# Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others?



## mitchflorida

I have met a lot of people in my life, but I have never met a classical music fan who was stupid.

Lots of stupid heavy metal and rap and pop music fans, but never a dumb classical music lover.


Do you agree? Give us some concrete examples.


----------



## Guest

Some are, some aren't. Depends on how you're measuring 'intelligence', 'stupidity' and 'dumb'.

According to _my _measures, I'm very intelligent, and I find some people here remarkably stupid (no, I'm not about to give concrete examples!)...but on others' richter scale of smartness, I probably barely register!


----------



## Badinerie

mitchflorida said:


> I have met a lot of people in my life, but I have never met a classical music fan who was stupid.


Hello!...........


----------



## Manxfeeder

I'd respond, but I'm afraid I'd say something stupid.


----------



## tempo

''Intelligent'' may not be the right word, perhaps - ''sensitive'' and/or ''cultured'' may be closer to the mark.

That said, I would be very surprised to have a person of relatively low intelligence tell me that they love Shostakovich's first symphony or Beethoven's Grosse Fugue, so I guess I do agree with the point the OP is making.

People who like classical music are not necessarily exceptionally intelligent, but they are rarely of below average intelligence.


----------



## spradlig

To the OP: I think you answered your own question. Correctly.


----------



## Serge

I would say it's more a matter of experience and taste. Can you expect a toddler to get into Bach straight away really? Well, into Mozart - maybe.


----------



## mitchflorida

Actually toddlers are more likely to appreciate Mozart than the average teenager. I am listening now to Bach's Toccata and Fugue. You need a brain to understand, decypher and enjoy this music. It doesn't have a beat, which is what the average adult cares about.


----------



## mitchflorida

If anyone here likes classical music and has a below average IQ, please give us specifics.


----------



## Ukko

Classical music listeners are, as a group and individually, more intelligent than human beings.


----------



## SONNET CLV

mitchflorida said:


> Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others?


"No."

(Example? When I enjoy a punk rock record, do I lose (or gain) any "intelligence" in comparison to when I listen to Mozart's 41st Symphony?)


----------



## mitchflorida

SONNET CLV said:


> "No."
> 
> (Example? When I enjoy a punk rock record, do I lose (or gain) any "intelligence" in comparison to when I listen to Mozart's 41st Symphony?)


 I merely said in general classical music lovers are more intelligent than punk rock listeners. Casual observation of the audiences of each proves my point. Q.E.D.


----------



## hpowders

I love serious music, yet my secondary school advisor recommended "shepherd" as my probable vocation, after a battery of aptitude tests; this in the middle of New York City. Take away from this what you will.


----------



## senza sordino

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Me like classical music, me intelligent.


----------



## spradlig

Do you mean classical music lovers aren't human beings? "I am Zmordlap from the planet Xqeblryk 9B. I come in peace." :wave:



Ukko said:


> Classical music listeners are, as a group and individually, more intelligent than human beings.


----------



## Serge

mitchflorida said:


> Actually toddlers are more likely to appreciate Mozart than the average teenager. I am listening now to Bach's Toccata and Fugue. You need a brain to understand, decypher and enjoy this music. It doesn't have a beat, which is what the average adult cares about.


Yeah, but what's the point of listening to music? To me, as a non-professional, it's clearly enjoyment rather than "understanding". Even as an average listener I can decipher much more music than I care to enjoy. Coherent doesn't necessarily make up for fun.


----------



## stevens

Yes, we are smarter and we looks better. We have better taste and we are better lovers


----------



## mitchflorida

If you voted for Barack Obama, please scratch your name off the "more intelligent" list. Just kidding (not).


----------



## amfortas

I've heard that if you play recordings of babies for Mozart while he's in the womb, he'll come out more intelligent.

Or something like that.


----------



## Serge

hpowders said:


> I love serious music, yet my secondary school advisor recommended "shepherd" as my probable vocation, after a battery of aptitude tests; this in the middle of New York City. Take away from this what you will.


Well, are not you an outstanding urban dweller or what?


----------



## SONNET CLV

mitchflorida said:


> If you voted for Barack Obama, please scratch your name off the "more intelligent" list. Just kidding (not).


It's comments such as this that contribute nothing to the understanding of the issue at hand, but that_ do _tell us a lot about _whom _we are dealing with in these debates.


----------



## Ukko

Serge said:


> Well, are not you an outstanding urban dweller or what?


Summer alone in the high pastures, large flock and a couple dogs. Even with predators for excitement, probably not an outstanding urban dweller's cuppa.


----------



## Ingélou

hpowders said:


> I love serious music, yet my secondary school advisor recommended "shepherd" as my probable vocation, after a battery of aptitude tests; this in the middle of New York City. Take away from this what you will.


Obviously your powers of empathy...

It would be nice to think that lovers of classical music are more intelligent, but I think we might just turn out to be more middle class or more patient or more elitist or more boring than the average.


----------



## mitchflorida

Ingélou said:


> It would be nice to think that lovers of classical music are more intelligent, but I think we might just turn out to be more middle class or more patient or more elitist or more boring than the average.


Please speak for yourself and don't drag "us" into it. Thank you.


----------



## Serge

mitchflorida said:


> Please speak for yourself and don't drag "us" into it. Thank you.


You see, that's just rude, I think. And I'm probably the least polite guy on these boards. Well, I'm quite sure.


----------



## GreenMamba

I agree with Serge. The OP asked for opinions, and Ingelou gave one. She even wrote "I think."


----------



## starthrower

I only see these types of threads here, and at prog rock forums, so if being big headed about your musical tastes translates to higher intelligence, you win. I think?


----------



## mitchflorida

The notion that people who like classical music are boring or even more middle class is patently false. If anything, the upper classes like classical music more than the "middle classes". And as for being "elitiist" that is like saying a college professor or CEO is elitist, so what?


----------



## Serge

mitchflorida said:


> The notion that people who like classical music are boring or even more middle class is patently false. If anything, the upper classes like classical music more than the "middle classes". And as for being "elitiist" that is like saying a college professor or CEO is elitist, so what?


This is a thread about misconceptions. What's yours?


----------



## tempo

SONNET CLV said:


> "No."
> 
> (Example? When I enjoy a punk rock record, do I lose (or gain) any "intelligence" in comparison to when I listen to Mozart's 41st Symphony?)


Er, that's not the point.

No one said anything about your intelligence 'varying' from day to day depending on what's on your stereo.

The discussion point here is whether or not people who like and listen to classical music are more intelligent than those who don't.


----------



## Crudblud

Based on many of the threads I read on this website, I'm going to hazard a guess at 'no'.


----------



## Ingélou

Ingélou said:


> Obviously your powers of empathy...
> 
> It would be nice to think that lovers of classical music are more intelligent, but I think we might just turn out to be more middle class or more patient or more elitist or more boring than the average.





mitchflorida said:


> Please speak for yourself and don't drag "us" into it. Thank you.





mitchflorida said:


> The notion that people who like classical music are boring or even more middle class is patently false. If anything, the upper classes like classical music more than the "middle classes". And as for being "elitiist" that is like saying a college professor or CEO is elitist, so what?


It is possible that lovers of classical music are less attuned to self-deprecating jokes - I *think*!


----------



## violadude

Yup, most people here are pretty swell and intelligent, but spend enough time on this forum and you're sure to meet your stupid classical music fans.

But I think there is at least SOME validity in the idea that Classical Music fans are potentially more intelligent on average than say, modern pop music fans. It depends on the measurement of intelligence you are using though. One important component of intelligence is curiosity, intellectual curiosity to be exact.

There are a lot of people out there who aren't really curious about anything. They don't look up in the sky and wonder what's out there, they don't think about our history, our future or even much of the present. They just want to get paid so they can buy beer and watch the game or go out and party. I think this is the type of person that will be more attracted to pop music than a more "substantial" musical genre like Classical. Furthermore, since classical music _does_ offer a lot in the way of discovery, nuance and technique and is also tied in profoundly with historical development, there is a lot more there to satisfy an intellectual curiosity that someone like myself or other people on this forum, may have. And, as I said, that intellectual curiosity could be considered a component of intelligence.

So, classical music doesn't automatically make you intelligent but I think there may be a very broad tendency for intelligent people to be attracted by classical music because it offers so much substance.

I suppose it also depends on _why_ you listen to music too.


----------



## Ingélou

Ingélou said:


> Obviously your powers of empathy...
> 
> It would be nice to think that lovers of classical music are more intelligent, but I think we might just turn out to be more middle class or more patient or more elitist or more boring than the average.


My serious point is the same as MacLeod's - intelligence is of different sorts; moreover, it's difficult to measure, and intelligence tests are usually culturally biassed. In Britain the upper classes are the aristocracy, so when talking about people with money and access to culture, 'middle-class' is the term used over here.

There's also the point that attitude matters almost as much as intelligence. When I was at uni, statistical research showed that Scottish Presbyterians got the best degrees. They didn't have the best A-levels or the highest IQs, but they did have determination 'in spades'. This is why I suggested that listeners to classical music may have more patience - or concentration - than average, as the pieces of music are longer and more complex than more popular genres.

Lastly, I spoke of 'we' because I didn't want people to think that I was poking fun at others. I was including myself in the joke. But I've always got into trouble for joking.

Hope that clears things up.

My opinion - on no evidence whatsoever - is that people who listen to classical music may be more artistic or sensitive, but they probably aren't as intelligent at brain surgery as brain surgeons are.


----------



## GioCar

Honestly I don't think there is a definitive answer to the OP question. There are so many different types of "intelligences"...

I don't know if someone has ever compared the IQ of a sample of CM listeners with that of pop/rock/etc.. listeners.

Anyway, it seems that musicians are smarter than the others, even smarter than "_those who spent their lives listening to music rather than performing it" _

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/20/music-intelligence_n_904124.html


----------



## Blancrocher

violadude said:


> Yup, most people here are pretty swell and intelligent, but spend enough time on this forum and you're sure to meet your stupid classical music fans.


I privately suspect that some of that stupidity is feigned, however.


----------



## violadude

Blancrocher said:


> I privately suspect that some of that stupidity is feigned, however.


Oh definitely, in some cases. I know people in real life that feign stupidity all the time so they can stubbornly hold on to their position.


----------



## mitchflorida

There are all sorts of intelligence. I was referring to IQ tests which are for analytical reasoning. My guess is that people who like classical music are as a rule poor dancers, maybe bad athletes?


I doubt if they play a lot of Vivaldi in the Steelers' locker room.


----------



## Ingélou

violadude said:


> Oh definitely, in some cases. I know people in real life that feign stupidity all the time so they can stubbornly hold on to their position.


Plus, it deflects attack. 'Brutus' in Latin means 'stupid'. The original Brutus survived Tarquin's reign of terror by feigning stupidity.

@mitchflorida, I'm not sure about being 'bad dancers'. Surely, if you understand rhythm and respond to musical moods, you should be a good dancer.


----------



## violadude

mitchflorida said:


> There are all sorts of intelligence. I was referring to IQ tests which are for analytical reasoning. My guess is that people who like classical music are as a rule bad dancers, maybe bad athletes?
> 
> I doubt if they play a lot of Vivaldi in the Steelers' locker room.


I've taken random "IQ tests" on the internet so I don't know how valid they are, but I remember getting a fairly low score because a lot of the questions involved quick thinking and spatial thinking, both of which I'm bad at.

My brain is intelligent, but not fast.


----------



## mitchflorida

A lot of people dislike classical for the simple reason that you can't dance to it. I would put a lot of people under 30 in that category. That is why classical music is cerebral.


----------



## Ingélou

You probably can't do disco dancing to it. But baroque music is suitable for gavottes, minuets etc, and more modern music for ballet or dance-drama.


----------



## Ukko

Ingélou said:


> [...]
> My opinion - on no evidence whatsoever - is that people who listen to classical music may be more artistic or sensitive, but they probably aren't as intelligent at brain surgery as brain surgeons are.


Never met a brain surgeon, but suspect they are about as apt to be damfools as the other tradesmen ('tradesmen' misused deliberately).

I've known a few guys who had bad luck in the womb or in the next few years. The rest of them could figure the important things out if/when they wanted to. Might take a little longer.


----------



## violadude

Ingélou said:


> You probably can't do disco dancing to it. But baroque music is suitable for gavottes, minuets etc, and more modern music for ballet or dance-drama.


Baroque dances are probably too subtle. Kids these days can't tell where the beat is unless it's hammered out by a loud electronic bass.


----------



## mitchflorida

Try dancing to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, would like to see your dance moves.


----------



## Ingélou

mitchflorida said:


> Try dancing to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, would like to see your dance moves.


Not a problem; shame I don't have a video camera!

There are modern ballet companies who perform expressive, interpretative dances to classical music. Think of the Ritual Fire Dance, or Bolero, or Holst's Mars. The dances are just a bit more artistic than clubbers usually manage.

A lot of the posters on TC (myself *not* included) are dedicated listeners who know a lot about musicology and who can sort out performances, instruments, and musical trends with impressive finesse. These people are definitely more intelligent than average - just as any group of specialists (in art - mathematics - or chopping wood*) will generally possess more skill and powers of analysis than average. 
All in my opinion.

_(*some intelligent posters on TC are skilled both as listeners and wood-choppers!)_

*Edit: See - perfectly possible. And they're under thirty!* :lol:


----------



## hpowders

It's part of the stereotype that's out there: we are a bunch of intellectual, conservative nerds and classical music is hard to understand.

I'm claiming we are no more or less intelligent as a group than people who love jazz or musical comedy.

Anybody can learn to love classical music if they are lucky enough to be exposed to wonderful, convincing, dynamic performances of it. Many people have never been that lucky.

If one loves music in general, then one can also love classical music. To listen and love it, is not to analyze it to death. No special intelligence required.

Sorry to burst the bubble of any elitists who might be reading this.


----------



## Taggart

Ingélou said:


> You probably can't do disco dancing to it.


Who would want to? To any sort of music? 



Ingélou said:


> But baroque music is suitable for gavottes, minuets etc, and more modern music for ballet or dance-drama.





violadude said:


> Baroque dances are probably too subtle. Kids these days can't tell where the beat is unless it's hammered out by a loud electronic bass.


And then when you get real dance music like Praetorius' Terpsichore or some of the earlier dances like La Volta then people either say that the music is inaccessible or the dance is unseemly. Mark you, the La Volta does have a well defined beat - the advantage of a good pipe and tabor!


----------



## GioCar

hpowders said:


> It's part of the stereotype that's out there: we are a bunch of intellectual, conservative nerds and classical music is hard to understand.
> 
> I'm claiming we are no more or less intelligent as a group than people who love jazz or musical comedy.
> 
> Anybody can learn to love classical music if they are lucky enough to be exposed to wonderful, convincing, dynamic performances of it. Many people have never been that lucky.
> 
> If one loves music in general, then one can also love classical music. To listen and love it, is not to analyze it to death. No special intelligence required.


I'm nervous... is your avatar *really* taking your place in the real life? "The invasion of the body snatchers"?

:tiphat:


----------



## hpowders

Folks, let's not confuse "composer" with "listener".

It takes no special intelligence or talent to "listen" to classical music. It's a passive activity. Anybody can do it.

You feel like you are "special" or "elitist" for doing so, I think you need to "re-evaluate" yourself.


----------



## hpowders

GioCar said:


> I'm nervous... is your avatar *really* taking your place in the real life? "The invasion of the body snatchers"?
> 
> :tiphat:


You don't like my Lenny?


----------



## GioCar

hpowders said:


> You don't like my Lenny?


Mais bien sur, mon ami


----------



## mitchflorida

hpowders said:


> It's part of the stereotype that's out there: we are a bunch of intellectual, conservative nerds and classical music is hard to understand.
> 
> I'm claiming we are no more or less intelligent as a group than people who love jazz or musical comedy.
> 
> Anybody can learn to love classical music
> 
> If one loves music in general, then one can also love classical music.


Honestly, you are just spouting off and have no proof of any of your statements.

Classical music is much more complex than rock music and pop music. Some jazz is of the same complexity of classical, but only a small segment. Rap and disco are meant to move the body, not the mind.


----------



## SONNET CLV

mitchflorida said:


> Try dancing to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, would like to see your dance moves.


It's the ol' box step -- L R L R, R L R L.


----------



## SONNET CLV

tempo said:


> Er, that's not the point.
> 
> No one said anything about your intelligence 'varying' from day to day depending on what's on your stereo.
> 
> The discussion point here is whether or not people who like and listen to classical music are more intelligent than those who don't.


And the answer is still "no".


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> It's part of the stereotype that's out there: we are a bunch of intellectual, conservative nerds and classical music is hard to understand.
> 
> I'm claiming we are no more or less intelligent as a group than people who love jazz or musical comedy.
> 
> Anybody can learn to love classical music if they are lucky enough to be exposed to wonderful, convincing, dynamic performances of it. Many people have never been that lucky.
> 
> If one loves music in general, then one can also love classical music. To listen and love it, is not to analyze it to death. No special intelligence required.
> 
> Sorry to burst the bubble of any elitists who might be reading this.


I agree to some extent, but I don't think it's true that everyone can learn to love classical music. Anyone can learn about classical music, but some people just aren't responsive to it no matter what you tell them.


----------



## tempo

hpowders said:


> It's part of the stereotype that's out there: we are a bunch of intellectual, conservative nerds and classical music is hard to understand.
> 
> I'm claiming we are no more or less intelligent as a group than people who love jazz or musical comedy.
> 
> Anybody can learn to love classical music if they are lucky enough to be exposed to wonderful, convincing, dynamic performances of it. Many people have never been that lucky.
> 
> If one loves music in general, then one can also love classical music. To listen and love it, is not to analyze it to death. No special intelligence required.
> 
> Sorry to burst the bubble of any elitists who might be reading this.


I don't agree with your argument here.

There are plenty of people on this Earth who, if "exposed to [a] wonderful, convincing, dynamic performance" of a great classical work, would see nothing in it. I know that for a fact.

It's simply not true to say that everyone/anyone can identify the glories of classical music.


----------



## mitchflorida

SONNET CLV said:


> It's the ol' box step -- L R L R, R L R L.


Wouldn't it be cool if one of the great Symphony Orchestras put up a small dance floor up in front so we could see people dancing to Beethoven, Mahler, etc. or at least Mozart.


----------



## millionrainbows

Originally, classical music (including opera) was created for an elite royal class. No box office, invitation only. These were the educated people, so their intelligence was more developed according to that. So, yes, originally, only the educated elite got to see operas and hear the most developed music played by the most highly trained musicians, on expensive instruments. Now, it's different.

I have the feeling that this history is what the OP is basing this question/perception on. The residue of tradition and history still flavours the music, doesn't it? 

It's nice to be king.


----------



## mmsbls

Well, years ago I had no idea whether those who listened to classical music were of more, less, or equal intelligence to those who did not. Since then I had read a few studies that indicated that intelligence was correlated with classical music listening. Here's a link to a recent article that gives some theoretical hypotheses for such a link along with results from a sample of people (see figure 1 and 2). According to the figures, there is a significant correlation between intelligence and classical music listening (or enjoyment).

Two results from the abstract:



> Additional analyses suggest that the effect of intelligence on musical preference is not a function of the cognitive complexity of music.





> The
> Savanna‐IQ Interaction Hypothesis would then imply that more intelligent individuals are more likely to prefer purely instrumental music than less intelligent individuals, but general intelligence has no effect on the preference for vocal music.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

millionrainbows said:


> I have the feeling that this history is what the OP is basing this question/perception on. The residue of tradition and history still flavours the music, doesn't it?
> 
> It's nice to be king.


I think it's better to participate in something that has a rich history and tradition, rather than in something as rootless and plastic (like a disposable plastic coffee cup) as much of our modern music and general culture.

I agree with Violadude on the subject of intellectual curiosity. For most people classical music is not what they just get to hear randomly as a background music. One has to actively reach out and explore it.


----------



## GreenMamba

The most intellectually curious, IMO, who those who like a wide variety of music, not just Classical.


----------



## CypressWillow

I happen to agree with the OP.
And, there are musical _savants_. 
"It's a puzzlement."


----------



## mitchflorida

millionrainbows said:


> Originally, classical music (including opera) was created for an elite royal class. No box office, invitation only. These were the educated people, so their intelligence was more developed according to that. So, yes, originally, only the educated elite got to see operas and hear the most developed music played by the most highly trained musicians, on expensive instruments. Now, it's different.
> 
> I have the feeling that this history is what the OP is basing this question/perception on. The residue of tradition and history still flavours the music, doesn't it?
> 
> It's nice to be king.


Surely you know that classical music originated in the church, not for the kings, though they soon got into the act.


----------



## violadude

mitchflorida said:


> Surely you know that classical music originated in the church, not for the kings, though they soon got into the act.


Ya but at that point the church was so entwined in politics anyway, it might have well have originated with either.


----------



## mitchflorida

violadude said:


> Ya but at that point the church was so entwined in politics anyway, it might have well have originated with either.


Classical music originated with Gregorian Chants and it took a few hundred years to get to the non-church venue. Even Bach wrote mainly for the church.


----------



## Cosmos

I'm not sure, but if the answer is "yes", it probably doesn't have to do with the fact that the person listens to classical.


----------



## Guest

My IQ is slightly higher than the average president of the United States, and I'm a bum  I would prefer to measure intelligence by a mixture of IQ, and also the intelligence to get off your ***.

Also, I would say empathy is actually an intellectual quality. People that can't comprehend those that like dance music, etc, being more than your average ape...well, obviously no awareness outside of the self, and it doesn't sound terribly smart either.


----------



## aleazk

If you can't tell me what is this, and also what is it for, you are stupid in my book. So I wouldn't worry about these kind of things. As Einy said, "we are all very ignorant, but not all ignorant of the same things".


----------



## violadude

aleazk said:


> If you can't tell me what is this, and also what is it for, you are stupid in my book. So I wouldn't worry about these kind of things. As Einy said, "we are all very ignorant, but not all ignorant of the same things".


Aw...now I want to know what that is.


----------



## Blake

aleazk said:


> If you can't tell me what is this, and also what is it for, you are stupid in my book. So I wouldn't worry about these kind of things. As Einy said, "we are all very ignorant, but not all ignorant of the same things".


Most of us are pretty stupid. Every once in a while a smart one emerges.


----------



## aleazk

violadude said:


> Aw...now I want to know what that is.


You would need to take a graduate course on QFT for that. 

I could try to explain it to you via pm if you are interested.


----------



## Bored

Don't generalize people. -.-


----------



## mitchflorida

At this point, I am looking for people who like classical music and have low IQs (under 95). If that is you , please introduce yourself and explain your situation.


----------



## Corvus

I think it is more likely that people of above average intelligence would be drawn to music that has more to offer (ie classical). Classical music generally has a little more to sink your teeth into. It is sometimes frustrating to listen to pop music because a piece is over just soon after it starts. Also, much pop music is highly repetitive. The repeats in classical music are much farther apart, this makes for a more interesting and complex structure. I think intelligent people would be more apt to enjoy something like this whereas maybe someone of low intelligence would find music that is not repetitive as boring because it would be more difficult for their brains to recognize a pattern (brains love patterns).


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> I agree to some extent, but I don't think it's true that everyone can learn to love classical music. Anyone can learn about classical music, but some people just aren't responsive to it no matter what you tell them.


I didn't say that. I said anyone who loves music in general has the capacity to love classical music.


----------



## aleazk

mitchflorida said:


> At this point, I am looking for people who like classical music and have low IQs (under 95). If that is you , please introduce yourself and explain your situation.


That's me. Atonal music sucks.


----------



## tempo

hpowders said:


> I didn't say that. I said anyone who loves music in general has the capacity to love classical music.


I'm not at all sure that's true.


----------



## Ukko

tempo said:


> I'm not at all sure that's true.


Considering the qualifiers 'in general' and 'capacity', it damn near has to be true - and if it ain't, you wouldn't know it.


----------



## mitchflorida

That's like saying anyone who can read a nursery rhyme also has the capacity to love Shakespeare. They are not in the same realm.

Classical music tends to be music for the mind, popular music is music for the body and dancing, one is not better than the other.


----------



## hpowders

mitchflorida said:


> That's like saying anyone who can read a nursery rhyme also has the capacity to love Shakespeare. They are not in the same realm.
> 
> Classical music tends to be music for the mind, popular music is music for the body and dancing, one is not better than the other.


Really, now? Quite an elitist point of view and I don't buy it for a minute. Some popular music is as sophisticated as anything classical. Go back and listen to some of the Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead Concerts.

So I guess we should eliminate all minuets from Haydn Symphonies. Many are danceable. Too bad.

I guess Appalachian Spring is out too. What a shame. I really liked that one.

About time some of you folks fess up. Being a classical music _listener_ indicates nothing special and requires no unique abilities. It is as passive an activity as sitting in front of the boob tube all day. Folks can like classical music with IQ's of 60-160 and probably do.

Now if you are a classical music _composer_, my respect for you just went up 12 notches.


----------



## Piwikiwi

hpowders said:


> Really, now? Quite an elitist point of view and I don't buy it for a minute. *Some popular music is as sophisticated as anything classical. *So I guess we should eliminate all minuets from Haydn Symphonies. Many are danceable. Too bad.
> I guess Appalachian Spring is out too. What a shame. I really liked that one.
> 
> About time some of you folks fess up. Being a classical music _listener_ is nothing special and requires no unique abilities. It is as passive an activity as sitting in front of the boob tube all day. Folks can like it who have IQ's of 60-160.
> 
> Now if you are a classical music _composer_, my respect for you just went up 12 notches.


Can you give some examples?


----------



## hpowders

Piwikiwi said:


> Can you give some examples?


 Grateful Dead concerts.

Most contemporary jazz.

Art Tatum. Miles Davis. Dizzy Gillespie. Duke Ellington. Louis Armstrong.

