# Do you think Classical Music fans tend to be dismissive of other musical genres?



## peeyaj

We are all enthuasiasts here in TC. We discuss classical music, argue in a composer's merit, participate in classical music poll and etc..

*
Do you think Classical Music enthuasiasts tend to be dismissive of other musical genres?*

I've asked this question because I've read a post dismissing the ''pop music'' today as a garbage (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, anyone?).

I think some of us committed a form of snobbery by dismissing other genres.. Jazz, I think is highly regarded in TC, while the overproduced/autotuned pop music is looked down.. Granted, that pop music (or any other modern music) tend to be just regurgirated etc... It seems that classical music enthuasists see ''classical'' as a pinnacle of music (high art)..

What do you think?


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

I might be one of those kinds of people. But I'm careful about calling anything "trash," I think that's too strong a word. I'd use that word against _classical_ before anything else, because after all, I know classical better. It's more of an issue of "not my thing," or "I don't have an opinion."


----------



## the_emptier

I definitely agree with the statement of classical fans being dismissive of other genres, and on the contrary I think jazz is one of those genres that is dismissed rather quickly. The parallels may be hard to see at first but jazz musicians worshiped composers like stravinsky, bartok, and schonberg and took a lot of those elements and put them into jazz, the use of upper extensions (9th's, 11ths, 13th's) were extremely prevalent in stravinsky's work and bebop, an extremely fast paced form of jazz popularized in the 40's, relied heavily on the extensions to add color to chords and soloing techniques. Also jazz took its effects on composers as well, although before the real onset of jazz, Dvorak thought it was imperative that african-american and native-american music be the foundation for a new american style of music, he was spot on. Aside from that I think classical fans think somehow that it is far more sophisticated and thus gives a pompous and holier than thou vibe. Although you may argue that musically it is more complex than many genres, you can't prove that it is "better" based on that fact, and looking into other musical styles can show complexities in different areas. Music has and always will change and there will always be a large group who hold on to their traditionalist views, this happens in genres, and even sub-genres of every musical style. I think I benefited immensely by being a fan of the complete opposite spectrum of music (metal, rock, pop) and then getting into jazz and classical music. I think that for all the criticism that, metal for instance, and other genres get, the fans seem to be more open-minded than any other. Honestly I feel that classical music is a genre heavily relying on an older generation of listeners, who have completely different ideals, morals and thought patterns than a young 17 year old like myself, so that is a huge factor. Do you think a 56 year old, who has been surrounded by classical music all of his life, is going to "get" lady gaga? No. Conversely do you think a 16 year old who has been listening to the latest pop/rap music will "get" Scriabin? No. It's hard to say who's more dismissive, but I do feel a sense of fine-art bourgeois-nose-high stubbornness.

Prime example.

http://www.talkclassical.com/5368-typical-classical-snob-thats.html


----------



## jhar26

I'm one of those who's not dismissive about other genres. But to tell you the truth, I don't take posts where classical music fans are dismissive of popular music seriously, just like I don't take dismissive comments from pop/rock fans about classical music seriously. I mean, why should a pop/rock fan put any value in what someone who hates pop/rock thinks about the Beatles? Why should a classical fan put any value in what someone who hates classical music thinks about Mozart?


----------



## Weston

I was dismissive of other genres when I was a teenager. Then, little by little, I grew up.

I hated rock and pop music at the time (early to mid 70's) because I knew so little about it, only what I had been subjected to on the radio. (Free Bird, anyone?) Then one day I was invited to a friend's house to play chess. He put a longish progressive rock epic on the turntable, probably Jethro Tull's _Thick as a Brick_, or Yes's _Close to the Edge_, or both. I promptly lost every game. I never dreamed such complex, strange, and wondrous evocative music existed. I was pretty much hooked for life from that point on and all but abandoned classical until a decade later when I started listening to and collecting baroque again.

Soon other genre's followed. I can now appreciate all periods of classical, folk and jazz, funk and electronica, hard rock, jam, metal, and experimental unclassifiable music. I still dismiss country, most top 40 pop, and all rap (though I do enjoy hip hop beats if some moron isn't talking though them). I'm kind of happy with where I am now. 400 years of musical styles is enough for one life.

So I guess what I'm saying is, it's not the genre we are dismissive of. It's the attitude. Chocolate may be said to be a genre of food flavor, but there is a huge difference between a chocolate shake from McDonald's and a Godiva truffle. Top 40 pop is like the McDonalds to me, whereas progressive rock or great jazz is like the Godiva. I do grab a bite of fast food occasionally.


----------



## h1478971

It depends on how it is played. Electronic instruments and bongo drums are the worst.


----------



## Meaghan

I am sometimes guilty of snobbery, though I try to avoid it. My roommate and I use to try to "convert" each other to our own music (she listens mostly to hip hop), each of us operating with the mentality that the other was missing something by not being able to appreciate "great" music. Neither of us ever really did come to like the other's music, and we've just had to accept that we enjoy different things.

I wish I could be more like one of my friends, a music theory major with an advanced knowledge and understanding of classical music, who seems to find something to admire and/or enjoy in music of almost every genre. I think I really am missing something by failing to appreciate much non-classical music.

Also,


Weston said:


> I hated rock and pop music at the time (early to mid 70's) because I knew so little about it, only what I had been subjected to on the radio. (Free Bird, anyone?) Then one day I was invited to a friend's house to play chess. He put a longish progressive rock epic on the turntable, probably Jethro Tull's _Thick as a Brick_, or Yes's _Close to the Edge_, or both. I promptly lost every game. I never dreamed such complex, strange, and wondrous evocative music existed. I was pretty much hooked for life from that point on and all but abandoned classical until a decade later when I started listening to and collecting baroque again.


Weston, have you read _Listen to This_? I've only read the first couple chapters, but your story reminds me _a lot_ of Alex Ross's initial dismissiveness and subsequent introduction to rock. What I've read so far is good; the book is an interesting cross-genre celebration of music.


----------



## peeyaj

I admit I was guilty of snobbish attitude too.. When my little sister played, the newest Taylor Swift CD, I've cringed and told her, ''Let's listen to Schubert's Lieder!!''.


----------



## Polednice

I'm certainly 'dismissive' of other genres, but it's not snobbery. I don't claim that other genres are vacuous compared to classical music; I don't have enough knowledge of them to make those kinds of assumptions, though we might all be aware of the grotesque nature of the great manufacturing of repetitive pop music.

I'm only dismissive in the sense that I have no concept of the quality of other genres, and I'm just not all that interested in finding out. I have made attempts at listening to others genres, but classical music is the only music that has ever 'worked' for me, and there's already a life-time's worth of music to discover in that area, so I'm happy being isolated


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

I am no more dismissive of other types of music that do not appeal to me than within classical genres that also do not appeal to me. I might be as dismissive of heavy metal music as I am with the string quartets of Sofia Gubaidulina (born 1931). Speaking of whom, Gubaidulina's SQ have been discussed in TC before - it ain't no fun stuff to listen to, that's for sure (yes, I am dismissing ...).


----------



## Sid James

Speaking for myself, I don't only like classical music (though I only go to classical concerts and about 90% of my CD collection is classical). When I'm not listening to the classical, I like to tune in to radio station Triple J broadcast all around Australia, which mainly airs alternative rock, pop, hip hop, dubstep, drum & bass, techno, electronica, world, modern jazz, metal, etc. There's a fair amount of sophistication and artistic refinement in these genres/styles. I'd say that, at their best, they are on par with classical. They are not better or worse, just different. I see no use whatever in comparing say Kanye West with Mendelssohn, there's just no point. It's like comparing chalk and cheese. All I aim is just to enjoy & appreciate them to whatever degree I can at any given point in time...


----------



## Meaghan

Andre said:


> I see no use whatever in comparing say Kanye West with Mendelssohn, there's just no point. It's like comparing chalk and cheese.


 I like this analogy very much.


----------



## Weston

Meaghan said:


> Weston, have you read _Listen to This_? I've only read the first couple chapters, but your story reminds me _a lot_ of Alex Ross's initial dismissiveness and subsequent introduction to rock. What I've read so far is good; the book is an interesting cross-genre celebration of music.


Never heard of him, but thanks for helping me choose my next audiobook. It's available unabridged on iTunes and sounds right down my alley. I need to have lots of audiobooks to keep me walking, as I walk 2.5 miles a day and will soon boost that to 3.


----------



## mmsbls

I think there are undoubtedly classical music fans who are dismissive of other genres. On the other hand, all the classical music lovers I know also like other music (mostly pop and hip hop). I grew up liking just popular music and did not start liking classical until later in life. I do vastly prefer classical now, but I am not dismissive of other genres.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

I've known a pretty large number of CM devotees, including my own folks, who are or have been dismissive of other genres usually based purely on unfounded prejudices and exposure only to mainstream toot on national radio. I've only come to CM in the last couple of years but as with many other genres I still only like relatively little. What I find more woeful is the attitude among most British and Americans towards music from non-Western cultures which is usually one of wilful ignorance as if only western CM or western rock and pop have any worth. On other music forums I've tried to get threads going on non-Western genres but the result is like being in those run down Wild West towns with tumbleweed rolling through.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Your question suggests that you think that classical music lovers are closed to other genres. I have been a professional in the classical music business for more than 30 years, but I enjoy listening to many kinds of music besides classical. Depending on my mood and the circumstances, I love to listen to rock (especially 'progressive' rock), jazz (mostly modern), pop and film music.

So, no, I am not dismissive of other musical genres.


----------



## Edward Elgar

The binary opposition high art / low art does exist, although the definitions of each category are subject to change.

Calling a piece of music "trash" says more about the person saying it than the music itself.

Is this trash?


----------



## jhar26

Weston said:


> Top 40 pop is like the McDonalds to me, whereas progressive rock or great jazz is like the Godiva. I do grab a bite of fast food occasionally.


Most top 40 pop is indeed rubbish, but there is (and especially has been in the past) some great top 40 pop as well in my opinion. In the progressive rock field there are two albums that I've recently gotten into - "Erpland" from Ozric Tentacles and "Retropolis" from the Flower Kings. If you haven't done so already, and since you're a big prog-rock fan the're worth checking out.


----------



## Polednice

Edward Elgar said:


> Calling a piece of music "trash" says more about the person saying it than the music itself.
> 
> Is this trash?


It most certainly is, and I don't care what that says about me


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Polednice said:


> It most certainly is, and I don't care what that says about me


Poor girl, she's being torn up over it. I'm too afraid to even click on that, I know it will sound bad (not cuz it's pop music, but that she's singing badly).


