# Is Contemporary Music For An Elite? [Interview With Pierre Boulez]



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Here is a recent 8 minute interview with Pierre Boulez.

*Interviewer:* 'Is contemporary music for an elite?'

*Pierre Boulez:* 'Of course. But the elite should be as large as possible.'

Listen here:

http://www.artsjournal.com/slippedd...-composer-i-still-am-a-composer.html#comments

I thought the second commenter was very harsh:



> Just because monsieur Boulez says that contemporary music should be for the "elite", doesn't mean that contemporary music HAS to be for the elite, regardless of the size this demographic might have.
> 
> Boulez is, and always has been, a talented hack. He doesn't compose, he constructs. There has never been an ounce of "inspiration" in any page from his pen. He may have a magical ear for hearing, but he has absolutely no soul for creating.
> 
> The people who cry "au génie" at the mere mention of his name are not any form of musical elite. They are musical poseurs. They are the douchebag hipsters of the classical music world.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Contemporary music is not for lazy people, that much is certain. As for the commenter, he's as full of venom as Boulez but the latter has earned the right to say what he wants (insofar as music is concerned).


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

*All classical music is for an elite audience -- ca. 3% of the entire population, as of yore and still holding.*

Opera is for an elite audience; chamber music is for an elite audience, art song is for an elite audience, etc. etc.

That makes of each and every classical fan, regardless of favored era or genre -- at least to one ineffably infantile / puerile writer -- "douchebag hipsters of the classical music world." (Class act, that writer :lol

"We" are all elitists! Get over it


----------



## Levanda (Feb 3, 2014)

Well I am not belonging elite class opposite I am working class and happy to listening classical music and operas. Is that mean I am treat to elite class:lol:


----------



## Guest (Mar 12, 2014)

The point is that if you listen to classical music, including opera, then you are in a small minority. Your _social_ class doesn't enter into it. You are, as a listener, an elite.

Nobody wants to talk about the most important thing Boulez said, namely that that elite should be as large as possible!


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

It was an urban legend at where I lived that people (ordinary people, not musicians) come to appreciate classical music after years and years of listening to all other kinds of music. Worked in my case. I don't know what's elitist about it - just a natural progression, if you ask me.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

And yeah, I do get contemporary - just another stepping stone.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Liking contemporary music is not a class thing.

It requires work and effort to get into it. Simple as that.

I knock my brains out trying to absorb some of this difficult music.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

some guy said:


> The point is that if you listen to classical music, including opera, then you are in a small minority. Your _social_ class doesn't enter into it. You are, as a listener, an elite.
> 
> Nobody wants to talk about the most important thing Boulez said, namely that that elite should be as large as possible!


Are you referring to classical music (inc. opera) in general, or contemporary "classical music"?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Classical music makes up less than 3% of music sales, so it's appeal is evidently to a very small minority of people. And since that minority is us, we can safely assume that its not just for the elite but for the hyper-elite. Back-pats all around.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> Are you referring to classical music (inc. opera) in general, or contemporary "classical music"?


We're talking about Classical Music...

This is a Classical Music forum after all.


----------



## classifriend (Mar 9, 2014)

when he talks about appreciating classical (and contemporary) music he's talking about cultural baggage so yes, he's correct on that regard


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

violadude said:


> We're talking about Classical Music...
> 
> This is a Classical Music forum after all.


Thanks. I guess I am an "elite" then.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Well, "elite" could be a divisive word, you know...

Like in "if you are elite than I am not".


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

some guy said:


> The point is that if you listen to classical music, including opera, then you are in a small minority. Your _social_ class doesn't enter into it. You are, as a listener, an elite.
> 
> Nobody wants to talk about the most important thing Boulez said, namely that that elite should be as large as possible!


But the goal should be that the elite is so large it can no longer be called an elite. However, before we can even begin to get into discussions about whether particular varieties of art are, can or should be playgrounds for social groups of this, that and the other size and quality, we have to dispel the myth that all varieties of music are equally accessible to every socioeconomic class of person and that listening habits are the free and rational decision of empowered individuals. This is not true. Too much of our lives and cultural experiences are determined or influenced by our demographics at birth. We cannot talk coherently about this kind of thing while claiming that "class doesn't enter into it." Class is everything.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I think he means music who REALLY care about music, and invest time and effort in their listening, and other musical efforts. And yeah, ideally more people would be that way ^_^


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

It's most certainly an elite class. It's like saying Formula 1 is an elite form of racing… because it most certainly is. Let's compare the intellectual-musical faculties of Boulez against your mainstream rock/pop artists, eh? But according to the politically correct, you can't say things are elite when it involves people's emotions…

Although as stressed above… Boulez wants to include as many as possible, but he's not a fool... he's aware of the current disposition of the world as well. Let's be honest here. Some people are much smarter than others.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

Pierre Boulez is correct that the TC membership consists of an elite group of people.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> If by elite, he means some loser who obsesses about classical music and incessantly reads TC threads--well, guess I'm guilty as charged!


I...uh...prefer to look at it somewhat differently.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

ArtMusic said:


> Are you referring to classical music (inc. opera) in general, or contemporary "classical music"?


Yes, that, he, she, and it all refer to "classical music." You don't need quotes for _contemporary classical music,_ since it is just more classical music.

(I'm sure you already knew that classical music, lower case c, is used to denote all of it, from the earliest to the latest. You can drop the quote usage; this is a classical music forum, after all


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I don't know, for a minute there I thought I was talking about adult contemporary.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Liking contemporary music is not a class thing.
> 
> It requires work and effort to get into it. Simple as that.


Nope. It depends. Didn't take any work or effort from me. It was love at first hearing. Nor did classical generally. Love at first hearing.

It may require work and effort for some people. I'd like to stop emphasizing work and effort though. I'd certainly like to stop the assumption that contemporary classical is more "difficult." It's newer is all. And that only means unfamiliar. And some people struggle with unfamiliar. Actually probably most people struggle with unfamiliar.

I like to emphasize delight and enjoyment, however. And engagement and desire.

Better to emphasize those positive things than obsessing about hurdles. If there were hurdles in my path, I just jumped over them. No biggie. The race is so much fun, who even notices the hurdles?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> And some people struggle with unfamiliar. Actually probably most people struggle with unfamiliar.


"Why cannot we understand that in art, as in everything else, there are some things to which we must not accustom ourselves?" --Camille Saint-Saëns


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

hpowders said:


> Liking contemporary music is not a class thing.
> 
> It requires work and effort to get into it. Simple as that.


Meh...accessibility is somewhat relative. I know plenty of "simpler" music that took me far longer to appreciate than a good chunk of the big avant-garde composers, but then another chunk of those avant-garde composers still elude me!


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

"Elite" is a loaded word, and I wish we could reclaim it as an exclusively positive thing. And that's the spirit that I take Boulez's comments in. I aspire to be elite. Who wouldn't?


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

apricissimus said:


> "Elite" is a loaded word, and I wish we could reclaim it as an exclusively positive thing. And that's the spirit that I take Boulez's comments in. I aspire to be elite. Who wouldn't?


Quite agree, Apricissimus. When I need a medical intervention requiring surgery, I go and consult a member from an élite body of experts/specialists that we would call a "surgeon"; when I need to submit my various revenues to the tax authorities (my various and complicated drug running, freelance reviewing, teaching, performance and pimping activities) I go and see another member of another élite body which we would call an "accountant"; when I want to drink something other than moonshine produced by my crazy uncle in Vermont, I'll go and visit another member of an élite that we would call a "wine producer"; and when, finally, I want to go hear music that is a couple of steps up the rung from a 'four-chord' shaman, I'll go and ....


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

I'm thinking, the difficulty of music is due to music being a function of memory. Certain elements help us process the stream of information bits. A firm beat, for instance. Repeated phrases, patterns. Both create a sort of micro-familiarity within a given piece.

Now, I'd guess that were such elements are missing - no clear beat/metre, no discernable patters, no scalar movements, no circle-of-fiths-style relationships - music becomes difficult, because the stream of sound won't so easily into any storable units in our memory. Then it's harder to make sense of it - if sense is what we would call the way that clear, logical sub-units form a whole.

Memory, attention span, the ability to concentrate, or the ability (or the at least the willingness) to take in large amounts of information without having to immediately make sense of them - maybe these are things that are more developed in some people than in others, for whatever reasons.

