understand how anyone can study while listening to classical music, no matter who the composer is. If I were studying and listening to classical music I wouldn't be able to concentrate on the books because I would be too wrapped up in the music.


Ha, I listen to alternative metal when I study.


----------



## ptr (Jan 22, 2013)

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Were talking "classical" music as in Ludovico Einaudi right?


You're such a witty rascal suggesting the the commander of the forces of evil!

/ptr


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

tempo said:


> ..... people who aren't really particularly into classical music slightly patronisingly refer to classical music as "relaxing"?
> 
> I don't know why - and maybe it's just me - but this really gets on my nerves. It just seems like such a glib comment.


Kind of a nice way of saying that they find classical music to be boring. In fact, the person who inspired me to get back into classical a few years back later told me that she listens to classical for relaxation. At that, I was disappointed but did not say anything to her.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Tristan said:


> But I'd much rather hear "relaxing" than "boring". Sick of people calling it "boring"!


Classical music is relaxing if you're not really listening to it, and boring if you are. But talking about it is positively soporific.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl (Jul 21, 2013)

There are people who said that art music is stressful. That made me angry.  Stressful is that ***** they listen!!!


----------



## Vesteralen (Jul 14, 2011)

tempo said:


> ..... people who aren't really particularly into classical music slightly patronisingly refer to classical music as "relaxing"?
> 
> I don't know why - and maybe it's just me - but this really gets on my nerves. It just seems like such a glib comment.


No. It annoys me when somebody speeds up just to get in front of me in a long line of traffic. It annoys me when people at work think I can magically fix whatever problem they caused on their computer.

I refuse to get annoyed by general ignorance.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

DrMuller said:


> I can't understand how anyone can study while listening to classical music, no matter who the composer is. If I were studying and listening to classical music I wouldn't be able to concentrate on the books because I would be too wrapped up in the music.


I agree! Often when I'm reading or studying something, the music distracts me rather than the other way around. That's why I've started listening to non-classical stuff (ex. Soundtracks of various styles) when I'm doing that stuff. It numbs that part of my brain so I can focus. I even have that stuff playing while I'm practicing, so I can actually focus BETTER on my practicing! It's a weird thing, but that does it for me.

Conversely, if I'm not studying but just browsing the internet, that numbs my visual side so that I become more sensitive hearing-wise. I've noticed that if I'm playing a numbing/repetitive game on my phone in a public place, my ears suddenly get attuned to the different conversations that are happening around me, more than I feel comfortable with...  Likewise, I focus on music better if I'm numbing my visual senses with something, and reading a book doesn't count. For reading, I listen to numbing music, or just plain silence, though silence (also closing one's eyes while listening to music) can be distracting too because the mind can come up with things.

In sum: I listen best by numbing my visual senses, and I read/study by numbing my auditory senses.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

tempo said:


> ..... people who aren't really particularly into classical music slightly patronisingly refer to classical music as "relaxing"?
> 
> I don't know why - and maybe it's just me - but this really gets on my nerves. It just seems like such a glib comment.


Sure. I've posted here many times about that. My brother, no matter what the classical piece, will always describe it as "relaxing". Irks me to no end. I just want to burst out, "Don't you have any feelings, man!!" But I just absorb the blow and wind up with either a headache or backache, the next day instead, as I internalize my anger instead of letting it all out.


----------



## onefiveeight (Jun 27, 2014)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> In sum: I listen best by numbing my visual senses, and I read/study by numbing my auditory senses.


Do you have ADD?


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> In sum: I listen best by numbing my visual senses,...


I think that listening with eyes closed would be a wonderful way to focus on the music, but at my age that would result in my falling asleep! (I'm not THAT old, really  )


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Florestan said:


> I think that listening with eyes closed would be a wonderful way to focus on the music, but at my age that would result in my falling asleep! (I'm not THAT old, really  )


Well, I'm only 22 and I fall asleep when I listen with my eyes closed. I don't think age has that much to do with it.