----------



## jhar26

I like Lily Allen. Her lyrics are clever, funny and tongue in cheek - her tunes feathery light, extremely catchy and they put a smile on your face........perfect pop.


----------



## Aksel

I actually kind of like it. The Friday song, that is. (The quote function is your friend. The quote function is your friend. The quote function is your friend) Both as an unintentional parody of contemporary pop music and also because it's more intelligent than most other songs that occupy the airwaves.

And also because I secretly know that I couldn't have written something like that at 13.


----------



## norman bates

peeyaj said:


> I've asked this question because I've read a post dismissing the ''pop music'' today as a garbage (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, anyone?).


lady gaga and Katy Perry are garbage, but because they are the worst possible examples of good popular music. It's like to take a fifth rate composer as the epitome of classical music.


----------



## peeyaj

Poor Rebecca Black.. At least, she's not being gunned down by Anonymous. Some people labeled her song as ''the worst music ever'', and I more or less agree.

@norman bates

That's what I'm talking about.. That kind of attitude put a lot of people off. For millions of fans, of these two artists around the world, them are the epitome of their musical being. Much like Schubert for me, I suppose.


----------



## Ravellian

Why not be dismissive of second-rate music? 

In all seriousness, I do enjoy quite a bit of jazz and rock, especially the rock artists who strove to create entire albums of artful music (as in _Pet Sounds_, _Sgt. Pepper_, _Wish You Were Here_, _OK Computer_, etc.) Such music undeniably belongs in the realm of 'classic.'

But no, I am NOT a fan of the mainstream three-minute three-chord pop song, manufactured from the huge music companies for 50 cents a pop. I've tried listening to the Top 40 and it just bores me to tears every time.


----------



## emiellucifuge

jhar26 said:


> Her lyrics are clever, funny and tongue in cheek - her tunes feathery light, extremely catchy and they put a smile on your face........perfect pop.


Whoa


----------



## jhar26

Ravellian said:


> But no, I am NOT a fan of the mainstream three-minute three-chord pop song, manufactured from the huge music companies for 50 cents a pop. I've tried listening to the Top 40 and it just bores me to tears every time.


Well, especially these days most top 40 songs are about as useless as a one legged man in an *** kicking competetion, but as always there are bound to be exceptions. There is bound to be a difference in quality between the efforts of the various artists within each genre, including those that you, me or anyone else doesn't like. It's logical to assume that if you would ask 1000 artists in that field to come up with a simple three-minute three-chord pop song that some will do a much better job than others. And those that do the best job are probably better at coming up with three minute pop songs than artists/composers from so-called superior genres would be.


----------



## jhar26

emiellucifuge said:


> Whoa


Yep - Lily Allen's comment on the Bush administration.


----------



## superhorn

Every one should remember this saying from ancient Rome - 
De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum . There's no use arguing over taste.
It's a bad idea for CM lovers to disparage and dismiss other kinds of music, because fans of those kinds of music really love their music,too. Aren't they entitled to their tastes?
If classical music devotees sneer at Rock,Pop, Jazz, folk or whatever, they create resentment among the fans of these things. Not a good idea. It's not a good idea to come across as a snob. This can easily make others who know little or nothing about CM that they should not even try it. 
It reinforces the old canard about CM being stuffy,boring and "elitist" and closes people's minds. 
So, if you are happen to get into a conversation with a fan of Rock or Pop, etc, and discuss your love of classical music,rather than denigrating Rock or Pop etc, it's better to try to encorage that person to try classical instead, and tell him or her that classical is really awesome if you just give it a chance.
My classical music blog "The Horn" at the multiblog website blogiversity.org, where any one can volunteer to do a blog on virtually any subject, I try to explain and demystify classical music for people who are new to it or would like to try it ,among other things.
I make it a point never to disparage or denigrate other kinds of music on my blog,lest I come across as a snob and an "elitist". I make comparisons between classical and other kinds of music, but I never say that i the "supreme" or "highest" kind of music. You can easily access it from the blogiversity home page or 
from a link at this Frenchhorn blog, hornmatters.com.


----------



## Pieck

If it aint trash to you, maybe you're anosmic


----------



## World Violist

I'm not dismissive of other styles of music anymore. There was a time when I thought there were terrible kinds of music, but it's just a matter of taste now. I've made it known here that I appreciate folk and jazz, as well as some rock music. I hate light pop music, but it's just me and my want of some sort of thought going into what is produced and making the listener think. Other people don't care, and that's fine by me, and I don't dismiss them and therefore can't dismiss their music.


----------



## Webernite

The difference between classical music and other genres is that listening to classical music involves some element of "art appreciation" (or whatever you want to call it). Classical music fits in with painting, literature, poetry, and so on.

That being said, I'm not dismissive of non-classical music, even Lady Gaga. I can understand why people like it, perhaps because I was brought up in a house where classical music was only a small part of what was heard. The main attraction of pop music, it seems to me, is that it involves a human voice speaking _in a language you can understand_ (and with relatively natural speech patterns). For most people, the human voice gives pop music an emotional directness and power which is completely lacking in a string quartet or even a nocturne.


----------



## scytheavatar

I don't understand why people feel the need to defend pop music, considering how they are made by money hungry executives, with artists whose image is far more important than their ability to sing and is aimed at drones with no idea what good music is. How could good music possibly be made under those circustances?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There are certainly musical genre that do nothing for me... and I rarely have anything to say about them. I do, at times, make dismissive comments about specific trite pop musicians... but this is not because I am dismissing the entire genre, but rather because I find them to be an embarrassment within their own realm... to say nothing of comparing them with Mozart or Bach. I personally enjoy jazz quite a bit. I also have a decent sized collection of blues music, classic rock/pop, and traditional folk and bluegrass.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

The difference between classical music and other genres is that listening to classical music involves some element of "art appreciation" (or whatever you want to call it). Classical music fits in with painting, literature, poetry, and so on. 

And yet... many of the greatest painters of the last 100 years have been just as influenced by non-classical music, including jazz, blues, rock/pop, and even hip-hop. The same can be pointed out for many of the greatest poets and writers of the 20th century.


----------



## jhar26

scytheavatar said:


> I don't understand why people feel the need to defend pop music, considering how they are made by money hungry executives, with artists whose image is far more important than their ability to sing and is aimed at drones with no idea what good music is. How could good music possibly be made under those circustances?


Hollywood has been putting out movies under those exact same circumstances for as long as the movie industry has existed. Yet virtually everyone can name a very long list of Hollywood movies that he/she loves.


----------



## Barking Spiderz

Some CM 'snobs' like to lump all non-CM together under the general heading of 'pop' and tend to treat jazz, folk and non-Western CM the same way they dismiss chart pop. Have a look at www.musoc.org and read what they say. IMO people who only listen to Western CM are missing out on a hell of a lot of great music as much as people who never listen to CM.


----------



## Delicious Manager

Edward Elgar said:


> The binary opposition high art / low art does exist, although the definitions of each category are subject to change.
> 
> Calling a piece of music "trash" says more about the person saying it than the music itself.
> 
> Is this trash?


Trash, drivel, derivative and pointless. What does that say about me? That I have STANDARDS :tiphat:


----------



## Argus

scytheavatar said:


> I don't understand why people feel the need to defend pop music, considering how they are made by money hungry executives, with artists whose image is far more important than their ability to sing and is aimed at drones with no idea what good music is. How could good music possibly be made under those circustances?


I'm not sure. I'll ask Paul McCartney next time I see him.


----------



## science

There are all kinds of classical music listeners, but when one tells me that he doesn't like jazz, I know that he either doesn't know about jazz, or just isn't worth listening to. 

I don't mind if a classical music listener is dismissive of a pop genre (rock, country, or whatever) because those have a different set of aesthetic principles, and if they're not your thing, they're just not. I'm not going to spend my time trying to persuade anyone of anything. For the same reason, I don't mind if a pop music listener dismisses classical music. 

But I find that classical music is like chess and wine and philosophy: most people wish they knew at least a little more about it, but they assume they're just not quite heady enough for it so they just spare themselves the trouble.


----------



## Chris

Edward Elgar said:


> The binary opposition high art / low art does exist, although the definitions of each category are subject to change.
> 
> Calling a piece of music "trash" says more about the person saying it than the music itself.
> 
> Is this trash?


I haven't heard any pop music since the 1970s. I hope this video doesn't represent the high water mark the industry has attained since then. It sounds like a TV commercial. I was waiting for those grinning young people to whip out bottles of Pepsi in unison.


----------



## mmsbls

scytheavatar said:


> I don't understand why people feel the need to defend pop music, considering how they are made by money hungry executives, with artists whose image is far more important than their ability to sing and is aimed at drones with no idea what good music is. How could good music possibly be made under those circustances?


A couple of people have responded to this comment, and I agree with their views. It may be true that popular music is so strongly influenced by money and controlled by a small number of people that much of popular music is formulaic and uninteresting. That does not describe all popular music. As Argus mentioned McCartney (and the Beatles) wrote what many people feel is very good music. Their music was always changing, and they certainly pushed the limits of popular music enormously. Stevie Wonder wrote music that did not fit in simple categories, and as far I I know nobody wrote music very similar to his. If you had said, "These circumstances strongly constrain popular music, and much of it is not very good as a result," I think most of us would agree.

I think classical music (in general) is vastly more interesting, expressive, and beautiful than popular music, but that doesn't mean popular music is only for "drones with no idea what good music is." People love to sing, and most people cannot sing opera or classical songs. They also like to sing lyrics that have personal meaning. Not many classical lyrics speak to the modern listener the way popular music lyrics do today.


----------



## Ralfy

Indeed, perhaps contemporary pop music may have its roots in folk music, which in turn is popular because many can perform it easily, etc.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Much classical music was once the popular music. Take Johann Strauss Junior, or the composers of salon music, operas, operettas and art/popular song. We can argue that we _do_ listen to popular music, it was just popular in a different era. People do that with 60's music all the time today, the Beatles are considered _classics_ of their style. The whole issue is about style, not necessarily time or popularity.


----------



## Argus

Chris said:


> I haven't heard any pop music since the 1970s. I hope this video doesn't represent the high water mark the industry has attained since then. It sounds like a TV commercial. I was waiting for those grinning young people to whip out bottles of Pepsi in unison.


You need a re-education. Here's some recent (last summer) pop hits that are half decent (you must have heard these):


















I used to work at a place that had pop radio on all day and these were probably the best of the bunch from what I can remember. I think they all got to near the top of the charts as well.