Perhaps these things are attainable through effort and work. But I think some people simply have them.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Repetition could be the key to success. Or the ultimate determination that success ain't attainable.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Most pieces composed using integral serialism (used by detractors as the epitome example of "incomprehensible modern music") I have heard are full of recurring patterns and gestures. 

The real issue is that the music is incredibly dense, a lot of information is being given at every instant. Transformations in harmony, rhythm, timbre, motifs, all are occurring simultaneously and interact with each other.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

aleazk said:


> ...the music is incredibly dense, a lot of information is being given at every instant. Transformations in harmony, rhythm, timbre, motifs, all are occurring simultaneously and interact with each other.


This is precisely what I love about serialism and other styles that seem impenetrable: the music is in a constant state of transformation and it never ceases to excite.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> This is precisely what I love about serialism and other styles that seem impenetrable: the music is in a constant state of transformation and it never ceases to excite.


Yes, that's one of my favorite things too. In fact, music with these attributes is by far my favorite type of music. That's why I love Ligeti's late period, Webern, Boulez, serial Stravinsky, etc., and the ol' Bach. Mahler too.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

TalkingHead said:


> Quite agree, Apricissimus. When I need a medical intervention requiring surgery, I go and consult a member from an élite body of experts/specialists that we would call a "surgeon"; when I need to submit my various revenues to the tax authorities (my various and complicated drug running, freelance reviewing, teaching, performance and pimping activities) I go and see another member of another élite body which we would call an "accountant"; when I want to drink something other than moonshine produced by my crazy uncle in Vermont, I'll go and visit another member of an élite that we would call a "wine producer"; and when, finally, I want to go hear music that is a couple of steps up the rung from a 'four-chord' shaman, I'll go and ....


I'm glad you said this because so many relate the term "elite" as an unjustly self-assured statement, which is what all the fuss is about here… when it's simply indicating a highly skilled and focused group/artist in their field. What's wrong with acknowledging that? Haha


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

I think these people would be better described as "professionals". Not that there's no elite in among them.

Or are you saying that music is only for musicians to appreciate?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

the elite


----------



## Centropolis (Jul 8, 2013)

*BAZINGA.*

The word "elite" implies that it's better in comparison to something and only a small portion of the population belongs....which I don't agree with in terms of classical music or modern classical music. This is exactly what I don't want to classical music. We want mass appeal and more people to appreciate it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think that contemporary music is best* understood *by a_* cognoscenti,*_ or "those who know." This could be a specific sub-category of an "elite," so I agree, with this qualification.

As far as the thread question, "Is contemporary music_* for *_an elite," this is vague, and does not specify "understanding" or "enjoyment." As music, contemporary music can be *enjoyed *by anyone, as long as they accept it. Understanding it, for me, only deepens my enjoyment.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

Centropolis said:


> *BAZINGA.*
> 
> The word "elite" implies that it's better in comparison to something and only a small portion of the population belongs....which I don't agree with in terms of classical music or modern classical music. This is exactly what I don't want to classical music. We want mass appeal and more people to appreciate it.


Right now, mass appeal is Lady Gaga and Miley Cyrus. It's a quick-fix society heavily focused on personal desires and fears. You sure that's what you want?


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

People can define groups however they want I suppose, but ultimately all kinds of music are widely available now and those who want to find something will. How they define themselves at that point is up to them, but I'm not sure it's of major interest to others.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Elite's okay by me.


----------



## Arsakes (Feb 20, 2012)

I would say it's for the highest rank among the hierarchy of elites (classic music fans)!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Serge said:


> I think these people would be better described as "professionals". Not that there's no elite in among them.
> 
> Or are you saying that music is only for musicians to appreciate?


High-end professionals are a de facto elite, period -- whether it is classical composers, a country's finest writers of literature, pro sports players, or any other small minority with highly specialized skills.

There is a more neutral definition of the word which is also standard, though it has been taken over by the more pejorative use of the word.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Maybe I'm an elitist hipster douchebag, but I do agree with the idea that in some ways, all classical music lovers are members of the "elite", and I wouldn't necessarily want the music I like to have "mass appeal" (but that also applies to a lot of the non-classical I like). We all think classical is better than other genres, don't we?  But do we all think _we_ are better for liking it? I guess if that's true, then I can't complain if those who like contemporary music are an elite group within the elite (and I would admittedly not be a member of that group, since I don't really listen to contemporary).

Either way, the word "elite" leaves a bad taste in my mouth... >.<


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Tristan said:


> Either way, the word "elite" leaves a bad taste in my mouth... >.<


The bold face is mine, so you can see the word has a more neutral meaning, as I think of it when it comes to music, and those who compose and play it.

e·lite
əˈlēt,āˈlēt/
noun
noun: elite; plural noun: elites

1.
*a group of people considered to be the best in a particular* society or *category*, esp.* because of their* power, *talent,* or wealth.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Alright, from that definition I can see a much more neutral view and less "arrogant" idea of the concept. If it takes people who are very schooled/talented in music (whether it's composing, playing, etc.) to appreciate contemporary the most, I can accept that.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

PetrB said:


> High-end professionals are a de facto elite, period -- whether it is classical composers, a country's finest writers of literature, pro sports players, or any other small minority with highly specialized skills.
> 
> There is a more neutral definition of the word which is also standard, though it has been taken over by the more pejorative use of the word.


Well, that was in response to a mini-discussion that the TalkingHead's post started. It's hard for me to imagine that he personally visits an elite "wine producer" every time he feels like a little booze, but hey, what do I know.


----------



## Guest (Mar 13, 2014)

Serge said:


> Well, that was in response to a mini-discussion that the TalkingHead's post started. It's hard for me to imagine that he personally visits an elite "wine producer" every time he feels like a little booze, but hey, what do I know.


Hah! Well, Serge, any run-of-the-mill wine producer strikes me as an élite compared to the moonshine from my mad uncle in Vermont. I _do_ visit wine producers from time to time though, but in the main I'm happy with good supermarkets for my supply of ethanol.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Elite is such a noxious word. It doesn't mean most skilled, or best educated, most attractive, most discerning or most powerful, it doesn't even mean wealthiest, it simply means the top or the elect. When people use the word elite they are usually trying to evoke some of those ideas but it is a word that points only to itself. Smug and congratulatory due to suggesting so much and meaning so little. I'm sure most people know elites that don't deserve to be and conversely people who should be much more highly regarded but aren't. At root the word elite means _picked_, not _attained_, _achieved_ or _earnt_. Elite is the cloak people shroud themselves in when they haven't any other qualities to recommend them.

Contemporary classical is apparently only for a small minority, although that doesn't necessarily have to be so. What that minority is due to is debatable: greater intelligence, discernment, free time or perhaps masochism and pretentiousness, but please don't condemn them as elites.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

quack said:


> Elite is such a noxious word. It doesn't mean most skilled, or best educated, most attractive, most discerning or most powerful, it doesn't even mean wealthiest, it simply means the top or the elect. When people use the word elite they are usually trying to evoke some of those ideas but it is a word that points only to itself. Smug and congratulatory due to suggesting so much and meaning so little. I'm sure most people know elites that don't deserve to be and conversely people who should be much more highly regarded but aren't. At root the word elite means _picked_, not _attained_, _achieved_ or _earnt_. Elite is the cloak people shroud themselves in when they haven't any other qualities to recommend them.
> 
> Contemporary classical is apparently only for a small minority, although that doesn't necessarily have to be so. What that minority is due to is debatable: greater intelligence, discernment, free time or perhaps masochism and pretentiousness, but please don't condemn them as elites.


Sounds like you have a strong emotional connection to this word. It doesn't have to be like that. Elite can be a great word, but it turns to crap when all you put on it is negativity. The term itself doesn't do that… we do.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

I have a strong emotional connexion to words. I love all those little beasts, I hate to see them get ill-used and few words get so poorly used as elite.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

TalkingHead said:


> Hah! Well, Serge, any run-of-the-mill wine producer strikes me as an élite compared to the moonshine from my mad uncle in Vermont. I _do_ visit wine producers from time to time though, but in the main I'm happy with good supermarkets for my supply of ethanol.


OK... So what were you saying as far as the music elite is concerned?


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

hpowders said:


> Liking contemporary music is not a class thing.
> 
> It requires work and effort to get into it. Simple as that.
> 
> I knock my brains out trying to absorb some of this difficult music.