May not be "popular" music, but as sophisticated as anything classical.


----------



## millionrainbows

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think it's better to participate in something that has a rich history and tradition, rather than in something as rootless and plastic (like a disposable plastic coffee cup) as much of our modern music and general culture.


Time marches on, the old tyrants die off, and popular music, via recording, is beginning to develop a history and tradition. The Beatles and Stones catalog, the entire Chess label of blues, Sinatra's recordings on Columbia, Capitol, and reprise, plus a whole new world of 'world' music from India, Japan, the east...

You'd never even be 'participating' in the 'rich history and tradition of classical music' if it wasn't for the thousands of recordings out there; unless you've been reading scores to yourself, which I doubt.

Face it: classical music has been 'commodified' by recordings, and is just another genre in the marketplace. Granted, it does have hundreds of years of tradition behind it, before recording existed, when music was for royals only, and the over-taxed, oppressed masses never got to hear it...So you wanna be a part of that tradition of oppression?

The age of absolutism, that's when Western music started flourishing, when kings and royals declared themselves to have divine right, and that they were the representatives of God on earth. I suppose one must get quite an ego trip from this tradition, bearing all that in mind. This is music for divine kings!

Me? I'm an American, and proud of it! I'm a citizen of the world, as well! I don't need to buy into any 'royal entertainment tradition' made only for the elite to enjoy my classical music! I have a whole plethora of music to choose from, from all over the globe, and I love humanity in all its forms! Recording technology, and capitalism, has made it possible for me to experience any kind of music I choose to experience, regardless of its historical baggage!


----------



## hpowders

I'm sure someone will now come along saying the Grateful Dead wasn't sophisticated.
As predictable as the next rain shower.

I don't consider myself super smart and I don't belong to an elite class of people.
I just happen to love classical music. Does that make me special? No!
Does that make me different? Yes! And that's really a shame.


----------



## millionrainbows

hpowders said:


> I'm not looking to get into a fight, but let's not elevate classical music "listening" to something way higher than it is.
> I don't consider myself special or better than someone who doesn't listen to it and neither should anyone else.


So true! Classical music has now been democratized in the capitalist marketplace, along with gut-bucket blues, early 1950's rock, rap, punk rock, Indian ragas, African music, klezmer, and jazz from its beginnings! No music is better than another; recording has made it all equal, and all equally accessible. *Long live capitalism!
*


----------



## Fang

Classical music was "mostly" developed for entertaining a high social class who had the time and money to read and think. Pop music was developed to entertain the commoners who were not as educated and as a result needed more simplified beats and melodies that would generally focus on the basics of human behavior like sex. There are some exceptions here or there but that's the general idea at the most extreme sides of these two genres and the whole point of pop music is to be shallow. I don't think that shallow is necessarily bad and many high IQ people can also enjoy it but the opposite is not true and low IQ people are not equipped with the kind of brains that can process the sophisticated ideas of classical music. This can be seen more clearly when we move away from the grey area that both types share.


----------



## millionrainbows

Fang said:


> Classical music was "mostly" developed for entertaining a high social class who had the time and money to read and think.


It was developed exclusively for the royalty! It was only after the royal viewing, when the king gave the opera to a civic company, that anyone else got to see it.



Fang said:


> Pop music was developed to entertain the commoners who were not as educated and as a result needed more simplified beats and melodies that would generally focus on the basics of human behavior like sex.


Folk music, and secular music, arose spontaneously from the overtaxed masses...most of it was not notated, and was transmitted by ear, so it had a rich development built-in. Conversely, notated music of the royalty stayed in fixed, rigid form with no development through time.



Fang said:


> ...the whole point of pop music is to be shallow.


In a sense, pop music is designed to reflect the need of certain age groups, but any music can transcend its prescribed limits. The Monkees released some genuinely worthy songs, such as Pleasant Valley Sunday and Daydream Believer...generalizations say nothing.



Fang said:


> ...low IQ people are not equipped with the kind of brains that can process the sophisticated ideas of classical music.


And conversely, Classical listeners can't dance.


----------



## mitchflorida

hpowders said:


> Grateful Dead concerts.
> 
> Most contemporary jazz.
> 
> Art Tatum. Miles Davis. Dizzy Gillespie. Duke Ellington. Louis Armstrong.
> 
> May not be "popular" music, but as sophisticated as anything classical.


There are some sophisticated rock groups out there, but Grateful Dead is certainly not one of them.

Thelonius Monk is someone who rivals classical pianists. He is amazing, he is no rocket scientist but that doesn't mean he can't make some very complex music.


----------



## Vesteralen

I would never want to belong to a group of people who fancied themselves as more intelligent....or more anything else, for that matter...


----------



## GreenMamba

Vesteralen said:


> I would never want to belong to a group of people who fancied themselves as more intelligent....or more anything else, for that matter...


The you might want to run from these forums, because a substantial number of members seem heavily invested in the notion that their love of Classical places them among the better people of the world.


----------



## Vesteralen

GreenMamba said:


> The you might want to run from these forums, because a substantial number of members seem heavily invested in the notion that their love of Classical places them among the better people of the world.


That's okay, I don't have to act on my comment because I've never really "belonged" anyway


----------



## SONNET CLV

Vesteralen said:


> I would never want to belong to a group of people who fancied themselves as more intelligent....*or more anything else*, for that matter...


Not even more tolerant, more open-minded, more prone to not wanting identified with those "who fancied themselves as more intelligent" ...?


----------



## Vesteralen

SONNET CLV said:


> Not even more tolerant, more open-minded, more prone to not wanting identified with those "who fancied themselves as more intelligent" ...?


Nope

but, you're right...the emphasis of my expressions was misleading....I would be reluctant to place "no value" on things like tolerance or altruism....I just distrust _groups_, and especially large groups where the possibility of getting to really know all the characters involved becomes more and more unlikely.

But, that takes us far away from the OP's question, doesn't it? I'm not sure I could answer _that _question, and I really don't care an awful lot about it.


----------



## Fang

I think for many people personal insecurity is a major factor in clouding their judgments in accepting the reality of this predatory world that has always been about inequality. I see why the idea of inequality can scare most people because it means that there is always someone better than them out there who is gonna dominate them or even threaten their existence. That's why people try to avoid this subject at all costs. In a more tangible situation for example they would say age is just a number or that it's never too late to learn something but in reality those who are older will find it considerably more difficult to learn anything new comparing to young people. As I mentioned before this difference can be seen more clearly when you move away from the grey area in between the age gaps for example in comparing a teenager to a 90 year-old. Likewise there is a gap in intelligence level between people, gap in physical body abilities, money, happiness, etc and if we go back to music and intelligence that's why there is music targeting the more intelligent, music targeting the less intelligent and a big grey area in between.


----------



## Morimur

aleazk said:


> That's me. Atonal music sucks.


*Oh Lawd!*

View attachment 45644


----------



## Piwikiwi

hpowders said:


> Grateful Dead concerts.
> 
> Most contemporary jazz.
> 
> Art Tatum. Miles Davis. Dizzy Gillespie. Duke Ellington. Louis Armstrong.
> 
> May not be "popular" music, but as sophisticated as anything classical.


I studied jazz full time for more than six years and I disagree. Classical is more complex BUT that's because improvisation limits the amount of large scale structure that classical music has. Jazz sacrifices a (tiny) bit of mainly harmonic complexity for improvisation.

Can you give me a harmonic analyses of the grateful dead to prove your point? I don't want to be rude but it is quite easy to claim something but without any way to back it up it sinply comes across as speculation.


----------



## stevens

Piwikiwi said:


> I studied jazz full time for more than six years and I disagree. Classical is more complex BUT that's because improvisation limits the amount of large scale structure that classical music has. Jazz sacrifices a (tiny) bit of mainly harmonic complexity for improvisation.
> 
> Can you give me a harmonic analyses of the grateful dead to prove your point? I don't want to be rude but it is quite easy to claim something but without any way to back it up it sinply comes across as speculation.


I disagree to your first assumption, jazz can be very very complex and classical music can be far from complex (Mozart etc). It depends on what pieces we are talking about. (Further, improvisation and harmonic complexity fits together very well).


----------



## mitchflorida

The Grateful Dead is basically a low voltage blues group with a lot of "noodling" on the guitar. Let's face it, anything sounds good and complex when you are high on pot. It is very basic music, nothing complicated about it.


----------



## Morimur

European/Western Art Music, Jazz, Indian Classical and Gamelan are the pinnacle of musical complexity.


----------



## Morimur

stevens said:


> I disagree to your first assumption, jazz can be very very complex and classical music can be far from complex (Mozart etc). It depends on what pieces we are talking about. (Further, improvisation and harmonic complexity fits together very well).


Generally speaking, European/Western Art Music, Jazz, Indian Classical and Gamelan are the pinnacle of musical complexity. However, to say that Mozart is 'far from complex' betrays ignorance on the subject. In Mozart's case, there is great complexity behind the simplicity and crystal clarity of his vocabulary.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Complexity may mean a number of things, but complexity for complexity's sake is not necessarily the basis of profound reflections in music or other arts. Paganini was known for the complexity of his violin playing in his day, and his compositions generally reflect that complexity, but we don't appreciate them to the same degree as we do Mozart's less complex violin pieces. Again, complexity has a range of meaning. As does simplicity.

John Coltrane improvises with complex passages unlike quite anything in classical music. So do many heavy metal guitar players play riffs that are not easily written down because of their complexity. The Australian guitar wizard Tommy Emmanuel plays many standard tunes (like "Over the Rainbow") with great complexity. In the end, there's a lot of complex goings on in popular music forms, complexities you won't readily find in classical music.

And then there is the very complex classical stuff -- Xenakis, Stockhausen, Penderecki.... Many don't treasure this music (the ultimate in complexity) as they do a C Major sonata by Mozart.

Fugues rank as complex, but they are not the same sort of complex that John Coltrane's sax lines exhibit. Sonata Form possesses a certain complexity, as does a set of well composed Variations. But Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" is also complex, yet we won't confuse it with a Bach fugue or Beethoven variations.

And then there is harmonic complexity. And rhythmic complexity. But, too, what does that prove in the end? Is Mozart's G minor symphony something less than a fancy jazz number because it doesn't utilize 9th, 11th, 13th, and flatted-5th chords? Is a Mozart string quartet less important than Congolese drumming because it lacks the rhythmic variety the drummers utilize?

In other words, analysis of "complexity" may not be a good determinant by which to judge the quality of music, or even the genre a piece of music belongs to.


----------



## Fang

Usually other types of music only get more complicated than CM in rhythm because in the absence of a well-developed harmony/polyphony that was the only place they could get creative in so on average complex harmony, polyphony and more importantly well composed structure is dominated by CM. Jazz has borrowed its harmony from the classical music at a time when it was already a very complex system so you really can't talk about them as completely separate systems.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms

Lope de Aguirre said:


> European/Western Art Music, Jazz, Indian Classical and Gamelan are the pinnacle of musical complexity.


What about Gagaku (and similar 'court classical music')?


----------



## Mesenkomaha

Anecdotally from my experience yes. Classical listeners are smarter and more successful. Your results may vary.


----------



## Morimur

SONNET CLV said:


> Complexity may mean a number of things, but complexity for complexity's sake is not necessarily the basis of profound reflections in music or other arts. Paganini was known for the complexity of his violin playing in his day, and his compositions generally reflect that complexity, but we don't appreciate them to the same degree as we do Mozart's less complex violin pieces. Again, complexity has a range of meaning. As does simplicity.
> 
> John Coltrane improvises with complex passages unlike quite anything in classical music. So do many heavy metal guitar players play riffs that are not easily written down because of their complexity. The Australian guitar wizard Tommy Emmanuel plays many standard tunes (like "Over the Rainbow") with great complexity. In the end, there's a lot of complex goings on in popular music forms, complexities you won't readily find in classical music.
> 
> And then there is the very complex classical stuff -- Xenakis, Stockhausen, Penderecki.... Many don't treasure this music (the ultimate in complexity) as they do a C Major sonata by Mozart.
> 
> Fugues rank as complex, but they are not the same sort of complex that John Coltrane's sax lines exhibit. Sonata Form possesses a certain complexity, as does a set of well composed Variations. But Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" is also complex, yet we won't confuse it with a Bach fugue or Beethoven variations.
> 
> And then there is harmonic complexity. And rhythmic complexity. But, too, what does that prove in the end? Is Mozart's G minor symphony something less than a fancy jazz number because it doesn't utilize 9th, 11th, 13th, and flatted-5th chords? Is a Mozart string quartet less important than Congolese drumming because it lacks the rhythmic variety the drummers utilize?
> 
> In other words, analysis of "complexity" may not be a good determinant by which to judge the quality of music, or even the genre a piece of music belongs to.


_"But Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody" is also complex"_

Errr... Right. You hear it once, you needn't hear it again.


----------



## Morimur

Fang said:


> Usually other types of music only get more complicated than CM in rhythm because in the absence of a well-developed harmony/polyphony that was the only place they could get creative in so on average complex harmony, polyphony and more importantly well composed structure is dominated by CM. Jazz has borrowed its harmony from the classical music at a time when it was already a very complex system so you really can't talk about them as completely separate systems.


20th-21st century Classical can also be rhythmically complex.


----------



## Sid James

I think that in terms of education and socio-economic status, the more you have and the higher you go, the more likely you are to have some exposure to classical music. The fact that most composers came from middle class families (or the equivalent to that, a modern definition) speaks to this. You're unlikely to have the money to buy, learn and play an instrument unless you're middle class. So you're not going to value things like classical music. A sociologist in the 1960's called this cultural capital.

In terms of the reality today, I have met many people who have education and money but they aren't into classical music. Or they aren't into it more than they are into rock, pop, jazz, etc. I see metal and rap as easy targets since they're relatively recent genres, established around the 1970's and '80's respectively.

The other thing is that intelligence is measured in different ways, and its measurement and definition can be controversial. I have often been dismayed at the amount of people in music - that is, looking back at its history - who show a marked lack of emotional intelligence. How many of the composers behaved in ways that shows a lack of basic empathy for others? I say that because empathy, understanding, validation of others feelings (or where they're coming from, so to speak) is a marker of emotional intelligence. Many composers - and musicians - showed a lack of that kind of thing, it was more the survival instinct, kill or be killed, dog eat dog. Forget that sublime sonata or concerto, some of the guys composing these works had behaviour that showed lack of basic emotional intelligence.

So I think there is credence to socio-economic and education factors making it more likely for a person to have interest in classical music. But as I said, not necessarily. Many more people today listen to non-classical than to classical, and even from that one can argue as a matter of basic logic that all those non-classical people (the majority of the population) aren't going to be morons.


----------



## mitchflorida

It has little to do with money and everything to do with culture. Classical music is basically free these days, and people seem to have $200 to buy basketball shoes but wouldn't think of going to a classical concert , or even be seen there.


----------



## Fang

Lope de Aguirre said:


> 20th-21st century Classical can also be rhythmically complex.


After 20th century classical music got rocket science complicated. So complex that sometimes it needs years of training and experience to appreciate those works. For the sake of this thread by classical music I mainly mean baroque to romantic.


----------



## Mister Man

I don't agree that someone's musical taste is any indication of "intelligence". 

However, I do think the music you listen to can rewire your brain in a positive or negative direction. This rewiring can also result from association with people or groups that you might associate with as a result of your musical tastes.


----------



## SONNET CLV

Fang said:


> After 20th century classical music got rocket science *complicated. So complex *that sometimes it needs years of training and experience to appreciate those works. For the sake of this thread by classical music I mainly mean baroque to romantic.


Just a thought. Is "complicated" music the same as "complex" music. Or can we distinguish between the two terms to represent differing things in music.

For instance, can a "complex" piece of music not be complicated to play, or even be not written in a particularly complicated manner?

Can something prove "complicated" (difficult) but not be necessarily complex? Are these two terms as we are using them mutually exclusive or the same?

Just a thought.


----------



## Blake

It would seem like the music one listens to is an indication of something. Then again, who can tell? I've met some really sweet and intelligent people who listen to Death Metal... and some really dull people who listened to happy, poppy music... And some really unintelligent people who listen to Classical. Who knows, aye?


----------



## Fang

SONNET CLV said:


> Just a thought. Is "complicated" music the same as "complex" music. Or can we distinguish between the two terms to represent differing things in music.
> 
> For instance, can a "complex" piece of music not be complicated to play, or even be not written in a particularly complicated manner?
> 
> Can something prove "complicated" (difficult) but not be necessarily complex? Are these two terms as we are using them mutually exclusive or the same?
> 
> Just a thought.


English is my third language so I might have used the wrong words. So for the sake of my language ability let's keep it simple. What I meant by complicated and complex is "difficult to access". Difficulty in accessing something means many different things. It can mean difficulty in technique for example years of training that leads a hard rock guitarist to playing a scale in unimaginable speed. It can mean difficulty in understanding the meaning of something because of the lack of life experience or knowledge/intelligence limitations for example a meteorologist might use a wide variety of names for something that is merely understood as "cloud" for an ordinary man. A psychologist might use many different terms to describe something that is just "crazy" for an ordinary man. A poet might use many different terms to describe something that is just "love" for an ordinary person. An intelligent student may offer many different solutions to a math problem whereas an average student can only think of one. Difficulty in connecting to a certain music can also mean not being able to fully hear the music to begin with. I know that everyone thinks they hear everything but IMO this is not true. I first noticed this when after a few years of blindly playing my guitar I finally started taking solfege, ear training, harmony, ....classes. After a few years of that it was like the difference between day and night for me. The more I could "hear" the more pieces I could connect to and enjoy. 
Historically Classical music was developed in a more sophisticated class of the society that's why it expanded in many directions and invented (or maybe it's better to say discovered) many different tools like harmony, polyphony, instruments, orchestration and eventually complicated rhythms to satisfy the needs of the more intelligent minds. Pop music and other less serious genres borrowed a lot from the classical music inventions and also lent a lot to classical music in terms of melodies,... which is why there is a grey area between all this styles but ultimately at their roots they were made for different categories of people.
Music is a part of nature and we all have some training in understanding it from childhood for example by using rhythm in running, intonations in speaking,... that's why everyone can connect to music in some way but what is the thing that separates us in appreciating different types of music? I think it is a combination of many reasons. One part is a natural ability of connecting to sounds which is partly instinctive and partly related to training that's why in rare cases an untrained person who is not considered intelligent in many other aspects might be able to connect to a very sophisticated music. Another aspect is the logic of patterns which is actually very close to abilities used in mathematics. This part mainly needs training unless someone is a genius. And the more patterns you see both in the physical aspects of the music like melody, harmony, form and also the mental aspects like connecting the patterns to your own emotions(this is related to how deep you know yourself) the more you "see" and this affects your taste in loving or hating certain types of music.


----------



## Dustin

Badinerie said:


> Hello!...........





Manxfeeder said:


> I'd respond, but I'm afraid I'd say something stupid.





Ukko said:


> Classical music listeners are, as a group and individually, more intelligent than human beings.





hpowders said:


> I love serious music, yet my secondary school advisor recommended "shepherd" as my probable vocation, after a battery of aptitude tests; this in the middle of New York City. Take away from this what you will.


Hahaha I'm not sure about intelligence but these comments are building a pretty good case for humor.


----------



## Badinerie

I would suggest all thats needed is a little emotional maturity and decent exposure to it, to enjoy classical music and opera.
Im working class as are most of my friends. We all enjoy classical music to various degrees. Always have. 
Class is no marker of intelligence either.
My parents had light classical recording which they would listen to and this gave my sisters and I the opportunity to hear the classics and decide whether we liked it or not. We are certainly no smarter than our neighbours and contemporaries.
Live Concerts have always been accessible to all pockets in the last century. 
I think mostly what stops more ostensibly working class averagely intelligent people attending, are social preconceptions about Classical music. "What would my friends say!" and of course if they really were your friends....they would accept your taste and be entirely uncritical.


----------



## DeepR

I guess for some, culture and upbringing plays an important role, but for others like me it's simply a matter of having the time and freedom and above all the intrinsic motivation to explore classical music. 
There are plenty of people, probably most people, intelligent or not, who simply have a (far) lower level of interest in music. They will never even make an effort to explore classical music because their main interests lie elsewhere. It's as simple as that.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

tempo said:


> I don't agree with your argument here.
> 
> There are plenty of people on this Earth who, if "exposed to [a] wonderful, convincing, dynamic performance" of a great classical work, would see nothing in it. I know that for a fact.
> 
> It's simply not true to say that everyone/anyone can identify the glories of classical music.


but Hpowders is correct - that has very little (if anything) to do with intelligence - however it is measured


----------



## Headphone Hermit

mitchflorida said:


> Honestly, you are just spouting off and have no proof of any of your statements.
> 
> Classical music is much more complex than rock music and pop music. Some jazz is of the same complexity of classical, but only a small segment. Rap and disco are meant to move the body, not the mind.


You ask for opinions and then rant at someone who expresses an opinion that conflicts with yours.  Perhaps you should preface your thread with 'please reply if you agree with me or forever hold your peace!"


----------



## Headphone Hermit

millionrainbows said:


> Originally, classical music (including opera) was created for an elite royal class. .... These were the educated people, so their intelligence was more developed according to that.


I understand that Texas has no royal family so you can be forgiven this misapprehension!


----------



## Winterreisender

Not wanting to generalise, but it does seem that many working class people still take the view that "classical music isn't for the likes of us" and therefore don't even try it. They are obviously put off by the centuries-old tradition of classical as the music of the ruling class elite. It is not necessarily a case of intelligence but rather a case of deeply ingrained prejudices and a desire to preserve their own identity. 

I agree that money has nothing to do with it either, as classical music can be enjoyed for free these days. It is clearly just an unwillingness to engage.


----------



## Ingélou

The same sort of debate was going on during my training to be an English teacher in the 1970s. Our 'progressive' lecturers & instructors wanted us to ditch 'the classics' in Eng Lit & promote our pupils' 'own working class culture'. I always felt this was patronising; my father's family was uncultured, but in Scotland there was a respect for learning in every sphere, and he encouraged us to acquire a good education. (When Taggart was at uni, he'd sometimes be in a pub and a working man would strike up a conversation, learn that he was a student and wish him luck.) 

Anyway, one of my fellow teacher trainees was a man from a tough East End background. He was more impatient than the rest of us with the Working Class Culture hypothesis, as he already got enough grief from his cockney uncles who mocked his love of poetry. He got a distinction in his teaching practice, as he taught inspiring lessons in a very tough London school. But at the end of the year, he went back into Academe to do a graduate degree on T. S. Eliot.

So I agree that the pressure of one's own background can work against acquiring a taste for 'classical' literature or music. But people can choose to ignore it. And in the case of Scotland - at least in the past - there was a supportive culture for the 'lad o' parts' who could make his own way through university. Cue Taggart to tell you all about 'oaters'.


----------



## Taggart

Not westerns, but university students. As Samuel Johnson said in his dictionary definition for oats: "A grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people." Lord Elibank was said to have retorted, "Yes, and where else will you see such horses and such men?"

It is traditionally said that students went up to study with a sack of oatmeal and a barrel of salt-herring as staple foods to last them a term. In fact, the sack ran empty a lot sooner, and as the students' country homes or farms were some distance from the city universities, an occasional long weekend was scheduled to permit them to replenish their supplies. By the beginning of the 21st century, however, the Universities no longer afforded their students an official Meal Monday holiday, though the University of St. Andrews still maintains Meal Monday as a statutory holiday for "manual staff."

Nothing at all to do with classical music, but fun.

Returning to the topic. Certainly when I grew up, (light) classical music was inescapable. The BBC felt that it had a mission to "better" the people of Britain and the light programme carried a range of simple classical music. There was still the hangover from the thirties, when the socialist movement pushed working class literacy and culture. In the US, the New Deal arts programmes of the thirties gave way to Bernstein on NBC lecturing on classical music. There was a strong "middlebrow" movement aimed at bringing culture to the masses.



Winterreisender said:


> Not wanting to generalise, but it does seem that many working class people still take the view that "classical music isn't for the likes of us" and therefore don't even try it. They are obviously put off by the centuries-old tradition of classical as the music of the ruling class elite. It is not necessarily a case of intelligence but rather a case of deeply ingrained prejudices and a desire to preserve their own identity.
> 
> I agree that money has nothing to do with it either, as classical music can be enjoyed for free these days. It is clearly just an unwillingness to engage.


I do not feel that "They are obviously put off by the centuries-old tradition of classical as the music of the ruling class elite." One has only to look at the colliery and works brass band movement or the traditions of, particularly Welsh, working class choral music.

I do not feel that there is any attempt to "preserve their own identity" simply because they (currently) lack any such defined identity. Something like Barras' "Pitman's social neet" has long died.

It is not just an unwillingness to engage from the working classes, it is the failure of others to demonstrate the joys of Classical Music.


----------



## Winterreisender

Taggart said:


> I do not feel that "They are obviously put off by the centuries-old tradition of classical as the music of the ruling class elite." One has only to look at the colliery and works brass band movement or the traditions of, particularly Welsh, working class choral music.
> 
> I do not feel that there is any attempt to "preserve their own identity" simply because they (currently) lack any such defined identity. Something like Barras' "Pitman's social neet" has long died.
> 
> It is not just an unwillingness to engage from the working classes, it is the failure of others to demonstrate the joys of Classical Music.


I find it surprising that you deny the existence of a working class identity. It seems to me that there are many working class notions that are still widely prevalent in society, e.g. favouring an honest day's physical labour over pointless intellectual pursuits.

I would go as far as to say that some working class values lead to an openly hostile (rather than merely indifferent) attitude towards classical music. Many working class people seem to favour complete egalitarianism over exceptionalism. A cornerstone of contemporary working class culture is surely the reverence for celebrities, people who are famous for being famous, often without ever having actually achieved anything.