Bit less well known and not as strictly pop but I also like stuff like this:


























If we are using the inclusive definition of pop that includes rock, metal and stuff like that then I could list a tonne.


----------



## Art Rock

In every genre of music you will find some people who refuse to acknowledge that anything outside their preferred genre can be worthwhile. Classical music is no exception.


----------



## Chris

Argus said:


> You need a re-education. Here's some recent (last summer) pop hits that are half decent (you must have heard these):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I used to work at a place that had pop radio on all day and these were probably the best of the bunch from what I can remember. I think they all got to near the top of the charts as well.
> 
> Bit less well known and not as strictly pop but I also like stuff like this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we are using the inclusive definition of pop that includes rock, metal and stuff like that then I could list a tonne.


Thanks for posting these Argus. All the links worked except the third one down. None of the tunes were familiar, neither were the performers. I thought I knew Barbra Streisand but I'm not sure your Barbra Streisand is the same one as the aging actress. Hers was the only one of your links I found unlistenable with its thumping migraine-inducing beat.

The second set of links (i.e. the last six) was definitely better than the first. More imaginative and less predictable. I thought the best were Sun Araw - Ma Holo and Sun City Girls Funeral Mariachi.

But I wouldn't want anyone to think no great music came out of the seventies....


----------



## Argus

Chris said:


> Thanks for posting these Argus. All the links worked except the third one down. None of the tunes were familiar, neither were the performers. I thought I knew Barbra Streisand but I'm not sure your Barbra Streisand is the same one as the aging actress. Hers was the only one of your links I found unlistenable with its thumping migraine-inducing beat.
> 
> The second set of links (i.e. the last six) was definitely better than the first. More imaginative and less predictable. I thought the best were Sun Araw - Ma Holo and Sun City Girls Funeral Mariachi.
> 
> But I wouldn't want anyone to think no great music came out of the seventies....


 Rolf Harris is great. I used to love that when I was a kid.

Glad you listened and liked some of the videos.:tiphat:

Looking through my CD collection a lot of it from the 70's mainly because I was mostly into rock for a couple of years, and the 70's was great for that.

The third video down was La Roux - Bulletproof, by the way.






Greatly influenced by 80's synth-pop.






Seems to be a lot of 80's throwback/nostalgia at the minute.











At least there's no hair metal or shred revival.


----------



## peeyaj

I now confirmed this.. Ever since I became a classical music enthusiast, I tend to become dismissive of "trash" pop..


----------



## clavichorder

Totally. But I realize that if I get nuts and absorb a good representation of everything in the genre, I'm going to see that its hypocritical to spend too much time on it and not realize that there's good non classical music out there.


----------



## neoshredder

I like many genres but I do think todays popular pop/hip hop is crap.


----------



## brianwalker

Shakespeare and Dante scholars tend to be dismissive of Twilight. 

Nothing to see here.


----------



## violadude

I find classical music fans to be on both extremes. They can either be incredibly dismissive of any other type of music besides classical, or they can be incredibly open to almost anything that is of some worth. 

My theory is that some people are so closed minded about different genres of music because we're sort of brainwashed by culture to put to much importance on a genres connection to the culture they are connected to. Especially in highschool, people are scared of listening to hip hop cause they don't want to be associated with the gangster kids, or they're afraid to listen to metal cause they don't want to be associated with crazy metalheads or they're afraid to listen to classical music because they don't want to be associated with the lame nerdy orchdorks. But truth is, as most people here know, you can listen to any music with enjoyment without having to associate your own self with the kind of people that the music is generally associated with.


----------



## Crudblud

No more so than a stereotypical fan of any other genre; one of the many problems I have with genres is that they either breed or are bred by an image, this encourages cultural exclusivity - a cultural caste system, if you will. If you dress like that you must listen to this, if you listen to that you must dress like this, intermingling is prohibited lest you be exiled from your clique.

As someone who enjoys the music of many different people and cultures, I may be an anomaly.


----------



## Rondo

Based on what I have heard from others I think fans of other genres are much more likely to be dismissive of classical music than the other way around. Among classical music fans alone, I think those who are common listeners of or fans of the more eclectic modern classical music are more tolerant of other genres than the more traditional listeners.


----------



## smoledman

What about progressive rock groups like Emerson, Lake & Palmer? They did a rock arrangement of Mussorgsky "Pictures at an Exhibition" in 1970.


----------



## Couchie

Anyone else find "progressive" rock late to the party by about 50 years?


----------



## violadude

Couchie said:


> Anyone else find "progressive" rock late to the party by about 50 years?


Not unless you judge every single genre by the same standard.


----------



## Crudblud

Considering that rock as we know it wasn't really rock until the late 50s and progressive rock began around the mid/late 60s, I'd say it was right on time. Sadly, a lot of prog revolves around a) playing slightly off-kilter progressions and melodies over slightly off-kilter rhythms and/or b) playing really slow, boring stuff for 14 minutes with an extended keyboard/guitar solo that never strays in to anything challenging, and those are when it _isn't_ some idiot singing abstract descriptions of flowers and the wind or whatever. A is probably best exemplified by Dream Theater, and B by Pink Floyd after the early 70s. I suppose the main thing to remember about prog rock is that it's still rock; it's danceable or -in the case of prog metal- moshable or whatever, if it wasn't it wouldn't be called prog rock.


----------



## Couchie

violadude said:


> Not unless you judge every single genre by the same standard.


Music is music.

I think something can be said for Classical listeners as they tend to listen to music on a more fundamental level (alterations of pitch in time) than the superficial enjoyment of pop listeners and the flavour and lyrics of the day.


----------



## starthrower

The old folks said that about the Beatles almost 50 years ago, but people are still listening to them today. 

I don't know about prog rock being danceable? Not too many folks boogie to King Crimson or Gentle Giant. But you're right about it being right on time. How could that music exist 50 years earlier? The technology didn't exist.


----------



## violadude

Couchie said:


> Music is music.


Eh...I generally agree, but I don't think it can be applied here. Different genre's evolve differently, at different rates with different influences. What is progressive to rock might not necessarily be progressive to classical.


----------



## Crudblud

starthrower said:


> I don't know about prog rock being danceable? Not too many folks boogie to King Crimson or Gentle Giant.


Maybe it's just me then, I think that stuff is pretty easy and fun to dance to.


----------



## Couchie

starthrower said:


> The old folks said that about the Beatles almost 50 years ago, but people are still listening to them today.
> 
> I don't know about prog rock being danceable? Not too many folks boogie to King Crimson or Gentle Giant. But you're right about it being right on time. How could that music exist 50 years earlier? The technology didn't exist.


What technology? Electronic instruments? In my view a musical piece exists fundamentally as pitch and time, not timbre. Beethoven's 9th could be transcribed on anything from electric guitar to 8-bit computer audio, it would still be Beethoven's 9th. When you start changing notes around - altering melody, harmony, development of musical ideas - it ceases to be Beethoven's 9th.


----------



## starthrower

I bet you dance to The Black Page, too! The "easy teenage New York version."


----------



## starthrower

Couchie said:


> What technology? Electronic instruments? In my view a musical piece exists fundamentally as pitch and time, not timbre. Beethoven's 9th could be transcribed on anything from electric guitar to 8-bit computer audio, it would still be Beethoven's 9th. When you start changing notes around - altering melody, harmony, development of musical ideas - it ceases to be Beethoven's 9th.


What does this have to do with rock n roll? Timbre, tones, and volume are central to rock music. It couldn't be done 50 years earlier. They didn't have Marshall amps, Moog synthesizers, and Stratocasters in the 20s.


----------



## Stargazer

I don't think people who listen to classical are any more dismissive of other forms of music than anyone else is. We're all going to have the things we like and the things we can't stand! For example, I will never see any sort of value in screamo as a form of music, but there are plenty of people who apparently adore it and can't stand any of the music I like, so to each his own lol.


----------



## violadude

Couchie said:


> What technology? Electronic instruments? In my view a musical piece exists fundamentally as pitch and time, not timbre. Beethoven's 9th could be transcribed on anything from electric guitar to 8-bit computer audio, it would still be Beethoven's 9th. When you start changing notes around - altering melody, harmony, development of musical ideas - it ceases to be Beethoven's 9th.


Really? Hmm I don't agree at all really. Imagine all the same notes in the Turangalila Symphony, for example, scored for a Mozart orchestra. It would be a completely different piece.


----------



## Couchie

starthrower said:


> What does this have to do with rock n roll? Timbre, tones, and volume are central to rock music. It couldn't be done 50 years earlier. They didn't have Marshall amps, Moog synthesizers, and Stratocasters in the 20s.


What musical poverty!


----------



## Couchie

violadude said:


> Really? Hmm I don't agree at all really. Imagine all the same notes in the Turangalila Symphony, for example, scored for a Mozart orchestra. It would be a completely different piece.


Right, so I could take any pop song, change the instruments, and re-release it without any fear of being sued for copyright? Nonsense. Timbre has little to do with what fundamentally identifies a piece.


----------



## violadude

Couchie said:


> Right, so I could take any pop song, change the instruments, and re-release it without any fear of being sued for copyright? Nonsense. Timbre has little to do with what fundamentally identifies a piece.


Well, I'm not talking about copyright laws...I'm just saying that orchestration is an art form within itself and in some cases I think it can matter just as much as anything else.


----------



## norman bates

Couchie said:


> Right, so I could take any pop song, change the instruments, and re-release it without any fear of being sued for copyright? Nonsense. Timbre has little to do with what fundamentally identifies a piece.


well no, your talking about just a component of music. It's absolutely important but is not the only component and it's is not always the more important. It's like to say that paintings are all about drawing and not about the nuances of color, or that a movie is all about the script.


----------



## brianwalker

Couchie said:


> What technology? Electronic instruments? In my view a musical piece exists fundamentally as pitch and time, not timbre. Beethoven's 9th could be transcribed on anything from electric guitar to 8-bit computer audio, it would still be Beethoven's 9th. When you start changing notes around - altering melody, harmony, development of musical ideas - it ceases to be Beethoven's 9th.


This is a surprising answer coming from a Wagnerian. One of Hanslick's main complaints against Wagner was that it was all flashy timbre and not enough music.

I can imagine (and have listened to) various Bach transcriptions, from violin to piano and piano to violin, from organ to string quartet.

I can scarcely imagine Wagner's music on anything else other than their native instruments.

I can't imagine the beginning of this section






being anything other than the medium of brass.