----------



## trazom (Apr 13, 2009)

Sometimes, but also when people tell me I shouldn't get annoyed at it. If it wasn't for the cute "im doing my hw to this lolol" or "this is so relaxing *closes eyes*" type of comments, I'd probably be bitching about something else anyways.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It annoys me when people at an opera performance cannot wait for the final notes of the music to end before clapping their "appreciation" so I cannot hear what I spent good money to hear.


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

I really don't like it when someone describes Mozart as relaxing. It's condescending, as though they were trying stick an "easy listening" or "New Age" label onto him - drives me crazy! For me, he's often anything _but_ relaxing. Mozart is funny, thrilling, and even disturbing at times. He can be relaxing, but this is only one of many facets to his music.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Celloman said:


> I really don't like it when someone describes Mozart as relaxing.


But...(pause for effect)...it _is _relaxing!


----------



## Celloman (Sep 30, 2006)

KenOC said:


> But...(pause for effect)...it _is _relaxing!


Some of it is, I'll grant you. About $7.39 plus tax. The other $39.60 is hard-core, head-thumpin' stuff…not yo mama's Mozart. Dig me?


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

Classical music varies you know some are music lively some relaxing.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

tempo said:


> ..... people who aren't really particularly into classical music slightly patronisingly refer to classical music as "relaxing"?
> 
> I don't know why - and maybe it's just me - but this really gets on my nerves. It just seems like such a glib comment.


People use/listen to classical music for a whole variety of reasons. From relaxation to superficial reasons such as being associated with high art, people attend the opera to be seen etc. Always has and always will continue.

Just stay cool and let your enjoyment be the reason why you listen to classical music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

tempo said:


> ..... people who aren't really particularly into classical music slightly patronisingly refer to classical music as "relaxing"?
> 
> I don't know why - and maybe it's just me - but this really gets on my nerves. It just seems like such a glib comment.


Yes! My brother says that all the time! I call him a "pseudo-listener".

Folks who love classical music do not refer to it as "soooooo relaxing!!"


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

I kinda understand where people are coming from when they say they're annoyed when people listen to classical "to relax, or they find it soothing, or to unwind" (etc. etc.) but what is the big deal, not everyone takes it seriously and _they don't have to_. They usually don't mean it in an insulting way, as if they thought they were consciously diminishing "high art", the music we take so seriously. I have a good friend who, when it comes to classical, only likes the beautiful, "soothing" adagios. It was no problem whatsoever to burn him a CD with the pieces that he liked, the Adagio from Beethoven's "Emperor" piano concerto, Debussy's Arabesque No. 1, among others. It doesn't have to be patronizing if they find the classical they've heard as "relaxing", if they genuinely find it relaxing, then it is relaxing. To _them_! Live and let live. To each their own.

In his life, classical plays that specific role. It doesn't have the play the role that it does in my life.

I played him the 1st Mvt of Beethoven's 5th and the 2nd Mvt of Bruckner's 9th, he respects it but didn't like it. He'll continue to only like the adagios. Is there a problem? Of course not.


----------



## MoonlightSonata (Mar 29, 2014)

Celloman said:


> Some of it is, I'll grant you. About $7.39 plus tax. The other $39.60 is hard-core, head-thumpin' stuff…not yo mama's Mozart. Dig me?


A full Mozart set for $46.99? Where do I sign?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

DiesIraeVIX said:


> I have a good friend who, when it comes to classical, only likes the beautiful, "soothing" adagios.


I love beautiful adagios too and sometimes listen to adagios only, but whether they are soothing... Let's say, an adagio is more likely to make me shed a tear than any other movement.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

I love larghettos and adagiettos but I can't stand adagios!


----------



## DiesIraeCX (Jul 21, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> I love larghettos and adagiettos but I can't stand adagios!


By and largo, I agree with you.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

My favorite tempo is 137 bpm but my most hated tempo is 138. I can't stand when great 137 bpm pieces are ruined by playing slightly faster than they are supposed to, unless if its's 140 bpm which is almost as good as 137 bpm.


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

I find classical music relaxing, and I take it very seriously. I do have a slight problem with it being called _classical_ music to begin with, though.