If it seems generous to refer to celebrities, trash TV and gossip magazines as culture, one can also look at some strands of music such as Punk and Britpop which tend to celebrate averageness. The only classical musicians who do seem to penetrate the working classes are the Nigel Kennedys of this world, who, for all their immense musical talent, at least present themselves visually as your average bloke. Although Ingelou and Taggart present some interesting examples to the contrary, it seems to me that most working class people treat classical music with great suspicion as the domain of toffs, to be avoided at all costs.

In addition, I am puzzled by the suggestion that working class people can only enjoy classical music if it is somehow handed to them on a plate. There are, as it happens, many publications and broadcasts which seek to present CM in a accessible way, but one has to actually take the time to try them before one sees the results. I feel it is this first step that many people are reluctant to take.


----------



## Marschallin Blair

Headphone Hermit said:


> but Hpowders is correct - that has very little (if anything) to do with intelligence - however it is measured


Samuel Johnson wasn't exactly the biggest music fan on the planet; nor Mark Twain.


----------



## Morimur

Marschallin Blair said:


> Samuel Johnson wasn't exactly the biggest music fan on the planet; nor Mark Twain.


Nor Nabokov. But Joyce and Beckett certainly enjoyed music.


----------



## violadude

But I don't think we're trying to argue that out of all the smart people in the world, most like classical.

I think we're saying out of all the classical lovers in the world, most tend to be smart. 

Slight difference.


----------



## hpowders

Headphone Hermit said:


> You ask for opinions and then rant at someone who expresses an opinion that conflicts with yours.  Perhaps you should preface your thread with 'please reply if you agree with me or forever hold your peace!"


Ha! Ha! have you noticed that too? :lol::lol:


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> But I don't think we're trying to argue that out of all the smart people in the world, most like classical.
> 
> I think we're saying out of all the classical lovers in the world, *most tend to be smart. *
> 
> Slight difference.


You are just hypothesizing.


----------



## hpowders

Headphone Hermit said:


> but Hpowders is correct - that has very little (if anything) to do with intelligence - however it is measured


Folks with fragile egos like to think simply listening to classical music puts them in some kind of "übermesnch" group.
All it shows is they were fortunate to be exposed to it.
As for listening to it frequently, this requires no special talent. It is a passive activity requiring no special skill set from the listener (except perhaps, patience, when listening to some over-blown late romantic 85 minute symphony; however Haydn will always be the happy alternative).


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> You are just hypothesizing.


And you're not?


----------



## hpowders

violadude said:


> And you're not?


Yes I am and I'm happy to admit it. I don't feel I am special simply because I listen to classical music. Neither are any of the folks I know who simply listen to classical music, do not compose or play an instrument at the virtuoso level.


----------



## violadude

hpowders said:


> Yes I am and I'm happy to admit it. I don't feel I am special simply because I listen to classical music.


I don't either...I'm simply saying most people that listen to it appear to be pretty intelligent.


----------



## science

I don't know for sure of course, and the measurements would be impossible, but I would not be surprised if at this point in history, distinguishing between level of education and raw intelligence, jazz fans (on average) have more raw intelligence than classical music fans (on average). 

My guess is based on the idea that very few people listen to jazz in order to mark themselves as snobs, relative to how many people listen to classical music to do so. (Jazz has almost achieved complete cultural legitimacy, but it still has nothing like the cachet of classical music.) I'm further guessing that people who listen to classical music for that purpose are not significantly more intelligent than average. So, while both traditions attract thoughtful, attentive listeners (who, I'm willing to concede, might be more intelligent than average), classical music happens to attract more people of ordinary intelligence but high social ambition, pulling its average down. Also pulling its average down would be the fact that a whole lot of people (with the full range of intelligence) get trained in classical music, but at this point jazz remains the kind of thing that people choose to do voluntarily. People are rarely if ever forced to learn to play jazz or to listen to it. For both reasons, if my suspicions are right at all, the selection effect is even stronger for jazz than it is for classical music.


----------



## GreenMamba

Aside from everything else that's been said, I'd just point out that one of the arguments against Modernist Classical - in particular, Schoenberg, Webern, et. al. - is that they are too academic or complex. That's what's killing Classical music. Audiences don't want to hear it. Why can't they compose pretty melodies any more? Blah blah blah.

So for all our purported smartness, many Classical fans sure like to beat people over the head with the anti-intellectual stick.


----------



## Serge

GreenMamba said:


> So for all our purported smartness, many Classical fans sure like to beat people over the head with the anti-intellectual stick.


Haha, I am up to it. I think these elitist creeps bring nothing to the table and are out there only to belittle people. (Think of those who never had a chance.)


----------



## Blancrocher

GreenMamba said:


> Aside from everything else that's been said, I'd just point out that one of the arguments against Modernist Classical - in particular, Schoenberg, Webern, et. al. - is that they are too academic or complex. That's what's killing Classical music. Audiences don't want to hear it. Why can't they compose pretty melodies any more? Blah blah blah.


Having agreed (I hope), that we classical music fans are more intelligent than everyone else, maybe it's time to get down and dirty. Who's smarter: fans of Renaissance music, or of the contemporary avant garde?


----------



## Serge

Blancrocher said:


> Who's smarter: fans of Renaissance music, or of the contemporary avant garde?


Or, when exactly did you start being more intelligent, in other words, liking the classical music?


----------



## hpowders

Blancrocher said:


> Having agreed (I hope), that we classical music fans are more intelligent than everyone else, maybe it's time to get down and dirty. Who's smarter: fans of Renaissance music, or of the contemporary avant garde?


Count me as a dissenter.


----------



## Vesteralen

Blancrocher said:


> Having agreed (I hope), that we classical music fans are more intelligent than everyone else, maybe it's time to get down and dirty. Who's smarter: fans of Renaissance music, or of the contemporary avant garde?


Since whoever dies having the greatest number of pieces of recorded music in his collection wins, I'd say just count the available albums in each category and you have the answer.


----------



## millionrainbows

Music is based on the visceral, not intelligence. Tonality is founded on acoustic factors, based on the way our ears hear consonances, which are purely physical phenomena. What does intelligence have to do with it, as far as music is a sensual art?

Now, if we go further, and consider music as part of the quadrivium, then perhaps the 'pro-intelligence' argument would have more basis; but then, they'd have to include modernism's geometry and numerical orientation. A double-edged sword!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

Personally, I don't think of myself as more intelligent because I listen to classical music. Rather I think of myself as less _modern_, freer of the popular culture with its everchanging fads and fashions, the "hip" and the "cool", which is, as I said, like a disposable plastic coffee cup which is used once and thrown into the trash.

I do not own a TV set, I watch very few of the new Hollywood productions, I have no idea who the latest celebrities are, I have heard of Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber, but I have never consciously listened to their music, the only computer/video game I ever play is chess against the computer, I prefer a walk in the forest to one in a shopping mall and looking into a book to looking at anything with a screen, I don't feel a need to be online 24/7, and when it comes to music, I prefer a few two-hundred-year-old Germans to just about anything the modern music industry cranks out. My music does not have to have a beat, it does not have to be danceable, and it does not have to be supported by a huge expensive show - beautiful things like Schubert's lieder can be produced by only a singer and a man with a piano. And it will survive long after everything "pop" is thrown into the trash.


----------



## EdwardBast

Has anyone suggested arming oneself with whatever measure of intelligence one considers viable, along with a survey of musical tastes, and conducting a simple statistical study? I would be quite surprised if someone has not already done this.


----------



## Winterreisender

hpowders said:


> Folks with fragile egos like to think simply listening to classical music puts them in some kind of "übermesnch" group.
> *All it shows is they were fortunate to be exposed to it.*
> As for listening to it frequently, this requires no special talent. It is a passive activity requiring no special skill set from the listener (except perhaps, patience, when listening to some over-blown late romantic 85 minute symphony; however Haydn will always be the happy alternative).


This sounds as if classical fans only like classical because they were indoctrinated with it at an early age? I don't really find this sort of social determinism persuasive. All it takes is a little curiosity and then anyone can acquire an interest for just about anything these days. I wouldn't want to write off the entire working classes (i.e. those who didn't have a "musical education") as being incapable of appreciating classical music. I like to credit people with a little more autonomy than that.


----------



## mmsbls

EdwardBast said:


> Has anyone suggested arming oneself with whatever measure of intelligence one considers viable, along with a survey of musical tastes, and conducting a simple statistical study? I would be quite surprised if someone has not already done this.


Yes, it has been done. My post #60 discusses one such study. The results show a statistically relevant, positive correlation between IQ and classical music listening/enjoyment. Those results do not imply that all listeners are more intelligent than average or more intelligent than all listeners of other genres. Anecdotal information is pretty useless when trying to determine issues like these.

As far as I know, no one really knows why there is such a correlation. We also know that educational level is positively correlated with classical music listening. Perhaps there is some reason why people who attain higher levels of education also tend to like classical music. In other words there may be no direct link between intelligence and classical music. Maybe more intelligent people tend to want more education, and higher education tends to expose more people (including their children) to classical music.


----------



## stevens

Yes! Classical listeners are more intelligent (than non-classical listeners).

Proof:

1) Intelligent people are more intrested and engaged in the intellectual domain
2) Classical music belongs to the intellectual domain 

Conclusion: Classical listeners are more intelligent 

The proof isnt absolutely scientific perfect but is very very plausible :tiphat: 


The question is solved  (costless! :angel


----------



## science

SiegendesLicht said:


> And it will survive long after everything "pop" is thrown into the trash.


This we actually don't know.


----------



## Serge

Just for the record*. At my funerals, everybody dances!

* No, not that one that you can play on your CD player.


----------



## DrMuller

People that are truly intelligent are neither snobs nor intolerant.


----------



## stevens

DrMuller said:


> People that are truly intelligent are neither snobs nor intolerant.


-but they have a sense of humor


----------



## mitchflorida

You can predict human behavior by the music they listen to, no question.

If they listen to classical music, they are much smarter than average.

If they listen to disco or salsa, they are much better dancers than average.

If they listen to rap, they are angrier than average.

If they listen to pop music , they are more social and female than average.


----------



## Taggart

mitchflorida said:


> You can predict human behavior by the music they listen to, no question.
> 
> If they listen to classical music, they are much smarter than average.
> 
> If they listen to disco or salsa, they are much better dancers than average.
> 
> If they listen to rap, they are angrier than average.
> 
> If they listen to pop music , they are more social and female than average.


If they listen to Scottish Country Dance music or Playford - they are exceptional dancers.


----------



## Serge

Here, dance a little, what's wrong with you!






Bring your toddler too.


----------



## Serge

Here, dance a little, what's wrong with you!






Bring your toddler too.


----------



## Serge

And Good Morning to you too!


----------



## Varick

mitchflorida said:


> At this point, I am looking for people who like classical music and have low IQs (under 95). If that is you , please introduce yourself and explain your situation.


Average IQ is between 90 - 110. So you'd have to go below 90 points to delve into the "low" IQ demographic.



GreenMamba said:


> The you might want to run from these forums, because a substantial number of members seem heavily invested in the notion that their love of Classical places them among the better people of the world.


I don't believe that because one loves classical music, they think themselves as "better" people. Maybe some do, but I am sure that most do not.



Winterreisender said:


> Although Ingelou and Taggart present some interesting examples to the contrary, it seems to me that most working class people treat classical music with great suspicion as the domain of toffs, to be avoided at all costs.


There can be many reasons for that "suspicion." Intimidation can be one of them as well. I love wine and I can't tell you how many people I know still think a knowledge and appreciation of wine means that one is a snob. I have friends and family members who were reluctant to explore wine because they had no idea where to start because they nothing knew about it. It was a subject "too big" or "too complicated" to ever approach. Now many of them love wine. I have made it a life-long mission to present wine as "snobish-less" and down-to-earth as possible. To show people that it can be enjoyed by everyone IF they enjoy the taste of it. Same goes for classical music.



violadude said:


> But I don't think we're trying to argue that out of all the smart people in the world, most like classical.
> 
> I think we're saying out of all the classical lovers in the world, most tend to be smart.
> 
> Slight difference.


I think there is a huge difference between the two. And it's a difference that seems to be lost on many in this thread.



DrMuller said:


> People that are truly intelligent are neither snobs nor intolerant.


There are BOAT loads of truly intelligent people who are snobs and/or intolerant. Just like there are boat loads of truly intelligent people who are not.

There have been a lot of great points made on this thread by many people.

First, in defense of "generalizations." I'm a big fan of generalizations and I'm perplexed by this modern 'avoid-at-all-cost' attitude towards them. That is exactly what they are: Generalizations. They are not meant to include everything and everybody. There is almost no such thing as "all" and "every." There are exceptions to EVERYTHING. _"Seat belts save lives"_ is a generalization. Can you find examples that someone died BECAUSE they were wearing a seat belt? Of course you can, but that's illuminating the exception to negate the rule. Fact is, seat belts do save lives.

Generalizing is the ability to see patterns in things, behavior, science, life, etc.. If we can't see, understand, and recognize patterns, then we can't make sense of the world we live in. If we can't make sense of the world, then we can never survive, let alone become wise. Without generalizations, there is no wisdom.

To Violadude's point and another poster here who gave links to studies about this, I'm sure there is a correlation between intelligence and classical music appreciation. That's not saying classical music lovers are better people, nor is it saying that you can't find an idiot who loves classical music.

But there are reasons for this pattern and some people are very uncomfortable with the *implications* of some of those reasons. Hpowders states that because he loves classical music, it doesn't make him special. He is 100% correct. It doesn't, and I don't think stating a statistic that shows that classical music lovers are on average (in "general") are more intelligent than your average music listener is all ego-based. I'm sure for some people it is.

One of my life-long mottos is, "First tell the truth, THEN give your opinion." If those statistics are correct, then they are. But I've always believed that one's IQ has NOTHING to do with whether or not you are a good, decent person, and in the final analysis, that is the only thing important in life (at least to me). Only behavior and actions dictate what kind of person one is. Musical taste and IQ has nothing to do with it.

I'm sharp as a marble, I love classical music, and I go by the name of Varick here on TC. :tiphat:

V


----------



## Serge

To the OP. There, enjoy. Pure intelligence:


----------



## peterb

mitchflorida said:


> I have met a lot of people in my life, but I have never met a classical music fan who was stupid.


You need to get out more.


----------



## peterb

mitchflorida said:


> I merely said in general classical music lovers are more intelligent than punk rock listeners. Casual observation of the audiences of each proves my point. Q.E.D.


It's funny, because I was just casually observing that you obviously don't know what "Q.E.D" means, since you're misusing it.


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> A_"Seat belts save lives"_ is a generalization.


Generally speaking, seat belts don't feel insulted by generalisations. Those who listen to non-classical genres who are being told that they are not as intelligent as those who listen to classical might.


----------



## OldFashionedGirl

I've know very intelligent people who don't listen to classical music. I have an average intelligence however I enjoy it. Anyone can listen to classical music, it just require more attention and I think an open mind.


----------



## hpowders

OldFashionedGirl said:


> I've know very intelligent people who don't listen to classical music. I have an average intelligence however I enjoy it. Anyone can listen to classical music, it just require more attention and I think an open mind.


Well said, OFG! Couldn't agree more. Time to break the vile stereotype that we are all a bunch of cheerless, mal-adjusted intellectual fuddy duddies enjoying some sort of "black magic" music that only we seem to be able to understand.

Great classical music is for EVERYBODY!!!! Patience and an open mind, yes, but no special intelligence required.

HOLLYWOOD ELITE: come join us and stop putting us down!!!


----------



## SiegendesLicht

MacLeod said:


> Generally speaking, seat belts don't feel insulted by generalisations. Those who listen to non-classical genres who are being told that they are not as intelligent as those who listen to classical might.


Or they may be encouraged to get into classical music themselves, if it is supposed to make you more intelligent.


----------



## Guest

SiegendesLicht said:


> Or they may be encouraged to get into classical music themselves, if it is supposed to make you more intelligent.


Well, yes...they _may_...

...on the other hand, they could just eat fish!


----------



## Winterreisender

OldFashionedGirl said:


> I've know very intelligent people who don't listen to classical music. I have an average intelligence however I enjoy it. Anyone can listen to classical music, it just require more attention and I think an open mind.


I fear that it is the "open mind" that a lot of people lack. Lots of people will criticise classical before having properly tried it; they will write off classical on the basis of the old stereotypes that it is the music of the upper classes, that it is "not for the likes of us," and will instead be influenced by more mainstream trends.

Although I wouldn't like to say if there is a connection between lack of intelligence, susceptibility to following fashions and reluctance to think for oneself.


----------



## mitchflorida

hpowders said:


> Well said, OFG! Couldn't agree more. Time to break the vile stereotype that we are all a bunch of cheerless, mal-adjusted intellectual fuddy duddies enjoying some sort of "black magic" music that only we seem to be able to understand.
> 
> Great classical music is for EVERYBODY!!!! Patience and an open mind, yes, but no special intelligence required.
> 
> HOLLYWOOD ELITE: come join us and stop putting us down!!!


Didn't you say a while back that you were no longer participating in this discussion? What made you change your mind?

People, when you make a post about this topic from now on write down your IQ so we know where you are coming from. My IQ is 130, what is yours?


----------



## peterb

mitchflorida said:


> People, when you make a post about this topic from now on write down your IQ so we know where you are coming from. My IQ is 130, what is yours?


Obvious troll is obvious.

Besides, you didn't even indicate whether your IQ is in metric or imperial units.


----------



## Bulldog

mitchflorida said:


> Didn't you say a while back that you were no longer participating in this discussion? What made you change your mind?
> 
> People, when you make a post about this topic from now on write down your IQ so we know where you are coming from. My IQ is 130, what is yours?


Mine is 131; sorry about your level.


----------



## Varick

MacLeod said:


> Generally speaking, seat belts don't feel insulted by generalisations. Those who listen to non-classical genres who are being told that they are not as intelligent as those who listen to classical might.


First of all, by stating that those who listen to classical music have, on average, a higher than average intellect is *not saying* that those who don't listen to classical music aren't as intelligent as those who do. Those are two entirely different points.

See my point in my first post about "implications." I guess the same could be said about erroneous "conclusions" as well.

So therefore if someone who doesn't listen to classical music feels insulted by that statement, then that is their failing to understand the statement.

If there was proof or evidence that those who ate lima beans regularly were on average, of higher intellect, I wouldn't be at all insulted or offended because I hate lima beans and don't eat them.

Furthermore, I am sick and tired of thin-skinned, hyper-sensitive twits who get offended or "feel" insulted by a fact or a truth, and then try to restrict people from stating such facts/truths/ or generalizations because of their fragile sensibilities. More and more people are falling into this category and it's high time that people grow up and realize the if they don't fall into an extolled, praised, or complimented group of people, it doesn't mean that they are not wonderful in a myriad of other ways.

V


----------



## Guest

mitchflorida said:


> Didn't you say a while back that you were no longer participating in this discussion? What made you change your mind?
> 
> People, when you make a post about this topic from now on write down your IQ so we know where you are coming from. My IQ is 130, what is yours?


You think IQ is a relevant measure of intelligence? And that everyone posting here will truthfully say what it is, assuming they know?


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> First of all, by stating that those who listen to classical music have, on average, a higher than average intellect is *not saying* that those who don't listen to classical music aren't as intelligent as those who do. Those are two entirely different points.
> 
> See my point in my first post about "implications." I guess the same could be said about erroneous "conclusions" as well.
> 
> So therefore if someone who doesn't listen to classical music feels insulted by that statement, then that is their failing to understand the statement.
> 
> If there was proof or evidence that those who ate lima beans regularly were on average, of higher intellect, I wouldn't be at all insulted or offended because I hate lima beans and don't eat them.
> 
> Furthermore, I am sick and tired of thin-skinned, hyper-sensitive twits who get offended or "feel" insulted by a fact or a truth, and then try to restrict people from stating such facts/truths/ or generalizations because of their fragile sensibilities. More and more people are falling into this category and it's high time that people grow up and realize the if they don't fall into an extolled, praised, or complimented group of people, it doesn't mean that they are not wonderful in a myriad of other ways.
> 
> V


And you have every right to express your opinion, no matter how thick or thin the skin of other members? Perhaps there are members sick and tired of bullies who feel fully entitled to tell everyone the 'truth'!

As for your two 'entirely different points' - _you _may have grasped that, but it's evident that some round here haven't. The fact that this stupid thread has rolled for so long with truths and counter-truths being told seems to testify that such subtleties are lost on the so-called truth tellers.


----------



## Varick

mitchflorida said:


> Didn't you say a while back that you were no longer participating in this discussion? What made you change your mind?
> 
> People, when you make a post about this topic from now on write down your IQ *so we know where you are coming from*. My IQ is 130, what is yours?


I guess you fall into the category of HPOWDER'S point of those who may use the point of this thread to feed their own egos.

I don't give a rat's @$$ about your IQ or anyone else's. I think I know where you're coming from based on this last post of yours, and it has nothing to do with your IQ, but it's becoming clear that it's not a good place.

V


----------



## peterb

Really, I urge people to just stop responding to this thread. I'm late to the party, but it's pretty clear this is just about stirring the pot and not about mitchgeorgia or whatever his name is wanting a genuine discussion.


----------



## Varick

MacLeod said:


> And you have every right to express your opinion, no matter how thick or thin the skin of other members? Perhaps there are members sick and tired of bullies who feel fully entitled to tell everyone the 'truth'!
> 
> As for your two 'entirely different points' - _you _may have grasped that, but it's evident that some round here haven't. The fact that this stupid thread has rolled for so long with truths and counter-truths being told seems to testify that such subtleties are lost on the so-called truth tellers.


I think a lot of subtleties have been lost on truth-tellers, so-called truth tellers, and many others on this thread. I just like to clarify things. If we can't be clear on points, we'll never be able to communicate.

If I say something that has no intention of insulting anyone, yet someone feels offended, that is their problem, not mine. If I deliberately say something degrading or nasty to someone, and they are offended, then it is my failing. I'm sure reasonable people like yourself can tell the difference. I have said nothing here *on topic* to demean or degrade anyone (notwithstanding my last post to the OP).

V


----------



## mmsbls

A gentle reminder: Make sure you post about the content of other posts or the OP's topic rather than commenting on other members.

As to the data that have been given to support the view that classical music listeners are more intelligent on average than people in general, the difference in IQ, though statistically significant, is relatively small. IQ measures something, but we're generally not clear exactly what that is.

If we spent a day or so with a large group of people whose mean IQ were 100 and another whose mean IQ were 106, I suspect that we'd have a rather difficult time telling the two groups apart.


----------



## Wood

mmsbls said:


> A gentle reminder: Make sure you post about the content of other posts or the OP's topic rather than commenting on other members.
> 
> As to the data that have been given to support the view that classical music listeners are more intelligent on average than people in general, the difference in IQ, though statistically significant, is relatively small. IQ measures something, but we're generally not clear exactly what that is.
> 
> If we spent a day or so with a large group of people whose mean IQ were 100 and another whose mean IQ were 106, I suspect that we'd have a rather difficult time telling the two groups apart.


I'm just following this depressing thread to see whether it gets 'caged'.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

mmsbls said:


> As to the data that have been given to support the view that classical music listeners are more intelligent on average than people in general, the difference in IQ, though statistically significant, is relatively small.


..... and not entirely accurately reported by many of the posters on this thread!!!

Q1. How many posters to this thread actually READ the article? (ALL of it, not just the title and the abstract!)

Q2. How many actually understood the article? (eg the contrast between instrumental and non-instrumental music rather than classical vs non-classical)

Q3. How many spotted that classical was grouped with easy-listening elevator music?

I think part of 'intelligence' is related to understanding


----------



## Guest

The average IQ of listeners of classical music IS higher than the average for non-listeners. But that's only because I pull up the average by about 10 points!

:tiphat:

Just doing my part to try to snuff this thread.

:devil:


----------



## Blake

But, but... how many users on this forum are more intelligent than your average person?


----------



## mmsbls

Headphone Hermit said:


> ..... and not entirely accurately reported by many of the posters on this thread!!!
> 
> Q1. How many posters to this thread actually READ the article? (ALL of it, not just the title and the abstract!)
> 
> Q2. How many actually understood the article? (eg the contrast between instrumental and non-instrumental music rather than classical vs non-classical)
> 
> Q3. How many spotted that classical was grouped with easy-listening elevator music?
> 
> I think part of 'intelligence' is related to understanding


I'd actually be shocked if anyone else besides you read the paper, and I wouldn't be surprised if almost no one else even looked briefly at the paper. The issue of instrumental versus non-instrumental is interesting, but I'm not convinced that is responsible for the effects shown in the 2 figures. The only reason I linked to that paper was that I couldn't find other papers that showed results relevant to the OP.


----------



## mtmailey

Yes they are more wiser than most.Most are more educated you know.


----------



## spradlig

I looked at the article and tried to read it a bit. It's not an easy read. Maybe you have to have a graduate degree in the humanities to understand papers like that.

The paper takes as a given the fact (?) that, on the whole, people who like classical music are smarter than people in general. There are two bar graphs summarizing the results of two polls. I haven't looked at the paper in a while, but I don't think the poll is described in great detail. The sample sizes seem pretty big.

Again, the paper is _not_ really about whether or not classical music lovers are smarter than people in general. If one wants proof of that, or proof of the opposite, etc., one must look elsewhere. Perhaps the references would be a good place to start.



Headphone Hermit said:


> ..... and not entirely accurately reported by many of the posters on this thread!!!
> 
> Q1. How many posters to this thread actually READ the article? (ALL of it, not just the title and the abstract!)
> 
> Q2. How many actually understood the article? (eg the contrast between instrumental and non-instrumental music rather than classical vs non-classical)
> 
> Q3. How many spotted that classical was grouped with easy-listening elevator music?
> 
> I think part of 'intelligence' is related to understanding


----------



## Blake

Wisdom and education aren't always correlated.