I don't want to quantify the relative weight of timbre in a percentage number, but it would be double digits if I was forced to do it at gunpoint.

Mahler's symphonies sound miserable on piano transcriptions, Wagner comes off better, but they sound rather frivolous.


























Siegfried's Idyll comes out looking the best, but originally it had the least orchestration.

Then again I'm probably confusing timbre with pitch. Wikipedia isn't very helpful.


----------



## Philip

Couchie said:


> What technology? Electronic instruments? In my view a musical piece exists fundamentally as pitch and time, not timbre. Beethoven's 9th could be transcribed on anything from electric guitar to 8-bit computer audio, it would still be Beethoven's 9th. When you start changing notes around - altering melody, harmony, development of musical ideas - it ceases to be Beethoven's 9th.





Couchie said:


> Right, so I could take any pop song, change the instruments, and re-release it without any fear of being sued for copyright? Nonsense. Timbre has little to do with what fundamentally identifies a piece.


this must be the most naive assessment i have ever heard in my life.


----------



## starthrower

Couchie said:


> What musical poverty!


Well at least I know what side of the fence Couchie is on concerning the dismissal of other genres.


----------



## smoledman

What's this notion that only rock music is danceable?






Not to mention classical music is filled with the waltze, minuet, sarabande, allemande and many others.


----------



## Argus

smoledman said:


> What's this notion that only rock music is danceable?
> 
> Not to mention classical music is filled with the waltze, minuet, sarabande, allemande and many others.


What about acid in the style of David Tudor or jazz in the style of John Cage?


----------



## Couchie

Philip said:


> this must be the most naive assessment i have ever heard in my life.


This, the most worthless. Care to explain why or should I assume the problem is your life.


----------



## Couchie

starthrower said:


> Well at least I know what side of the fence Couchie is on concerning the dismissal of other genres.


It has little to do with genre. I'm also dismissive of about 95% of classical music. As I said, music is music. Ergo ****** music is ****** music.


----------



## Vaneyes

A very short no.


----------



## Couchie

Vaneyes, Philip, violadude, Argus (you haven't said anything but I know where your allegiances lie), you are _dismissed_.


----------



## Philip

Couchie said:


> Vaneyes, Philip, violadude, Argus (you haven't said anything but I know where your allegiances lie), you are _dismissed_.


1 sec im busy!!! lol


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

peeyaj said:


> *
> Do you think Classical Music enthuasiasts tend to be dismissive of other musical genres?*


I am totally dismissive of the extremely noisy avant-garde-random-industrial-cacophonic-incoherent-spurious-pretentious-mumbo-jumbo-flatulating sound types. I think it perverts the listening senses in the long run (if not dangerously bringing one closer to deafness).


----------



## Kopachris

Back on topic...



peeyaj said:


> We are all enthuasiasts here in TC. We discuss classical music, argue in a composer's merit, participate in classical music poll and etc..
> 
> *
> Do you think Classical Music enthuasiasts tend to be dismissive of other musical genres?*
> 
> I've asked this question because I've read a post dismissing the ''pop music'' today as a garbage (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, anyone?).
> 
> I think some of us committed a form of snobbery by dismissing other genres.. Jazz, I think is highly regarded in TC, while the overproduced/autotuned pop music is looked down.. Granted, that pop music (or any other modern music) tend to be just regurgirated etc... It seems that classical music enthuasists see ''classical'' as a pinnacle of music (high art)..
> 
> What do you think?


Classical fans in general? Maybe. Us here at TC? Not at all. Remember mtmailey's efforts to get us to boycott hip hop, and our reactions thereto? Most of our reactions were along the lines of: "Everyone has the right to their own opinion."


----------



## starthrower

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I am totally dismissive of the extremely noisy avant-garde-random-industrial-cacophonic-incoherent-spurious-pretentious-mumbo-jumbo-flatulating sound types. I think it perverts the listening senses in the long run (if not dangerously bringing one closer to deafness).


Boy! Nobody saw that coming, did we?


----------



## Sonata

No, I enjoy variety in my my music far too much to be dismissive of other genres. In fact I actively enjoy seeking out genres I'm not familiar with to find value and diversity. I find it exciting to stumble onto a great musician or band. That's not to say I enjoy every genre. I don't enjoy rap. Period. I don't care for country, and the little jazz that I have heard has not inspired me to actively seek it out--yet. But if I happen to hear a song that's appealing to my ears, I'll like it regardless of genre.


----------



## TrazomGangflow

I'm going to be quite frank. I have heard little music written before 1970 that I disslike or think of as garbage. I can appriciate it all. As for music written after that time (not including modern classical) I am very choosy and quick to dismiss and garbage. I probably do judge too quickly when it comes to certain music but I will never change my view that today's top 40 music is terrible.


----------



## violadude

TrazomGangflow said:


> I'm going to be quite frank. I have heard little music written before 1970 that I disslike or think of as garbage. I can appriciate it all. As for music written after that time (not including modern classical) I am very choosy and quick to dismiss and garbage. I probably do judge too quickly when it comes to certain music* but I will never change my view that today's top 40 music is terrible.*


I think most of us could agree with you there.


----------



## brianwalker

Couchie said:


> It has little to do with genre. I'm also dismissive of about 95% of classical music. As I said, music is music. Ergo ****** music is ****** music.


This.

I'm not sure why dismissal of modern music is unacceptable, but dismissal of, say, Scarlatti is.

Plenty of people dismiss Mozart, but if you denigrate Jimmy Hendrix/etc, people will be up in arms.


----------



## science

brianwalker said:


> This.
> 
> I'm not sure why dismissal of modern music is unacceptable, but dismissal of, say, Scarlatti is.
> 
> Plenty of people dismiss Mozart, but if you denigrate Jimmy Hendrix/etc, people will be up in arms.


I don't know _any_ of those people.


----------



## brianwalker

science said:


> I don't know _any_ of those people.


You don't know any classic rock elitists? Or anyone who thinks that Radiohead is god's greatest gift to man? Or any metalheads?

Bless you.


----------



## regressivetransphobe

Every fan of anything is dismissive of other things. Welcome to a little tribal race called mankind.


----------



## brianwalker

regressivetransphobe said:


> Every fan of anything is dismissive of other things. Welcome to a little tribal race called mankind.


I've rarely encountered another group of listeners as self-conscious about their dismissals as classical music listeners.


----------



## moody

brianwalker said:


> I've rarely encountered another group of listeners as self-conscious about their dismissals as classical music listeners.


Well for heavens sakes don't get too crumpled up about it.. The only metalhead I know is Polednice.


----------



## moody

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> I am totally dismissive of the extremely noisy avant-garde-random-industrial-cacophonic-incoherent-spurious-pretentious-mumbo-jumbo-flatulating sound types. I think it perverts the listening senses in the long run (if not dangerously bringing one closer to deafness).


Feel better now? You tell 'em.


----------



## moody

violadude said:


> I find classical music fans to be on both extremes. They can either be incredibly dismissive of any other type of music besides classical, or they can be incredibly open to almost anything that is of some worth.
> 
> My theory is that some people are so closed minded about different genres of music because we're sort of brainwashed by culture to put to much importance on a genres connection to the culture they are connected to. Especially in highschool, people are scared of listening to hip hop cause they don't want to be associated with the gangster kids, or they're afraid to listen to metal cause they don't want to be associated with crazy metalheads or they're afraid to listen to classical music because they don't want to be associated with the lame nerdy orchdorks. But truth is, as most people here know, you can listen to any music with enjoyment without having to associate your own self with the kind of people that the music is generally associated with.


Good Lord, no wonder the kids today are all basket cases.


----------



## science

No, I know only one or two fans of Radiohead, and they don't "denigrate" Mozart - they just say they like this kind of music and not that kind of music. 

I think in my whole entire life I've never heard anyone say something like "Mozart sucks" and mean it seriously.


----------



## Argus

science said:


> No, I know only one or two fans of Radiohead, and they don't "denigrate" Mozart - they just say they like this kind of music and not that kind of music.
> 
> I think in my whole entire life I've never heard anyone say something like "Mozart sucks" and mean it seriously.


You've never read a post of mine with Mozart in it then.

You're telling me this isn't better than anything Mozart ever produced:






Plus I'm not even a Radiohead fan.


----------



## tdc

Argus said:


> You've never read a post of mine with Mozart in it then.
> 
> You're telling me this isn't better than anything Mozart ever produced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus I'm not even a Radiohead fan.


Not a bad piece honestly, though I personally don't think it can be compared to anything by Mozart, and off topic - I did find the jazz piece by Cage you posted the other day quite enjoyable thanks for the recommendation. ^ I find it rather ironic the above video you posted lasts 4:33 seconds, perhaps indicative of a sub-conscious attraction to all things Cagian? :lolI know you are a big fan).


----------



## Philip

brianwalker said:


> Or anyone who thinks that Radiohead is god's greatest gift to man?


it's called having excellent taste in music.


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto

Argus said:


> You've never read a post of mine with Mozart in it then.
> 
> You're telling me this isn't better than anything Mozart ever produced:
> 
> Plus I'm not even a Radiohead fan.


Enjoyable clip. Far, far better than most things produced by cacophoic industrial random noise "artists". Though doesn't quite reach the sublimity of Wolfgang.


----------



## Eviticus

Argus said:


> You've never read a post of mine with Mozart in it then.
> 
> You're telling me this isn't better than anything Mozart ever produced:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus I'm not even a Radiohead fan.


Radiohead are my favourite indie band and i personally think this poor. Radiohead 93-98 (Pablo Honey through to the OK Computer B-sides) were arguably the best band on the planet but post 2000 they became too inconsistent and pretentious and are now only very good in tiny bursts (moments on Hail to the thief and In rainbows). Their strengths were Thoms voice and Johnny Greenwoods guitar, neglect your strengths and you end up sub par.

They are producing a different style of music using different methods and instruments 200 years after Mozart. To compare them would be futile - but i will say just one thing; Mozart only got better...


----------



## Argus

tdc said:


> Not a bad piece honestly, though I personally don't think it can be compared to anything by Mozart, and off topic - I did find the jazz piece by Cage you posted the other day quite enjoyable thanks for the recommendation. ^ I find it rather ironic the above video you posted lasts 4:33 seconds, perhaps indicative of a sub-conscious attraction to all things Cagian? :lolI know you are a big fan).


I think that track you liked is more by Terre Thaemlitz than John Cage.