----------



## Wandering (Feb 27, 2012)

I find New Wave relaxing and don't choose to take it all too seriously. I don't seem to have much of a problem with calling it New Wave because I am relaxed. Just being silly, no offense, sneer away if you like.


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Saintbert said:


> I find classical music relaxing, and I take it very seriously. I do have a slight problem with it being called _classical_ music to begin with, though.


any alternatives?

'Muzyka powazna' = 'serious/important music' (I don't like it)
'art music' - yuk! makes you think of an avatar of a spotty youth in tight underpants


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

I like the term 'Art Music', but I think 'Classical Music' is generally accepted - maybe what we need to do is find a new name for the 'classical-with-a-small-c' music of Mozart et al.

In theory, it would annoy me, hearing people describe classical music (dismissively) as 'relaxing' - but in practice, I'd be only too grateful that someone was willing to talk to me about it at all.


----------



## manyene (Feb 7, 2015)

While I admire what (Britain's) Classic FM has done to create audiences for classical music, I regtret the fact that they continually and persistently present it as something 'relaxing, 'a soporific after a hard day at the office. Yes, CM is relaxing, but it is much more than that, surely.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

I play it all the time when there's a pleasant company. Get the tea ready, hand out some cake, dilly-daddle around a little, talk about the weather and such pleasantries, exchange the latest gossip and all the while some relaxing classical sets the atmosphere:










Enjoyable and serene gatherings, those! Then when I go to bed I put on Schnittke's relaxing Requiem to fall asleep to, just lovely!

If people call classical 'relaxing' they are listening to a very small part of the catalogue, and not listening well. It's more than gumdrops for the ears, and you are doing it a major disservice if you view it as nothing but that. Hundreds of years of music, created by some of the greatest musical geniuses to have roamed this planet -- and you find it "relaxing" music for "doing homework"? I understand the anger. I don't share it though: I just find it amusing to break the spell through the most violent music I can find. After a bit of Schnittke or Xenakis no person repeats the mistake of calling classical "relaxing" -- not in front of _me_!


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

Headphone Hermit said:


> any alternatives?
> 
> 'Muzyka powazna' = 'serious/important music' (I don't like it)
> 'art music' - yuk! makes you think of an avatar of a spotty youth in tight underpants


There's pop music on one side which is supposed to be popular and commercial, so why not call this state-subsidised music.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Saintbert said:


> There's pop music on one side which is supposed to be popular and commercial, so why not call this state-subsidised music.


I worry that Libertarians on the forum would be offended by that name. A better way of capturing the distinction from pop music while avoiding unpleasant connotations might be to call it "unpopular music." Just a thought.


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

Cheyenne said:


> After a bit of Schnittke or Xenakis no person repeats the mistake of calling classical "relaxing" -- not in front of _me_!


But do you reckon they'd consider Schnittke or Xenakis classical music to begin with?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Saintbert said:


> There's pop music on one side which is supposed to be popular and commercial, so why not call this state-subsidised music.


Last time I checked, Chandos, Decca, DG, and Amazon weren't government-run enterprises.


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Last time I checked, Chandos, Decca, DG, and Amazon weren't government-run enterprises.




My mistake. I thought they were because most are run like states. Anyway, you won't find many recordings of classical music that don't feature musicians, location or the production itself largely supported by public money.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Andreas said:


> But do you reckon they'd consider Schnittke or Xenakis classical music to begin with?


Yes, actually. Nearly everything with an orchestra is "classical" to many people I know: a video-game theme orchestrated is a "classical" version to them. It is not uncommon on the internet for people who listen only to film soundtracks to say they listen to "classical music". That's one of the issues: the definition is unclear. There are of course also those who see classical only as the vaguely defined time-period from C.P.E. Bach to Beethoven!


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It annoys me when I am looking for a post by a particular TC participant and I get a notice to "wait 22 seconds to continue".


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Saintbert said:


> My mistake. I thought they were because most are run like states. Anyway, you won't find many recordings of classical music that don't feature musicians, location or the production itself largely supported by public money.


One musical enterprise survives and flourishes by voluntary spending on the part of the consumers who want to hear it- the other by coerced levies whether people want to hear the music or not.