I enjoy a lot of temporary music, and something I dont like. ( dont ask me what, I forget that. Have not startet categorization of that yet.) Not all are so difficult to get into, at least not if you take an observer role, more than understander role. Sometimes its like sitting on a street cafe, just watching all exiting things that happens in the street. But when the noice factor is to big, I say quit. But again, I say that ten years of exploring prog rock, jazz and classics++ have been good ear training


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

Andreas said:


> But I think some people simply have them.


Yes, I think so to, like a talent. But I think a lot kan be crained to.

Fot me, music, like other art, is more about experiance than to have to undrestand something. But I see that aspect to especially if you studi music, compose or perform. It is just not my thing. For me it is to open up the sence, and if I shall understand something it is more reflection over myself and why those elements in a composition or performance (or the sound of an instrument) have a certain effect on me.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

It'd be difficult for me to find a way to avoid acknowledging that classical music listeners think of ourselves as elite. Those of us who just "love to hear my Beethoven" _think_ of ourselves as superior to some broad class of people - in particular the top-40 / adult contemporary listeners. But those of us who _also_ like to listen to the 2nd Vienna School think of ourselves as superior to the devotees of (the likes of) Beethoven. A couple decades or so ago the advocates of HIPPI looked down on those who enjoyed "big band Mozart." And so on.

Probably the best way to conceptualize it is as cliques and sub-cliques all looking down at each other. Some people might argue that music has no deeper significance; whether you prefer Mozart or Miley doesn't make any more difference than whether you prefer Cocoa Puffs or Cookie Crisp. (Let's say for now that, at least to a first approximation, very few people have much at stake in such a decision.) But most of us identify with music rather more than we do with cereals, or most other things excepting (perhaps) religion, ethnicity, political ideology, or nationality.

Music is, among other things, a way we present our identities to others. It is a social, interpersonal act - even when we don't intend it as such, and _never so than when we consciously refuse to acknowledge it as such_. Our identities are at stake. Our tastes themselves are performances.

Even if someone refuses to acknowledge any of this, let's do a simple thought experiment. Imagine, just for the sake of discussion, that you are a fellow who intends to use your taste in and knowledge of some form(s) of music to advertise your status as a member of the most intellectually and culturally elite circles. NOTE! You're not trying to fit in with a common crowd - you want to distinguish yourself from them, to broadcast your belonging to the most intellectually and culturally elite circles. What form(s) of music would you choose? What form(s) of music would you conspicuously reject?

Of course part of the answer depends on whom you perceive as "the most intellectually and culturally elite circles," but assuming we're not naive enough to identify them with avid fans of Yanni, I think the results of that thought experiment will usually match up with one of the strategies we find here.

I've explained before that IMO at the present time the best strategy (~most effective performance/display of intellectually and culturally elite taste) is to evince an enjoyment of a wide range of music, not only classical (Medieval, Renaissance, CPP, modern, contemporary) but also jazz, various world musics (to pose as a partisan of authenticity within this field is IMO less effective than to take the role of one who denies that such authenticity is possible while happening generally to prefer music that the partisans would identify as "authentic"), some rock, some blues, some folk, some electronica, etc. _without bounds_, but to be _selective within each category_. That is to say, at the present moment in our culture, I don't think the tastes of such a person (provided she has enough knowledge to go along with her attitude) can be plausibly scorned by anyone with any other strategy/taste, but all other strategies that I know of can be not merely plausibly but very effectively scorned by such a person.

It happens, probably not coincidentally, that my own taste aligns with that strategy. You can guess what has affected what about as well as I can.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

quack said:


> Elite is such a noxious word. It doesn't mean most skilled, or best educated, most attractive, most discerning or most powerful, it doesn't even mean wealthiest, it simply means the top or the elect. When people use the word elite they are usually trying to evoke some of those ideas but it is a word that points only to itself. Smug and congratulatory due to suggesting so much and meaning so little. I'm sure most people know elites that don't deserve to be and conversely people who should be much more highly regarded but aren't. At root the word elite means _picked_, not _attained_, _achieved_ or _earnt_. Elite is the cloak people shroud themselves in when they haven't any other qualities to recommend them.
> 
> Contemporary classical is apparently only for a small minority, although that doesn't necessarily have to be so. What that minority is due to is debatable: greater intelligence, discernment, free time or perhaps masochism and pretentiousness, but please don't condemn them as elites.


I really enjoyed this post. My earlier post began as a building-on response to this but it went in such a different direction that I decided to do these separately!

I like the line "please don't condemn them as elites." Democratic values make things difficult! It's the old leftist's dilemma: if only people were more elite, the elite could be populist so much more easily.


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

science said:


> I really enjoyed this post. My earlier post began as a building-on response to this but it went in such a different direction that I decided to do these separately!
> 
> I like the line "please don't condemn them as elites." Democratic values make things difficult! It's the old leftist's dilemma: if only people were more elite, the elite could be populist so much more easily.


Well I was planning to write "insult them as elites" but changed it as I didn't think it would get the point across due to many evidently not recognising it as an insult as I do. It is not especially on class grounds, although class is usually a big part of the word, it is about unjust praise. If "highly skilled" surgeon isn't enough to recommend a person then elevating them to elite will most likely be an embarrassment. Moreso, if you are elite mainly for the music you choose to listen to then you are an unfortunate wretch.

With other Countesses of Blank-but rank;
At once the 'lie' and the 'elite' of crowds;
Who pass like water filter'd in a tank,
All purged and pious from their native clouds;
Or paper turn'd to money by the Bank:
No matter how or why, the passport shrouds
The 'passee' and the past; for good society
Is no less famed for tolerance than piety,
- _Don Juan_, Byron


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Labels are superfluous. The fact remains that only a small minority of the population in this world of ours appreciate art music. Why is that? Some of us just gravitate towards difficult art and enjoy it for whatever reason. The masses have always preferred that which is easily digestible because they don't want to work when listening to a piece of music; they want to relax, forget and feel pleasure as quickly as possible. Contemporary classical music demands too much of such people and I don't mean 'such people' as an insult because it's just the simple reality. Sophisticated art has always had a comparatively smaller audience and I don't believe this is subject to change.


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

science said:


> I've explained before that IMO at the present time the best strategy (~most effective performance/display of intellectually and culturally elite taste) is to evince an enjoyment of a wide range of music, not only classical (Medieval, Renaissance, CPP, modern, contemporary) but also jazz, various world musics (to pose as a partisan of authenticity within this field is IMO less effective than to take the role of one who denies that such authenticity is possible while happening generally to prefer music that the partisans would identify as "authentic"), some rock, some blues, some folk, some electronica, etc. _without bounds_, but to be _selective within each category_. That is to say, at the present moment in our culture, I don't think the tastes of such a person (provided she has enough knowledge to go along with her attitude) can be plausibly scorned by anyone with any other strategy/taste, but all other strategies that I know of can be not merely plausibly but very effectively scorned by such a person.


There are some fun meta-strategies going on here that regard contemporary shared delusions for cultural performance. Let's forget for a moment that this _is_ the best strategy, the best dance, for scorning and demonstrating your elite status - think _why_ it's this dance at this time when there are other dances to do? Because this dance says, "I am not like other dances." This dance is not restrictive or boastful, it's egalitarian and worldly. It approaches relativism but still appeals to taste, quality and ego. It's conscious _and_ self-conscious of the fact that it is an expectation in today's world to not step on other people's toes - to allow each to dance as they want to dance, but still to say, "Ah! _This_ is not just another dance. This _oversees_ all the other dances! It takes the best from them all and incorporates them into a new, better whole!" So it employs egalitarianism and relativism as a means to create a new hierarchy and elitism. "Anyone can have something of everything, but _I_ only have the best of it _all_." Of course, the only possible strategy to beat it is to deny the question, the motive, the act of dancing. But even to say, "I refuse to dance" turns out to be a dance itself...


----------



## Freischutz (Mar 6, 2014)

I forgot the most important layer! Also, [ saying that [ saying "I refuse to dance" turns out to be a dance ] also turns out to be a dance ].

Yay for recursive elitism strategies!


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Labels are superfluous. The fact remains that only a small minority of the population in this world of ours appreciate art music. Why is that? Some of us just gravitate towards difficult art and enjoy it for whatever reason. The masses have always preferred that which is easily digestible because they don't want to work when listening to a piece of music; they want to relax, forget and feel pleasure as quickly as possible. Contemporary classical music demands too much of such people and I don't mean 'such people' as an insult because it's just the simple reality. Sophisticated art has always had a comparatively smaller audience and I don't believe this is subject to change.