Oh and that Radiohead song is the kind of the B-side, here's the A:






The guitarist from Radiohead, Jonny Greenwood, has done some music that might be more relevant to a classical forum:


----------



## Argus

Eviticus said:


> Radiohead are my favourite indie band and i personally think this poor. Radiohead 93-98 (Pablo Honey through to the OK Computer B-sides) were arguably the best band on the planet but post 2000 they became too inconsistent and pretentious and are now only very good in tiny bursts (moments on Hail to the thief and In rainbows). Their strengths were Thoms voice and Johnny Greenwoods guitar, neglect your strengths and you end up sub par.
> 
> They are producing a different style of music using different methods and instruments 200 years after Mozart. To compare them would be futile - but i will say just one thing; Mozart only got better...


I'll agree OK Computer has some really great songs on it but they were a bit boring before that album. At least stuff like Kid A and Amnesiac tried to be a bit different even if I find most of it quite mediocre electronic/IDM style rock.

Taking a ten second sample of an obscure electronic piece and fleshing it out into an original song is quite impressive though.


----------



## Eviticus

Argus said:


> I'll agree OK Computer has some really great songs on it b*ut they were a bit boring before that album.*


I couldn't disagree more... The Bends is my favourite indie album of all time. They were anything but boring. They had angst, inventive guitars, an original sound (the bends particularly has heavily influenced Muse for example) but most of all they had soul. Their electronic experiments are cold, soulless shadows of a once fiercely brilliant band.

Ten hail mary's and go and listen to Pablo Honey and it's B sides again!

Jesus Christ Compels you! <throws cyber holy water your way>


----------



## Philip

Eviticus said:


> Radiohead are my favourite indie band and i personally think this poor. Radiohead 93-98 (Pablo Honey through to the OK Computer B-sides) were arguably the best band on the planet but post 2000 they became too inconsistent and pretentious and are now only very good in tiny bursts (moments on Hail to the thief and In rainbows). Their strengths were Thoms voice and Johnny Greenwoods guitar, neglect your strengths and you end up sub par.
> 
> They are producing a different style of music using different methods and instruments 200 years after Mozart. To compare them would be futile - but i will say just one thing; Mozart only got better...


no way... ok computer and AFTER is definitely the best of radiohead. no true radiohead fan will include pablo honey in their best albums.


----------



## Eviticus

Philip said:


> no way... ok computer and AFTER is definitely the best of radiohead. no true radiohead fan will include pablo honey in their best albums.


No true Radiohead fan would dismiss Pablo Honey nor overlook it (especially its b-sides).

Can i ask where you are from?


----------



## Philip

Eviticus said:


> No true Radiohead fan would dismiss Pablo Honey nor overlook it (especially its b-sides).


i'm not dismissing it... i'm saying it's not one of their best albums.



Eviticus said:


> Can i ask where you are from?


...what's the difference?


----------



## Argus

Eviticus said:


> I couldn't disagree more... The Bends is my favourite indie album of all time. They were anything but boring. They had angst, inventive guitars, an original sound (the bends particularly has heavily influenced Muse for example) but most of all they had soul. Their electronic experiments are cold, soulless shadows of a once fiercely brilliant band.
> 
> Ten hail mary's and go and listen to Pablo Honey and it's B sides again!
> 
> Jesus Christ Compels you! <throws cyber holy water your way>


The early 90's is all about synths and samplers (much like today). Radiohead took a while to cotton on.

Unless you were called John Squire guitars were best left as a subtle addition. For example:


----------



## neoshredder

The Bends is Radiohead's best album imo. Then comes OK Computer which isn't as much of a rocker. After that, I stopped like Radiohead.


----------



## Argus

Eviticus said:


> No true Radiohead fan would dismiss Pablo Honey nor overlook it (especially its b-sides).
> 
> Can i ask where you are from?


Pablo honey is just Thom Yorke whining, at least Kid A has him whining over some decent beats and interesting tones.


----------



## Eviticus

Philip said:


> i'm not dismissing it... i'm saying it's not one of their best albums.
> 
> ...what's the difference?


Because it may explain your tastes. Radiohead fans are usually in 2 categories: the early period fans (majority of British fans) or later period - Kid A onwards (when the rest of the world caught on especially over the Atlantic and they lost popularity in Britain).

Pablo Honey has mentioned amongst 100 greatest albums lists before by british magazines especially at the turn of the century. I certainly feel it's far more emotional, lively, melodic and excitable than anything post OK Computer... And the Bends (my favourite) is often cited well ahead of most other albums. Their latest efforts don't even get mentioned.


----------



## Argus

Eviticus said:


> Because it may explain your tastes. Radiohead fans are usually in 2 categories: the early period fans (majority of British fans) or later period - Kid A onwards (when the rest of the world caught on especially over the Atlantic and they lost popularity in Britain).
> 
> Pablo Honey has mentioned amongst 100 greatest albums lists before by british magazines especially at the turn of the century. I certainly feel it's far more emotional, lively, melodic and excitable than anything post OK Computer... And the Bends (my favourite) is often cited well ahead of most other albums. Their latest efforts don't even get mentioned.


I always thought Pablo Honey was regarded as their worst album.


----------



## violadude

I don't really understand the whole radiohead thing. Whenever I have heard one of their songs it just sounds like an ordinary rock song to me. Maybe I'm not listening to the right ones?


----------



## Argus

violadude said:


> I don't really understand the whole radiohead thing. Whenever I have heard one of their songs it just sounds like an ordinary rock song to me. Maybe I'm not listening to the right ones?


Not capitalising the R in Radiohead is unacceptable behaviour amongst Radiohead fans. Now go listen to Pablo Honey as punishment.


----------



## poconoron

Speaking for myself, I'm not dismissive (excepting rap sound)........... I just don't happen to listen to much else.


----------



## Vaneyes

Couchie said:


> Vaneyes, Philip, violadude, Argus (you haven't said anything but I know where your allegiances lie), you are _dismissed_.



View attachment 3120

:lol:


----------



## Eviticus

Pablo Honey > anything produced after 2000. And no the album is not ranked last in recent polls either (see legacy under Pablo Honey Wiki site).

If only they were still that band that covered "Nobody does it better" 

Anyway - i could debate you chaps all day on this subject but i feel it's a tangent. I hope my posts show that i am far from dismissive of other genres (although disheartened by later Radiohead). 

My original point was they cannot and should not be compared to the great composers because 
a) they are a band of men and therefore a band of ideas compared with the individual greats
b) they compose using different instruments, methods and equipment
c) the great composers didn't have regular access to music like we have cd's, electronic files etc so could not hear wealth and breadth of variety in 1 hour as we can. So accessibility differs and modernists also have the advantage of time and technology. 

The only thing comparable is technical ability and musical knowledge and this favours the classical composers.


----------



## moody

Eviticus said:


> Pablo Honey > anything produced after 2000. And no the album is not ranked last in recent polls either (see legacy under Pablo Honey Wiki site).
> 
> If only they were still that band that covered "Nobody does it better"
> 
> Anyway - i could debate you chaps all day on this subject but i feel it's a tangent. I hope my posts show that i am far from dismissive of other genres (although disheartened by later Radiohead).
> 
> My original point was they cannot and should not be compared to the great composers because
> a) they are a band of men and therefore a band of ideas compared with the individual greats
> b) they compose using different instruments, methods and equipment
> c) the great composers didn't have regular access to music like we have cd's, electronic files etc so could not hear wealth and breadth of variety in 1 hour as we can. So accessibility differs and modernists also have the advantage of time and technology.
> 
> The only thing comparable is technical ability and musical knowledge and this favours the classical composers.


I'm glad one of us knows what we're talking about!


----------



## Taneyev

I don't listen to other genres. I'm not interested. The only not classical I listen to once in a while are some tangos and American songs from the 40s.


----------



## science

Argus said:


> You've never read a post of mine with Mozart in it then.


Probably not, but then I'd doubt you were serious. Provocation is inherently unserious.

Also, I don't think I know anyone like you.


----------



## Philip

Eviticus said:


> Pablo Honey > anything produced after 2000.


oh ok... i'm arguing with someone who thinks new music is worst than old music... game over


----------



## Eviticus

Philip said:


> oh ok... i'm arguing with someone who thinks new music is worst than old music... game over


Only in the context of Radiohead...


----------



## Philip

Eviticus said:


> Only in the context of Radiohead...


ok i'm sorry, i misread. no hard feelings!

edit: i still think it's their worst, though


----------



## Couchie

Radiohead is Miley Cyrus' favorite band.

'Nuff said.


----------



## brianwalker

Radiohead was also mentioned nostalgically in Katy Perry's "The One that Got Away".


----------



## Philip

brianwalker said:


> Radiohead was also mentioned nostalgically in Katy Perry's "The One that Got Away".





Couchie said:


> Radiohead is Miley Cyrus' favorite band.
> 
> 'Nuff said.


hmm i wonder what's worst... knowing these facts or the facts themselves?


----------



## Guest

I'm highly dismissive of rap (and for those of you who like rap, "dismissive" means to disregard or reject).


----------



## brianwalker

Philip said:


> hmm i wonder what's worst... knowing these facts or the facts themselves?


The One that Got Away is blaring on all the radio stations. If you go to an American college with a cafeteria that plays music, you'll hear it sometime.


----------



## norman bates

science said:


> No, I know only one or two fans of Radiohead, and they don't "denigrate" Mozart - they just say they like this kind of music and not that kind of music.
> 
> I think in my whole entire life I've never heard anyone say something like "Mozart sucks" and mean it seriously.


http://blogcritics.org/music/article/why-mozart/


----------



## neoshredder

Wow. Can't believe those comments made about Mozart. Beethoven strongly disagrees though.


----------



## poconoron

Not only Beethoven......... but Schubert, Brahms, Rossini, Tchaikovsky, Ravel, Schumann, Chopin, Saint-Saens, Wagner, Copland, Bernstein, Gounod................. and a whole host of others would strenuously disagree, based on historical comments they made about Wolfgang.


----------



## Argus

TrazomGangflow said:


> I'm going to be quite frank. I have heard little music written before 1970 that I disslike or think of as garbage. I can appriciate it all. As for music written after that time (not including modern classical) I am very choosy and quick to dismiss and garbage. I probably do judge too quickly when it comes to certain music but I will never change my view that today's top 40 music is terrible.


This is currently number 1 in the UK charts:






I think that is a good pop song. Do you, violadude and Kevin Pearson all think that song is terrible?