How is this 'similar?'


----------



## Headphone Hermit (Jan 8, 2014)

Saintbert said:


> There's pop music on one side which is supposed to be popular and commercial, so why not call this state-subsidised music.


erm ... because it isn't ... not on my CD player, anyway


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> One musical enterprise survives and flourishes by voluntary spending on the part of the consumers who want to hear it- the other by coerced levies whether people want to hear the music or not.
> 
> How is this 'similar?'


There are fine independent record companies which I respect whether their releases are in part supported by public organizations or companies, as is sometimes the case. We should be lucky to hear the music. No one is forcing us. Labels like Decca and Deutsche Grammophon on the other hand are just that, labels. The names survive because they've been bought out by Universal.


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

Headphone Hermit said:


> erm ... because it isn't ... not on my CD player, anyway


I dare you to only stick to (to quote myself above) "recordings of classical music that don't feature musicians, location or the production itself largely supported by public money." I mean there's more to a CD than a piece of plastic.

Besides all the other taxes I pay, basically every time I buy music I'm paying in taxes to the state. I don't mind getting something in return. Which is musicians being educated and paid, music halls being built, and new works commissioned.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Saintbert said:


> There are fine independent record companies which I respect whether their releases are in part supported by public organizations or companies, as is sometimes the case. We should be lucky to hear the music. No one is forcing us. Labels like Decca and Deutsche Grammophon on the other hand are just that, labels. The names survive because they've been bought out by Universal.


The elementary point is that a private enterprise has to sing for its supper and to produce a product the consumer is willing to buy- unlike just 'any' recipient of a taxpayer stipend- who can produce good music, bad music, or no music at all.


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> The elementary point is that a private enterprise has to sing for its supper and to produce a product the consumer is willing to buy- unlike just 'any' recipient of a taxpayer stipend- who can produce good music, bad music, or no music at all.


My point is that the private enterprise wouldn't have many musicians to hire in the classical music field, if it wasn't for their education and stipends, paid for, in most cases, by the tax payer. My claim is that in this case, the private enterprise is a beneficiary of public money.

EDIT: And while employees in other fields (outside arts and music) might be publicly educated and privately employed, the difference is that of all the recording artists in classical music, my feeling is that not many of them make their living on record sales.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Saintbert said:


> My point is that the private enterprise wouldn't have many musicians to hire in the classical music field, if it wasn't for their education and stipends, paid for, in most cases, by the tax payer. My claim is that in this case, the private enterprise is a beneficiary of public money.
> 
> EDIT: And while employees in other fields (outside arts and music) might be publicly educated and privately employed, the difference is that of all the recording artists in classical music, my feeling is that not many of them make their living on record sales.


And, concomitantly: If people didn't have so much of what they earned forcibly extracted from them by taxation to be squandered on music that they_ don't _want to hear, then people would have an order of magnitude more money to spend on supporting classical ensembles they _do_ want to hear.

People who wanted to hear Harrison Birtwistle could pay for it directly- and to their heart's content.

I can't think of anything more fair and 'Pareto optimal' than this.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

tempo said:


> ..... people who aren't really particularly into classical music slightly patronisingly refer to classical music as "relaxing"?
> 
> I don't know why - and maybe it's just me - but this really gets on my nerves. It just seems like such a glib comment.


Yes, I see what you mean, but classical music is different than most popular music, because it has dynamics. My friends listen to popular music, and they run it through this horrible processing of "compression" which makes the music uniformly as loud as possible at every nanosecond! You look at the file in a recording app, and it's just a solid black line with no dynamics, no quiet parts! Horrible!

Classical music is soothing because it has quiet parts, where you have to listen. My nervous system likes this.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> And, concomitantly: If people didn't have so much of what they earned forcibly extracted from them by taxation to be squandered on music that they_ don't _want to hear, then people would have an order of magnitude more money to spend on supporting classical ensembles they _do_ want to hear.
> 
> People who wanted to hear Harrison Birtwistle could pay for it directly- and to their heart's content.
> 
> I can't think of anything more fair and 'Pareto optimal' than this.