----------



## spradlig

Yes, I recall that the article seems to conflate classical music with elevator music. But I think the bar graphs refer to preferences about classical music specifically.

Sorry for being unsure, but attempting to read it again would not be a pleasant use of my downtime.



Headphone Hermit said:


> ..... and not entirely accurately reported by many of the posters on this thread!!!
> 
> Q1. How many posters to this thread actually READ the article? (ALL of it, not just the title and the abstract!)
> 
> Q2. How many actually understood the article? (eg the contrast between instrumental and non-instrumental music rather than classical vs non-classical)
> 
> Q3. How many spotted that classical was grouped with easy-listening elevator music?
> 
> I think part of 'intelligence' is related to understanding


----------



## Serge

Mozart. Not that there's anything wrong with it.


----------



## mmsbls

spradlig said:


> Yes, I recall that the article seems to conflate classical music with elevator music. But I think the bar graphs refer to preferences about classical music specifically.


Yes, the figures with bar graphs simply showed the mean IQs (actually verbal IQs which are apparently reasonably correlated with normal IQs) as a function of how much people like classical music or whether they listen to classical music (2 different samples of people for the 2 graphs).

The paper tried to give a partial explanation for the higher mean IQ of those who like or listen to classical music. The explanation is really beyond the point of this thread.


----------



## mitchflorida

Who is smarter? Someone who reads comic books or someone who reads Shakespeare?

The answer should be obvious.

Same thing with pop music or rap versus Classical Music.


----------



## Novelette

Novelette has the most brilliant mind the world has ever seen: Schumann or no Schumann.

Oh wait, forget all of that unprovable brilliant mind nonsense.

Schumann; just _Schumann_.
That is all.


----------



## Varick

Vesuvius said:


> Wisdom and education aren't always correlated.


And unfortunately more and more the disparity is widening.

V


----------



## Xavier

A person's aesthetic sensitivity has little or nothing to do with their cognitive ability.


----------



## Bulldog

mitchflorida said:


> Who is smarter? Someone who reads comic books or someone who reads Shakespeare?


The person who reads both.


----------



## amfortas

mitchflorida said:


> Who is smarter? Someone who reads comic books or someone who reads Shakespeare?





Bulldog said:


> The person who reads both.


I read Shakespeare comic books.


----------



## science

mitchflorida said:


> Who is smarter? Someone who reads comic books or someone who reads Shakespeare?
> 
> The answer should be obvious.
> 
> Same thing with pop music or rap versus Classical Music.


Thing is, a lot of ordinary-ish people read Shakespeare to look smart. Probably the biggest factor in whether someone reads Shakespeare or not is class rather than intelligence. Of course class often tries to disguise itself as intelligence (or some other form of merit), but as classical music listeners we're too intelligent to fall for that, right?

And a lot of smart people read comic books. Don't know if you've seen _Big Bang Theory_, but it plays with some of the stereotypes about "nerds" that should probably slow us down as we rush to dismiss comic books as a genre for idiots.


----------



## Fang

Xavier said:


> A person's aesthetic sensitivity has little or nothing to do with their cognitive ability.


Wrong. It's your cognitive ability that presents the data to your aesthetic sense to like it or hate it.


----------



## Bulldog

amfortas said:


> I read Shakespeare comic books.


That makes you the smartest member of Talk Classical!! You must be so proud.


----------



## Guest

Varick said:


> If I say something that has no intention of insulting anyone, yet someone feels offended, that is their problem, not mine.


I disagree, but we're moving away from my point which was that 'generalising' is not as risk-free as you suggest by your example of seat belts.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

mmsbls said:


> I'd actually be shocked if anyone else besides you read the paper, and I wouldn't be surprised if almost no one else even looked briefly at the paper.


Sigh!!! Why bother with reading, understanding, considering and evaluating evidence when 'the obvious' will do?


----------



## aleazk

S. Hawking: _"I have no idea. People who boast about their IQ are losers."_ (Response upon being questioned as to his IQ, in interview)


----------



## spradlig

Thanks. As I wrote before, I didn't get very far in the article.



mmsbls said:


> Yes, the figures with bar graphs simply showed the mean IQs (actually verbal IQs which are apparently reasonably correlated with normal IQs) as a function of how much people like classical music or whether they listen to classical music (2 different samples of people for the 2 graphs).
> 
> The paper tried to give a partial explanation for the higher mean IQ of those who like or listen to classical music. The explanation is really beyond the point of this thread.


----------



## Xavier

Fang said:


> Wrong. It's your cognitive ability that presents the data to your aesthetic sense to like it or hate it.


My point was that the part of the brain that concentrates on and 'internalizes' music and where 'aesthetic experience takes place' has NOTHING to do with a person's ability to grasp concepts or to reason or to solve problems.


----------



## amfortas

science said:


> Thing is, a lot of ordinary-ish people read Shakespeare to look smart.


Maybe that's true in Seoul. In the U.S., I've encountered few if any people who bother to make that effort.


----------



## science

amfortas said:


> Maybe that's true in Seoul. In the U.S., I've encountered few if any people who bother to make that effort.


I'd perhaps better have written, "A lot of people who read Shakespeare are ordinary-ish people trying to look smart."


----------



## amfortas

science said:


> I'd perhaps better have written, "A lot of people who read Shakespeare are ordinary-ish people trying to look smart."


Again, I'm skeptical. Maybe at the height of the British Empire people felt such an obligation, but nowadays I just don't see Shakespeare conferring that sort of caché . People may get roped into seeing a Shakespearean play production or movie once in a while, but the age of diligently poring over Shakespeare to raise one's cultural capital seems to me largely past.


----------



## mitchflorida

I frequently go to Starbucks and actually pretend to read Shakespeare's Macbeth. It really makes a great impression on the other customers and I have used that as a way to pick up girls. :lol:


----------



## amfortas

mitchflorida said:


> I frequently go to Starbucks and actually pretend to read Shakespeare's Macbeth. It really makes a great impression on the other customers and I have used that as a way to pick up girls. :lol:


Oh well, yeah, to pick up chicks, sure. Everybody does that.


----------



## science

amfortas said:


> Again, I'm skeptical. Maybe at the height of the British Empire people felt such an obligation, but nowadays I just don't see Shakespeare conferring that sort of caché . People may get roped into seeing a Shakespearean play production or movie once in a while, but the age of diligently poring over Shakespeare to raise one's cultural capital seems to me largely past.


I cannot imagine that begin true unless you live in a particularly anti-intellectual part of the country. But even in West bah gawd Virginia there were people who tried to read impressive books.... We can speculate on their motives....

Anyway, I've been around this issue a dozen times with regard to the status conferred by classical music, and I know that we are unlikely ever to see eye to eye on anything that we don't being by so seeing, so we're stuck!


----------



## stevens

Xavier said:


> My point was that the part of the brain that concentrates on and 'internalizes' music and where 'aesthetic experience takes place' has NOTHING to do with a person's ability to grasp concepts or to reason or to solve problems.


There can still be a (positive) correlation between them.


----------



## Vesteralen

mitchflorida said:


> Do you agree?


Probably. But, so what?

Edit: That was not intended to be as dismissive as it no doubt sounded.

My point is - intelligent people are not necessarily happier, nor do they necessarily live longer, nor do they have any greater intrinsic value.

So, what if it does take a bit more intelligence to respond to classical music than it does to respond to the blues or pop?

In the big scheme of things it seems relatively unimportant.

When I think about the people I've known and spent time with I have to conclude that I've had more enjoyment in spending time with some people who have no interest in or knowledge of classical music than I've ever had with the cultured intelligentsia.


----------



## aleazk

science said:


> I'd perhaps better have written, "A lot of people who read Shakespeare are ordinary-ish people trying to look smart."


At least they take the trouble to read the book, and also they know what's good. That's quite something. Your description is more a caricature, real life is more complex than that. Nobody reads a book just for that. I can't imagine the boredom that would be...

Once they finish the book, is their reading "less valid" than that of someone who read it because they wanted to do it "genuinely"? Someone is smart when reads Shakespeare but is not interested in looking smart? what if they were not trying to look smart simply because for some people that may look as smart? 

So, I don't care about this supposed morality: if you read Shakespeare, you read Shakespeare.

Many times I read some books just because they were in my father's library. Because of this, I'm evil and even "not-smart" according to your moral system? (not that I care anyway)

It seems the moral police is too worried about imaginary things... which reveals to me its true intentions... which have nothing to do with defending morality, of course.


----------



## hpowders

More intelligent than others? No! Instead of pissing our money away on drugs, alcohol or gambling, we **** it away on CD's.


----------



## aleazk

hpowders said:


> More intelligent than others? No! Instead of pissing our money away on drugs, alcohol or gambling, we **** it away on CD's.


And internet forums!


----------



## mitchflorida

hpowders said:


> More intelligent than others? No! Instead of pissing our money away on drugs, alcohol or gambling, we **** it away on CD's.


Can someone explain to me what a CD is? Is it the same thing as an 8 Track Cartridge , or cassette deck? I also know they used to have those 78 RPM discs as well.

I haven't seen a CD in about 12 years. Spotify, my man, Spotify.


----------



## Guest

I daresay this thread disproves its own hypothesis.


----------



## Bulldog

mitchflorida said:


> Can someone explain to me what a CD is? Is it the same thing as an 8 Track Cartridge , or cassette deck? I also know they used to have those 78 RPM discs as well.
> 
> I haven't seen a CD in about 12 years.


Just look at a cover of BBC Music Magazine to correct the situation.


----------



## mtmailey

I love classical music but i do not do drugs nor get drunk nor smoke cigars or whatever like it.I keep away from trouble people.I have never been arrested nor have a criminal nor prison records.So what do you think about that?


----------



## Vaneyes

Usually. Next question?


----------



## hpowders

mtmailey said:


> I love classical music but i do not do drugs nor get drunk nor smoke cigars or whatever like it.I keep away from trouble people.I have never been arrested nor have a criminal nor prison records.So what do you think about that?


I like it!!!!:tiphat:

If you keep it up, one day, you may find yourself Ruler of the Queens's Navee.


----------



## Vaneyes

mtmailey said:


> I love classical music but i do not do drugs nor get drunk nor smoke cigars or whatever like it.*I keep away from trouble people.*I have never been arrested nor have a criminal nor prison records.*So what do you think about that?*


I think you should spend an evening with Hpowders and I.


----------



## hpowders

Vaneyes said:


> I think you should spend an evening with Hpowders and I.


But we already have a Shemp, Moe!


----------



## Varick

Vesteralen said:


> Probably. But, so what?
> 
> Edit: That was not intended to be as dismissive as it no doubt sounded.
> 
> My point is - intelligent people are not necessarily happier, nor do they necessarily live longer, nor do they have any greater intrinsic value.
> 
> So, what if it does take a bit more intelligence to respond to classical music than it does to respond to the blues or pop?
> 
> In the big scheme of things it seems relatively unimportant.
> 
> When I think about the people I've known and spent time with I have to conclude that I've had more enjoyment in spending time with some people who have no interest in or knowledge of classical music than I've ever had with the cultured intelligentsia.


Outstanding post! Precisely what I tried to say earlier. I just wish I had your pithiness. Unfortunately, try as I might, I remain rather loquacious.

I talk good, don't I?

V


----------



## Blake

Yea, Vesteralen was pretty much right on. The 'intelligence' that we speak of is but a facet of the cosmos. Many turn this kind of cultured 'knowledge' or 'intelligence' into some sort of novelty and it's quite the opposite of what intelligence actually is. It becomes rather unattractive, really.


----------



## Antiquarian

Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others?

Perhaps. But they certainly are more discriminating.


----------



## Oliver

Many of my fellow maths students love classical music.. Mahler, and so on. Back in high school (I went to a comprehensive school...) literally nobody will have heard of him.


----------



## ArtMusic

mitchflorida said:


> I have met a lot of people in my life, but I have never met a classical music fan who was stupid.
> 
> Lots of stupid heavy metal and rap and pop music fans, but never a dumb classical music lover.
> 
> Do you agree? Give us some concrete examples.


I listen to CM. But I certianly do not consider myself more intelligent than other poeple. Pure and simple.


----------



## Bulldog

mtmailey said:


> I love classical music but i do not do drugs nor get drunk nor smoke cigars or whatever like it.I keep away from trouble people.I have never been arrested nor have a criminal nor prison records.So what do you think about that?


Not a very exciting life, but there's much to be said for stability.


----------



## Anderjohn

Don't consider myself to be smarter than others, but I'll be honest that whenever someone finds out I'm listening to classical music they ASSUME I'm more intelligent than I am.

I also like how the evil genius in every movie listens to classical music.


----------



## amfortas

mtmailey said:


> I love classical music but i do not do drugs nor get drunk nor smoke cigars or whatever like it.I keep away from trouble people.I have never been arrested nor have a criminal nor prison records.So what do you think about that?





Bulldog said:


> Not a very exciting life, but there's much to be said for stability.


Some of that excitement you can do without. Believe me.


----------



## mtmailey

Bulldog said:


> Not a very exciting life, but there's much to be said for stability.


Trust me i do not need the drama that is here in PHILADELPHIA,PA.I rather enjoy peace any day.


----------



## Declined

No. People that smarter than me don't necessarily listen to classical music.


----------



## mitchflorida

That is a double negative, proving my point.


----------



## hpowders

The only thing it proves is Florida all of a sudden seems like a very, very, very small state.

I wonder how things are in Tennessee, perhaps? :lol:


----------



## hpowders

Declined said:


> No. People that smarter than me don't necessarily listen to classical music.


Exactly! Plenty of smart people don't listen to classical music. So what?

Tolerance is a virtue.


----------



## hpowders

mtmailey said:


> Trust me i do not need the drama that is here in PHILADELPHIA,PA.I rather enjoy peace any day.


Yes, but you can get a good cheese steak hoagie whenever you want to!!


----------



## jamesvr

No. Jazz listeners are.


----------



## Piwikiwi

jamesvr said:


> No. Jazz listeners are.


Jazz musicians are more intelligent than classical musicians but classical composers are more intelligent tgan jazz musicians^^.


----------



## Guest

mitchflorida said:


> That is a double negative, proving my point.


Eh? What's wrong with a double negative? The post you refer to (which I presume is Declined's) is missing a word, but the gist is easy: listening to classical music isn't necessarily an indicator of intelligence.


----------



## amfortas

MacLeod said:


> Eh? What's wrong with a double negative? The post you refer to (which I presume is Declined's) is missing a word, but the gist is easy: listening to classical music isn't necessarily an indicator of intelligence.


It isn't necessarily not an indicator, either.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I listen to a lot of different forms of music, mostly "classical". I consider myself to be fairly ignorant, but maybe I know so much that I realize I don't know enough. I'm an enlightened dumb-***.


----------



## mitchflorida

jamesvr said:


> No. Jazz listeners are.


Jazz listeners can be very intelligent, depending on the sort of jazz you are talking about, say the great pianist Bud Powell. Powell was confined in a mental hospital for a few years. Jazz musicians may not be "smart", they were born with a remarkable musical ability that can be very complex.

http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Bud-Powell-Vol-1/dp/B00005LANK


----------



## Guest

amfortas said:


> It isn't necessarily not an indicator, either.


I think that's implied by what I said - the 'necessarily' is critical to the 'might be/might not be' or 'is/isn't' condition under discussion.


----------



## amfortas

MacLeod said:


> I think that's implied by what I said - the 'necessarily' is critical to the 'might be/might not be' or 'is/isn't' condition under discussion.


Actually, I was--or wasn't not--making a reference to "double negatives."


----------



## Guest

amfortas said:


> Actually, I was--or wasn't not--making a reference to "double negatives."


Was, not was, eh?


----------



## mitchflorida

MacLeod said:


> Was, not was, eh?


My ears, my ears!


----------



## Piwikiwi

mitchflorida said:


> Jazz listeners can be very intelligent, depending on the sort of jazz you are talking about, say the great pianist Bud Powell. Powell was confined in a mental hospital for a few years. Jazz musicians may not be "smart", they were born with a remarkable musical ability that can be very complex.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Amazing-Bud-Powell-Vol-1/dp/B00005LANK


To be fair, Bud Powell suffered from brain damage after getting his head bashed in by a bouncer


----------



## jamesvr

Completely agree with mitchflorida, et. al. I'm a Jazz listener and player and do pretty well in the analytical realm--and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express.


----------



## Blake

I've always found Jazz to be the highest intellectual realm of popular music after Classical.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I love jazz, not so much more of the abstract jazz or "free jazz" 

I'm a huge fan of 20's-50's, which after that point most of it went towards easy listening groups or experimental. Jazz turned either into extremely experimental or it went more toward Nelson Riddle fair. Neither of which can be considered bad, but the extreme differences in the two branches became so much that I believe it weakened jazz a bit. Of course everybody was trying to rock at the hop, so all jazz could do was to either experiment or please the old fans. 

I'm not saying anything bad about post wartime jazz. Miles Davis, Duke Ellington, and Louis Armstrong made a lot of great "modern" recordings.


----------



## mitchflorida

Piwikiwi said:


> To be fair, Bud Powell suffered from brain damage after getting his head bashed in by a bouncer


You would be surprised about how many people with some brain damage have incredible musical talents. For example , a person who can barely speak a sentence is a human tape recorder, he hears any intricate piece once and can play it back on the piano perfectly. They are called savants, and it has always been frustrating to me that I have no discernible musical results even with much practice and they are fantastic without any effort. Bud Powell is beyond that of course, and if you listen to his Bach rendition you will wonder what all the fuss about Glenn Gould is all about.


----------



## PabloElFlamenco

Without wishing to go into deep analysis of what I am saying but, really, what a stupid question is that? Music and stupidity are mutually exclusive, and intelligence comes in many formats. I may know everything about wine (I almost do...) but that doesn't mean I can make a fortune selling the stuff, in fact, I would hate to sell wines for reasons not having to do with my liking of the product, so wherein does "intelligence" enter the universal picture?


----------



## mtmailey

Piwikiwi said:


> Jazz musicians are more intelligent than classical musicians but classical composers are more intelligent tgan jazz musicians^^.


Classical composers are way smarter than other composers of music understand that a fool can not write a materpiece.Also classical music is to complexed for dummies to write.


----------



## Morimur

Vesuvius said:


> I've always found Jazz to be the highest intellectual realm of popular music after Classical.


Jazz and Classical were once popular. However, it's safe to say that neither genre has been considered popular for quite some time now, and that's an understatement.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Why would anybody put effort into learning composition and theory, when they can go to a studio and sing about "Booty, Money, Money, Sex, Sex, and Mo Booty"?

There are people who want to make music for the love of it, and there are people who want to make music for the money. Sure, classical music makes money, but not as easily. You have to be a great musician to make any decent amount, so many become teachers. Classical and Jazz was once the money music, but people had to work hard at it, so it took dedication. If you couldn't read the notes, you had to make up for it in talent, at least in jazz. In classical, you are pretty much up the creek.


----------



## amfortas

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> Why would anybody put effort into learning composition and theory, when they can go to a studio and sing about "Booty, Money, Money, Sex, Sex, and Mo Booty"?


It's actually harder than you think. For instance, I would revise your effort above to "Money Money Money SEX Booty Booty SEX Booty Booty SEX SEX Booty Booty BOOTY!"

You see how that's a more effective resolution?


----------



## Guest

To answer this question I could only use myself as a baseline of comparison. I have an IQ of 126 - far from genius but well above average. In everday interaction with people I feel confident of my intelligence, even superior most of the time (that is in intellegence not education - I have only a little college). However when interacting with people here on TC the opposite is true. I avoid most of the more intellectual discussions because of lack of confidence and a feeling of intellectual inferiority most of the time. So if the members of TC are a typical slice of classical music listeners, I would say they are _much _more intelligent.


----------



## amfortas

Jerome said:


> To answer this question I could only use myself as a baseline of comparison. I have an IQ of 126 - far from genius but well above average. In everday interaction with people I feel confident of my intelligence, even superior most of the time (that is in intellegence not education - I have only a little college). However when interacting with people here on TC the opposite is true. I avoid most of the more intellectual discussions because of lack of confidence and a feeling of intellectual inferiority most of the time. *So if the members of TC are a typical slice of classical music listeners, I would say they are much more intelligent.*


But are they a typical slice? I would imagine that, while there are many who listen to classical music casually, only those with an added thirst to discuss, debate, and understand will frequent a forum like this. Perhaps any internet forum will tend to showcase the most intelligent fans, regardless of the subject matter.


----------



## GreenMamba

amfortas said:


> But are they a typical slice? I would imagine that, while there are many who listen to classical music casually, only those with an added thirst to discuss, debate, and understand will frequent a forum like this. Perhaps any internet forum will tend to showcase the most intelligent fans, regardless of the subject matter.


Intellectual discussions aren't even the norm here. Honestly, I'm befuddled that the previous poster would point to these forums as evidence of the intelligence of CM listeners (which isn't meant to be a slam; it's just that our discussions seem like standard internet fare).


----------



## Guest

Certainly not since I joined. 
D'oh.


----------



## mitchflorida

Jerome said:


> To answer this question I could only use myself as a baseline of comparison. I have an IQ of 126 - far from genius but well above average. In everday interaction with people I feel confident of my intelligence, even superior most of the time (that is in intellegence not education - I have only a little college). However when interacting with people here on TC the opposite is true. I avoid most of the more intellectual discussions because of lack of confidence and a feeling of intellectual inferiority most of the time. So if the members of TC are a typical slice of classical music listeners, I would say they are _much _more intelligent.


That is really quite a compliment, thank you.


----------



## amfortas

GreenMamba said:


> Intellectual discussions aren't even the norm here. Honestly, I'm befuddled that the previous poster would point to these forums as evidence of the intelligence of CM listeners (which isn't meant to be a slam; it's just that our discussions seem like standard internet fare).


I've read a lot of standard internet fare of a *much* lower order than what I find here.


----------



## PetrB

The general 'evidence' of what any can see by generally scanning comments on this and about any other classical music forum has me answering this question with a firm and resounding.

"NOT."


----------



## Ukko

PetrB said:


> The general 'evidence' of what any can see by generally scanning comments on this and about any other classical music forum has me answering this question with a firm and resounding.
> 
> "NOT."


Hmphh. I am grievously injured by your tone.


----------



## Radames

I knew a guy who thought rap fans were the most intelligent. He said people didn't understand rap because it was too advanced. Of course he didn't even know what counterpoint is.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

I enjoy older hip hop, like I enjoy a good burger. I just don't think a diet of just hip hop is good for a lover of music. I like variety, and to be honest, I don't think I could listen to just classical everyday. A steak every meal would get pretty boring after a while, trust me. Sometimes I want something simple. There is a difference between my love of food and my love of music. I have an insatiable appetite for many different types of music.


----------



## Mesenkomaha

Wish this topic had an anonymous poll attached to it. I do think that CM listeners are more intelligent in general (and I'm not including myself in this because I'm a relative new coming to the scene I am basing it on the few bright and highly successful people I know that enjoy CM). The problem I see is that CM listeners are also likely more modest and would not typically boast or be too brash about such issues.


----------



## Guest

Mesenkomaha said:


> Wish this topic had an anonymous poll attached to it.


No...no, you don't, you really don't...

Too late!


----------



## mtmailey

Radames said:


> I knew a guy who thought rap fans were the most intelligent. He said people didn't understand rap because it was too advanced. Of course he didn't even know what counterpoint is.


RAP FANS ARE NOT THAT wise!!They be doing stuff like smoking cigars,drinking beer & smoking dope which is not that healthy.


----------



## Radames

mtmailey said:


> RAP FANS ARE NOT THAT wise!!They be doing stuff like smoking cigars,drinking beer & smoking dope which is not that healthy.


Lots of classical listeners do those things too, don't they? Maybe Stephen Hawking secretly listens to rap. lol.


----------



## Guest

Why do some TC members have a curious obsession with rap? If you don't like it, you can keep away, you know. No need to behave like the moth to the flame!


----------



## KenOC

MacLeod said:


> Why do some TC members have a curious obsession with rap?


Obviously an unconscious, irresistible, and terribly guilty attraction to the genre. Protesting too much, and all that...


----------



## Radames

MacLeod said:


> Why do some TC members have a curious obsession with rap? If you don't like it, you can keep away, you know. No need to behave like the moth to the flame!


Maybe it's because I hear it everywhere I go. It's blaring out of people's cars. Even with my window closed I hear it when I'm stuck in traffic. I never hear Mahler blaring out of anyone's car stereo. Why not?!?!?


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

For me, I can't listen to classical while I drive, because the dynamics are so high that you can't hear the quiet parts over the road noise. Rock, Pop, County, Electronic, Blues, Jazz, and plently more types cut through the road noise better. I'm sure people in nicer cars don't have that problem, but I drive a 90's pickup.


----------



## Radames

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> For me, I can't listen to classical while I drive, because the dynamics are so high that you can't hear the quiet parts over the road noise. Rock, Pop, County, Electronic, Blues, Jazz, and plently more types cut through the road noise better. I'm sure people in nicer cars don't have that problem, but I drive a 90's pickup.


You just have to turn the volume to 11.


----------



## Bulldog

Radames said:


> Maybe it's because I hear it everywhere I go. It's blaring out of people's cars. Even with my window closed I hear it when I'm stuck in traffic. I never hear Mahler blaring out of anyone's car stereo. Why not?!?!?


Nobody is listening to Mahler.


----------



## PetrB

mitchflorida said:


> Wouldn't it be cool if one of the great Symphony Orchestras put up a small dance floor up in front so we could see people dancing to Beethoven, Mahler, etc. or at least Mozart.