----------



## science

norman bates said:


> http://blogcritics.org/music/article/why-mozart/


He basically just says he doesn't like it. If this guy actually intends to say the music is objectively bad, he didn't give any reasons for that. No criticism of the melody, harmony, development, structure, etc. Just "boring," "dull" and so on. There is no concrete criticism there. He probably doesn't know what he's talking about (5 CDs of Mozart - and evidently expects it to be relaxing), and he's trying to be provocative - an inherently unserious approach.

Again, I honestly don't think I know anyone who would say anything more than "I don't like Mozart."


----------



## Argus

science said:


> Again, I honestly don't think I know anyone who would say anything more than "I don't like Mozart."


So what?


----------



## Dins

Argus said:


> I think that is a good pop song. Do you, violadude and Kevin Pearson all think that song is terrible?


Even though I was not asked of my opinion...  No that's not a terrible song because that is not the usual mass-produced trite music that some record companies seems to heave out in droves. This has an own sound and own musical ideas. And that is what I am looking for in music. Anyone who expresses an own idea, regardless of genre, and does it well.


----------



## Cnote11

I agree with *Dins*, if someone has some clear passion and musical ideas going into it, regardless of genre, I'm most likely going to enjoy it.

As for the Radiohead thing, Pablo Honey is really on their lower end, if not the worst of their albums. Opinions though! One of my favorite Miles Davis albums is Quiet Nights but most people seem to trash on it.

I felt the comment about hip-hop music on the previous page was in bad taste, insinuating that anybody who listens to hip-hop doesn't know basic English words. There are many very intelligent hip-hop artists out there and very many intelligent listeners. I have to say that I've met plenty classical music fans - more so on the performance side - that were ignorant and were lacking in class and intelligence, not to mention had small vocabularies. I don't think the average person has enough musical knowledge to be able to give an opinion of any weight to the topic, usually only being aware of other types of music superficially.


----------



## Dins

If you want intelligent rap music i suggest listening to Baba Brinkman. He has done rap version of The Canterbury Tales, Kalevala, Giglamesh, Beowulf and Darwins evolutionary theory. And yes I really like listening to him.


----------



## smoledman

I know that Leonard Bernstein thought highly of the early Beatles records and that was before their "art rock" phase.


----------



## tdc

I think The Beatles will be around and acknowledged for their musical importance for a very long time. I just don't think they'll always be as popular as they have been for the last 50 years...

I don't find anything too impressive about that Gotye single personally...70 million views wow.


----------



## Lukecash12

If anything can be gotten out of this discussion, I think that what we can get from this sort of an impetus is an entirely different novel kind of thought: Why/Are fans of classical music so eurocentric?


----------



## smoledman

Lukecash12 said:


> If anything can be gotten out of this discussion, I think that what we can get from this sort of an impetus is an entirely different novel kind of thought: Why/Are fans of classical music so eurocentric?


Versus Brazilian music?


----------



## violadude

smoledman said:


> Versus Brazilian music?


Brazillian, Asian, African, South American in general....


----------



## moody

Lukecash12 said:


> If anything can be gotten out of this discussion, I think that what we can get from this sort of an impetus is an entirely different novel kind of thought: Why/Are fans of classical music so eurocentric?


Would you explain yourself in plain language---or is that too much to ask?


----------



## moody

What a load of BLAH i suggest you go back to stage A and read the question again, and those who like rap can have someone tell you what it says.


----------



## Eviticus

Philip said:


> ok i'm sorry, i misread. no hard feelings!
> 
> edit: i still think it's their worst, though


Philip you *is *crazy!

King of limbs and Amnesiac are the weakest.

Have you checked out Pablo Honey - collectors edition on Spotify? You never know it may change your mind... I live in hope.


----------



## Philip

Eviticus said:


> Philip you *is *crazy!


Yes.



Eviticus said:


> King of limbs and Amnesiac are the weakest.
> 
> Have you checked out Pablo Honey - collectors edition on Spotify? You never know it may change your mind... I live in hope.


i do like pablo honey. i haven't heard the 2cd edition, but i think i've heard most of the extra tracks and demos in the p2p days. i've played pablo honey songs on acoustic guitar countless times at parties. i just find myself hardly ever listening to the album as a whole.

i googled "radiohead album ranking", and the first link is pretty much how i would rank them, more or less:
http://www.nerve.com/music/ranked-radiohead-albums-from-worst-to-best

amnesiac is a freaking sweet album, it's short, all songs are excellent and very atmospheric. the king of limbs i haven't listened to a whole lot, i've actually done more run-throughs of the tkol remix album, which is great. i love repetitive and accurate beats, and tkol is all that; probably why it suits the sample/remix type so well.

amnesiac, knives out, perhaps one the best video clips of all time:






like spinning plates live (might be wrong ep):






i keep posting this, but, tkol remix, bloom jamie xx rework part 3:


----------



## brianwalker

Lukecash12 said:


> If anything can be gotten out of this discussion, I think that what we can get from this sort of an impetus is an entirely different novel kind of thought: Why/Are fans of classical music so eurocentric?


Because the superlatively great extant music in human history has only come from Europe.


----------



## moody

Lukecash12 said:


> If anything can be gotten out of this discussion, I think that what we can get from this sort of an impetus is an entirely different novel kind of thought: Why/Are fans of classical music so eurocentric?


Unfortunately, and we are talking about classical music, the rest of the world has not produced anything that can really challenge in any quantity. Is that what you were getting at, I hope I have gotten it right.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

The majority of pop etc. is rubbish IMHO.


----------



## Argus

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The majority of pop etc. is rubbish IMHO.


That only tells people the kind of listener you are.

Here's some great pop music from the last couple of years for you to try:





















If you don't like any of those songs consult your physician.


----------



## Couchie

I hate it when people are dismissive of other people's dismissiveness.


----------



## clavichorder

Ha! An advertisement for Radiohead is visible to me while viewing posts in this thread.


----------



## clavichorder

@ Argus,

Its very well that a lot of people like those songs, but don't they all sound kind of similar? Is this representative of the sound of hop these days? I can't listen to them and not be slightly annoyed with extra musical thoughts of hipster teenagers and 20 year olds, many of whom can be very douchey, to use their vocab, or they can be nice people, but have a certain vibe to them about their tastes that ticks me off. Perhaps if I meet someone I really like and whose aesthetic ideas I respect, I'll feel like accepting this music more, which seems to require no careful observation, just simple enjoyment, or NOT.

Hahaha, I called pop, "hop", I'm going to leave it that way.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Argus said:


> That only tells people the kind of listener you are.
> 
> Here's some great pop music from the last couple of years for you to try:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't like any of those songs consult your physician.


I would rather listen to Elgar


----------



## Philip

clavichorder said:


> Its very well that a lot of people like those _(songs)_ *pieces*, but don't they all sound kind of similar? Is this representative of the sound of hop _(these days)_ *back in the day*? I can't listen to them and not be slightly annoyed with extra musical thoughts of _(hipster)_ *highbrow* _(teenagers_ _and 20 year olds)_ *middle aged and 80 year olds*, many of whom can be very (douchey) "*pretentious*", to use their vocab, or they can be nice people, but have a certain vibe to them about their tastes that ticks me off. Perhaps if I meet someone I really like and whose aesthetic ideas I respect, I'll feel like accepting this music more, which seems to require no careful observation, just simple enjoyment, or NOT.
> 
> Hahaha, I called (_pop_) *baroque*, "hop", I'm going to leave it that way.


yes i entirely agree.


----------



## Argus

clavichorder said:


> @ Argus,
> 
> Its very well that a lot of people like those songs, but don't they all sound kind of similar? Is this representative of the sound of hop these days? I can't listen to them and not be slightly annoyed with extra musical thoughts of hipster teenagers and 20 year olds, many of whom can be very douchey, to use their vocab, or they can be nice people, but have a certain vibe to them about their tastes that ticks me off. Perhaps if I meet someone I really like and whose aesthetic ideas I respect, I'll feel like accepting this music more, which seems to require no careful observation, just simple enjoyment, or NOT.
> 
> Hahaha, I called pop, "hop", I'm going to leave it that way.


I wouldn't call that stuff hipster music. I think more like Ariel Pink or Best Coast or Washed Out when I think hipster. A good judge is the amount of reverb on the vocals. More reverb = more hipster.

How old are you and CoAG? I thought you were both quite young (late teens/early twenties).



Philip said:


> yes i entirely agree.


Spot on.


----------



## science

Really, all kinds of people make all kinds of good music and always have. And that's great.

The problem is only introduced once people start blaming each other for not enjoying the same music. 

It is a thing that has not happened to me since middle school or so, except on the internet.


----------



## clavichorder

I suppose I had it coming. Perhaps we can respect the fact that we both think poorly of each others tastes.

I'm 19 and Coag is a very precocious 14 year old.


----------



## Argus

clavichorder said:


> I suppose I had it coming. Perhaps we can respect the fact that we both think poorly of each others tastes.
> 
> I'm 19 and Coag is a very precocious 14 year old.


Wow, 14 and all those compositions. Was he a baby genius?

I don't think poorly of people's tastes, just the mindset that perpetuates the sentiment that most [insert genre here] is rubbish. I prefer to formulate an opinion on music on a case by case basis, except for opera which is rubbish.


----------



## Eviticus

Philip said:


> Yes.
> 
> i do like pablo honey. i haven't heard the 2cd edition, but i think i've heard most of the extra tracks and demos in the p2p days. i've played pablo honey songs on acoustic guitar countless times at parties. i just find myself hardly ever listening to the album as a whole.
> 
> i googled "radiohead album ranking", and the first link is pretty much how i would rank them, more or less:
> http://www.nerve.com/music/ranked-radiohead-albums-from-worst-to-best
> 
> amnesiac is a freaking sweet album, it's short, all songs are excellent and very atmospheric. the king of limbs i haven't listened to a whole lot, i've actually done more run-throughs of the tkol remix album, which is great. i love repetitive and accurate beats, and tkol is all that; probably why it suits the sample/remix type so well.
> 
> amnesiac, knives out, perhaps one the best video clips of all time:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like spinning plates live (might be wrong ep):


Ah well make sure you check out that 2nd cd edition when you can. As for your link to 'Nerve' i was wondering if it was american? I've never seen a ranking quite like that - even the first comment says he'd put Pablo right up there.

Oh well the world wouldn't be as interesting if always loved the same stuff. I just feel some of the later stuff does not play to their strengths or even compliment Thoms angelic vocals. As for Amnesiac - it's more balanced than Kid A but weaker overall. I love Dollars and Cents and Spinning plates (not to mention life in a glasshouse) but it don't rock!

What do you or Argus think of some other great indie bands such as Blur, Suede (1st 2 albums), Gorillaz, Oasis etc?