Yes, as I go to a supermarket I see all those people leaning on their shopping carts as if they were buying themselves.

I *beep* *beep*ing *beep* these *beep*ing *beep*s!


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> Some of us just gravitate towards difficult art and enjoy it for whatever reason. The masses have always preferred that which is easily digestible because they don't want to work when listening to a piece of music; they want to relax, forget and feel pleasure as quickly as possible. Contemporary classical music demands too much of such people and I don't mean 'such people' as an insult because it's just the simple reality.


If this isn't elitism, I don't know what is.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

arcaneholocaust said:


> If this isn't elitism, I don't know what is.


It's called reality, actually.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

arcaneholocaust said:


> If this isn't elitism, I don't know what is.


But that's also the truth, or the "human nature" as others might call it.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

And who says elitism can't be reality?


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Freischutz said:


> I forgot the most important layer! Also, [ saying that [ saying "I refuse to dance" turns out to be a dance ] also turns out to be a dance ].
> 
> Yay for recursive elitism strategies!


At some point there'll be a backlash, and the cognoscenti will refuse to refuse to dance, insist on dancing. The pendulum will swing back and forth.... Maybe we can ride the wave out and ride it back in again, but we've got to be careful not to lose our authenticity!

Meta-dancing is a good strategy too, if you can act that balance.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2014)

Lope de Aguirre said:


> It's called reality, actually.


The reality would be for you to say, "I like this music because it challenges me, and I enjoy said challenge." Saying that the music is INHERENTLY challenging is kinda wrong, since I posted earlier that I found Stockhausen more immediately accessible than some things you would probably barely call art; Stockhausen required zero work for me to enjoy, and clearly there's something relative about the experience. And when you continuously throw around statements about how other people like music you don't like because they don't like hard work...yeah...sounds like elitism to me.

But hey, I suppose it's "fair" to say that people that don't CONSTANTLY indulge in your "high art" are a bunch of lazy "me generation" hobos.


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

But that's not what the current argument is about, I think.


----------



## Guest (Mar 14, 2014)

I wasn't addressing the current argument. I was addressing the quoted post, as well as the similar post history related to it. Just saying, it's no wonder some people want nothing to do with the avant-garde.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

arcaneholocaust said:


> The reality would be for you to say, "I like this music because it challenges me, and I enjoy said challenge." Saying that the music is INHERENTLY challenging is kinda wrong, since I posted earlier that I found Stockhausen more immediately accessible than some things you would probably barely call art; Stockhausen required zero work for me to enjoy, and clearly there's something relative about the experience. And when you continuously throw around statements about how other people like music you don't like because they don't like hard work...yeah...sounds like elitism to me.
> But hey, I suppose it's "fair" to say that people that don't CONSTANTLY indulge in your "high art" are a bunch of lazy "me generation" hobos.


Your post is simply your opinion. I am speaking of the reality of human nature and this is indisputable. You can opine all you want but it won't change the truth as far this subject is concerned.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> I wasn't addressing the current argument. I was addressing the quoted post, as well as the similar post history related to it. Just saying, it's no wonder some people want nothing to do with the avant-garde.


I've never been a big fan of "contemporary" or highly atonal/dissonant music (I know those terms always cause a big stir on this site, but you know what I mean) and I'll admit that sometimes the general attitude on this site that I get is the _reason_ I don't like it is because I'm simply too stupid to like it. Sometimes I think it could be possible; I'm no genius or prodigy, in many ways I'm a pretty average teenager who happens to have been exposed to classical before all other genres. So there's no guarantee that because I like Tchaikovsky and Beethoven and Ravel, that I'm also going to like Stockhausen.

But, despite elitist attitudes that I come across, I still never stop trying new things even if they end up not being to my taste in the end -_-

I think part of it is also that because contemporary/avant-garde music is so often attacked in sweeping generalizations as "noise/garbage" and it's a struggle to see it performed (I never attack it that way and I am all for performing it), many fans find themselves constantly on the defensive and may come to the conclusion that these naysayers who don't even give it a chance must be lazy or simple-minded. In that sense, I can't blame them for being a little elitist. Even I feel elitist when I hear things like "classical music is boring" from friends.



Lope de Aguirre said:


> Your post is simply your opinion. I am speaking of the reality of human nature and this is indisputable. You can opine all you want but it won't change the truth as far this subject is concerned.


Argument becomes fairly convenient once you establish your opinion as fact, doesn't it?


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Tristan said:


> I've never been a big fan of "contemporary" or highly atonal/dissonant music (I know those terms always cause a big stir on this site, but you know what I mean) and I'll admit that sometimes the general attitude on this site that I get is the _reason_ I don't like it is because I'm simply too stupid to like it. Sometimes I think it could be possible; I'm no genius or prodigy, in many ways I'm a pretty average teenager who happens to have been exposed to classical before all other genres. So there's no guarantee that because I like Tchaikovsky and Beethoven and Ravel, that I'm also going to like Stockhausen.
> 
> But, despite elitist attitudes that I come across, I still never stop trying new things even if they end up not being to my taste in the end -_-
> 
> ...


But it is a fact and it applies to every art form. As for your dislike of contemporary classical, if you don't like it, so what? That doesn't make you stupid. My sister is a scientist and she doesn't even like Classical, does that make her an idiot? Hardly.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

quack said:


> Elite is such a noxious word. It doesn't mean most skilled, or best educated, most attractive, most discerning or most powerful, it doesn't even mean wealthiest, it simply means the top or the elect. When people use the word elite they are usually trying to evoke some of those ideas but it is a word that points only to itself. Smug and congratulatory due to suggesting so much and meaning so little. I'm sure most people know elites that don't deserve to be and conversely people who should be much more highly regarded but aren't. At root the word elite means _picked_, not _attained_, _achieved_ or _earnt_. Elite is the cloak people shroud themselves in when they haven't any other qualities to recommend them.
> 
> Contemporary classical is apparently only for a small minority, although that doesn't necessarily have to be so. What that minority is due to is debatable: greater intelligence, discernment, free time or perhaps masochism and pretentiousness, but please don't condemn them as elites.


I agree with the gist of your opinion on all this, quack and also found much truth in what science said.

I think that in these times of quite low morale in the classical music world, we basically need to drop elite in referring to classical listeners or classical music in general. This is not just an issue of semantics, its quite important. In today's world image is everything. Elite, at least when it is taken to mean an attitude (elitism) is something that can't do much good to classical music if we want it to survive and indeed prosper in the future.

Maybe Boulez's comments reflect more on him than on other listeners or musicians? I see his comments as just making the problems we have with classical music, including contemporary music, worse and not better. Boulez is definitely an elite musician, and basically establishment. Go back to when he was young and he was against the establishment, now its a different story. That whole 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' type of approach has rankled me, even though I see him as a great musician. Admittedly I have read interviews by him, and I tend to learn a good deal about the craft of music from reading what he has to say. He is very knowledgeable, but I disagree on his slant on things, the conclusions he makes even now when he's much more moderate than he used to be.

The truth as I see it is that we now need a bit of idealism and optimism, and the more inclusive we are, the better. We don't need to put people in boxes, to categorise them. We don't need to have an 'us and them' attitude which can potentially make classical music a closed shop sort of thing. Those sorts of things tend to wither on the vine and die out eventually. Everything needs nourishment to survive, it needs to be open not closed off.

So I'll leave you with a quote by Charles Ives to kind of put into contrast what Boulez said:

"The future of music may not lie entirely with music itself, but rather in the way it encourages and extends, rather than limits, the aspirations and ideals of the people, in the way it makes itself a part with the finer things that humanity does and dreams of."

Perhaps that kind of idealism is dead as a dodo but I'd like to think not. I'd like to think we can make a better future for what we love, not divide things with ideology more than they need to be. Ives' attitude was shared by many others around that time, including Vaughan Williams, but most people now would laugh if someone said something like this today. Its a cynical old world we live in, a place where actions more often than not don't match words (and vice versa). Where we either have power over people, or we have someone lording over us. Of course there is no level playing field, but further dividing and compartmentalising things just makes the inqualities worse (no matter how we smooth over it, especially with spin doctoring and ideology). Something went wrong somewhere along the way despite all this so-called progress, didn't it?