At the last Stravinsky gig, the activity in the moshpit was awesome....


----------



## PetrB

violadude said:


> Aw...now I want to know what that is.


It is a cursive version of the written ancient Minoan writing known as Linear B. 
-- G I B smart! --


----------



## PetrB

mitchflorida said:


> That's like saying anyone who can read a nursery rhyme also has the capacity to love Shakespeare. They are not in the same realm.
> 
> Classical music tends to be music for the mind, popular music is music for the body and dancing, one is not better than the other.


Exactly, while all music is and can be enjoyed on the sheer visceral plane, so much pop dance music is directly about being visceral as instigator and accompaniment to dance, 'absolute' concert music has a completely different intent. It is entirely possible to enjoy both, whatever the IQ question.

I also tend to think any 'youth' who is in to more alternative pop, especially the music which is not vocal and text-bound, has been given a preconceived bad rap -- that too, is a type of 'intellectual' listener, ditto for jazz, any instrumental or pop music, acoustic and or electronic, which was not first a song has listeners following the musical activity,which requires more applied intellect, not a higher intellect -- which I think is more accurately the criterion for the classical folk being 'smarter.'

I'd also refute that classical fans are necessarily 'smarter.' What they are, not so dependent upon IQ as much as psychological profile -- more attentive listeners. This is something anyone can cultivate _if they are so inclined,_ and I kinda doubt that interest or inclination is any more than slightly partially due to a higher IQ.


----------



## Woodduck

SalieriIsInnocent said:


> For me, I can't listen to classical while I drive, because the dynamics are so high that you can't hear the quiet parts over the road noise. Rock, Pop, County, Electronic, Blues, Jazz, and plently more types cut through the road noise better. I'm sure people in nicer cars don't have that problem, but I drive a 90's pickup.


I drive a '90s pickup too, and I listen only to classical. If it's radio the dynamics are usually so compressed that the soft parts aren't much softer than the loud parts. But if I do miss some quiet parts, most of the works being broadcast are familiar enough that I can more or less fill in the missed bits from memory.

Serious listening to unfamiliar music? Rarely in the truck.


----------



## aleazk

PetrB said:


> It is a cursive version of the written ancient Minoan writing known as Linear B.
> -- G I B smart! --


Artist meets equations documentary: 




I found it quite hilarious, particularly at the end, when physicists also can't understand abstract art and ask silly questions like "but what does it represent?"... lol


----------



## aleazk

I found that classical music listeners tend to be more cultured in general. That's why I like this forum, most people here not only know about music, but also about literature, films, philosophy, etc. Also, they write in a very articulated way.

Most of my friends are math/physics students. And some of them are extremely intelligent; I have seen their minds working at very fast speeds and it's amazing. But they know very little outside science, and of course don't know or care very little about classical music and art. Even when they are very curious by nature. Is really puzzling.


----------



## PetrB

aleazk said:


> Artist meets equations documentary:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I found it quite hilarious, particularly at the end, when physicists also can't understand abstract art and ask silly questions like "but what does it represent?"... lol


I think I am going to relish this, and have bookmarked it for the hour it takes when I can watch it straight through.

But our little riff / rift, as you say, is quite typical. A few times I've been working on a manuscript in a public space, a neighboring client of the cafe, or wherever, leaned over, took a glance, raised an eyebrow and commented, "To me, that may as well be Chinese." To a literate musician, I imagine a score is somewhat like those equations are to the mathematicians and physicists, yet to quote the phrase used by Pete Seeger, to laymen they look like, "_Henscratches and Flyspecks."_ The title of his book, _"Henscratches and Flyspecks: How To Read Melodies From Songbooks In Twelve Confusing Lessons."_

And I'm certain that somewhere in this documentary, we can safely conclude and put to its final rest that fallacious premise in wide circulation that "music is math," Lol.


----------



## aleazk

PetrB said:


> I think I am going to relish this, and have bookmarked it for the hour it takes when I can watch it straight through.
> 
> But our little riff / rift, as you say, is quite typical. A few times I've been working on a manuscript in a public space, a neighboring client of the cafe, or wherever, leaned over, took a glance, raised an eyebrow and commented, "To me, that may as well be Chinese." To a literate musician, I imagine a score is somewhat like those equations are to the mathematicians and physicists, yet to quote the phrase used by Pete Seeger, to laymen they look like, "_Henscratches and Flyspecks."_ The title of his book, _"Henscratches and Flyspecks: How To Read Melodies From Songbooks In Twelve Confusing Lessons."_
> 
> And I'm certain that somewhere in this documentary, we can safely conclude and put to its final rest that fallacious premise in wide circulation that "music is math," Lol.


The explanations are not very good, but I found the premise hilarious, particularly because of the attitude of the presenter ("I don't understand anything and don't have any hope", lol).


----------



## Mahlerian

PetrB said:


> A few times I've been working on a manuscript in a public space, a neighboring client of the cafe, or wherever, leaned over, took a glance, raised an eyebrow and commented, "To me, that may as well be Chinese."


Being able to read both music and Japanese (which is related to Chinese) to some degree, I don't understand why others think they're so inscrutable any more than I do English.

Physics equations, on the other hand...


----------



## aleazk

Mahlerian said:


> Being able to read both music and Japanese (which is related to Chinese) to some degree, I don't understand why others think they're so inscrutable any more than I do English.
> 
> Physics equations, on the other hand...


According to the guy in the documentary, not Chinese but Elvish! lol


----------



## Guest

Radames said:


> You just have to turn the volume to 11.


That wouldn't be anything like enough in my car. I have to whack it up to 35 for the quiet parts of Shostakovich!


----------



## PetrB

stevens said:


> I disagree to your first assumption, jazz can be very very complex and classical music can be far from complex (Mozart etc). It depends on what pieces we are talking about. (Further, improvisation and harmonic complexity fits together very well).


Mozart, especially from middle and even more so the later works, hell, even some of the earlier works, is for its own time and well into the present, about as 'complex,' and to a degree of high sophistication which is astonishingly fluid, as it gets.

Back to that drawing board, then


----------



## science

aleazk said:


> I found that classical music listeners tend to be more cultured in general. That's why I like this forum, most people here not only know about music, but also about literature, films, philosophy, etc. Also, they write in a very articulated way.
> 
> Most of my friends are math/physics students. And some of them are extremely intelligent; I have seen their minds working at very fast speeds and it's amazing. But they know very little outside science, and of course don't know or care very little about classical music and art. Even when they are very curious by nature. Is really puzzling.


I'd say the causation tends to run from interest in culture to interest in classical music. It could go the other way sometimes, of course.


----------



## mmsbls

aleazk said:


> Most of my friends are math/physics students. And some of them are extremely intelligent; I have seen their minds working at very fast speeds and it's amazing. But they know very little outside science, and of course don't know or care very little about classical music and art. Even when they are very curious by nature. Is really puzzling.


Of course the vast majority of people are not interested in classical music. In my experience a much higher percentage of my physicist friends were interested in classical music than friends in general (other than classical musician friends). I have read that physicists tend to enjoy classical music more than the average person, but I don't know if that statistic came from a statistically relevant survey.


----------



## aleazk

science said:


> I'd say the causation tends to run from interest in culture to interest in classical music. It could go the other way sometimes, of course.


Yes, I thought that also. It seems that interest in culture tends to be wide rather than very localized. If you are curious enough, one thing leads to the other: for example, I got interested in Art Deco architecture and design after seeing some pictures of the furniture in Ravel's house and also after listening to the exotic influences in his music. I learned that Art Deco architecture had similar exotic influences and that this had to do with the new possibilities of traveling to faraway places in the early 20th century, etc. Also, the influence of futurism; and this leads you to cubism in the visual arts, etc. So, it never ends.



mmsbls said:


> Of course the vast majority of people are not interested in classical music. In my experience a much higher percentage of my physicist friends were interested in classical music than friends in general (other than classical musician friends). I have read that physicists tend to enjoy classical music more than the average person, but I don't know if that statistic came from a statistically relevant survey.


Well, I mentioned that example for two reasons: one, in my case, I didn't find that my fellow physicists were more interested in classical than the average, maybe my particular sample was biased. Second, as an example of a group of very intellegent people that has very little interest in "high" culture.

I guess that one can say that cultured people tends to be intelligent and also that cultured people tends to listen to classical music. So, the result is a higher than average percentage of cultured-intelligent people in the classical music community. But the causation only works in this direction.

But there are many particular counterexamples, so a statistical survey is needed in order to decipher the most strong tendency.


----------



## Headphone Hermit

Radames said:


> Maybe it's because I hear it everywhere I go. It's blaring out of people's cars. Even with my window closed I hear it when I'm stuck in traffic. I never hear Mahler blaring out of anyone's car stereo. Why not?!?!?


'cos I'm listening to Callas belting out her stuff


----------



## mmsbls

aleazk said:


> Well, I mentioned that example for two reasons: one, in my case, I didn't find that my fellow physicists were more interested in classical than the average, maybe my particular sample was biased. Second, as an example of a group of very intellegent people that has very little interest in "high" culture.
> 
> I guess that one can say that cultured people tends to be intelligent and also that cultured people tends to listen to classical music. So, the result is a higher than average percentage of cultured-intelligent people in the classical music community. But the causation only works in this direction.
> 
> But there are many particular counterexamples, so a statistical survey is needed in order to decipher the most strong tendency.


I fully expect that there is no direct causation between intelligence and classical music listening. I agree with you and _science_ that culture may be the common denominator. I'm willing to accept that classical music listeners do have somewhat higher IQs than average (based on the study I posted and another study I saw a couple of years ago but couldn't find for this thread), but I think it's a correlation not based on causation.


----------



## Radames

Bulldog said:


> Nobody is listening to Mahler.


Maybe if someone did a rap version of Dad Lied von der Erde?


----------



## hpowders

OP. For one, I certainly am. However I'm much too shy to admit that fact here on a public forum. :tiphat:


----------



## Radames

mmsbls said:


> I fully expect that there is no direct causation between intelligence and classical music listening. I agree with you and _science_ that culture may be the common denominator. I'm willing to accept that classical music listeners do have somewhat higher IQs than average (based on the study I posted and another study I saw a couple of years ago but couldn't find for this thread), but I think it's a correlation not based on causation.


My theory is that some people want to show the world that they are smart so they listen to classical music to 'show off' how smart and sophisticated they are.


----------



## mitchflorida

hpowders said:


> OP. For one, I certainly am. However I'm much too shy to admit that fact here on a public forum. :tiphat:


All of a sudden you are saying you are more intelligent than most other people? The whole time you've been acting like you are just an Archie Bunker-type who likes classical music. Why the sudden change?


----------



## Headphone Hermit

mitchflorida said:


> All of a sudden you are saying you are more intelligent than most other people? The whole time you've been acting like you are just an Archie Bunker-type who likes classical music. Why the sudden change?


He can't deny what is clearly evident :tiphat:


----------



## mitchflorida

I still think that people who like classical music are smarter.


----------



## mtmailey

mitchflorida said:


> I still think that people who like classical music are smarter.


To tell the truth we are smarter because you rarely hear violence at concerts.Where as with hip hop/rap music there are plenty of drama such as fighting ,stealing,murder, loud music & so on.We are more wiser & educated compared to those in hip hop/rap music.


----------



## GreenMamba

mtmailey said:


> To tell the truth we are smarter because you rarely hear violence at concerts.Where as with hip hop/rap music there are plenty of drama such as fighting ,stealing,murder, loud music & so on.We are* more wiser *& educated compared to those in hip hop/rap music.


Ugh, you really aren't helping your own argument here.


----------



## Guest

mtmailey said:


> To tell the truth we are smarter because you rarely hear violence at concerts.Where as with hip hop/rap music there are plenty of drama such as fighting ,stealing,murder, loud music & so on.We are more wiser & educated compared to those in hip hop/rap music.


That's because we are more olderer than the average age of the hipper-hopper rapper...

But your observations aren't true, actually. It's the classical listeners of history who have taken us to war (not least because hip-hop and rap weren't as popular in, say, 1914, as they are now). I blame Strauss and his wretched Viennese waltzes.


----------



## mitchflorida

-------------------------------


----------



## trazom

One of my dorm mates was a double major in electrical and biomedical engineering, which I just assume requires above average intelligence, and he had appallingly bad taste in music. Trance, Lindsey Stirling, techno remixes of Mozart symphony #40, hip hop, Jay Z. I wonder if he wouldn't like classical if he's just been exposed to it more.


----------



## Blake

It appears human intelligence is not all pervading.


----------



## Piwikiwi

mtmailey said:


> To tell the truth we are smarter because you rarely hear violence at concerts.Where as with hip hop/rap music there are plenty of drama such as fighting ,stealing,murder, loud music & so on.We are more wiser & educated compared to those in hip hop/rap music.


I listened to a lot of (underground) hiphop when I was 16-20 and went to a lot of concerts. The atmosphere was always quite friendly and amicable really.


----------



## mitchflorida

When you are 16-24 the only thing that is important is hormones and testosterone, Led Zeppelin and Grand Funk Railroad. Classical doesn't enter the picture until you are older.


----------



## hpowders

I don't know about whether we are more intelligent than other music listeners, but I do believe we are more sensitive to beautiful sounds.


----------



## Piwikiwi

mitchflorida said:


> When you are 16-24 the only thing that is important is hormones and testosterone, Led Zeppelin and Grand Funk Railroad. Classical doesn't enter the picture until you are older.


Tell that to all those music students who are devoting theirnlives to writing and playing classical music.


----------



## ArtMusic

mitchflorida said:


> I have met a lot of people in my life, but I have never met a classical music fan who was stupid.
> 
> Lots of stupid heavy metal and rap and pop music fans, but never a dumb classical music lover.
> 
> Do you agree? Give us some concrete examples.


I was taught never to judge other people whether they are stupid or not. All it matters is if they enjoy classical music or not.


----------



## DeepR

mitchflorida said:


> When you are 16-24 the only thing that is important is hormones and testosterone, Led Zeppelin and Grand Funk Railroad. Classical doesn't enter the picture until you are older.


You're just speaking for yourself


----------



## ribonucleic

mitchflorida said:


> When you are 16-24 the only thing that is important is hormones and testosterone, Led Zeppelin and Grand Funk Railroad. Classical doesn't enter the picture until you are older.


I'm a generation removed from that age cohort, so I could be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, today's teenagers and young adults do not listen to Grand Funk Railroad - even ironically.

I would be surprised if more than 10% of them knew who they were.


----------



## Piwikiwi

ribonucleic said:


> I'm a generation removed from that age cohort, so I could be wrong, but to the best of my knowledge, today's teenagers and young adults do not listen to Grand Funk Railroad - even ironically.
> 
> I would be surprised if more than 10% of them knew who they were.


I'm 27 and I've never heard of them


----------



## mitchflorida

Piwikiwi said:


> I'm 27 and I've never heard of them


You don't know what you are missing. They have some Mozart influence as well.


----------



## Guest

mitchflorida said:


> When you are 16-24 the only thing that is important is hormones and testosterone, Led Zeppelin and Grand Funk Railroad. Classical doesn't enter the picture until you are older.


Hormones _and _testosterone?
Led Zep and GFR may have entertained you when were 16-24, but not me, and there will be plenty of 16-24 year olds today who won't be listening to anything quite so antiquated.
Classical enters the picture at different ages for different people.


----------



## ribonucleic

Piwikiwi said:


> I'm 27 and I've never heard of Grand Funk Railroad.


The outdatedness of the band was a joke on an episode of _The Simpsons_ that aired in 1996. Even the bands that were popular _then_ are outdated now.


----------



## Radames

Piwikiwi said:


> I'm 27 and I've never heard of them


You mean you have never done the Loco-Motion??!!


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> Hormones _and _testosterone?
> Led Zep and GFR may have entertained you when were 16-24, but not me, and *there will be plenty of 16-24 year olds today who won't be listening to anything quite so antiquated.*
> Classical enters the picture at different ages for different people.


You're right. They're listening to things much worse. Mostly


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> You're right. They're listening to things much worse. Mostly


Speaking entirely personally, I'd rather listen to some of the execrable stuff that today's 18 year olds prefer than Led Zeppelin.


----------



## schigolch

No.............


----------



## ribonucleic

My wife - a social worker with many teenaged clients - assures me that the young 'uns still like Led Zeppelin. As well they should. 

The only proof I need of LZ's superiority to today's hits is NO AUTO-TUNING.


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> Speaking entirely personally, I'd rather listen to some of the execrable stuff that today's 18 year olds prefer than Led Zeppelin.


Jesus... Mary, and Joseph.


----------



## Polyphemus

What an appalling statement by 'MacLeod' who appears to be in favour of cash generating computer inspired pap. The recent debates on T C re, Metal etc leave me cold I have not heard anything original since the early 80's when I overheard from No 1 sons bedroom a band called 'Big Country'. They were completely original within the genre and in the grand tradition of Rock imploded with the sad and untimely death of their singer songwriter, Stuart Adamson. 
Now popular music is dominated by Cowell/Walsh drivel whose only aim is the enrichment of the aforementioned management tsars. True the performers get their Warholian 15 minutes of fame (or is it 5) then its back to obscurity.
The deification of the management guru is no new event in music, it has existed since music management began, it has simply reached new heights of avarice.
Perhaps a new era of revolution is required in popular music akin to the emergence of rock'n'roll - beat groups - punk rock. 
Be assured though it is all cyclical.


----------



## dgee

MacLeod said:


> Speaking entirely personally, I'd rather listen to some of the execrable stuff that today's 18 year olds prefer than Led Zeppelin.


Quite possibly me too. I find all that po-faced 60s and 70s rock is incredibly highly over-rated - at least the current reality TV pop is competent and doesn't take itself too seriously. Personal opinions only of course - I'm sure Led Zep was innovative and important, just don't make me listen to it


----------



## Guest

Polyphemus said:


> What an appalling statement by 'MacLeod' who appears to be in favour of cash generating computer inspired pap.


I think you extrapolate more than I said, and make all kinds of assumptions about what 16-24 year olds listen to.

I was merely saying that the worst of what 16-24 year olds listen to is better than Led Zep. That's really nothing more than me saying, with considerable hyperbole, that I don't like Led Zep.

Any intelligent analysis of the quality of what 16-24 year olds listen to would need to challenge assumptions about what that is in the first place. I'm sure some listen to what might be described as "cash generating computer inspired pap" - but I am sure that some of them listen to a much wider range than you give them credit.

But what do we expect - we're all old crinklies who only rate Mozart and Beethoven, aren't we?:devil:


----------



## mitchflorida

Name me some names of these wonderful new pop or rock groups you are talking about. For the most part, they are so much trash compared to the Golden Age of the 1960s and 1970s. Many of you are spouting off with no basis in fact.

Lady Gaga is no substitute for the Beatles. And yes, Grand Funk had their place too.


----------



## dgee

Bearing in mind this is all personal taste and not fact, of course, you could start with recent hits by Beyonce, Justin Timberlake, Daft Punk and Pharell Williams. These are all things I Like more than some of the 60s and 70s rock that gets unquestionably idolised as wonderful pop - and don't you worry sir, I could bore you for hours with 60s and 70s pop I love, just ain't the beatles or grand funk (labelle and graham central might get you a little bit closer!)

This statement is brought to you by the wonderful thing called taste - it bemuses me too when people don't get a kick from boulez or disco or brahms or jungle brothers (or find wonderful qualities in bob dylan and verdi) but I'm learning every day to live with it


----------



## Guest

mitchflorida said:


> Name me some names of these wonderful new pop or rock groups you are talking about. For the most part, they are so much trash compared to the Golden Age of the 1960s and 1970s. Many of you are spouting off with no basis in fact.


Which of us are spouting off with no basis in fact?
Who has been talking about 'wonderful new pop groups'?

It would help if you directed you request to the people who you wish to challenge.

And after that, you might acknowledge that what you say was the Golden Age is no more objectively the case than any opinion I've expressed about either then or now.


----------



## science

I like Led Zep pretty well, they did some reasonably interesting things with distortion, they structured some of their songs cleverly, and their lyrics were creative.

I don't know much about contemporary pop - some of it is obviously horrible ("You're gonna hear me roar"), but there are a lot of interesting things going on with synthesized sound. In a sense, the work of the mid-20th century electroacoustic guys (Stockhausen, Babbitt, Nono, Reich, Varèse, Merzbow), suitably diluted, is becoming mainstream as electronic dance music. There is a lot of innovation in the coordination of visual effects with musical effects as well.






That's not going to get Justin Bieber play, but in terms of what you can do within the limits of 4/4 time (it's dance music after all) and 19th century harmony, it's interesting. No verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus structure there. It's basically a theme and variations, albeit varying technological effects rather than harmonies and rhythms.

Meanwhile, I suspect the "classical music" of our own time (in the sense of the most cutting-edge and influential, as electroacoustic was in the mid-20th century) is the "crossover" stuff going on between various traditions from all over the world with western pop (rock, whatever), classical music and jazz. We tend to scorn guys like Yo-Yo Ma, Kronos Quartet, or Joshua Bell when they stray from what we consider properly "classical" music, but I suspect that the defining trait of our time is the fluidity of genre, so that nothing stays pure.

The old elite of Europe shared an elite musical tradition that we celebrate, but the music of the new global elite is what happens when Joshua Bell plays with Anoushka Shankar. Who listens to that? In large part, the people who run the governments and firms that distribute among themselves the surplus of the labor of the people who listen to Maroon 5, Nickelback, Kanye West, Justin Timberlake, Psy, Eminem, or whatever. It's the same game the Esterhazy family and their like played, albeit with a few different rules: then it was sonata form with a piano, contrasted to the despised music of the despised folk; now, multicultural, border-crossing genre-eclipsing sensitivity is supposed to reflect the legitimacy of their power and privilege. No matter what anyone says, I'll hold that any of us that have heard Kronos Quartet's _Floodplain_ either enjoy or aspire to membership in that community.


----------



## GreenMamba

mitchflorida said:


> Name me some names of these wonderful new pop or rock groups you are talking about. For the most part, they are so much trash compared to the Golden Age of the 1960s and 1970s. Many of you are spouting off with no basis in fact.
> 
> Lady Gaga is no substitute for the Beatles. And yes, Grand Funk had their place too.


The Beatles were exceptional, and hold a spot in '60s music history that Lady Gaga doesn't hold today.

Grand Funk Railroad, IMO, sucks. And I like Classic Rock.

When people start singing the praises of Grand Funk and Bachman-Turner Overdrive and the like, I reserve the right to claim that nostalgia has gotten the better of them. Not that you can't like those bands, but you can't complain that they just don't write music as good as that any more.


----------



## Blake

dgee said:


> Quite possibly me too. I find all that po-faced 60s and 70s rock is incredibly highly over-rated - at least the current reality TV pop is competent and doesn't take itself too seriously. Personal opinions only of course - I'm sure Led Zep was innovative and important, just don't make me listen to it


Jesus, Mary, and... nah I'm only kidding. Different strokes, I get it.


----------



## hpowders

The question du jour is "Are classical music lovers more intelligent than others?"

Well, let's put this baby to bed once and for all!!

I, hpowders am a classical music lover.

I rest my case. You have your definitive answer.


----------



## mitchflorida

hpowders said:


> The question du jour is "Are classical music lovers more intelligent than others?"
> 
> Well, let's put this baby to bed once and for all!!
> 
> I, hpowders am a classical music lover.
> 
> I rest my case. You have your definitive answer.


So is that a yes or a no? :tiphat:


----------



## Piwikiwi

mitchflorida said:


> Name me some names of these wonderful new pop or rock groups you are talking about. For the most part, they are so much trash compared to the Golden Age of the 1960s and 1970s. Many of you are spouting off with no basis in fact.
> 
> Lady Gaga is no substitute for the Beatles. And yes, Grand Funk had their place too.


Have ever heard jazz musicians talk about about the music of the 60's and 70's? It quite fascinating the way they talk about how the Beatles destroyed American pop music and other hyperboles


----------



## science

Piwikiwi said:


> Have ever heard jazz musicians talk about about the music of the 60's and 70's? It quite fascinating the way they talk about how the Beatles destroyed American pop music and other hyperboles


I suspect one of the jazz musicians you have in mind is named Marsalis.

To be fair to the pop musicians of the late '50s and early '60s, as the great Ted Gioia points out, their sounds were in fact more novel than most of the jazz music of that time.

(Edit: I cannot entirely resist a dig at more Marsalis: that point might be hard to see for a musician who is still making music in styles that would've surprised no one in the '50s. To be fair to Marsalis, however, no one does it better.)


----------



## Figleaf

Yes, we are more intelligent. Fact.

(Although I'm basically just an early recordings anorak who doesn't have a clue about 99% of 'classical music'- I think these sort of nerdy obsessions are probably a sign of extreme eccentricity rather than genius.)

Intelligence is a funny thing though, isn't it? I remember at Oxford one time, arriving at a tutorial at an unfamiliar college. I spent some time outside, pushing ineffectually at a door that was marked 'PULL'. A workman in overalls came up behind me and held open the door for me, remarking 'And they say you're the top 2% of the population. Tsk!' I was suitably chastened as he walked off, shaking his head.


----------



## mitchflorida

Piwikiwi said:


> Have ever heard jazz musicians talk about about the music of the 60's and 70's? It quite fascinating the way they talk about how the Beatles destroyed American pop music and other hyperboles


Never heard that before. I know a lot of great jazz musicians like Wes Montgomery and Chick Corea have covered Beatles songs like Penny Lane, and A Day in the Life.


----------



## Piwikiwi

mitchflorida said:


> Never heard that before. I know a lot of great jazz musicians like Wes Montgomery and Chick Corea have covered Beatles songs like Penny Lane, and A Day in the Life.