----------



## brianwalker

Radiohead is supremely overrated. Here are five bands working today who are better than radiohead.

Beach House
Beirut 
Vampire Weekend 
Washed Out 
Destroyer

Radiohead is gimmicky, and its gimmicks wins over its audiences, combined with better than average stereotypical angsty alt-rock lyrics and that androgynous sorry excuse for a man Thom Yorke. Radiohead is easily the most overrated band of the 00s. It's become institutionalized, like the Beatles, a signifier for the Indie Class, a secret handshake: "Oh, you love Radiohead too? You must be cool." It's overratedness is obvious when you have people mentioned Radiohead in interviews or even songs to indicate their coolness. In the same way that Miley Cyrus invokes Jay Z's name in "Party in the USA", contemporary members of the amorphous hipster-indie class cling onto Radiohead as proof that music is "still good". "Hey look! It's something enjoyable and intellectually superior! I have good reasons to love this, so now I can parade my love... etc"

In terms of harmonics, instrumentation, vocals, lyrics, etc, Radiohead is never "the best" in any of these categories, but it won over its audience with its endless bag of tricks and has cultivated its image very, very carefully.

Radiohead is for today's Indie-class what the Velvet Underground/miscellaneous bands were for the hipster of the 1960s, and is for today's WASP (socioeconomic, not race) what the Beatles were for the newer generation in the 60s, it's something to rally around.

Radiohead is something akin to Pierre Boulez.

It will not outlast its time. It is timely, and time does justice to all things, it will take away Radiohead's reputation and send it to oblivion, where it belongs.

Of course "momentum" can last a long time. The Soviet Union, an ungodly aberration, lasted for 70 years, and the Beatles are still popular. Who knows how long Radiohead's posthumous fame will last? The momentum can last decades.

There are two levels of listening. 
1. Mindless listening
2. Mindful listening

Contemporary music is not complex enough for mindful listening; there is not a single band working today that produces music that, if you focus completely on the music, is not boring. The best music today sets the mood, gives a small plate of food for thought at best; it's the perfume in the air. I love the five bands listed above because on the surface and in the background the atmosphere they deliver is occasionally the best atmosphere I want for the occasion.

Radiohead fails to satisfy the criterion for the first type of listening. On the surface it is not pleasant at all. When I don't pay attention to, it is empty and dull. It intentionally hides its music beneath a veneer of noise and harshness.

Now, the proper answer to this, is that, why don't you give it more attention? Well, that's exactly what I did. Yes, it's more interesting than most of the music out there, harmonically speaking, it's experimentation is less egregious than some of the "experimental" bands out there, and it's not AS gimmicky as, say, Dirty Projectors.

But it fails to meet the criterion for mindful listening; Radiohead fails to even rise to the level of Elgar, nay, it fails to even rise to the level of Steve Reich; they're as bad as Philip Glass. To truly appreciate Radiohead I have to devote a weird mean between mindless listening and mindful listening, like walking on a tightrope. Radiohead is an amphibian creature, fit for neither sea nor land. It's neither good enough to be pop (which is the orientation I have towards the Indie music I listen to) nor serious music. It has no true musical function apart from being a badge of the Bobo/hipster-Indie class.

*For all those people wondering what Radiohead is all about; it's the package. *In the same way that a stereotypical pop star is neither at pretty as a model nor as good in singing as the best who are not very pretty, but second rate in both, Radiohead manages to be second best but it gathers all these elements in a neat little package.


----------



## Argus

Eviticus said:


> What do you or Argus think of some other great indie bands such as Blur, Suede (1st 2 albums), Gorillaz, Oasis etc?


Blur, Oasis and Suede are all bands I used to like more than I do now. They all have some songs that I still like and I can't really bash them, but it may be the oversaturation (the first two in particular) of them throughout the 90's that means even though I do own a Suede album and an Oasis compilation, I can't remember the last time I chose to listen to them. I did like the first Gorillaz album when it came out but I haven't listened to them in ages either and I wouldn't group them with the others in my mind.

For me, the best band similar to those mentioned was by far and away the Stone Roses.


----------



## Eviticus

Argus said:


> Blur, Oasis and Suede are all bands I used to like more than I do now. They all have some songs that I still like and I can't really bash them, but it may be the oversaturation (the first two in particular) of them throughout the 90's that means even though I do own a Suede album and an Oasis compilation, I can't remember the last time I chose to listen to them. I did like the first Gorillaz album when it came out but I haven't listened to them in ages either and I wouldn't group them with the others in my mind.
> 
> For me, the best band similar to those mentioned was by far and away the Stone Roses.


Suede's first 2 albums are pretty exceptional IMO. I didn't want to include the Stone Roses because i never liked them as much. For me my favourite 90's bands were Blur, Radiohead, Pulp, Placebo, Suede and Oasis (I'll add in R.E.M and Nirvana pre brit pop). I never liked the second wave of indie bands that followed except Coldplay and Muse (only the latters 1st 2 albums). However, there are a number of great debuts from british bands over the last 5 years that i'm very fond of which incude Hard Fi (Stars of CCTV - my favourite album of the decade), The View 'Hats of to the buskers', The Fratellis 'Costello Music' and The Enemys debut.


----------



## Argus

brianwalker said:


> Radiohead is supremely overrated. Here are five bands working today who are better than radiohead.
> 
> Beach House
> Beirut
> Vampire Weekend
> Washed Out
> Destroyer


Thanks for adding to the list of bands popular with hipsters. That is not a comment about the quality of any of those bands, by the way.

I do agree Radiohead are greatly overrated, but at least they have some substance.

Also, I think the VU comparison is off. Radiohead have never produced a molten slab of pure rock and roll swagger like the VU did, or a modern day equivalent.


----------



## brianwalker

Argus said:


> I do agree Radiohead are greatly overrated, but at least they have some substance.


I agree with you that Radiohead has more "substance" than Vampire Weekend, but substance is not my sole criterion. Read my post.


----------



## Argus

Eviticus said:


> Suede's first 2 albums are pretty exceptional IMO. I didn't want to include the Stone Roses because i never liked them as much. For me my favourite 90's bands were Blur, Radiohead, Pulp, Placebo, Suede and Oasis (I'll add in R.E.M and Nirvana pre brit pop). I never liked the second wave of indie bands that followed except Coldplay and Muse (only the latters 1st 2 albums). However, there are a number of great debuts from british bands over the last 5 years that i'm very fond of which incude Hard Fi (Stars of CCTV - my favourite album of the decade), The View 'Hats of to the buskers', The Fratellis 'Costello Music' and The Enemys debut.


That's almost the kind of stuff I liked when I was about 16, if you add say Bloc Party and Franz Ferdinand in their early years. I won't say I dislike that stuff now but there is an enormous amount of music I find much more interesting and plain enjoyable than that now.

Also, I'd take the Stone Roses self-titled over all those bands albums combined.


----------



## Philip

clavichorder said:


> I suppose I had it coming. Perhaps we can respect the fact that we both think poorly of each others tastes.


not really because i actually love baroque music. baroque is what i listen to the most in terms of classical music.

i just spun your comment around to show that it didn't mean anything as an argument against pop, or any other genre for that matter.


----------



## Argus

brianwalker said:


> I agree with you that Radiohead has more "substance" than Vampire Weekend, but substance is not my sole criterion. Read my post.


I wasn't comparing them to the bands you listed. I was just saying that I don't think Radiohead are a bad band even if I do feel they are often praised too highly.


----------



## brianwalker

science said:


> The problem is only introduced once people start blaming each other for not enjoying the same music.


Before you start and try to police me, I am by the fact that someone else started this food fight.



Philip said:


> no way...* ok computer and AFTER is definitely the best of radiohead. no true radiohead fan* will include pablo honey in their best albums.





Philip said:


> it's called having *excellent taste in music.*





Philip said:


> hmm i wonder what's worst... knowing these facts or the facts themselves?


I'd rather listen to Katy Perry than Radiohead. This is the honest truth, I have Katy Perry on my Ipod, but not Radiohead.

Before you criticize me, Science, you should have Philip admit that my choice is as good as any other, and applaud me for my autonomous willing and staying true to myself, AND, have him applaud the decisions of millions to listen to Katy Perry instead of Radiohead, AND, have him apologizing for insinuating that people who listen to Radiohead have "better taste" those who listen to Miley Cyrus.

Or else you would be holding a higher standard of rationality for me than for Philip, which is patronizing and insulting to Philip, for that would imply that I can understand something that Philip cannot, that I'm smarter and more rational than Philip, and that you don't take Philip's enthusiam for Radiohead seriously, and that he is a mere child among adults.

And you don't want to do that.


----------



## brianwalker

Argus said:


> I wasn't comparing them to the bands you listed. I was just saying that I don't think Radiohead are a bad band even if I do feel they are often praised too highly.


I never said that it was a bad band, but that relative to its true merit its reputation is astoundingly high, and that of all the bands that come up in a discusson on a classical music forum it's Radiohead.


----------



## Argus

brianwalker said:


> Before you start and try to *police* me, I am by the fact that someone else started this food fight.


I'd say the Police are about as good as Radiohead.


----------



## Philip

brianwalker said:


> Before you start and try to police me, I am by the fact that someone else started this food fight.
> 
> I'd rather listen to Katy Perry than Radiohead. This is the honest truth, I have Katy Perry on my Ipod, but not Radiohead.
> 
> Before you criticize me, Science, you should have Philip admit that my choice is as good as any other, and applaud me for my autonomous willing and staying true to myself.


LOL if you want more one liners like that, i've got plenty... note that my comments are usually pro-- rather than anti--. meaning you'll rarely catch me denigrating any genre of music. i simply promote what i enjoy, sometimes with a hint of hyperbole.

in fact, if i had an ipod, i'd probably have the fame monster on it.


----------



## Argus

brianwalker said:


> I never said that it was a bad band, but that relative to its true merit its reputation is astoundingly high, and that of all the bands that come up in a discusson on a classical music forum it's Radiohead.


Yeah, but Radiohead are a big name/popular/mainstream band. Those bands you listed aren't anywhere near as well known or have been around as long. It's just like a list of 2000's bands you like better than Radiohead, of which I could list several dozen easily.

It's better to compare Radiohead with another big name/popular band to make the comparison fairer. Say Kasabian or Arcade Fire or Kings of Leon.


----------



## clavichorder

Philip said:


> not really because i actually love baroque music. baroque is what i listen to the most in terms of classical music.
> 
> i just spun your comment around to show that it didn't mean anything as an argument against pop, or any other genre for that matter.