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*Elitists*

Along with arrogance I recall the times I have been accused of being an elitist when people disliked what I was saying. :scold:


----------



## Piwikiwi (Apr 1, 2011)

arpeggio said:


> Along with arrogance I recall the times I have been accused of being an elitist when people disliked what I was saying. :scold:


It says more about the person saying it than about the people who are being called elitist.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

arcaneholocaust said:


> The reality would be for you to say, "I like this music because it challenges me, and I enjoy said challenge." Saying that the music is INHERENTLY challenging is kinda wrong, since I posted earlier that I found Stockhausen more immediately accessible than some things you would probably barely call art; Stockhausen required zero work for me to enjoy, and clearly there's something relative about the experience. And when you continuously throw around statements about how other people like music you don't like because they don't like hard work...yeah...sounds like elitism to me.
> 
> But hey, I suppose it's "fair" to say that people that don't CONSTANTLY indulge in your "high art" are a bunch of lazy "me generation" hobos.


Dude, wake up. This isn't Utopia. Most people, at least in the West, are searching for quick fixes and could care less about more sophisticated/elite practices. Are they fools in general? I don't know. But they are definitely less aware of a "higher form" of art. This doesn't mean anyone is inherently a better human-being. Many of my family and friends don't listen as extensively as me, but I don't go walking around all high-and-mighty. However, I'm aware that I know a great deal more about art than they do… why are people so whiney about this?


----------



## Serge (Mar 25, 2010)

Well, I don't know if the word "work" is the right term for those of us simply trying to enjoy music. But surely it must be different for people in the business of music.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

On another forum, I once expressed an interest in classical music ("other interests" thread) and I was quickly labeled an "elitist"; this on a BMW forum.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

hpowders said:


> On another forum, I once expressed an interest in classical music ("other interests" thread) and I was quickly labeled an "elitist"; this on a BMW forum.


Amazing.................


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I agree with the gist of your opinion on all this, quack and also found much truth in what science said.
> 
> I think that in these times of quite low morale in the classical music world, we basically need to drop elite in referring to classical listeners or classical music in general. This is not just an issue of semantics, its quite important. In today's world image is everything. Elite, at least when it is taken to mean an attitude (elitism) is something that can't do much good to classical music if we want it to survive and indeed prosper in the future.
> 
> ...


Perhaps Ives was prescient. People have lamented the decline of culture probably since the first guy beat a drum a little differently than his great-grandfather had done, and I don't intend to participate in that lament because I don't necessarily see the "decline of the classical music tradition" as necessarily an entirely bad thing. It's just stuff happening: this happened, that happened next, something else will happen later; so for better or worse or neither, things are different now than they were in 1920. I doubt actually that the classical tradition (we all know what we mean by that so I hope we can skip the semantics) is performed less in absolute terms, but relatively it is a less important part of our culture, with all kinds of other traditions crowding in.

But as for the elitism thing -

I guess it's going to remain a part of human culture forever - or, if Bill and Ted come from the future to inform me otherwise, I'll be surprised. Everybody wants to be special in one way or another, and music is so powerful (as a source of identity) that "my music is better than your music ergo I'm better than you" attitudes are probably going to be around as long as we are. Even if the classical tradition (as our grandparents knew it) completely disappears, those attitudes will just be applied to other traditions. As for the classical tradition, if we're ever to be free of that attitude, it'll require either a massive brainwashing operation or at least two generations of people dying off. Our populist instincts might be really productive in some realms, but in the classical tradition, it's a lost cause.

Anyway, I figure that it's not important enough to fight over, and I wouldn't win even if I tried, but most of all it might even be a good thing for drawing attention to music that otherwise might not be made. I mean, would a high quality recording of Palestrina's _Missa dum complerentur_ be available for $15 bucks if no one was trying to show off? I doubt it. I can put up with some silliness about horrible (lazy, whatever) people who don't like X[SUB]music[/SUB] are, and I guess I'm gonna have to. At least I get music I like... and some pleasure of thinking, "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are...."


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

The Marxist critic Theodor Adorno complained about the commercialization of art. He included politicization of art in this, which meant that he was staunchly opposed to socialist realism, the official Marxist art style. Anyway, he was extremely interested in music (he was a quite skilled pianist who had studied under Alban Berg), and he championed the Second Vienna School, specifically because it was music that could not be commercialized.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

My memory's a bit hazy, but in the mid nineties when I saw Salonen and the L.A. Phil do _Tapiola_ and _Kullervo_, the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion had a glass display case of some of Sibelius' scores, epistolary correspondences, and. . . 'criticism.'

Wasn't Adorno the guy who once gave a pontificating lecture on Bruckner-- and then a jeering crowd laughed at him and booed him-- and then he left the stage. . . crying?

Or is this the same guy who said, equally preposterously, that if Sibelius' music was good, then all music from Bach to the twentieth century was invalid?

-- Which reminds me of a quote by Sibelius. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.: "No monument was ever erected to a critic."


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

hpowders said:


> On another forum, I once expressed an interest in classical music ("other interests" thread) and I was quickly labeled an "elitist"; this on a BMW forum.


I am, without cavil or qualification, an 'elitist'.

I look for the best in everything; and taste, by definition, is a rarefied thing; the thin end of the bell curve. So, naturally, there are people who are going to resent you for it._ Ressentiment_.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Marschallin Blair said:


> I am, without cavil or qualification, an 'elitist'.
> 
> I look for the best in everything; and taste, by definition, is a rarefied thing; the thin end of the bell curve. So, naturally, there are people who are going to resent you for it._ Ressentiment_.


That's fine, and I agree, but I wasn't going around bragging like I was better than anyone else because I liked classical music.
What the heck are they afraid of?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Marschallin Blair said:


> Which reminds me of a quote by Sibelius. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.: "No monument was ever erected to a critic."


"Never pay any attention to what critics say. Remember, a statue has never been set up in honor of a critic!" Sibelius was quite wrong of course, as Alex Ross points out in this article. And I know of another statue in honor of a critic as well, a critic better known to English speakers...

http://www.therestisnoise.com/2006/03/statues_of_crit.html


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

hpowders said:


> That's fine, and I agree, but I wasn't going around bragging like I was better than anyone else because I liked classical music.
> What the heck are they afraid of?


Lest I be misunderstood, I wasn't advocating _snobbery_; no, nothing of the kind. Just a healthy Aristotelianism of sorts. Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> "Never pay any attention to what critics say. Remember, a statue has never been set up in honor of a critic!" Sibelius was quite wrong of course, as Alex Ross points out in this article. And I know of another statue in honor of a critic as well, a critic better known to English speakers...
> 
> http://www.therestisnoise.com/2006/03/statues_of_crit.html


Why?. . . Are you a critic? Ha. Ha. Ha._ ;D_

What's that musing of La Rochefoucauld's?: "The vanity of others offends us only when it offends our own vanity."


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> "Never pay any attention to what critics say. Remember, a statue has never been set up in honor of a critic!" Sibelius was quite wrong of course, as Alex Ross points out in this article. And I know of another statue in honor of a critic as well, a critic better known to English speakers...
> 
> http://www.therestisnoise.com/2006/03/statues_of_crit.html


Sorry for the digression, but statues are in the news these days:


----------



## Oskaar (Mar 17, 2011)

I pay attention to critics, but not uncritically


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Blancrocher said:


> Sorry for the digression, but statues are in the news these days:


Hilarious! My wife was watching some TV show last night going on and on about how eating insects was saving whole populations in Southeast Asia from mass starvation. I thought maybe it was from the Onion but unfortunately it wasn't.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

I think the whole idea of 'elitism' and the absurd comparisons of classical music vs. popular music are largely attributable to the ideas of *Theodor Adorno. *Read his books, and be sure to blow the dust off of them. But he does present a good case for elitism: popular music is in many cases a prefabricated pablum (at its worst).

Unfortunately, Adorno throws out valuable babies with his bathwater. His views are too sweeping for the post-modern world.

Be glad that all music exists (is not outlawed or censored), and that we are free to consume any kind of music we wish to, as long as we don't wake up innocent bystanders with the two 100-watt 15" subwoofers we have placed in the trunk of our car, at 3 AM in the morning (at full volume).


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

millionrainbows said:


> I think the whole idea of 'elitism' and the absurd comparisons of classical music vs. popular music are largely attributable to the ideas of *Theodor Adorno.*


The elitist mindset seems far older than Adorno. An aria from Rossini's Tancredi was included at the second and final concert of Beethoven's 9th, which was not well-attended. Nephew Karl wrote Beethoven with several reasons for this, including "One group stayed away because the Rossini aria disgusted them, as it did me too."