Chick Corea is of a later generation than the ones I'm talking about. They were a lot more open to influences from other music styles. It was funk that attracted the attention of Jazz musician's for the most part, not rock.



science said:


> I suspect one of the jazz musicians you have in mind is named Marsalis.
> 
> To be fair to the pop musicians of the late '50s and early '60s, as the great Ted Gioia points out, their sounds were in fact more novel than most of the jazz music of that time.
> 
> (Edit: I cannot entirely resist a dig at more Marsalis: that point might be hard to see for a musician who is still making music in styles that would've surprised no one in the '50s. To be fair to Marsalis, however, no one does it better.)


Nope, I'm talking about guys like Sonny Rollins who anonymously featured on a Rolling Stone album because afraid of the reaction he might have gotten.

I also disagree with Ted Goia, can you really compare the Beatles to Coltrane's a love supreme, Charles Mingus' mingus ah um, Miles Davis' Kind of Blue, Ornette Coleman's Freejazz, Herbie Hancock's Maiden Voyage, Wayne Shorter's Speak no evil, Eric Dolphy's Out to Lunch and Larry Young's Unity and say that the pop music of the time is more novel?


----------



## science

Piwikiwi said:


> Chick Corea is of a later generation than the ones I'm talking about. They were a lot more open to influences from other music styles. It was funk that attracted the attention of Jazz musician's for the most part, not rock.
> 
> Nope, I'm talking about guys like Sonny Rollins who anonymously featured on a Rolling Stone album because afraid of the reaction he might have gotten.
> 
> I also disagree with Ted Goia, can you really compare the Beatles to Coltrane's a love supreme, Charles Mingus' mingus ah um, Miles Davis' Kind of Blue, Ornette Coleman's Freejazz, Herbie Hancock's Maiden Voyage, Wayne Shorter's Speak no evil, Eric Dolphy's Out to Lunch and Larry Young's Unity and say that the pop music of the time is more novel?


Free jazz as a genre was intended to alienate most of its audience, driven by the imperative to be "art" in a romantic/modernist sense. It succeeded: its audience now overlaps almost completely with the audience for classical music. But thereby it takes itself out of this conversation.

"Speak No Evil," "Maiden Voyage," "Mingus Ah Um," aren't really that different than what came before, so they're perfect examples of what I'm talking about. In the mid-60's view, that's mom's and dad's music. Put them next to "Where Did Our Love Go," "Are You Experienced," "Abbey Road," "Pet Songs," or "In the Court of the Crimson King." You might not _like_ the music, but it's easy to see which is a bigger step away from early- and mid-50s jazz.

That's why no later than the early 70s (even in the mid-60s with things like "soul jazz") jazz musicians realized that the cutting edge of musical innovation had been seized by musicians in other genres and turned to "fusion" as their own way forward. That has had some success.


----------



## hpowders

You not only have "inter" but also "intra" to deal with.
Within the classical music community you have a wide variance of intelligence- folks who are geniuses, others who are above-average, a lot who are average and maybe some who aren't otherwise too bright.

So how in the heck can you compare this diverse group to other groups, which are also highly diverse within?


----------



## Piwikiwi

science said:


> Free jazz as a genre was intended to alienate most of its audience, driven by the imperative to be "art" in a romantic/modernist sense. It succeeded: its audience now overlaps almost completely with the audience for classical music. But thereby it takes itself out of this conversation.


Why does it take itself out of this conversation?



> "Speak No Evil," "Maiden Voyage," "Mingus Ah Um," aren't really that different than what came before, so they're perfect examples of what I'm talking about.


I'm sorry but that's simply wrong, especially for speak no evil and Maiden Voyage which both have a completely different harmonic language than what came before. You can easily argue that the 60's was the artistic Golden age of Jazz.



> In the mid-60's view, that's mom's and dad's music. Put them next to "Where Did Our Love Go," "Are You Experienced," "Abbey Road," "Pet Songs," or "In the Court of the Crimson King." You might not _like_ the music, but it's easy to see which is a bigger step away from early- and mid-50s jazz.


Not it is a musical step backwards. It's the era in which music became a commodity, and the Beatles symbolize that change.



> That's why no later than the early 70s (even in the mid-60s with things like "soul jazz") jazz musicians realized that the cutting edge of musical innovation had been seized by musicians in other genres and turned to "fusion" as their own way forward. That has had some success.


And fusion just became one of many styles after the hype died down. It was also largely musical opportunism by some. It's not a surprise that contemporary jazz returned to mostly acoustic instruments, and no it is not because of the nostalgia guys like Wynton Marsalis. Guys/Bands like Brad Mehldau, Django Bates, James Farm(band), Will Vinson, Ari Hoenig, Vijay Iyer, Lage Lund are all examples of guys who play fresh accoustic jazz.


----------



## science

Piwikiwi said:


> Why does it take itself out of this conversation?
> 
> I'm sorry but that's simply wrong, especially for speak no evil and Maiden Voyage which both have a completely different harmonic language than what came before. You can easily argue that the 60's was the artistic Golden age of Jazz.
> 
> Not it is a musical step backwards. It's the era in which music became a commodity, and the Beatles symbolize that change.
> 
> And fusion just became one of many styles after the hype died down. It was also largely musical opportunism by some. It's not a surprise that contemporary jazz returned to mostly acoustic instruments, and no it is not because of the nostalgia guys like Wynton Marsalis. Guys/Bands like Brad Mehldau, Django Bates, James Farm(band), Will Vinson, Ari Hoenig, Vijay Iyer, Lage Lund are all examples of guys who play fresh accoustic jazz.


What was the idea of Rollins' comment about fearing a backlash for playing with the Rolling Stones? He was surely afraid of a backlash from the jazz community rather than the pop/rock community. And that fear tells us a lot about jazz and why it was not destined to be the music of the people. From bebop on, jazz has not wanted to be the music of the people. That is why free jazz has been such a success, and why it takes itself out of this conversation. You cannot argue that the people turned against jazz when jazz was striving to restrict its audience to an elite.

Considering the virulence of the hate that is still spewed on Miles Davis for adopting rock/pop elements into jazz, I'm not going to play ideological games about what's forward and backward in music any more than I'm going to reduce musical innovation to harmony. That's pure ideology, nothing but ideology, and I'm uninterested in it. You can scorn me all you want; just be sure that I return it with equal fervency.


----------



## science

Conversations like this are why normal people hate people who listen to classical music and jazz. 

Yes, you're all smarter than they are, congratulations. Enjoy your superiority. (Edit: Of intellect, not of character.)


----------



## mitchflorida

science said:


> Conversations like this are why normal people hate people who listen to classical music and jazz.


Do you have any hard proof of this statement? That people who like classical music are the most hated people?


----------



## ribonucleic

mitchflorida said:


> Do you have any hard proof of this statement? That people who like classical music are the most hated people?


Enjoyment of classical music is a standard characterization point for movie villains.

Hannibal Lecter requests not just a recording of the Goldberg Variations but the Glenn Gould performance in particular.


----------



## SONNET CLV

*Thread: Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others? *

Frankly, I'm quite surprised to see this thread has gone on now for 23 pages. I would suspect that folks as intelligent as are we Classical Music listeners would have settled this issue in a page or two, at most!


----------



## Headphone Hermit

SONNET CLV said:


> *Thread: Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others? *
> 
> Frankly, I'm quite surprised to see this thread has gone on now for 23 pages. I would suspect that folks as intelligent as are we Classical Music listeners would have settled this issue in a page or two, at most!


or given up reading it .... oops ... and adding to its length :lol:


----------



## science

mitchflorida said:


> Do you have any hard proof of this statement? That people who like classical music are the most hated people?


I didn't say "the most" hated.

Just ordinary hated, like people who say, "We were local food before local food was cool," or, "I only drink craft beer," or, "You cannot understand Tolkien until you read _The Silmarillion_."


----------



## Piwikiwi

science said:


> What was the idea of Rollins' comment about fearing a backlash for playing with the Rolling Stones? He was surely afraid of a backlash from the jazz community rather than the pop/rock community. And that fear tells us a lot about jazz and why it was not destined to be the music of the people.


I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. We are on a classical music forum here, not exactly the most popular accessible music there is now, is it? Jazz and Classical is not music for the elite, it is music for nerds. Just as James Joyce is literature for Nerds.



> From bebop on, jazz has not wanted to be the music of the people.


You do realize that bebop was invented by guys who were completely sick of playing accessible music without getting any recognition for it. Bebop was a rebellion against the strictness of the Big Bands, the (in their eyes) uncle tomming of guys like Louis Armstrong. They created a new way of playing music that they thought deserved artistic recognition.



> That is why free jazz has been such a success, and why it takes itself out of this conversation. You cannot argue that the people turned against jazz when jazz was striving to restrict its audience to an elite.


See my first point, there is nothing wrong with trying to make music that is only for an elite.



> Considering the virulence of the hate that is still spewed on Miles Davis for adopting rock/pop elements into jazz, I'm not going to play ideological games about what's forward and backward in music any more than I'm going to reduce musical innovation to harmony. That's pure ideology, nothing but ideology, and I'm uninterested in it. You can scorn me all you want; just be sure that I return it with equal fervency.


I'm sorry but where did I scorn you, that was never my intention and I apologize if it appears that way.



science said:


> Conversations like this are why normal people hate people who listen to classical music and jazz.
> 
> Yes, you're all smarter than they are, congratulations. Enjoy your superiority. (Edit: Of intellect, not of character.)


Come one this is getting ridiculous, I don't understand why you have to resort to ad hominems.

Another example would be to consider the American Songbook, most of these songs are musically way more interesting than any of the bands during "the British invasion."


----------



## Piwikiwi

science said:


> I didn't say "the most" hated.
> 
> Just ordinary hated, like people who say, "We were local food before local food was cool," or, "I only drink craft beer," or, "You cannot understand Tolkien until you read _The Silmarillion_."


So nerds basically. It is somehow bad to be passionate about something because it might offend people that are not....


----------



## Blake

Piwikiwi said:


> So nerds basically. It is somehow bad to be passionate about something because it might offend people that are not....


Conflict arises when two passions collide. If someone is detached from something, the last thing they're worried about is arguing about the subject.


----------



## Guest

mitchflorida said:


> I have met a lot of people in my life, but I have never met a classical music fan who was stupid.
> .


Unfortunately, there are a good number of classical music fans (and performers) who are none too bright, not to mention those interested in the fine arts. It is a grave mistake to conflate "love of the arts" with IQ; in my experience, in any case.


----------



## Piwikiwi

TalkingHead said:


> Unfortunately, there are a good number of classical music fans (and performers) who are none too bright, not to mention those interested in the fine arts. It is a grave mistake to conflate "love of the arts" with IQ; in my experience, in any case.


One of the most talented musicians I know was a dumb as a brick.


----------



## hpowders

We classical music lovers like to think of ourselves as so high and mighty, looking down on the peasants, but simply listening to classical music requires no special skill set. Any idiot can do it and many do.

Wake me up when you sooooo smart classical music listeners have composed or conducted something significant.


----------



## OlivierM

I don't think so. I have met people in my life, who were classical music fans and really stupid (not bad people, just stupid ones) and metalheads who were extremely clever (I am coming from an engineering background, and back in the day, my good friends and I were into metal, and I don't befriend stupid people).
Well, this reasoning only stands if you have the kindness to grant me some kind of intelligence, which I'll take for (mildly) granted.

I just think musical preferences have a lot to do with lots of factors : intelligence, but also family background and education, people you get to know during your life and the memories which stand, what your ear can or cannot perceive, instinct, and I probably forgot a few to mention.


----------



## Guest

TalkingHead said:


> It is a grave mistake to conflate "love of the arts" with IQ; in my experience, in any case.


I think it's a grave mistake to try and 'conflate' IQ with anything at all.


----------



## hpowders

I attend concerts and I look around. Judging from a lot of the facial expressions, I see boredom, not intelligence. Of course the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.


----------



## tdc

Piwikiwi said:


> No, it is a musical step backwards. It's the era in which music became a commodity, and the Beatles symbolize that change.


For the record, I'm enjoying reading your informative posts on jazz, and you bring up a lot of good points, but I think this statement is a little too simplistic. For one pop artists started using recording techniques around this time like backwards echo and layering of ideas in the studio that you don't really find in jazz of that time - to my knowledge. Secondly, even though the music is less complex than jazz structurally, it still sounds distinct from anything that came before it, so I think calling it a "step backwards" is not exactly hitting the mark. I think some people felt chord progressions and harmonies had got as complex as they needed to be, and to some people's taste _less is more_ in this sense. Writing new sounding tunes with this philosophy is not a step back as much as it is exploring a different approach to composition. Finally, while I don't think record sales is an indicator of artistic merit, I also don't think it is necessarily an indicator of artistic failure either, or "selling out". I don't think you can make cases for the worth of art either way based on its popularity.

I think if this music was simply a step back as you suggest, it would have died out a long time ago because people would tire of it and realize they could get the exact same things out of earlier music anyway. But in reality pop music does offer the listener something more simple and quite different from jazz or classical. Its its own thing. Yes, this is around the time music became more of a commodity for sure, but this was taking place before The Beatles had even formed, so I'm not sure they should be the ultimate symbols for this change. The truth is all genres of music have become a commodity to some extent today, it is how the music industry has evolved in our capitalist society.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> I attend concerts and I look around. Judging from a lot of the facial expressions, I see boredom, not intelligence. Of course the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.


Facial expressions are too limited a field of communication for such distinctions. I often look quite solemn and introspective to others, but inside I could be bursting with joy.


----------



## SeptimalTritone

hpowders said:


> I attend concerts and I look around. Judging from a lot of the facial expressions, I see boredom, not intelligence. Of course the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.


hpowders, you will never grow old! And by old, I mean one of those old dinogramps decaying farts that pays $100 for an LA philharmonic Disney Hall concert and just reads the program! May you explore and have enthusiasm for the rest of your life, and never grow old and tired!!! :kiss:


----------



## Guest

Piwikiwi said:


> One of the most talented musicians I know was a *dumb as a brick*.


Nice phrase. I like the French equivalent "stupid as a nail" (dubious etymology, coming from the Lorraine region of France, whose people are famous for being "dumb as bricks"), and "thick as *****".


----------



## hpowders

SeptimalTritone said:


> hpowders, you will never grow old! And by old, I mean one of those old dinogramps decaying farts that pays $100 for an LA philharmonic Disney Hall concert and just reads the program! May you explore and have enthusiasm for the rest of your life, and never grow old and tired!!! :kiss:


Thanks. I appreciate the sentiment. It gets worse at these concerts-the sound of snoring.

I have only one wish-to hear Mahler's 8th in a live performance by a great orchestra, conductor, soloists and choirs in an acoustically fine hall. Will travel!


----------



## hpowders

Vesuvius said:


> Facial expressions are too limited a field of communication for such distinctions. I often look quite solemn and introspective to others, but inside I could be bursting with joy.


Yeah, but boredom is pretty easy to read. So many of these folks look so damn miserable. It's like they were forcibly dragged to church.


----------



## trazom

Piwikiwi said:


> One of the most talented musicians I know was a dumb as a brick.


Which instrument did they play? Just curious.


----------



## scratchgolf

Judging by some of the members here, the answer is obviously yes.
Judging by some of the members here, the answer is obviously no.


----------



## DiesIraeCX

Are Classical listeners more intelligent than others? Of course we isn't!


----------



## scratchgolf

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Are Classical listeners more intelligent than others? Of course we isn't!


We our two!!!!!


----------



## Blake

Is you is, or is you isn't? Simple as that.


----------



## iwhoopedbatman

No they just listen to better music.


----------



## hpowders

DiesIraeVIX said:


> Are Classical listeners more intelligent than others? Of course we isn't!


Heh! Heh! Good one. I had a feeling we not.


----------



## science

Piwikiwi said:


> I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. We are on a classical music forum here, not exactly the most popular accessible music there is now, is it? Jazz and Classical is not music for the elite, it is music for nerds. Just as James Joyce is literature for Nerds.
> 
> You do realize that bebop was invented by guys who were completely sick of playing accessible music without getting any recognition for it. Bebop was a rebellion against the strictness of the Big Bands, the (in their eyes) uncle tomming of guys like Louis Armstrong. They created a new way of playing music that they thought deserved artistic recognition.
> 
> See my first point, there is nothing wrong with trying to make music that is only for an elite.
> 
> I'm sorry but where did I scorn you, that was never my intention and I apologize if it appears that way.
> 
> Come one this is getting ridiculous, I don't understand why you have to resort to ad hominems.
> 
> Another example would be to consider the American Songbook, most of these songs are musically way more interesting than any of the bands during "the British invasion."


It's funny when the elite try to portray ourselves as a persecuted minority.

As you're well aware, your posts gush with scorn. Not for me so much - I listen to the same music you do - but for people who don't.



Piwikiwi said:


> So nerds basically. It is somehow bad to be passionate about something because it might offend people that are not....


Is it merely passion that makes you describe their music as trash? Is is possible to have passion without that condescension?

That scorn, it really is too much for me. For some reason, no matter where I'm located personally, I'm doomed to identify with the victims of that kind of scorn. I envy people who don't like classical music or jazz for not having to be associated with our attitudes. I hate us as we scorn them.

But then, one of the things that has most powerfully driven me to explore these traditions is because I hate that scorn, and I will not suffer it passively. People like you can think you're so much better than people like me in so many ways, but I have overcome most of the excuses.


----------



## science

tdc said:


> For the record, I'm enjoying reading your informative posts on jazz, and you bring up a lot of good points, but I think this statement is a little too simplistic. For one pop artists started using recording techniques around this time like backwards echo and layering of ideas in the studio that you don't really find in jazz of that time - to my knowledge. Secondly, even though the music is less complex than jazz structurally, it still sounds distinct from anything that came before it, so I think calling it a "step backwards" is not exactly hitting the mark. I think some people felt chord progressions and harmonies had got as complex as they needed to be, and to some people's taste _less is more_ in this sense. Writing new sounding tunes with this philosophy is not a step back as much as it is exploring a different approach to composition. Finally, while I don't think record sales is an indicator of artistic merit, I also don't think it is necessarily an indicator of artistic failure either, or "selling out". I don't think you can make cases for the worth of art either way based on its popularity.
> 
> I think if this music was simply a step back as you suggest, it would have died out a long time ago because people would tire of it and realize they could get the exact same things out of earlier music anyway. But in reality pop music does offer the listener something more simple and quite different from jazz or classical. Its its own thing. Yes, this is around the time music became more of a commodity for sure, but this was taking place before The Beatles had even formed, so I'm not sure they should be the ultimate symbols for this change. The truth is all genres of music have become a commodity to some extent today, it is how the music industry has evolved in our capitalist society.


One of the essential things you have to do to reject all post-60s pop music is carefully ignore any technological innovation. Only things like harmony and rhythm are worthy of attention! Once you start paying attention to technological innovation, you might wind up respecting bands like - oh, this sneer hurts my face - the Beatles.


----------



## mitchflorida

ribonucleic said:


> Enjoyment of classical music is a standard characterization point for movie villains.


You are forgetting the most infamous classical music listener of all time. I will only write his initials A.H. But surely you are not claiming him to be a typical classical music lover? Food for thought.


----------



## clavichorder

People who genuinely appreciate a wide variety of classical music(not just being a fan of one or two particularly heroes) and are interested in the lives of the composers, the historical context, and so on...I think they do tend to be more intelligent or at least more curious and receptive than the average person.


----------



## Piwikiwi

trazom said:


> Which instrument did they play? Just curious.


He/She played Trombone


----------



## Piwikiwi

science said:


> It's funny when the elite try to portray ourselves as a persecuted minority.
> 
> As you're well aware, your posts gush with scorn. Not for me so much - I listen to the same music you do - but for people who don't.
> 
> Is it merely passion that makes you describe their music as trash? Is is possible to have passion without that condescension?
> 
> That scorn, it really is too much for me. For some reason, no matter where I'm located personally, I'm doomed to identify with the victims of that kind of scorn. I envy people who don't like classical music or jazz for not having to be associated with our attitudes. I hate us as we scorn them.
> 
> But then, one of the things that has most powerfully driven me to explore these traditions is because I hate that scorn, and I will not suffer it passively. People like you can think you're so much better than people like me in so many ways, but I have overcome most of the excuses.


You seem unable to discuss this without resorting to desperate attempts to label me as elitist or scornful amd that's is simply kind of sad.


----------



## science

Piwikiwi said:


> You seem unable to discuss this without resorting to desperate attempts to label me as elitist or scornful amd that's is simply kind of sad.


It is indeed, though we probably disagree where the sadness lies. I'm sure there is a way to read your posts as not having been filled with scorn for the Beatles and all other pop since their time, and I fault myself for not being able to find it.

In all sincerity, you might as well enjoy your superiority without condescending to care about my resentment. It'd be better for both of us.


----------



## Piwikiwi

science said:


> It is indeed, though we probably disagree where the sadness lies. I'm sure there is a way to read your posts as not having been filled with scorn for the Beatles and all other pop since their time, and I fault myself for not being able to find it.
> 
> In all sincerity, you might as well enjoy your superiority without condescending to care about my resentment. It'd be better for both of us.


You are constantly trying to shift the discussion, appeal to outside authority(ted goia), revert to ad hominems(calling me scornful and elitist), claiming that I feel superior to you and saying all people hate "the elitist" jazz and classical fans. That's not how you participate in a civil discussion, and the fact that we are not able to have a civil discussion is sad.


----------



## science

Piwikiwi said:


> You are constantly trying to shift the discussion, appeal to outside authority(ted goia), revert to ad hominems(calling me scornful and elitist), claiming that I feel superior to you and saying all people hate "the elitist" jazz and classical fans. That's not how you participate in a civil discussion, and the fact that we are not able to have a civil discussion is sad.


Let's remember how this started.



Piwikiwi said:


> Have ever heard jazz musicians talk about about the music of the 60's and 70's? It quite fascinating the way they talk about how the Beatles destroyed American pop music and other hyperboles


----------



## Piwikiwi

science said:


> Let's remember how this started.


And again you fail to respond to my post and instead you try to divert the discussion away. This is pointless really.


----------



## SiegendesLicht

clavichorder said:


> People who genuinely appreciate a wide variety of classical music(not just being a fan of one or two particularly heroes) and are interested in the lives of the composers, the historical context, and so on...I think they do tend to be more intelligent or at least more curious and receptive than the average person.


What about someone who is a fan of a few chosen Teutonic musical gods AND is interested in their lives, historical context and pretty much everything else pertaining to the culture and times that brought them forth?


----------



## science

Piwikiwi said:


> And again you fail to respond to my post and instead you try to divert the discussion away. This is pointless really.


That's not a different way at all. That's the point it's own self!

Also, I don't think I've called you elitist as an ad hom. You and I and everyone here are elite, and you recognized that yourself:



Piwikiwi said:


> We are on a classical music forum here, not exactly the most popular accessible music there is now, is it? Jazz and Classical is not music for the elite, it is music for nerds. Just as James Joyce is literature for Nerds.


The "nerds" idea is hardly worth addressing. "Yes, I like James Joyce because I'm just a nerd, while you, my cultural and social superiors, read Stephenie Meyer." Who do we think we're fooling?

Nor is "scornful" exactly an ad hominem. Describing people who don't listen to classical music less intelligent than we are - that is ad hominem.

You've got to understand, I really am a snob. I am probably snobbier than you are. I enjoy free jazz and avant-garde classical music, James Joyce; I don't enjoy country music, rap, most pop. But this is only my own taste; it isn't something objectively valid. It's ok to be honest about this.

But really, none of this matters. I think we actually see eye-to-eye on jazz and classical music and their social intentions, we just choose to describe it differently because of which we instinctively identify with different sides of the divide.


----------



## science

SiegendesLicht said:


> What about someone who is a fan of a few chosen Teutonic musical gods AND is interested in their lives, historical context and pretty much everything else pertaining to the culture and times that brought them forth?


I guess we could call that person a nationalist. I don't think we could generalize about the intelligence of nationalists.


----------



## Guest

This thread? Still? Really? I thought we'd proven a resounding "NO" from the very first post? 

The irony is that, for those that have "never met a stupid classical listener", making a superiority complex thread for them to flock to seems to do the trick!


----------



## clavichorder

SiegendesLicht said:


> What about someone who is a fan of a few chosen Teutonic musical gods AND is interested in their lives, historical context and pretty much everything else pertaining to the culture and times that brought them forth?


That's probably best taken on a case by case basis. You seem intelligent.


----------



## hpowders

OP: No we're not, but we like to fool ourselves into thinking so.


----------



## Schubussy

http://www.labnol.org/internet/music-taste-linked-to-intelligence/7489/

Unlucky, guys. We're dumb as bricks.

What's worse is I dislike Sufjan Stevens too.


----------



## Vaneyes

Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others?
Yes, and so are the conductors.


----------



## hpowders

Deleted post.


----------



## stevens

"Yes, and so are the conductors."

Thats an intresting point. Classical listeners arent more intelligent than other listeners *BUT* classical performers are more intelligent than a) other listeners b) other performers. 
What do you think of that?


----------



## science

stevens said:


> "Yes, and so are the conductors."
> 
> Thats an intresting point. Classical listeners arent more intelligent than other listeners *BUT* classical performers are more intelligent than a) other listeners b) other performers.
> What do you think of that?


Seems to me that, even strictly within the realm of music, jazz performers are often as knowledgeable as classical performers.

Another very knowledgeable sort of performers is the authentic folk guys. I know a guy who performs traditional Korean music (his instrument is the daegum). He makes his own instruments, starting from walking through forests looking for good wood. The guy is no dummy. Maybe he's exceptional - he's a professor at an elite university, after all - but I get the sense that people who succeed with the artistic goals and values that he has must be sharp, creative people.