Most people don't _want_ to hear Mozart either. Without state subsidies, the orchestras and opera houses would collapse.

In Mahler's tenure as head of the Vienna Court Opera, he managed to raise ticket sales quite a bit, *and it still ran at a massive deficit*, which was covered by the state.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> Most people don't _want_ to hear Mozart either. Without state subsidies, the orchestras and opera houses would collapse.
> 
> In Mahler's tenure as head of the Vienna Court Opera, he managed to raise ticket sales quite a bit, *and it still ran at a massive deficit*, which was covered by the state.


That is what is immediately 'seen' if the taxational burden was significantly decreased and subsidies radically curtailed.

What is 'not seen,' or even mentioned, is all of the newly freed up revenue which the classical-supporting public would have as newly disposable income to support the music that they _do_ like.

If people didn't like Birtwistle- or Mozart- then they wouldn't be coerced into supporting it.

People would only support the musical ensembles and opera companies that they were willing to directly pay for.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Headphone Hermit said:


> any alternatives?
> 
> 'Muzyka powazna' = 'serious/important music' (I don't like it)
> 'art music' - yuk! makes you think of an avatar of a spotty youth in tight underpants


"Elitist music" works best for me.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

And arts institutions are to be coerced into not performing something because the patrons don't like it?

If they believe in something as a work of art, I think it's right that they take the chance of risking displeasure on the part of a portion of the audience. After all, there are other audiences out there that would be interested.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> And arts institutions are to be coerced into not performing something because the patrons don't like it?
> 
> If they believe in something as a work of art, I think it's right that they take the chance of risking displeasure on the part of a portion of the audience. After all, there are other audiences out there that would be interested.


Of course the financial backers who sign the paychecks can stop "coercing" their recipients by refusing to sign paychecks to begin with.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Of course the financial backers who sign the paychecks can stop "coercing" their recipients by refusing to sign paychecks to begin with.


You were suggesting that a non-publicly supported institution would perform Mozart but not Birtwistle, because there would be support for the former but not the latter.

But what about the institutions that perform both? Symphony orchestras and opera houses put on Birtwistle's works, if not frequently, with some degree of regularity.

You seem to be suggesting that backers can demand (via the withholding of support) that an institution change its programming to suit their tastes, but I am suggesting that programming should be the exclusive right of the people running the institution. If they believe in the value of a work, they should perform it. If others do not, it is of course their right to not attend.


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> Yes, I see what you mean, but classical music is different than most popular music, because it has dynamics. My friends listen to popular music, and they run it through this horrible processing of "compression" which makes the music uniformly as loud as possible at every nanosecond! You look at the file in a recording app, and it's just a solid black line with no dynamics, no quiet parts! Horrible!


Yes, who started those trends?










Classical music is so much better produced nine times out of ten -- why do they do it all?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> You were suggesting that a non-publicly supported institution would perform Mozart but not Birtwistle, because there would be support for the former but not the latter.
> 
> But what about the institutions that perform both? Symphony orchestras and opera houses put on Birtwistle's works, if not frequently, with some degree of regularity.
> 
> You seem to be suggesting that backers can demand (via the withholding of support) that an institution change its programming to suit their tastes, but I am suggesting that programming should be the exclusive right of the people running the institution. If they believe in the value of a work, they should perform it. If others do not, it is of course their right to not attend.


I would never 'suggest' that backers can withhold their financial support- but I'd 'expressly' say that they can. It is after all 'their' money.

Any institution that wants to flout the will of its financial underwriters is free to perform any work they want- but of course without the money that makes so much of their undertaking possible.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I would never 'suggest' that backers can withhold their financial support- but I'd 'expressly' say that they can. It is after all 'their' money.
> 
> Any institution that wants to flout the will of its financial underwriters is free to perform any work they want- but of course without the money that makes so much of their undertaking possible.