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Fortinbras Armstrong said:


> The Marxist critic Theodor Adorno complained about the commercialization of art. He included politicization of art in this, which meant that he was staunchly opposed to socialist realism, the official Marxist art style. Anyway, he was extremely interested in music (he was a quite skilled pianist who had studied under Alban Berg), and he championed the Second Vienna School, specifically because it was music that could not be commercialized.


As Marschallin Blair mentioned, Adorno also rubbished Sibelius. That was wrong on many counts, one for elevating one composer and correspondingly trashing another (but that seems to be a kind of blood sport of classical music across the ages anyway) and the other one being more important - Sibelius was one of the most significant symphonic composers since Beethoven, his innovations in form in particular have been recognised since the 1970's at least. He took a dip from the 1950's to the 1970's, but more in contintental Europe than anywhere else.

Reading sources on not only Sibelius, but also others who I have taken more than a hint of interst in recenlty - eg. Rachmaninov, Grainger, Grieg - its in the 1970's that the Modernist dogma finally starts to crumble (and that's the decade Boulez began to voice more moderate and pragmatic views of music). So you get credit given where it is due to these composers. In the 1950's a similar shift had occured with Haydn and Liszt, their innovations where given credit more than previously.

The lesson is that classical critics and groupies, experts or elites can get it seriously wrong. Sibelius' famous quote may well be ironic and self depracating. He is said to have completed and burnt his 8th symphony, exactly because he feared undue and ideological criticism. Schoenberg didn't much like Adorno's bias, he was apalled and said he wasn't doing him any favours. You know the famous quote of Arnie "there is plenty of good music to be written in C."

But I think that Hilary Hahn's recording of both the Schoenberg and Sibelius violin concertos on the same disc offers a reposte to that whole school of biased thinking. Both are equally great works, just different. Hahn played the Schoenberg concerto to packed houses and rave reviews. If anyone has done justice to both these great composers, its her. To put the icing on the cake, the disc sold well for a classical recording.

So win-win situation was created out of the lose-lose kind of tragic view of music which isn't going to help classical music - of whatever sort - one bit. That's what I was saying, better to be positive and do things rather than see things as always being bad, and making enemies and blaming people, doing this age old turf wars and divide and conquer type game which has been an unfortunately recurring theme throughout the history of classical music.

Time to change, otherwise we'll lose it all. I don't think Boulez would necessarily disagree with most of what I said here though. The Hahn example shows that music such as Schoenberg's can be given wider exposure and that tactic can be relevant to how the music of living composers is presented and promoted as well.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Adorno's got nothin' on René Leibowitz, who called Sibelius "the worst composer in the world" in 1955.


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Adorno's got nothin' on René Leibowitz, who called Sibelius "the worst composer in the world" in 1955.


Haha, did Leibowitz happen to be 7 years old? Sounds like something an infant would write.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

hpowders said:


> On another forum, I once expressed an interest in classical music ("other interests" thread) and I was quickly labeled an "elitist"; this on a BMW forum.





hpowders said:


> That's fine, and I agree, but I wasn't going around bragging like I was better than anyone else because I liked classical music.
> What the heck are they afraid of?


Talking to that, there was a time that I pretty much freely spoke about my interest in music - including of course classical music - to people. I mean face to face. Now I rarely if ever do it. I realised its just got quite bad 'streetcred' so to speak. Not my fault as I'm sure its not yours. I never did it to convey some sense of superiority of taste or knowledge or anything. I did it because its one of my interests.

But better to blend into the grey mass. Better speak about the mediocre and mundane things, like on Sienfeld, the show about nothing. The different brands of milk at the supermarket. The bargains you got on your trip to Shanghai. The latest model electronic gadget you got. All that stuff doesn't make you elite, but certain other things do. As I said image, stereotypes, perception is crucial in today's world.

I can joke about it, but its sad that its come to this, and that's why its time to change the negative views of classical coming from many quarters, including from certain personalities within the classical music industry.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Vesuvius said:


> Haha, did Leibowitz happen to be 7 years old? Sounds like something an infant would write.


Rene Liebowitz and others of the time (like the writers in Groves who trashed Rachmaninoff) were the musical intelligentsia of those years. Rather like the people around here, actually. A sobering thought, I should think.


----------



## Fortinbras Armstrong (Dec 29, 2013)

WRT critics, in another thread I quoted Benjamin Disraeli, who was a novelist as well as a politician, saying that the ranks of critics are drawn from those who have failed at literature and the arts.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Sid James said:


> Talking to that, there was a time that I pretty much freely spoke about my interest in music - including of course classical music - to people. I mean face to face. Now I rarely if ever do it. I realised its just got quite bad 'streetcred' so to speak. Not my fault as I'm sure its not yours. I never did it to convey some sense of superiority of taste or knowledge or anything. I did it because its one of my interests.
> 
> But better to blend into the grey mass. Better speak about the mediocre and mundane things, like on Sienfeld, the show about nothing. The different brands of milk at the supermarket. The bargains you got on your trip to Shanghai. The latest model electronic gadget you got. All that stuff doesn't make you elite, but certain other things do. As I said image, stereotypes, perception is crucial in today's world.
> 
> I can joke about it, but its sad that its come to this, and that's why its time to change the negative views of classical coming from many quarters, including from certain personalities within the classical music industry.


We live in a Facebook and smartphone world, where small talk seems to be everything.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

hpowders said:


> We live in a Facebook and smartphone world, where small talk seems to be everything.


OTOM, as Cicero might have texted...


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

OMG ur so rite Cicero #PeC -- Juvenal


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

Sid James said:


> Reading sources on not only Sibelius, but also others who I have taken more than a hint of interst in recenlty - eg. Rachmaninov, Grainger, Grieg - its in the 1970's that the Modernist dogma finally starts to crumble (and that's the decade Boulez began to voice more moderate and pragmatic views of music). So you get credit given where it is due to these composers. In the 1950's a similar shift had occured with Haydn and Liszt, their innovations where given credit more than previously.


In regards to Sibelius, Boulez was actually somewhat kind. He said something along the lines of "there are good things in his music, but it doesn't speak to me."


----------



## Blake (Nov 6, 2013)

KenOC said:


> Rene Liebowitz and others of the time (like the writers in Groves who trashed Rachmaninoff) were the musical intelligentsia of those years. Rather like the people around here, actually. A sobering thought, I should think.


I didn't realize "intelligence" was such a subjective word….


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Regarding Sibelius, Boulez and I think alike. That's about it.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

KenOC said:


> The elitist mindset seems far older than Adorno. An aria from Rossini's Tancredi was included at the second and final concert of Beethoven's 9th, which was not well-attended. Nephew Karl wrote Beethoven with several reasons for this, including "One group stayed away because the Rossini aria disgusted them, as it did me too."


I use* Adorno *because he seemed to disparage a whole 'class' of music (popular) as being inherently inferior. The jabs of composer against composer don't strike me that way. *Adorno *seems to underscore a sort of 'class elitism' I find particularly troublesome.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Sid James said:


> Reading sources on not only Sibelius, but also others who I have taken more than a hint of interst in recenlty - eg. Rachmaninov, Grainger, Grieg - its in the 1970's that the Modernist dogma finally starts to crumble (and that's the decade Boulez began to voice more moderate and pragmatic views of music). So you get credit given where it is due to these composers. In the 1950's a similar shift had occured with Haydn and Liszt, their innovations where given credit more than previously.


Sid, I almost PMed you but I figure maybe other people would like to know about this too, so let's do it public here. I wonder if you can remember what books (or other sources) in particular were really informative for you about these changes in how these composers were evaluated. This is a little different than the history of the music itself - it's the history of people's changing attitudes to past composers. I'd like to know and think more about that, so if you can recommend some reading to me, I would appreciate that!


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Adorno's got nothin' on René Leibowitz, who called Sibelius "the worst composer in the world" in 1955.


René 'who'? René 'what'? René 'huh'? . . . Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . 'Yeah', ex-_ACT_-ly.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Sid James


> But better to blend into the grey mass. Better speak about the mediocre and mundane things, like on Sienfeld, the show about nothing. The different brands of milk at the supermarket. The bargains you got on your trip to Shanghai


-- not for me. I go out of my way to talk about things _I_ like;_ even around _the Dostoevskian Last Men at the coffee mess or water cooler (not officiously though of course; only if the opportunity presents itself). In fact. . . Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . Sorry, the involuntary paroxysms of giggles are kicking in.