----------



## Piwikiwi

science said:


> Seems to me that, even strictly within the realm of music, jazz performers are often as knowledgeable as classical performers.
> .


My personal experience as a music student confirms this, but classical composers where quite a bit more intelligent than jazz musicians.

Intelligence is overrated anyway. I know quite a lot intelligent people, including myself, who are just as cluesless about life as anyone else. Intelligence only means that you are good at learning, that's it. Hard work is seriously underrated; you can be as intelligent as Einstein but if you are lazy you will still amount to nothing. (is this correct English)


----------



## science

Piwikiwi said:


> My personal experience as a music student confirms this, but classical composers where quite a bit more intelligent than jazz musicians.
> 
> Intelligence is overrated anyway. I know quite a lot intelligent people, including myself, who are just as cluesless about life as anyone else. Intelligence only means that you are good at learning, that's it. Hard work is seriously underrated; you can be as intelligent as Einstein but if you are lazy you will still amount to nothing. (is this correct English)


Correct enough!

Plus, I now have an explanation my mother will believe about why I've amounted to nothing....


----------



## Blake

Piwikiwi said:


> My personal experience as a music student confirms this, but classical composers where quite a bit more intelligent than jazz musicians.
> 
> Intelligence is overrated anyway. I know quite a lot intelligent people, including myself, who are just as cluesless about life as anyone else. Intelligence only means that you are good at learning, that's it. Hard work is seriously underrated; you can be as intelligent as Einstein but if you are lazy you will still amount to nothing. (is this correct English)


In a way, I agree. But maybe intelligence can manifest in different ways. Some people are very intelligent about life in general (be it philosophers or deep thinkers), but aren't too keen at learning particular grooves... while others hone their intelligence into one field (be it hard science or crafts), and aren't too savvy on much else. I don't know where the ambition comes from to focus attention on one thing or the other, but I've seen it all over the place.


----------



## clavichorder

No, but Science will one day prove that classical music fans are better endowed. Except theorbo players, who are compensating with their long necked instruments.


----------



## KRoad

Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others?

This is such a stupid question, really...


----------



## hpowders

Yes. It's obvious to me that one's choice in music is not a measure of intelligence.

Listening is a passive experience. Anybody can do it.

The intelligent ones in classical music are the composers; the conductors; the musicians.


----------



## Blake

hpowders said:


> Yes. It's obvious to me that one's choice in music is not a measure of intelligence.
> 
> Listening is a passive experience. Anybody can do it.
> 
> The intelligent ones in classical music are the composers; the conductors; the musicians.


I find it hard to see absolutely no comparisons, though. It's like you can meet someone who is fully into gangsta' rap, and then meet someone who adores classical. I'm almost positive you'll be able to tell the difference in personality and intelligence between the two. I've had friends of both calibers, and their taste greatly reflected their intelligence. I've been around some grungy characters, and their polar opposites.

It seems illogical to say there is no correlation. Everything is affected by the core of the individual's perception.


----------



## Ludric

hpowders said:


> Listening is a passive experience. Anybody can do it.


I must disagree. Certainly one can enjoy music passively, but greater enjoyment comes from active listening; from listening to and understanding the shape and direction of a melodic phrase, of hearing how a given melodic idea is developed and transformed, of being able to keep phrase structures and large term forms in mind (this one especially requires one to actively remember what has occurred in the piece), of noticing the shifting of one key to another, of being able to differentiate between various melodic lines occurring at the same time and being able to follow each one individually while noting their interaction with the other voices (this is very important to enjoying polyphonic music), and many other elements which require active listening. Listening is a skill just as any other and can be developed over time. There is quite a lot of music which places great demand on the listener, and with this in mind most classical music could be said to require a greater level of listening skills to enjoy than what is required for your average pop song.


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> It seems illogical to say there is no correlation.


WRT personality, that may be so...but the query was specifically about intelligence (though no measures or definitions of intelligence were given except the initial proposition.)


----------



## DavidA

The fact I have known many clever people who prefer jazz or other kids of music leads me to doubt this.


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> WRT personality, that may be so...but the query was specifically about intelligence (though no measures or definitions of intelligence were given except the initial proposition.)


I'm glad you pointed that out. Is the personality a reflection of the intelligence? I don't know, but it would seem suitable.


----------



## Woodduck

Individuals are collections of aptitudes. The brain has many functions, and functions well-developed in some brains are poorly developed in others. "Intelligence" is not a specific aptitude, but a collection of different aptitudes, functions, and skills. Is an aptitude for understanding music correlated with, for example, deductive powers, the ability to learn, verbal skills, visualization skills, memory?

It's possible that the ability to enjoy and appreciate music may tend, _on average_, to correlate with the strong development of other mental aptitudes, perhaps different aptitudes in different people. But clearly they are to a significant degree independent functions of the brain. Evidence for this is the phenomenon of the savant, a person who possesses some extraordinary level of aptitude in some specific area, such as music or math, but is otherwise intellectually impaired, often severely so.

I think the answer to the OP's question "Are classical music listeners more intelligent than others?" is neither yes nor no. The correct answer is to reject the question as premised on a misconception of what "intelligence" is, a failure to understand the variety and autonomy of the faculties of the human brain. I'll venture that the most we can say here is that people who are able to enjoy, appreciate and comprehend music are more _musically_ intelligent than those who cannot, and perhaps that those who enjoy more complex forms of music, such as much classical music is, exhibit _musical_ intelligence in a higher degree.

That may seem like stating the obvious. But sometimes the obvious remains hidden until a faulty premise has been pursued to its inevitable dead end.


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> I'm glad you pointed that out. Is the personality a reflection of the intelligence? I don't know, but it would seem suitable.


OK. Here's an idea. Off the top of my head, run it up the flagpole, see if the cat licks it up...

Intelligence = capacity to process information (by 'process' I mean everything from receive, analyse, apply, synthesise, express, create etc.)
Personality = innate tendencies to think/behave in a particular way - not the behaviours themselves, but the inner drives that cause them.

Whilst I can see a potential connection between these two things, choosing to listen to one type of music over another might be a reflection of innate tendencies, but not of capacity to process information.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I think the answer to the OP's question "Are classical music listeners more intelligent than others?" is neither yes nor no. The correct answer is to reject the question as premised on a misconception of what "intelligence" is, a failure to understand the variety and autonomy of the faculties of the human brain.


Agreed .


----------



## Blake

MacLeod said:


> OK. Here's an idea. Off the top of my head, run it up the flagpole, see if the cat licks it up...
> 
> Intelligence = capacity to process information (by 'process' I mean everything from receive, analyse, apply, synthesise, express, create etc.)
> Personality = innate tendencies to think/behave in a particular way - not the behaviours themselves, but the inner drives that cause them.
> 
> Whilst I can see a potential connection between these two things, choosing to listen to one type of music over another might be a reflection of innate tendencies, but not of capacity to process information.


Where do tendencies come from if not a reaction to processed information? How one processes it determines how one reacts.


----------



## Guest

Vesuvius said:


> Where do tendencies come from if not a reaction to processed information? How one processes it determines how one reacts.


I don't know where the tendencies come from, but don't they determine the reaction?


----------



## DeepR

No, they are more musically intelligent.


----------



## millionrainbows

Not necessarily, especially if the classical music was written as "divertissiment" or dinner music, or for a social function. The real classical "brain" music must transcend these extra-musical purposes if it is to survive as intellectual fare. Therefore, most "absolute" music, which was intended for sublime contemplation, is "intellectual" music. Serial music is also "ART" music, and was intended for intellectual consumption.


----------



## Nevum

Generally yes. REAL classic music listeners are usually more intelligent than non.


----------



## Crassus

How does one measure "intelligence"?

Being interested in western art music just means we are more interested in music than people who aren't.


----------



## Levanda

Well I have meet person in my past he had mental disability, he loved classical music and still does. Is uncomfortable treat to categorise intellectualism on art or music.


----------



## Blake

There certainly aren't any absolutes.

But there was a Schumann quote I saw around here: "Perhaps only genius really understand genius."

Not to say we're all geniuses, haha. But to truly understand something your intellect has to be in a similar ballpark. So if we consider works of the classical masters to be of extraordinary intelligence... those who have some understanding of it must also have a bit of a keen intellect. 

I mean, I wouldn't expect a 1st grade student who takes a science class to be able to fully appreciate Einstein. He might like his hair and shoes, but there isn't the capacity for much else. 

I'm just brainstorming here. I fully accept the possibility that this could be a load of crap.


----------



## Tallisman

I normally like to take a somewhat charitable and relativistic stance on questions like this, but I do actually think that some people are simply mentally unable to sit down and comprehend complex music that doesn't rely on the primal attraction of a strong beat. I don't think it's directly linked to intelligence, but some people cannot _channel their intelligence into the comprehension_ of art. And that may be more down to personality than IQ, say.

Few things **** me off more than people who just use classical music to 'study' or 'relax' and think that makes them a grand appreciator of fine culture. The same goes for Classic FM, whose listeners tend to be the kinds of people that listen to classical music to make themselves feel grand and 'classy'. The mere act of consumption does not necessarily mean understanding or connecting. I came to classical music not because I wanted to be 'in' on its elite reputation. I came to it organically simply because I discovered that it was the music that fed the intellect and aesthetic desire most satisfyingly.


----------



## isorhythm

Tallisman said:


> I don't think it's directly linked to intelligence, but some people cannot _channel their intelligence into the comprehension_ of art. And that may be more down to personality than IQ, say.


I agree with this. My brother may be the smartest person I know (I'm not exaggerating), but he has zero interest in classical music and listens exclusively to pop.


----------



## Larkenfield

hpowders said:


> I love serious music, yet my secondary school advisor recommended "shepherd" as my probable vocation, after a battery of aptitude tests; this in the middle of New York City. Take away from this what you will.


!! Perhaps the only worst vocation in NY would be as a javelin catcher.


----------



## Strange Magic

"Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others?" In my experience, No. The key is exposure, not intelligence. The earlier the exposure to CM, the greater the capture rate. With the overall reduction in attention spans due to addiction to smartphones and social media, we can confidently expect the degree of involvement in CM listening to steadily drop.


----------



## Phil loves classical

Let’s put aside political correctness, and just admit ‘Yes’, in general they are smarter for listening to this type of music over others.

It is just about the same as saying that those with post secondary education are smarter than those without, in general.


----------



## geralmar

I enjoy classical music and Italian westerns. Not sure what that says about me.


----------



## Joe B

*"Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others?"*

I do not see intelligence as a singular entity. I think there is great merit to Howard Gardener's "Theory of Multiple Intelligences":










Yes, I think the people who love classical music have more "musical intelligence" than those who listen to, say, rap. That doesn't mean they're smarter. The rap fanatic might be a wiz at business, own his own company, makes bucket loads of money, is a pillar in his community because of his interpersonal skills, etc..

I'm sure everyone knows someone who is outstanding in one of the above categories and, at the same time, doesn't have a clue in one of the others. Sorry, we all might have more musical intelligence, but it doesn't necessarily translate into the other categories.


----------



## Dan Ante

Oh yes we are the elite, the super men, the pinnacle of human kind and the Bee's Knees. Suevolatogay


----------



## Guest

Joe B said:


> *"Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others?"*
> 
> I do not see intelligence as a singular entity. I think there is great merit to Howard Gardener's "Theory of Multiple Intelligences":


It's quite fun (well, to me!) to check through the categories and say, score yourself out of 5 in each one. Food for thought. Do we want to try to increase any of those scores if possible?


----------



## Guest

geralmar said:


> I enjoy classical music and Italian westerns. Not sure what that says about me.


It says your favourite composer is Morricone.

:tiphat:


----------



## KenOC

Classical listeners are more intelligent. Why? Well, classical music can be shown to have more intelligence per unit time* than other "dumber" kinds of music. Classical fans choose it in preference while others do not, illustrating that they are less smart. Which means that classical fans are more smart. An airtight proof I believe. QED and all that! 

*Excluding minimalists, who are the exception that proves the rule.


----------



## David OByrne

What I see, is that classical music listeners are usually more vanilla and conservative in their tastes. Often more egocentric too, with a leaning towards thinking they have a supremacy against other music. There are exceptions, but that is more often then not, the situation.


And no, music doesn't make you smarter or dumber, unless you rely on music to teach you science :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

To me intelligence also includes an open mind for the new and different (whatever the final judgement of it will be). Over the years I've seen there are just as many classical music fans who are as conservative-minded, ignorant, petty as any other person who doesn't listen to classical. I'm not excepting myself either.

Classical listeners tend to self-select themselves into a sort of elite based on the idea that listening to 90 minute symphonies, or being at the 'cutting edge' or owning a Karajan box-set somehow marks them out as special. It may just mean they have a lot of time on their hands or sacrifice other parts of life for listening.

_edit - I was still writing (went off to make tea) before I saw David's reply. It expresses the same idea, but he got their first!_


----------



## Boston Charlie

It's a thread that has evidently been around a while, and at running the risk of repeating a point made earlier, I'd say that in order to make the statement you have to have some sort of psychological evidence to support the claim; evidence that has been replicated and stood the test of time. I know of none, despite the all the rage to teach kids "Baby Mozart" and so forth. I could guess and give examples to support that that early exposure to cm may cause the brain and neural pathways to be pruned in a way that would foster intelligence in other areas, but that would be anecdotal.


----------



## JeffD

I don't have time right now to read every post, so forgive me if this was already brought up.

In my work I deal with some very very smart people. I mean wayyyyyy up there, as measured by their excelling in very abstract and complicated endeavors. (Not the only definition of intelligence I will admit).

One characteristic they share, IMO, is a bit of under socialization. Friendly, helpful, yea many and most of the best of them. But socially awkward many many of them, in my experience. Not necessarily as bad as "Big Bang Theory" (in some cases that show is accurate however), but a degree of discomfort in dealing with the general public, and often those outside their specific expertise, and disagreements from those with less expertise.

There are exceptions but this is certainly a stereo type that comes from somewhere.

My point, then, has three steps:

1 - if the way that so many great informative discussions devolve so quickly into confrontation is an indicator of a social awkwardness, a lack of ease dealing with disagreement....

2 - if this social awkwardness is an indicator of a greater intelligence, percentage wise, in a community...

3 - then, yea, the case could be made that classical music fans, at least as represented by the membership of this site, are more intelligent than the general public.

I hadn't thought of it before, when i started the thread called "My Theory" but perhaps I this really is a better explanation that what I was speculating about previously.

It has been my experience that it can be a challenge to get bright people to all get along. Perhaps this explains a lot.

Respectfully submitted...


----------



## bz3

Are classical listeners more intelligent than non-classical?

If that's the question, the answer must be 'yes.' To me it is no different than the following question: 'are people who open a book daily smarter than those who don't?' Clearly that would be true, but the question is a bit of a dragnet. It doesn't mean the classical listener of median intelligence is smarter than the non-classical - it just means exactly what it means.


----------



## eugeneonagain

bz3 said:


> To me it is no different than the following question: 'are people who open a book daily smarter than those who don't?' Clearly that would be true...


Why would that be true? Do you think it depends on the kind of book? I know many people who read a lot, but aren't shining paragons of intelligence.


----------



## KenOC

bz3 said:


> ...To me it is no different than the following question: 'are people who open a book daily smarter than those who don't?' Clearly that would be true...


Is it? Intelligence seems to be an inborn attribute and is generally associated with the _general factor of intelligence_, or G-factor. It has little to do with levels of knowledge or book learning.

An example. A chimpanzee is in a cage and a bundle of bananas is hanging overhead. In the cage, at the side, are a stick and a chair. The stick can't reach the bananas, and the chair likewise isn't high enough. It's a very rare (and smart) chimp who figures out that it can get the bananas if it climbs on the chair and uses the stick as well. Most never achieve that insight.

Such a smart chimp may (or may not) prefer Mozart, but the listening won't make it smarter. Now Bach...


----------



## Phil loves classical

KenOC said:


> Classical listeners are more intelligent. Why? Well, classical music can be shown to have more intelligence per unit time* than other "dumber" kinds of music. Classical fans choose it in preference while other do not, illustrating that they are less smart. Which means that classical fans are more smart. An airtight proof I believe. QED and all that!
> 
> *Excluding minimalists, who are the exception that proves the rule.


I like all forms of music, including rap and dance, but especially with the latter I find my brain checking out after 10 seconds.


----------



## eugeneonagain

KenOC said:


> Such a smart chimp may (or may not) prefer Mozart, but the listening won't make it smarter. Now Bach...


He'd probably do himself in with the stick after being forced to listen to the Goldbore Variations 

[makes quick exit]


----------



## Dan Ante

KenOC said:


> *Excluding minimalists, who are the exception that proves the rule.


Whoa there mate I like mini stuf ut:


----------



## Guest

Judging by the number of walking sticks and zimmer frames on show at the concert I went to on Friday, classical listeners in my part of the world are certainly 20 years older and more infirm than everyone else!


----------



## Pat Fairlea

I have been avoiding this thread because it seems to fall into the same "It all depends what you mean by..." abyss as discussions as to whether dolphins are more intelligent than dogs. But here goes...

Taking a zoological perspective (apologies to any plants or fungi reading this), it is very difficult to define 'intelligence' in any way that avoids 'Intelligence is what humans do'. KenOC's example of the chimp, chair and stick is a case in point. Some chimps (more than you might expect) would work one out; some wouldn't be able to, and some just wouldn't bother. But give a chimp or a bonobo a Kim's Game type of test, one involving spatial memory, and they will absolutely wipe the floor with us humans. Does that means chimps are more intelligent than humans? 

OK, let's look at human beings. As a one-time academic, I have written and published a lot of text in my time, most of it in coherent English. As an occasionally published poet, I can even push words around into pleasing patterns. But I am completely useless at crosswords. Just can't get my head around them. Does that means I am less intelligent than my electrical engineer Brother-in-Law, who whizzes through crosswords? 

Different species of animal are differently intelligent. Bonobos, dolphins and octopus are each as intelligent as they need to be in order to function as that species, but their intelligence is of quite different kinds. Similarly, advocates of CM may manifest a different form of intelligence to those who really engage with heavy metal or garage music (whatever that is). Asking which group is the more intelligent is rather like asking whether blue is 'better' than red.


----------



## Samael420

Must be nice to have a thread from 2014 resurrected. 

It's not clear if classical music fans are more intelligent, but they sure fancy themselves so.

Somewhere above in this thread listening to classical music has been compared to reading books daily.
I would have thought that reading (on diverse topics) actually helps you realize that a belief in supremacy of (Western) classical music is not really rational.


----------



## Boston Charlie

eugeneonagain said:


> Why would that be true? Do you think it depends on the kind of book? I know many people who read a lot, but aren't shining paragons of intelligence.


Reading, any kind of reading, is probably good for the brain. Back in the 1980s while I was working on my psychology degree I participated in a study on memory and the elderly. I visited about 10 elderly individuals in their homes and tested their memories with a standardized test. The elderly lady who scored the highest was an avid reader...of romance novels!


----------



## eugeneonagain

Boston Charlie said:


> Reading, any kind of reading, is probably good for the brain. Back in the 1980s while I was working on my psychology degree I participated in a study on memory and the elderly. I visited about 10 elderly individuals in their homes and tested their memories with a standardized test. The elderly lady who scored the highest was an avid reader...of romance novels!


No doubt it keeps your brain active and firing. It's no barometer of special intelligence though.


----------



## Ziggabea

Pat Fairlea said:


> Different species of animal are differently intelligent. Bonobos, dolphins and octopus are each as intelligent as they need to be in order to function as that species, but their intelligence is of quite different kinds. *Similarly, advocates of CM may manifest a different form of intelligence to those who really engage with heavy metal or garage music* (whatever that is). Asking which group is the more intelligent is rather like asking whether blue is 'better' than red.


Where would you classify people that listen to all major types of music and people who don't listen to music at all?

Are people that have a wide variety of music tastes, just ADAHD? 
Are people that don't listen to any music wider than those who do?
Where is the grounds for comparison between music and intelligence in the first place?


----------



## JeffD

A chimpanzee is in a cage and a bundle of bananas is hanging overhead. In the cage, at the side, are a stick and a chair. The stick can’t reach the bananas, and the chair likewise isn’t high enough.

The chimpanzee just stands there singing Der Hölle Rache from Mozart's Magic Flute.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Serge said:


> I would say it's more a matter of experience and taste. Can you expect a toddler to get into Bach straight away really? Well, into Mozart - maybe.


Oh yes, because a toddler can definitely appreciate the subtleties of the Clarinet Quintet. Of course Bach is the more abstruse composer but this "Mozart is simplistic" narrative must die. I'm pretty sure a toddler could just as easily appreciate the first piano prelude from the WTC, air on the g string, the first cello suite, etc.


----------



## mathisdermaler

I think this is obviously the case. Of course you will find non-classical listeners who are smarter than classical listeners, but on average classical listeners are far more intelligent. That much is clear to see.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Ziggabea said:


> Where would you classify people that listen to all major types of music and people who don't listen to music at all?
> 
> Are people that have a wide variety of music tastes, just ADAHD?
> Are people that don't listen to any music wider than those who do?
> Where is the grounds for comparison between music and intelligence in the first place?


This is a misleading and misinformed idea. The theory of "multiple intelligences" is being seriously misapplied. Yes, animals (and by extension human individuals) can be "intelligent" in different ways (musical, linguistic, mathematic, etc.), but the G factor (which is what is measured by IQ), is most essential, and can be used very consistently to form a numerical, hierarchical judgment of general intelligence.

Your post comes dangerously close to saying that humans are not more intelligent than bonobos, just differently intelligent; that's as ridiculous as it sounds.


----------



## Ziggabea

mathisdermaler said:


> This is a misleading and misinformed idea. The theory of "multiple intelligences" is being seriously misapplied. Yes, animals (and by extension human individuals) can be "intelligent" in different ways (musical, linguistic, mathematic, etc.), but the G factor (which is what is measured by IQ), is most essential, and can be used very consistently to form a numerical, hierarchical judgment of general intelligence.
> 
> Your post comes dangerously close to saying that humans are not more intelligent than bonobos, just differently intelligent; that's as ridiculous as it sounds.


Where in my post did I say any of the crap you just said? :lol:


----------



## KenOC

mathisdermaler said:


> Your post comes dangerously close to saying that humans are not more intelligent than bonobos, just differently intelligent; that's as ridiculous as it sounds.


Bonobos didn't vote for Trump, nor criminalize plastic straws in California. Point to bonobos.

Seriously, your point about the G-factor is well-taken, though quite unfashionable today when it's almost a crime to actually measure intelligence. That sort of thing can get you torn apart on some college campuses.


----------



## DavidA

JeffD said:


> A chimpanzee is in a cage and a bundle of bananas is hanging overhead. In the cage, at the side, are a stick and a chair. The stick can't reach the bananas, and the chair likewise isn't high enough.
> 
> *The chimpanzee just stands there singing Der Hölle Rache from Mozart's Magic Flute*.


And how many chimps have you seen singing Der Holle Rache?


----------



## Dan Ante

DavidA said:


> And how many chimps have you seen singing Der Holle Rache?


Good point Dave... ub


----------



## Pat Fairlea

Ziggabea said:


> Where would you classify people that listen to all major types of music and people who don't listen to music at all?
> 
> Are people that have a wide variety of music tastes, just ADAHD?
> Are people that don't listen to any music wider than those who do?
> Where is the grounds for comparison between music and intelligence in the first place?


Brief replies, in the same order as your questions:

I wouldn't presume to classify people. That was the implicit point of my posting.

Probably not. Some people have wider tastes than others in literature, art, food, drink, sexual partners etc. It's human diversity as its best.

Wider or wiser? Either way, no.

I didn't start the music/intelligence debate in the first place. I don't see why there necessarily should be any association. It all depends, as I said, on what you mean by 'intellgence'.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

mathisdermaler said:


> Your post comes dangerously close to saying that humans are not more intelligent than bonobos, just differently intelligent; that's as ridiculous as it sounds.


Why is that ridiculous? Is intelligence simply a one-dimensional parameter, some quasi-quantitative scale along which people (at one end of the scale) and other animals can be arranged in a strict order? That sounds like anthropocentric solipsism.

As for IQ tests as a measure of intelligence (or anything else, frankly), the results of the following study did not come as a great surprise: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm

We're wandering away from music. The OP asks "Are classical music listeners more intelligent than others?". No, not necessarily.


----------



## Michael Diemer

Who cares? I can't believe people are wasting their time discussing this. It's a bunch of nonsense. You might as well debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


----------



## JeffD

DavidA said:


> And how many chimps have you seen singing Der Holle Rache?


Precious few. But because he didn't pull up the chair, take the stick, and wack the bananas down, he isn't measurably intelligent.


----------



## eugeneonagain

I don't think anyone has considered that the chimp just might not like bananas. Maybe he's more of a Ferrero Rocher kind of chimp, but we'll never find out with him stuck in a cage with a stick and a chair.


----------



## Merl

I iz ded clever. I've been dis intellijent since I woz a children. My faverit composa is Batehovan.


----------



## bz3

eugeneonagain said:


> Why would that be true? Do you think it depends on the kind of book? I know many people who read a lot, but aren't shining paragons of intelligence.


Why wouldn't it be true? It is obviously true, it just isn't very insightful.

Are there dumb people who read? Yes, as well as perfectly average ones. Tons of them.

Are there smart people who never read? Yes but not very many. In fact I've never met one and since I spent a lot of years in higher education I, theoretically, met many smart people.

Hence, without any more information it's fairly easy to say that people who open a book once a day are more likely to be smarter than those who never do. It says nothing about the particular subject - it is just a broad observation. Just the same as saying a person who re-strings a fishing pole once a year is more likely to be a fisherman than one who does not.