This sounds about right. Of course in the US we could simply dismantle the way our music is financed and pay for it directly from taxes. Then the government could determine what we should listen to! :lol:


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> This sounds about right. Of course in the US we could simply dismantle the way our music is financed and pay for it directly from taxes. Then the government could determine what we should listen to! :lol:


Plato would certainly approve even if Jefferson wouldn't.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I would never 'suggest' that backers can withhold their financial support- but I'd 'expressly' say that they can. It is after all 'their' money.
> 
> Any institution that wants to flout the will of its financial underwriters is free to perform any work they want- but of course without the money that makes so much of their undertaking possible.


But what if the will of the underwriters is simply to serve great music, rather than simply a certain specific aesthetic?

There are plenty of people who do subsidize performances of new music, and you keep implying that they are a vanishingly small minority.

Boulez sells better than Korngold, though.


----------



## SimonNZ (Jul 12, 2012)

.................................


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> But what if the will of the underwriters is simply to serve great music, rather than simply a certain specific aesthetic?
> 
> There are plenty of people who do subsidize performances of new music, and you keep implying that they are a vanishingly small minority.
> 
> Boulez sells better than Korngold, though.


If Boulez sells better than Korngold, then you should have nothing to worry about to begin with. . . right?


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> If Boulez sells better than Korngold, then you should have nothing to worry about to begin with. . . right?


I didn't say I was worried.

You're the one who's implying people are being taxed on music that they "don't want to hear." Sure, the lovers of Birtwistle (I've never really been one) and Boulez are a minority, but so are the lovers of Mozart, within the total number of taxpayers.

In continuation of the Mahler/Vienna Opera story, after he was pushed to resignation, the Vienna Court Opera chose a more conservative director who would give proper, "traditional" interpretations and not perform any of the more radical works Mahler had.

Ticket sales dropped and the quality of performances plummeted.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> I didn't say I was worried.
> 
> You're the one who's implying people are being taxed on music that they "don't want to hear." Sure, the lovers of Birtwistle (I've never really been one) and Boulez are a minority, but so are the lovers of Mozart, within the total number of taxpayers.


_Oh but they are being taxed for music they don't want to hear!_

You should hear some of my operatic friends go on and on about some of the nihilist Wagner productions that L.A. Opera has put on. . .

But we're getting away from my original point, which was that if one is so certain that one's music is 'popular'- then it should have no trouble getting underwriting by people who will voluntarily support it.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

The arts have always been subsidised by the church, the nobility and now by government. And I'm glad of that as I believe in great art. But artists should not think it their right to be subsidised as some of them appear to. I remember Sir Peter Hall fuming because he could not get subsidies to perform a series of lousy plays. The fact that no-one wanted to see them apparently escaped him!


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Oh but they are being taxed for music they don't want to hear!_


When I saw the appalling misproduction of Don Giovanni at the Royal Opera House I did wonder why we were using tax payers money to subsidise such idiocracy!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

DavidA said:


> The arts have always been subsidised by the church, the nobility and now by government. And I'm glad of that as I believe in great art. But artists should not think it their right to be subsidised as some of them appear to. I remember Sir Peter Hall fuming because he could not get subsidies to perform a series of lousy plays. The fact that no-one wanted to see them apparently escaped him!


If I was the Grand Aesthetic Inquisitor, then I'd mandate that all boringly-sung historical French opera cd's be outlawed and that only vintage Callas be marketed for people's higher aesthetic edification- but of course I'm a libertarian and treat people as 'ends-in-themselves' and not 'means-to-my-ends'- unlike so many people who want to force others to pay for "their" football stadium or "their" symphony orchestra- so I'd never imagine forcing my tastes onto others, as its so hideously indecent to pretend that I have more of a right to a paycheck than the person who earned it.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Marschallin Blair said:


> _Oh but they are being taxed for music they don't want to hear!_
> 
> You should hear some of my operatic friends go on and on about some of the nihilist Wagner productions that L.A. Opera has put on. . .
> 
> But we're getting away from my original point, which was that if one is so certain that one's music is 'popular'- then it should have no trouble getting underwriting by people who will voluntarily support it.