Okay, I'm composed.

In fact, last week I had a picture in my office at work attached near my computer screen for all to see. It was a picture of Maria Callas sitting alongside Elsa Maxwell at a Venetian _soirée _in her honor from 1958. Unbelievably cute picture of Callas. She has that Audrey Hepburn look in the pictue that I so much adore. . . Anyway, someone walks by my desk and asks me about the picture (a very, very nice person; but a person who's Alpha and Omega of great singing is probably Christina Aguilera or Carrie Underwood). I told him that she was probably the greatest singer who's ever breathed upon this earth. He starts waving his hand back and forth going, "No, no. . . I don't think so. Unt uh"-- and walks away. . . with no dialogue.

I just started laughing. He's a great guy, but who wants to step into a Russian bear trap? Ha. Ha. Ha.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Mahlerian said:


> In regards to Sibelius, Boulez was actually somewhat kind. He said something along the lines of "there are good things in his music, but it doesn't speak to me."


Boulez had very negative and ideological views of a number of things which he subsequently reversed. One was the big one, raising Webern and dissing the other two Viennese guys. Others included Britten and Stravinsky's Neo-Classical period. I don't know if he's reversed his famous (infamous?) position on Shostakovich or the movements of Messiaen's Turangalila-Symphonie that he refuses to conduct on ideological grounds (the "brothel music" thing).

But whatever the case, its the same as many big names in classical music who where blessed with longevity, so their views change over the span of their long lifetimes. I was reading about Maestro Beecham, who at one point said the BBC was a philistine organisation, then did an about face, saying they where one of the great institutions of the UK. Similarly, Stravinsky said all manner of things indicating he'd never cross over to serialism, but he did.

I think Boulez's legacy in terms of music alone remains secure and will continue to do so, whatever comments he has made on music, whether of a reasonable and balanced nature, or not.



Marschallin Blair said:


> René 'who'? René 'what'? René 'huh'? . . . Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . 'Yeah', ex-_ACT_-ly.


Well I think we can say we owe a good deal to Boulez, for his music and for conducting music (including new or newer music).

However I don't think we owe much to such theorists like Adorno and so on, I see that kind of thinking as a relic of its times and quite damaging to music as a whole. Its a view couched in the inter-war period when composers where literally fighting for their lives, and serialism and much other Modern music was banned (either by Hitler or Stalin or various others). After the war, there was a golden opportunity to shed the ideology and go for an all embracing sort of view, one that championed plurality and freedom of expression. But these guys just continued with their fetters and controls. I don't see that as being useful, and if it did breed a sort of view as classical - and/or contemporary classical - being elite, that kind of polarised thinking is surely a part of this?

As regards to your Callas anecdote I would not even get to that point now. Too risky to have an opera singer as you "pin up boy...or girl." And if you must talk about something like La Scala, only mention it in the same breath as what clothes you bought on your trip to Milano... as well as the obligatory visit to the iconic cathedral. That's where we are. Culture as soundbyte!

[EDIT: I skim read your entry before, so I talked of Milano, not Venezia, but I'll leave my cynical comment with the example of Milano! In any case I'm sure you can make up your own Venetian cliches!].


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Coming at this from another angle, there is the recent *"Beethoven for all" series* done by Daniel Barenboim, I think complete box sets of the symphonies and concertos have been released now. Is this a marketing strategy against the view that classical is for an elite or elite listeners? The inclusive title "for all," I mean. I know little of this, perhaps it has something to do with it being played by the East-West Divan Orchestra, made up of both Arab/Palestinian and Israeli/Jewish musicians. That might have to do with this image of inclusivity, but I wouldn't be surprised if its about shedding the elite image as well? Anyone know more about this one? What do people here think?


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

From the official website for the "Beethoven for all" project:



> "Beethoven's music is universal," says Daniel Barenboim. "Everywhere in the world - it speaks to all people." For that reason the master's symphonies are a central focus of his work this year with the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra.
> 
> ...
> The world finds itself in a time of upheaval. In the Arab lands an unprecedented struggle for self-determination is taking place. Seldom before have the words of Beethoven the Sturm und Drang revolutionary been more relevant. But Edward Said, a great Beethoven expert in his own right, valued the Bonn master not only for his transcendental qualities. He repeatedly pointed out that the universality of his music stems from its expression of the highest human ideals. Music for Beethoven begins only after the revolution - at the point when the question becomes how all people can leave together in peace. Daniel Barenboim knows about this spirit of optimism and idealism, about revolutionary force and the power of visions - that is also why his Beethoven captures the spirit of the times and sounds so topical and so modern.


This suggests to me not "shedding the elite image" as such, but arguing that Beethoven (specifically) is something we can all relate to, but in an _inspirational_ way rather than necessarily an intellectual one.
Well, it's just press-release bumf, really, isn't it? If Beethoven were being inducted into the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame they'd probably use the same material.
(I'm not doubting Barenboim's sincerity, but I'm not convinced about Decca's marketing department!)


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

millionrainbows said:


> I use* Adorno *because he seemed to disparage a whole 'class' of music (popular) as being inherently inferior. The jabs of composer against composer don't strike me that way. *Adorno *seems to underscore a sort of 'class elitism' I find particularly troublesome.


I think of Adorno as almost the opposite. I think he disparaged popular music like jazz and (folk) rock because he saw them as products of the "culture industry", that is: goods made for mass consumption by an oppressive economic elite. I don't feel Adorno looked down on people who listened to pop music, but rather on those who produce it for exploitative reasons.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

> _Sid James- After the war, there was a golden opportunity to shed the ideology and go for an all embracing sort of view, one that championed plurality and freedom of expression. But these guys just continued with their fetters and controls_.


"Plurality and freedom of expression" versus the "fetters and controls" of doctrinaire nonsense-- whether of serialism, clasicissm, or of course, the Frankfurt School of Marxism-- yes, that's certainly the pivotal issue as I see it. Ha. Ha. Ha. As if tacitly discerned things like taste and intelligence can be encapsulated in a formula or a logarithm.



> _As regards to your Callas anecdote I would not even get to that point now. Too risky to have an opera singer as you "pin up boy...or girl." And if you must talk about something like La Scala, only mention it in the same breath as what clothes you bought on your trip to Milano... as well as the obligatory visit to the iconic cathedral. That's where we are. Culture as soundbyte_!


Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. You are entirely too polite to people._ ;D_ . . . but there's the other side to this as well, at least in my ambit. I remember having an afterclass conversation with one of my college professors, and I was telling him how amused I was with people who had a superficial interest in orchestral music and opera: "Oh, but is this the _best_ Beethoven's Fifth to buy?-- I only want the _best_ afterall. . . and what's the _best_ Madame Butterfly to buy?"-- as if they would even take it off the shelf and open the libretto to begin with. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . I do what I can.


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Sid James said:


> Coming at this from another angle, there is the recent *"Beethoven for all" series* done by Daniel Barenboim, I think complete box sets of the symphonies and concertos have been released now. Is this a marketing strategy against the view that classical is for an elite or elite listeners? The inclusive title "for all," I mean. I know little of this, perhaps it has something to do with it being played by the East-West Divan Orchestra, made up of both Arab/Palestinian and Israeli/Jewish musicians. That might have to do with this image of inclusivity, but I wouldn't be surprised if its about shedding the elite image as well? Anyone know more about this one? What do people here think?


My intuitive response is that it is a politically-correct 'egalitarian' marketing strategy. But, funnily enough, I _do_ think that Beethoven is for everybody. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . Just not in a force-fed way. Ha. Ha. Ha.

While I abjure the Procrustean bed of egalitarianism, I do champion the equalitarianism of an Open Society and of _la carrière ouverte aux talents._

Well, you asked for my thoughts. Ha. Ha. Ha.

Okay, sermon over.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Marschallin Blair said:


> _la carrière ouverte aux talents_


As do all of us, who happen to find ourselves with aux so many talents!


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Reflecting on what you both said, Nereffid and Marschallin Blair, all I will add is that if they want to market Beethoven as being for all, surely it is a reaction to something? I think its a reaction to elitism, basically. The image of us who are into classical as being elites or elitists. Whether it is reality or perception is hard to discern. I have come across classical listeners who can be described as elitists, but I've also come across some who aren't.