----------



## eugeneonagain

bz3 said:


> Why wouldn't it be true? It is obviously true, it just isn't very insightful.
> 
> Are there dumb people who read? Yes, as well as perfectly average ones. Tons of them.
> 
> Are there smart people who never read? Yes but not very many. In fact I've never met one and since I spent a lot of years in higher education I, theoretically, met many smart people.
> 
> Hence, without any more information it's fairly easy to say that people who open a book once a day are more likely to be smarter than those who never do. It says nothing about the particular subject - it is just a broad observation. Just the same as saying a person who re-strings a fishing pole once a year is more likely to be a fisherman than one who does not.


You seem to be contradicting yourself. You tell me that 'dumb, average and smart people' both read don't read, but that people opening books are "likely" to be more intelligent.

This being a fact that they are opening books does not lead to another unsubstantiated 'fact' that they are also more likely to be intelligent. It's as if, in your example of the fisherman, you were also claiming that he is a great fisherman just because he is more likely to re-string a pole.

No sir, you are conflating two differing things.


----------



## bz3

eugeneonagain said:


> You seem to be contradicting yourself. You tell me that 'dumb, average and smart people' both read don't read, but that people opening books are "likely" to be more intelligent.
> 
> This being a fact that they are opening books does not lead to another unsubstantiated 'fact' that they are also more likely to be intelligent. It's as if, in your example of the fisherman, you were also claiming that he is a great fisherman just because he is more likely to re-string a pole.
> 
> No sir, you are conflating two differing things.


I did not conflate anything. If you believe there is a positive correlation between intelligence and reading books, which I would hazard to guess that most people do, then you are admitting that in the aggregate a person is more likely to be intelligent if they open a book. I would be shocked if anyone disagreed with that if they really thought about it.

The question posed by the thread is whether classical music listening has any positive correlation with intelligence. I think so, but it's certainly more debatable than reading. The national media uses this tactic often to argue for policies they want. EG you're more likely to be shot if you have a gun in the house. Naturally that is true but it is about as insightful as saying you are more likely to breathe if you pay taxes than not.


----------



## Robert Gamble

No. (I would end there but there's a lower limit on characters...)


----------



## eugeneonagain

bz3 said:


> I did not conflate anything. If you believe there is a positive correlation between intelligence and reading books, which I would hazard to guess that most people do, then you are admitting that in the aggregate a person is more likely to be intelligent if they open a book. I would be shocked if anyone disagreed with that if they really thought about it.
> 
> The question posed by the thread is whether classical music listening has any positive correlation with intelligence. I think so, but it's certainly more debatable than reading. The national media uses this tactic often to argue for policies they want. EG you're more likely to be shot if you have a gun in the house. Naturally that is true but it is about as insightful as saying you are more likely to breathe if you pay taxes than not.


You are the one who made that correlation, not me, so I'm admitting to nothing. This:



bz3 said:


> Are there dumb people who read? Yes, as well as perfectly average ones. *Tons of them*.


...is hardly a cast-iron basis for inferring that people opening a book are likely to be more intelligent than people not opening one.

That problem of mistaken conclusions in your last paragraph is exactly what you are doing when you make inferences about people opening books.

In general I wouldn't agree that people listening to classical music are more intelligent. There's enough complete nonsense written on this forum to provide ample proof of that.


----------



## bz3

eugeneonagain said:


> You are the one who made that correlation, not me, so I'm admitting to nothing. This:
> 
> ...is hardly a cast-iron basis for inferring that people opening a book are likely to be more intelligent than people not opening one.
> 
> That problem of mistaken conclusions in your last paragraph is exactly what you are doing when you make inferences about people opening books.
> 
> In general I wouldn't agree that people listening to classical music are more intelligent. There's enough complete nonsense written on this forum to provide ample proof of that.


That is why I am talking about a statistical correlation and not making any judgments on individual cases. I've been more than clear so I don't know why you're either failing to understand or further muddying the waters. Do you believe there a positive correlation between reading and intelligence?

As for this forum, cycle around some rap or pop forums and come back and seriously try to maintain that it's the same level.


----------



## eugeneonagain

bz3 said:


> That is why I am talking about a statistical correlation and not making any judgments on individual cases. I've been more than clear so I don't know why you're either failing to understand or further muddying the waters. Do you believe there a positive correlation between reading and intelligence?
> 
> As for this forum, cycle around some rap or pop forums and come back and seriously try to maintain that it's the same level.


You may think you're clear in your own mind, but there's nothing consequent about what you keep posting. You keep on asking me if _I_ believe there a positive correlation between reading and intelligence, but it wasn't me who either made the connection or the claim. As it happens I do not think there is an obvious connection, or I wouldn't have questioned it in the first place would I?!

Further up you already offered the observation that lots of fools or people not especially intelligent also open books, so to follow that with a claim that such an activity correlates with a general trend to intelligence is highly puzzling. It also puzzles me why you started the quote above by saying you _aren't_ making a correlation, when you clearly are. I met quite a lot of complete dunderheads at university, so I also think, in like measure, that the idea that people who get to university are generally smarter than the rest of the general public, is also an unfounded claim.

Earlier in the thread others mentioned that 'intelligence' is a complicated concept, not necessarily involving the usual suspects like 'having a higher education' or possessing conventional "knowledge". We'd have to know what these are before we can start assigning levels of intelligence to people based upon what they listen to.

The suggestion about 'rap and pop' listeners is perhaps typical and feeds back into this myth that classical listeners (and most are just listeners) somehow exist on a higher spiritual plane.


----------



## Guest

Robert Gamble said:


> No. (I would end there but there's a lower limit on characters...)


Perhaps you should discover the joy of making up the 15 character minimum by adding characters in white font (from the drop down menu, marked *A*). Pithy people are always doing it.


----------



## Joe B

Joe B said:


> *"Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others?"*
> 
> I do not see intelligence as a singular entity. I think there is great merit to Howard Gardener's "Theory of Multiple Intelligences":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I think the people who love classical music have more "musical intelligence" than those who listen to, say, rap. That doesn't mean they're smarter. The rap fanatic might be a wiz at business, own his own company, makes bucket loads of money, is a pillar in his community because of his interpersonal skills, etc..
> 
> I'm sure everyone knows someone who is outstanding in one of the above categories and, at the same time, doesn't have a clue in one of the others. Sorry, we all might have more musical intelligence, but it doesn't necessarily translate into the other categories.


OK, I've given some more thought to my original post:

* "Are Classical Music listeners more intelligent than others?"*

I'd have to say that *classical listeners of Mahler have to be more intelligent than most people*. Here's my reasoning:

Everyone here has to agree that Mahler symphonies are incredibly long. No debate there. Fitting them into your day is also no small matter. Given these presuppositions, lets start at the musical intelligence category in the graphic above and work our way around in a clockwise direction.
*Musical Intelligence: *obviously off the charts. The symphony probably reached its zenith under Mahler. Being able to appreciate Mahler's melodic ideas, his impressive contrapuntal control, the wonderful and adventurous harmony and vivid orchestration, all within a tightly organised symphonic structure can only be appreciated by someone with elephantine intelligence.
*Logical-Mathematical Intelligence: *again, off the charts. The complexity of Mahler's works are staggering. Being able to appreciate the subtle mathematical relationships between melodies, counter-point, harmonies, etc. requires a great appreciation for the music's mathematical complexities.
*Existential Intelligence: *In an article of "The Guardian" (Jan. 10, 2010), David Matthews stated that Mahler..."dramatized the existential problem of modern man: alone in the universe, searching for meaning." Need I say more?
*Interpersonal Intelligence: *This should be easy to understand. Listening to a Mahler symphony puts you into the perfect position to understand Mahler's thoughts, emotions, hopes and dreams, all beautifully communicated through the medium of music...nothing lost in translation or missed because of the awkward nuances of language. I'm sure only a psychic could have a better understanding of another's thoughts or emotions.
*Bodily-Kinesthetic Intelligence: *Let's face it, listening to a Mahler symphony requires an incredible amount of bodily and kinesthetic intelligence. Being able to sit still, not moving from the sweet spot in your listening room for up to 2 hours requires a level of control often exhibited only by yoga masters, being able to maintain the level of calm serenity needed to be at peace in this hectic, fast paced life we lead. And don't even get me started about the level of bodily control required to hold off what we often refer to as 'biological requirerments': bladder control, thirst, the need to move, etc..
*Linguistic Intelligence: *This is blatantly obvious. Who else but a Mahler listener could come up with the verbiage necessary to explain their reasons for why they even listen to his music in the first place, let alone trying to convince others that his music represents the pinnacle of musical composition.
*Intra-Personal Intelligence: *Only someone with great intra-personal intelligence can justify their need for listening to Mahler's music. Mahler symphonies are MASSIVE, and by extrapolation we can make the inferential leap that only a monumentally introspective, inwardly focused mind seeking total self knowledge is capable of understanding this great, personal need.
*Spatial Intelligence: *Almost too obvious to even think about. First, a Mahler listener knows the sweet spot in their music listening room. Second, at the conclusion of the symphony, they will execute the shortest, most direct route to the nearest toilet facility. But most importantly of all, because their spatial intelligence is greater than the rest of the population, they have been able to remain spaced out for nearly 2 hours listening to music which some others can't even fathom.
*Naturalist Intelligence: *OK, the need for biological relief has already been stated under spatial intelligence. But that does not mean that a Mahler listener doesn't spend more time than ordinary people thinking about nature, life, etc. Let's face it, after listening to a Mahler symphony the first thing I want to do is take my dog for a walk down at the river, observe the water fowl, catch a glimpse of the raptors overhead, the turtle's sunny themselves on the rocks, etc. Yes, this love and need for nature all the result of being cooped up for the last 2 hours sitting still in one position in the listening room.

I know there has been some much heated debate on the subject of classical music listeners having, or not having more intelligence than others in our population. It is my hope that writing this post clearly shows that only classical music listeners of Mahler are more intelligent than other people.

PS: I just realized that the Theory of Multiple Intelligence was put forth by some gardener named Howard who may or may not have known anything about psychology......NEVER MIND!

PPS: Can you tell it's a snow day?


----------



## Nereffid

Joe B said:


> PPS: Can you tell it's a snow day?


Shouldn't you instead be spending your time listening to Mahler? :lol:


----------



## Joe B

Nereffid said:


> Shouldn't you instead be spending your time listening to Mahler? :lol:


I guess I'm not that smart!


----------



## DavidA

eugeneonagain said:


> You are the one who made that correlation, not me, so I'm admitting to nothing. This:
> 
> ...is hardly a cast-iron basis for inferring that people opening a book are likely to be more intelligent than people not opening one.
> 
> That problem of mistaken conclusions in your last paragraph is exactly what you are doing when you make inferences about people opening books.
> 
> In general I wouldn't agree that people listening to classical music are more intelligent.* There's enough complete nonsense written on this forum to provide ample proof of that.*


Do you include yourself in this? :lol:


----------



## eugeneonagain

DavidA said:


> Do you include yourself in this? :lol:


Yes I did. Already on page 29 here.

Do you? :lol:


----------



## bz3

eugeneonagain said:


> You may think you're clear in your own mind, but there's nothing consequent about what you keep posting. You keep on asking me if _I_ believe there a positive correlation between reading and intelligence, but it wasn't me who either made the connection or the claim. As it happens I do not think there is an obvious connection, or I wouldn't have questioned it in the first place would I?!


I know that I posed it to you. You say you don't believe there is, fine, but there are studies of various kinds that show that there is a correlation, depending on what we're studying. Even if the correlation is weak, it would still be true that a person is likely to be smarter if they read as opposed to if they do not read. That is just statistics 101, not any voodoo on my part. But you disagree, so of course my premise is already unacceptable to you.

Just curious, do you believe reading correlates with anything? Learnedness? Vocabulary? Anything?



eugeneonagain said:


> Further up you already offered the observation that lots of fools or people not especially intelligent also open books, so to follow that with a claim that such an activity correlates with a general trend to intelligence is highly puzzling. It also puzzles me why you started the quote above by saying you _aren't_ making a correlation, when you clearly are.


It's not curious at all if you understand my statement, which you clearly don't. I am not saying that reading will _make_ one intelligent, or that a single person is likely to be intelligent if they read. I am merely asserting that there is a positive correlation between reading and intelligence. That means that, all else equal, a person who reads is more likely to be intelligent than a person who does not read. That _does not_ imply anything about a single case, nor is it causative.

Would you agree that a person is more likely to be intelligent if they have a PhD than a person who does not? How far are you willing to reject any correlations in society whatsoever?


----------



## eugeneonagain

bz3 said:


> I know that I posed it to you. You say you don't believe there is, fine, but there are studies of various kinds that show that there is a correlation, depending on what we're studying. Even if the correlation is weak, it would still be true that a person is likely to be smarter if they read as opposed to if they do not read. That is just statistics 101, not any voodoo on my part. But you disagree, so of course my premise is already unacceptable to you.
> 
> Just curious, do you believe reading correlates with anything? Learnedness? Vocabulary? Anything?


Vocabulary, yes. Learning yes, though again it depends on the capacities of the person. Clearly in a school setting children often work from the same book, but the outcomes for understanding and grasping the ideas are often different. Some students never grasp them no matter how much they keep on reading.



bz3 said:


> It's not curious at all if you understand my statement, which you clearly don't. I am not saying that reading will _make_ one intelligent, or that a single person is likely to be intelligent if they read. I am merely asserting that there is a positive correlation between reading and intelligence. That means that, all else equal, a person who reads is more likely to be intelligent than a person who does not read. That _does not_ imply anything about a single case, nor is it causative.


I don't recall decoding the statements as implying that it _makes_ a person more intelligent; although there is actually some evidence that the act of reading from a young age and continuing this enhances _those particular_ skills, i.e. reading. It has been shown that people with intelligence-limiting conditions can learn to read fluently, but it has no impact upon intelligence.

Strange also that you now say you _are_ making a correlation, whereas previously you denied it. It still doesn't hold up since there are plenty of people who have scored highly in intelligence tests or who have shown e.g. mathematical intelligence and aptitude and who don't read, have trouble reading, or have trouble learning to read.

However... (as you will no doubt return to reiterate) your idea is that if a person is reading he is therefore likely to have some intelligence. Let's recap though: you said that plenty dumb and average people read, so we'll remove those. We know that some very intelligent people are not big readers, so we'll remove those as well. What are we left with and is it even meaningful as a measure of anything apart from telling us that some people are reading? And what to make of the people who prove to be intelligent without being big readers or readers at all?



bz3 said:


> Would you agree that a person is more likely to be intelligent if they have a PhD than a person who does not? How far are you willing to reject any correlations in society whatsoever?


You're reasoning in reverse. A person doing a PhD is obviously going to be required to read a lot and the strong likelihood is that they've already read a lot and are perhaps indeed a very intelligent person, but to assume that this intelligence and aptitude _came from_ the reading is a dubious conclusion. It's more believable to assert that they are intelligent and also read, both of which complement each other on the way to a PhD.


----------



## bz3

eugeneonagain said:


> Vocabulary, yes. Learning yes, though again it depends on the capacities of the person. Clearly in a school setting children often work from the same book, but the outcomes for understanding and grasping the ideas are often different. Some students never grasp them no matter how much they keep on reading.
> 
> I don't recall decoding the statements as implying that it _makes_ a person more intelligent; although there is actually some evidence that the act of reading from a young age and continuing this enhances _those particular_ skills, i.e. reading. It has been shown that people with intelligence-limiting conditions can learn to read fluently, but it has no impact upon intelligence.
> 
> Strange also that you now say you _are_ making a correlation, whereas previously you denied it. It still doesn't hold up since there are plenty of people who have scored highly in intelligence tests or who have shown e.g. mathematical intelligence and aptitude and who don't read, have trouble reading, or have trouble learning to read.


This is why I'm pretty sure you don't follow - you keep saying you can think of exceptions and therefore that means there is no positive correlation. It's going to be difficult to continue this discussion if you aren't familiar with statistical correlations. My whole _point_ was that there is a correlation - between reading and intelligence as well as classical music listening and intelligence - though I admitted it's likely a very weak correlation and does not mean much.



eugeneonagain said:


> However... (as you will no doubt return to reiterate) your idea is that if a person is reading he is therefore likely to have some intelligence.


No. No, no, no. No no no no no. That is what I specifically said I was _not_ saying. I was saying a person who reads (or open a book daily or whatever) is more likely to be intelligent than a person who does not. It is a totally different statement and perhaps the source of our miscommuni



eugeneonagain said:


> Let's recap though: you said that plenty dumb and average people read, so we'll remove those. We know that some very intelligent people are not big readers, so we'll remove those as well. What are we left with and is it even meaningful as a measure of anything apart from telling us that some people are reading? And what to make of the people who prove to be intelligent without being big readers or readers at all?


There is no removing anyone - see my above statement. Again why I'm pretty sure you're not getting what I'm saying.



eugeneonagain said:


> You're reasoning in reverse. A person doing a PhD is obviously going to be required to read a lot and the strong likelihood is that they've already read a lot and are perhaps indeed a very intelligent person, but to assume that this intelligence and aptitude _came from_ the reading is a dubious conclusion. It's more believable to assert that they are intelligent and also read, both of which complement each other on the way to a PhD.


Again, I specifically said I was not talking about anything causative or about individual cases. Merely a statistical correlation. This is as far as we'll get if you don't know what that means, and more importantly, what it does not mean.


----------



## eugeneonagain

bz3 said:


> This is why I'm pretty sure you don't follow - you keep saying you can think of exceptions and therefore that means there is no positive correlation. It's going to be difficult to continue this discussion if you aren't familiar with statistical correlations. My whole _point_ was that there is a correlation - between reading and intelligence as well as classical music listening and intelligence - though I admitted it's likely a very weak correlation and does not mean much.


The problem is that it isn't a few exceptions proving a rule. I keep saying it because it is a stick in the wheel of this dubious theory. You 'whole point' seems to have altered from not making a correlation yesterday, to now making one. Keep that in mind please.



bz3 said:


> No. No, no, no. No no no no no. That is what I specifically said I was _not_ saying. I was saying a person who reads (or open a book daily or whatever) is more likely to be intelligent than a person who does not. It is a totally different statement and perhaps the source of our miscommuni


Yes. Yes, yes, yes. Yes yes yes yes yes. You keep cutting out people who are intelligent, but who don't open books. And remember all those dumb people who read? The only correlation you are (now) making is that some people who open books are intelligent, but that's an obvious probability. This probability is what you seem to be confusing as some sort of meaningful correlation between reading and intelligence.



bz3 said:


> There is no removing anyone - see my above statement. Again why I'm pretty sure you're not getting what I'm saying.


I'm getting it alright, it's just not what you think it is.



bz3 said:


> Again, I specifically said I was not talking about anything causative or about individual cases. Merely a statistical correlation. This is as far as we'll get if you don't know what that means, and more importantly, what it does not mean.


The thing is the correlation you are implying is not demonstrable because reading is widespread among people of all observable levels of 'measured' intelligence. 
However for the sake of ending this drivel, we all know correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, so really what is it you hope to achieve with this? I assume it was invoked as a comparison with people who listen to classical music and their intelligence so as to show a similar correlation, but also to make a judgement since you also made a comparison between what people say on classical forums and what people say on 'pop and rap' forums. So what is your conclusion about that? If you now want to maintain this comparison the outcome is at best going to be that:

1. People listen to classical music
2. Some of them will likely be intelligent
3. Some of them likely won't be and..

And that's it. I don't believe there are meaningful correlations to be found because classical listeners seem to me to say as many daft things and hold as many absurd opinions as non-classical listeners. The entire idea is self-selecting into an elite.


----------



## bz3

You're right this segment of the conversation is done for unless and until one knows what a statistical correlation is. At least this thread proves classical listeners are tiresome (myself include, of course).


----------



## DeepR

Hehe, the first pages had some funny answers. 
I don't know the answer to this question, but I'll go ahead and admit my own bias when it comes to music and intelligence: when someone who I think is very smart listens to music that I think is crap, I get a little confused... but when someone who appears not very smart, listens to the same crap, I am not surprised.


----------



## Tallisman

Can we sum this up by saying 'some correlation, but no solid causation'?


----------



## Jacck

I have an IQ of 50 and listen to classical


----------



## Larkenfield

Perhaps the problem is confusing IQ with intelligence. I question whether they are synonymous. Neither necessarily equates with having wisdom, with wisdom being related to one’s values in life rather than one’s ability to efficiently or logically manipulate complex information. And having a high intelligence about the music does not necessarily translate into being intelligent about other areas of life and guarantee success in life free of making stupid mistakes. There is likely a huge difference between IQ and intelligence, and no one has ever done a study that I know of that statistically measures the relationship between IQ and having an interest in CM. If there was one, I’d be reluctant to read too much into it.


----------



## KenOC

IQ is simply a measure of intelligence. These two definitions, which I think are fair, are from Wiki.

_Intelligence_: 'A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.'

_IQ_: A quantitative measure of intelligence. 'Intelligence tests are widely used in educational, business, and military settings because of their efficacy in predicting behavior. IQ and g (discussed in the next section) are correlated with many important social outcomes-individuals with low IQs are more likely to be divorced, have a child out of marriage, be incarcerated, and need long-term welfare support, while individuals with high IQs are associated with more years of education, higher status jobs and higher income. Intelligence is significantly correlated with successful training and performance outcomes, and IQ/g is the single best predictor of successful job performance.'

IQ is important mainly because it correlates well with an individual's performance in so many key areas of life. These relationships have been studied for many years.


----------



## Strange Magic

DeepR said:


> Hehe, the first pages had some funny answers.
> I don't know the answer to this question, but I'll go ahead and admit my own bias when it comes to music and intelligence: when someone who I think is very smart listens to music that I think is crap, I get a little confused... but when someone who appears not very smart, listens to the same crap, I am not surprised.


I listen to crap, and I have a Phi Beta Kappa key.


----------



## Neward Thelman

*No*

I've been banned 5 times in a row for detailing the intelligence of classical music listeners.


----------



## Pat Fairlea

KenOC said:


> IQ is simply a measure of intelligence. These two definitions, which I think are fair, are from Wiki.
> 
> _Intelligence_: 'A very general mental capability that, among other things, involves the ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly and learn from experience. It is not merely book learning, a narrow academic skill, or test-taking smarts. Rather, it reflects a broader and deeper capability for comprehending our surroundings-"catching on," "making sense" of things, or "figuring out" what to do.'
> 
> _IQ_: A quantitative measure of intelligence. 'Intelligence tests are widely used in educational, business, and military settings because of their efficacy in predicting behavior. IQ and g (discussed in the next section) are correlated with many important social outcomes-individuals with low IQs are more likely to be divorced, have a child out of marriage, be incarcerated, and need long-term welfare support, while individuals with high IQs are associated with more years of education, higher status jobs and higher income. Intelligence is significantly correlated with successful training and performance outcomes, and IQ/g is the single best predictor of successful job performance.'
> 
> IQ is important mainly because it correlates well with an individual's performance in so many key areas of life. These relationships have been studied for many years.


That's a handy definition of 'intelligence'. But IQ could better be defined as a quasi-statistical snake-oil procedure for testing whether the reasoning processes of the person tested resemble those of the person who devised the test.
Maybe I'm just a bit dim, but the idea that 'intelligence' is such a simple parameter that one could assign, for example, greater intelligence to a Mozart devotee than to a fan of the Kaiser Monkeys is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## eugeneonagain

Pat Fairlea said:


> a Mozart devotee than to a fan of the Kaiser Monkeys is beyond my comprehension.


Is this a deliberate portmanteau for the _Kaiser Chiefs_ and the _Arctic Monkeys_? Personally I like the Kaiser Monkeys much better as a name.


----------



## Dan Ante

Neward Thelman said:


> I've been banned 645 times in a row for detailing the intelligence of classical music listeners.


Thats not a fair go mate.


----------



## KenOC

Pat Fairlea said:


> That's a handy definition of 'intelligence'. But IQ could better be defined as a quasi-statistical snake-oil procedure for testing whether the reasoning processes of the person tested resemble those of the person who devised the test.


Actually that's not true. There are many tests and in fact several _types _of tests. Some are largely verbal and some are totally non-verbal. But they tend to give quite similar and repeatable results. There's lots on this easily available on line. A good starting place is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity

A lift from that Wiki entry: 'In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the validity of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.'


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> Actually that's not true. There are many tests and in fact several _types _of tests. Some are largely verbal and some are totally non-verbal. But they tend to give quite similar and repeatable results. There's lots on this easily available on line. A good starting place is
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Reliability_and_validity
> 
> A lift from that Wiki entry: 'In a survey of 661 randomly sampled psychologists and educational researchers, published in 1988, Mark Snyderman and Stanley Rothman reported a general consensus supporting the *validity *of IQ testing. "On the whole, scholars with any expertise in the area of intelligence and intelligence testing (defined very broadly) share a common view of the most important components of intelligence, and are convinced that it can be measured with some degree of accuracy." Almost all respondents picked out abstract reasoning, ability to solve problems and ability to acquire knowledge as the most important elements.'


What a lovely and important word. I understand its meaning to be that it measures what it claims to measure. The moment you move away from what psychologists use it for (and understand its limitations to be), and into its use by the general population, you start to move away from 'validity'. If I score, say, 125 in a test of non-verbal reasoning, that means my non-verbal reasoning skills are above average. What it doesn't mean is that I'm "a very intelligent person" or "clever", since there are other psychological and behavioural (and intellectual) factors to be taken into account. This is one reason why, in those parts of the UK that still test to select the brightest for admission to grammar school, they don't rely solely on the tests, and why there is still a continuing argument over whether IQ is static or plastic (in other words, that you learn to be more "intelligent as measured by tests").


----------



## chill782002

Absolutely not. The smartest guy I know listens to almost nothing except thrash metal.


----------