None of the music we are talking about is popular, and I never said that Boulez was. He's simply selling better at Amazon at the moment (based on sales rankings) than anything by Korngold.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

KenOC said:


> This sounds about right. Of course in the US we could simply dismantle the way our music is financed and pay for it directly from taxes. Then the government could determine what we should listen to! :lol:


And just why not? As governments put out all kinds of taxpayer funded incentives to highly profitable sports teams, their gaudy stadiums, etc., the amount to subsidize music would make a trivial difference.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Mahlerian said:


> None of the music we are talking about is popular, and I never said that Boulez was. He's simply selling better at Amazon at the moment (based on sales rankings) than anything by Korngold.


Poor old Korngold! Does that include his film music too?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Mahlerian said:


> None of the music we are talking about is popular, and I never said that Boulez was. He's simply selling better at Amazon at the moment (based on sales rankings) than anything by Korngold.


'Popular' music, 'unpopular' music, 'whatever' type of music: The only meaningful test of whether people are getting the music they want with their money is by allowing them to pay for it themselves.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

My town is clearly not getting this right! My taxes pay for sumptuous productions of Don Quixote by Minkus and more people go to that than go to Traviata. More people came to "A Night with John Williams" than Four Last Songs and Bruckner 7 put together. Then guess what - more people came to Ligeti Requiem than came to see Tchaik 5! More people came to the Roussel programme than the Korngold programme a couple of years back.

It's tough living in such an upside-down place I don't know what to think any more!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Becca said:


> And just why not? As governments put out all kinds of taxpayer funded incentives to highly profitable sports teams, their gaudy stadiums, etc., the amount to subsidize music would make a trivial difference.


You're right.

But then regardless of whether one's talking 'stadiums' or 'opera houses'- its the principle of the matter that interests me: Do I own my life and the product of my labor? Or does someone else own my life and the product of my labor?

People that believe in slavery (not you, Becca) should have the good grace to call it by its proper name.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Just for clarity since this is an international forum: In the US, the amount of tax money going for music, either composers or performers, is vanishingly small. Among orchestras, most revenues are from donations, followed distantly by ticket sales. If the LA Opera has a boondoggle performance, the opera as a corporate entity must bear the consequences -- not the taxpayer.

Policies, musical and otherwise, are the business of the board and often the music director. The board is typically made up of major contributors to the enterprise. Orchestras have certain objectives regarding their duties in the community, which often conflict and require compromise in every direction, including the music to be programmed. One of the top priorities, for obvious reasons, is economic survival.

Regarding the motivations of the donors, can we perhaps drop the cynicism and accept that some or most simply want to contribute to the better aspects of their community?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

dgee said:


> My town is clearly not getting this right! My taxes pay for sumptuous productions of Don Quixote by Minkus and more people go to that than go to Traviata. More people came to "A Night with John Williams" than Four Last Songs and Bruckner 7 put together. Then guess what - more people came to Ligeti Requiem than came to see Tchaik 5! More people came to the Roussel programme than the Korngold programme a couple of years back.
> 
> It's tough living in such an upside-down place I don't know what to think any more!


If people are being taxed for what they would already voluntarily pay for anyway, why are they being taxed to begin with?


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Just for clarity since this is an international forum: In the US, the amount of tax money going for music, either composers or performers, is vanishingly small. Among orchestras, most revenues are from donations, followed distantly by ticket sales. If the LA Opera has a boondoggle performance, the opera as a corporate entity must bear the consequences -- not the taxpayer.
> 
> Policies, musical and otherwise, are the business of the board and often the music director. The board is typically made up of major contributors to the enterprise. Orchestras have certain objectives regarding their duties in the community, which often conflict and require compromise in every direction, including the music to be programmed. One of the top priorities, for obvious reasons, is economic survival.
> 
> Regarding the motivations of the donors, can we perhaps drop the cynicism and accept that some or most simply want to contribute to the better aspects of their community?


Oh Ken, but I'm an incurable Pollyannish _optimist_: The 'cynical' ones are the ones who have to hedge their bet that people will come to their concert to begin with. . . . . . . . with a tax subsidy.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Regarding the motivations of the donors, can we perhaps drop the cynicism and


...

...

...

Well, I want you to know that I really tried.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Marschallin Blair said:


> People that believe in slavery (not you, Becca) should have the good grace to call it by its proper name.