I thought of another thing in the interim. The thing is that its ironic that we go so easy on Boulez, but if someone else (especially a newbie to this forum) said the same thing, we would say "how dare you call us elites, contemporary music is for everyone." You know the saying, its not what is said but who says it. Boulez still has this aura which makes certain people accept everything he says, he's like an oracle to them. But its common in the literature on Modern and contemporary music to see descriptions of what he did in the post-war era, such as heckling at concerts of new music he deemed unacceptable, to as I said dissing leading composers of the day, basically trying to impose an orthodoxy of Modernism.

A contrast is Messiaen, who most books on Modern music treat more favourably. One of his students, George Benjamin, was worried about composing with tunes in his music. To this, Messiaen said that music has to sing like a bird, melody is the key to music. But to Xenakis who was worried about composing using mathematical formulas, Messiaen said don't worry about counterpoint and harmony, develop your own ideas. None other than Boulez also praised Messiaen, and he has conducted his music despite not wanting to do Turangalila.

So I think the more inclusive one is, the better. That's why I would just jettison elite as a descriptor of fans of classical, any type of classical really. Don't know that we even need to replace it. Composers can be called composers, whatever technique or aesthetic approach they have. Listeners are just that, or music lovers. It's all just music, and without reaching outside of itself, going outside the ivory tower, classical music would be dead.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

Boulez was a modernist provocateur, it's one of the things to love about him. Marrying it to authoritative talent and vast technical skill means he really could do what he liked. There's a lot of hand-wringing about how "impolite" he has been - however, in reality there was a lot of grown-ups involved who needed to harden up and get on with doing their own thing


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

science said:


> As do all of us, who happen to find ourselves with aux so many talents!


Excelsior. Cheers._ ;D_


----------



## Marschallin Blair (Jan 23, 2014)

Sid James said:


> Reflecting on what you both said, Nereffid and Marschallin Blair, all I will add is that if they want to market Beethoven as being for all, surely it is a reaction to something? I think its a reaction to elitism, basically. The image of us who are into classical as being elites or elitists. Whether it is reality or perception is hard to discern. I have come across classical listeners who can be described as elitists, but I've also come across some who aren't.
> 
> I thought of another thing in the interim. The thing is that its ironic that we go so easy on Boulez, but if someone else (especially a newbie to this forum) said the same thing, we would say "how dare you call us elites, contemporary music is for everyone." You know the saying, its not what is said but who says it. Boulez still has this aura which makes certain people accept everything he says, he's like an oracle to them. But its common in the literature on Modern and contemporary music to see descriptions of what he did in the post-war era, such as heckling at concerts of new music he deemed unacceptable, to as I said dissing leading composers of the day, basically trying to impose an orthodoxy of Modernism.
> 
> ...


---
Ha. Ha. Ha. Ha. . . I love the reminiscence on Boulez.

Yeah: "Let's have brave new ears for music I _ex cathedra_ approve of; and gigantic howling-gales of tolerant curses for music that doesn't bend the knee to the serialist or Marxian catechism". . .

I like what Verdi said when _Don Carlos_ was impugned as being too derivative of Meyerbeer and Wagner: ". . . the question is not whether the music of _Don Carlos_ belongs to a system, but whether it is good or bad. That question is clear and simple, and above all, legitimate."

_Viva Verdi_.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Saw a bbc programme which included the story about Messiaen's 'Quartet for the end of time'
My wife remarked what a wonderful story it was then added: "Pity I don't like any of his music."


----------



## Guest (Mar 21, 2014)

I don't think that Pierre Boulez was using the word "elite" as implying a closed shop based on any kind of social or economic status. He meant it as cultured minority applying to classical music generally, but more so with regard to contemporary music.

He noted that some styles of contemporary music are more difficult to understand than traditional older material. With regard to contemporary music, he also said that _"... the elite is to be considered but not to be only considered, and therefore the general culture should be much more involved with music than it is especially in France .... "._

Correctly interpreted, I think that all he is is saying that there is an elite (read minority of people who have taken the trouble to understand contemporary music) but he hopes that this is not a situation that will remain this way. I can't see anything wrong or sinister about this. In fact, it seems to be a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to me, and one which people on this Board should be applauding not criticising.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

dgee said:


> Boulez was a modernist provocateur, it's one of the things to love about him. Marrying it to authoritative talent and vast technical skill means he really could do what he liked. There's a lot of hand-wringing about how "impolite" he has been - however, in reality there was a lot of grown-ups involved who *needed to harden up* and get on with doing their own thing


That's what the line has been, from some quarters, for over 60 years now. Telling people what they should do. It hasn't worked.

I think Modernism needed a spokesperson with a less confrontative attitude. Messiaen was a possibility, only in his early forties in 1950. But he had a lot on his plate at the time, for example musical duties as an organist, composer, teacher, scholar, and also looking after his first wife who was gravely ill. The issue is that the fallout was between the elites - if we want to call them that - not between Modernists and conservative bogey men.

There where more casualties within music than without, is what I'm saying. The inconsistencies and sheer dodgy thinking behind Modernist ideology wasn't really sorted out with Post-Modernism, and so we're here in 2014 still arguing about this kind of issues (and the plethora of threads on Modern music, from both sides pro and con, are good proof of this).

But on the other hand there where and are people who have promoted new music without the sanctimonious 'us and them' attitude. I suppose Simon Rattle is an example, Michael Tilson-Thomas another. So at least some in the music world have moved on from the divisive debates of the 1950's and even then there where the likes of Varese, Sessions and Sculthorpe for example who didn't really see a need for all the hoopla.

I am of course repeating myself. But as then we need to build bridges, not further divide and I think using the word elite is a no-no for classical music. It's projecting the wrong image. If Boulez is an elite, having his influence on governments that funded IRCAM and his Ensemble Intercontemporain, well good, but I think that (as I said) music lovers is a better word to use than elite. No need to build further barriers, let's open things up, which has been a trend since at least the 1960's when Boulez himself started to moderate his formerly aggressive tone.



DavidA said:


> Saw a bbc programme which included the story about Messiaen's 'Quartet for the end of time'
> My wife remarked what a wonderful story it was then added: "Pity I don't like any of his music."


In recent years, I introduced that piece to two friends who didn't know Messiaen or that type of music. One loved it, the other liked the meditative "Eulogy" movements. It was one of the works that opened up newer musics (from mid 20th century onwards) for me.


----------



## Xavier (Jun 7, 2012)

Andreas,



> The real issue is that music [in general] is incredibly dense. A lot of information is being given at every instant. Transformations in melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, motifs etc.... all are occurring simultaneously and interact with each other. The difficulty of music is due to music being *a function of memory*. Certain elements help us process the stream of information bits. A firm beat, for instance. Repeated phrases, patterns. Both create a sort of micro-familiarity within a given piece.
> 
> Now, I'd guess that were such elements missing -- no clear beat/metre, no discernable patterns, no scalar movements, no circle-of-fiths-style relationships -- music becomes 'difficult', because the stream of sound won't so easily organize into any storable units in our memory. Then it's harder to make sense of it -- if sense is what we would call the way that clear, logical sub-units form a whole.
> 
> Memory, attention span, the ability to concentrate, or the ability (or the at least the willingness) to take in large amounts of information without having to immediately make sense of them -- maybe these are things that are more developed in some people than in others, for whatever reasons.




Perfectly said.

Thank you.


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

Andreas said:


> I think of Adorno as almost the opposite. I think he disparaged popular music like jazz and (folk) rock because he saw them as products of the "culture industry", that is: goods made for mass consumption by an oppressive economic elite. I don't feel Adorno looked down on people who listened to pop music, but rather on those who produce it for exploitative reasons.


Jazz was a spontaneous, creative form of music created by African Americans, and Adorno was very critical of jazz. This seems to contradict your contradiction, but you seem to be willing to defend Adorno rather than defend jazz. Whatever floats your boat.

I've always seen folk music (and good jazz) as arising spontaneously from the people. A civil rights anthem like "Blowing in the Wind" arose from a sincere compassion and empathy, as did Woodie Guthrie's music, like "This Land is Your Land."

Plus, when Adorno criticized jazz and other popular music, he was criticizing it for what it was as music, in addition to what "exploitative purposes" it had supposedly been criticized for. I think he really disliked the music he was criticizing. 
This whole attitude was caused by his experiences with fascism and propaganda in Germany, from which he fled. Her was paranoid then, and outdated now. His views on jazz are tantamount to racism.


----------