Reductio ad absurdum


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> If people are being taxed for what they would already voluntarily pay for anyway, why are they being taxed to begin with?


Let's get a bit serious here. Very little of the big institutional activity would happen without public or private subsidy. So, no Minkus or Verdi for you without public money or corporate sponsorship - usually these are paid for at least 60% by non-ticket revenue. Public money is at least tied to good outcomes for the public and the health of the arts and arts institutions - corporates are buying something that supports their brand. This is why music programming is better and more various in Europe than in the US


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

KenOC said:


> This sounds about right. Of course in the US we could simply dismantle the way our music is financed and pay for it directly from taxes.


You couldn't, because taxes don't pay for diddly-squat. Taxes are money that is taken out of the economy. It is cancelled money.

Government subsidies to orchestras are created by a computer entry which creates money in the account of the recipient.

To return to the OP, it annoys me when people continually make this mistake.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

dgee, you seem to be equating private voluntary sponsorship with tax money, which is coerced and hardly voluntary. The two are quite different. "Publicly money" is not involved in the US, except to the extent that the tax code allows charitable contributions to be deducted from donors' taxable incomes.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Blancrocher said:


> ...
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Yes: Well-behaved women rarely make Her-story.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Wood said:


> Government subsidies to orchestras are created by a computer entry which creates money in the account of the recipient.


Huh? I'll have to tell my local orchestra about this!


----------



## Wood (Feb 21, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Huh? I'll have to tell my local orchestra about this!


i don't think you'll need to tell their Treasurer.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> dgee, you seem to be equating private voluntary sponsorship with tax money, which is coerced and hardly voluntary. The two are quite different. "Publicly money" is not involved in the US, except to the extent that the tax code allows charitable contributions to be deducted from donors' taxable incomes.


It's all non-ticket revenue! So concert-goer aren't really calling the shots, despite that fact that sponsors and public-funders want to see punters in seats. Any of this money brings expectations with it - I'd personally prefer to see public good expectations than "promote my brand" expectations. And I'm prepared to be taxed for it - even tho some of that goes to pay for Verdi and Shostakovich.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

dgee said:


> It's all non-ticket revenue! So concert-goer aren't really calling the shots, despite that fact that sponsors and public-funders want to see punters in seats. Any of this money brings expectations with it - I'd personally prefer to see public good expectations than "promote my brand" expectations. And I'm prepared to be taxed for it - even tho some of that goes to pay for Verdi and Shostakovich.


It's quite true that donors feel more generous when the hall is filled, for obvious reasons. That certainly enforces a sort of conservatism that doesn't arise directly from the donors' own tastes -- but it arguably supports the "public good," at least as defined by the public.

BTW I don't believe your idea that donors are forcing their musical agenda on the orchestras in any major way is well-supported but will be happy to see any examples.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

KenOC said:


> It's quite true that donors feel more generous when the hall is filled, for obvious reasons. That certainly enforces a sort of conservatism that doesn't arise directly from the donors' own tastes -- but it arguably supports the "public good," at least as defined by the public.
> 
> BTW I don't believe your idea that donors are forcing their musical agenda on the orchestras in any major way is well-supported but will be happy to see any examples.


In the US, the system of buying board positions with hefty donations means that big money has a big hand in choosing your music. Rumour has is that orchestras in Texas and Atlanta have been especially hard hit with commissions pulled and programming bids toned down (no Bartok!). Closer to home I know that sponsors keep a pretty tight rein on opera programming which is why we get Don G, Boheme, Trav and Rigatoni on high rotate


----------



## Saintbert (Mar 12, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Just for clarity since this is an international forum: In the US, the amount of tax money going for music, either composers or performers, is vanishingly small. Among orchestras, most revenues are from donations, followed distantly by ticket sales. If the LA Opera has a boondoggle performance, the opera as a corporate entity must bear the consequences -- not the taxpayer.


It is well to point out the difference but it's good only as long as you only listen to locally produced music. Recorded music, on which I based my argument, travels better than an opera house, I know that much.


----------