You win. I am capable of seeing how an outsider could see that about baroque music. I was once an outsider. I still find those hip beats and cool tones provoking my feelings of tribal animosity though.


----------



## Philip

clavichorder said:


> You win. I am capable of seeing how an outsider could see that about baroque music. I was once an outsider. I still find those hip beats and cool tones provoking my feelings of tribal animosity though.


i suppose the overuse of ornamentation and predictable cadences is better?


----------



## clavichorder

Philip said:


> i suppose the overuse of ornamentation and predictable cadences is better?


It suits me better.


----------



## moody

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> The majority of pop etc. is rubbish IMHO.


I knew you were an old crumbly!


----------



## Lukecash12

moody said:


> Would you explain yourself in plain language---or is that too much to ask?


By eurocentric I mean "primarily concerned with Western music".


----------



## Cnote11

If you make the statement "there is not a single band working today that produces music that, if you focus completely on the music, is not boring" you've better have heard every artist in every sub-genre out there or qualify the statement with "what I've heard". I focus on my music quite a lot and am not bored by any of it, or I wouldn't be listening to it. Then again, I'm deep in the avant-garde scenes and what I listen for in music is probably a little bit different than what others do. I'm equally enthralled by pop music I happen to like and I quite enjoy pop music that gets its hands dirty in interesting ways. Music, in my opinion, is not to be listened to with one sole expectation from genre to genre. They obviously have different purposes and means of trying to express that, such as the purpose of oscillation in dance music. You can't measure all music by the same exact criteria, because they aren't aiming for the same goal.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

moody said:


> I knew you were an old crumbly!


I don't quite understand that remark. Could you explain please?


----------



## GrosseFugue

NO. Classical music fans are probably the most open-minded musically. Just look at modern composers who take in influences as diverse as electronica, dance, folk and world music. Not to mention so many Classical Fans also dabble in jazz and the Beatles and so on, etc. As Alex Ross put it: "All music becomes Classical eventually."

Really, I think you should put the question the other way around. Every pop/rock/rap/etc. fan I have come across positively HATE Classical music without having sat through even one movement of one work. They are so quick to fling insults around like: "That's gay" or "lame" or "stupid" or "old folk music" or what have you. They are so phobic about the music as to border on dementia. That to me is TRUE elitism and snobbery. 

PS -- Oh, it's not just modern composers who incorporated different styles. Beethoven with his exotic Turkish rhythms; Mahler with Chinese poetry and Oriental instrumentation; Bartok with gypsy songs; on and on. These are not people who are close-minded by any stretch of the imagination. You can't make great music by being dense.


----------



## moody

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I don't quite understand that remark. Could you explain please?


A crumbly is somebody old. How about these guys I've seldom heard such junk!


----------



## moody

The question was "Do you think classical music fans tend to be dismissive of other musical genres?"
Well the answer in my case is "yes",leave aside jazz I'm so dismissive you wouldn't believe .By putting your stuff up on the thread you invite comment and mine is that this is music for teenies to be played at clubs and parties.There everybody jumps up and down and screams so that they can't hear what's playing anyway.That is my answer and it is not open for discussion. My kids enjoyed this sort of racket when they were fifteen or sixteen. I do not believe it has any place on a classical music forum.
I also do not believe that Clavichorder ,whose thread this is, a very nice young man who has great belief in his music should be hazed for his opinions.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

moody said:


> A crumbly is somebody old. How about these guys I've seldom heard such junk!


Oh. I don't think I'm a crumbly.

EDIT: Hang on... "old crumbly"... an _old somebody who is old????_ Check your grammar please.


----------



## science

brianwalker said:


> Before you start and try to police me, I am by the fact that someone else started this food fight.
> 
> I'd rather listen to Katy Perry than Radiohead. This is the honest truth, I have Katy Perry on my Ipod, but not Radiohead.
> 
> Before you criticize me, Science, you should have Philip admit that my choice is as good as any other, and applaud me for my autonomous willing and staying true to myself, AND, have him applaud the decisions of millions to listen to Katy Perry instead of Radiohead, AND, have him apologizing for insinuating that people who listen to Radiohead have "better taste" those who listen to Miley Cyrus.
> 
> Or else you would be holding a higher standard of rationality for me than for Philip, which is patronizing and insulting to Philip, for that would imply that I can understand something that Philip cannot, that I'm smarter and more rational than Philip, and that you don't take Philip's enthusiam for Radiohead seriously, and that he is a mere child among adults.
> 
> And you don't want to do that.


I haven't followed the thread closely enough to be a referee, and I don't intend to get pulled into it like that. If anyone has been condescending to you over the music you like, you can rest assured that I disapprove of that and wouldn't blame you for being upset.

You keep saying things that imply that I've argued that we should say all music is equal. Maybe you even think I've suggested that, though that would surprise me because it is such an unfair and unwarranted interpretation of anything I've written. But just in case I want to make it clear that I do have preferences and can recognize excellence according to them. I am not, however, interested in legislating my tastes.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

Who is Miley Cyrus??? I've heard of Katy Perry (but never knew who that was) and Radiohead, but who the heck is this Miley Cyrus person?


----------



## moody

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> Oh. I don't think I'm a crumbly.
> 
> EDIT: Hang on... "old crumbly"... an _old somebody who is old????_ Check your grammar please.


Pay attention,"a crumbly is somebody old" ===OK? Don't tell me that picture isn't somebody old.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

moody said:


> Pay attention,"a crumbly is somebody old" ===OK? Don't tell me that picture isn't somebody old.


I am not *Ligeti. Ligeti* is my avatar. I am ComposerOfAvantGarde. Not crumbly.


----------



## moody

ComposerOfAvantGarde said:


> I am not *Ligeti. Ligeti* is my avatar. I am ComposerOfAvantGarde. Not crumbly.


Darn it, all this time I thought you were Ligetti disguised as a 14 year old bird!


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

moody said:


> Darn it, all this time I thought you were Ligetti disguised as a 14 year old bird!


14 year old bird????


----------



## science

Bird = girl, I think. 

I saw a British movie with Samuel L. Jackson in it, and that's what I learned. I also learned that if I'm ever in a movie, I shouldn't shoot at the Samuel L. Jackson character.


----------



## Argus

moody said:


> A crumbly is somebody old. How about these guys I've seldom heard such junk!


You, sir, must have never heard James Ferraro's Far Side Virual:






That's taking the idea of concept albums to a ridiculous extreme.

I liked some of his earlier work though.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

science said:


> Bird = girl, I think.
> 
> I saw a British movie with Samuel L. Jackson in it, and that's what I learned. I also learned that if I'm ever in a movie, I shouldn't shoot at the Samuel L. Jackson character.


I take words literally. That's why I never understand most proverbs (and metaphors in this case.)


----------



## brianwalker

science said:


> I haven't followed the thread closely enough to be a referee, and I don't intend to get pulled into it like that. If anyone has been condescending to you over the music you like, you can rest assured that I disapprove of that and wouldn't blame you for being upset.
> 
> You keep saying things that imply that I've argued that we should say all music is equal. Maybe you even think I've suggested that, though that would surprise me because it is such an unfair and unwarranted interpretation of anything I've written. But just in case I want to make it clear that I do have preferences and can recognize excellence according to them. I am not, however, interested in legislating my tastes.


Do you think that Philip is legislating his taste in a way that is *fundamentally distinct* from my pretense to legislation i.e. "scorn with greater efficiency and precision" in his continual praise of Radiohead at the expense of Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, etc? Where do you draw your line? Because it seems that I have crossed your line, but Philip hasn't.

http://www.talkclassical.com/17633-why-do-we-appreciate-3.html#post262037

It is obvious that Philip is dismissive of people who listen to Katy Perry or Miley Cyrus in the same manner that he listens to Radiohead; the comments in this thread are enough; my question is why are his comments less indicative of "closed minded elitism" or "attempt to legislate one's taste" any more than my posts, which but have only more clarity in style and intent? He said very clearly that people who think that Radiohead is god's gift to man have "excellent taste" (his phrase, not mine), but does not the very notion of "excellence" imply its very opposite?

http://thesaurus.com/browse/excellent

He did not say "I like Radiohead too", or "They just like it", or "Different strokes for different blokes", or "Some people just like Radiohead", or "Some people are just like that", or "Maybe they have different taste than you", or any of the polite variations, he said *excellent taste*, which is a nonsensical concept if there does not exist "non-excellent taste".

He not only distinguished between those who like Radiohead, who have "excellent" taste, but also distinguished those who are "true" Radiohead fans, as opposed to "false" Radiohead fans. What would those words even mean? True to what?

True to good taste of course. Not different taste, good taste, for what is true is good, or its goodness and superiority is implied, truth is superior to falsehood, the true is better than the false.

But if you assume that his assertion of "excellent taste" is just "a translation" of "I like it too", and that he is, in fact, confused about his language, then it is appropriate for me to say that people who adore Radiohead, in fact, have unexcellent taste in music?


----------



## Philip

monkey balls


----------



## brianwalker

Philip said:


> monkey balls


http://gothamist.com/2011/10/01/radiohead_fails_to_occupy_wall_stre.php#photo-1


----------



## science

brianwalker said:


> Because it seems that I have crossed your line, but Philip hasn't.


It's not that. I haven't read most of either of your posts.

I posted this:



science said:


> Really, all kinds of people make all kinds of good music and always have. And that's great.
> 
> The problem is only introduced once people start blaming each other for not enjoying the same music.
> 
> It is a thing that has not happened to me since middle school or so, except on the internet.


- as a general observation, not quoting or responding to anyone in particular.

Perhaps you took it personally, but for whatever reason you decided to argue with me, and he didn't. So I replied to you, and that's how we got here.

Regarding excellence of taste - as far as I can see, there are two separate things we need to distinguish: awareness, and preference. Let's use literature because it's easier for me to illustrate the difference.

I do not enjoy _1984_, _Brave New World_, or _Fahrenheit 451_ very much because too many details are meaningless, too much of the dialogue is unnatural, no symbolism is extensively developed, the moral of the story is too obvious, there is not much intertextuality, and the wordplay is not clever. They all have a lot of insight into the modern world and effectively call attention to extremely important problems, but those aspects of the novels are not so important to me. A different person with a similar awareness of literary devices could enjoy them enormously, simply by having different preferences. For example, I'd guess that Isaac Asimov was at least as well aware as I am of the flaws of _The Mists of Avalon_, and that I'm roughly as familiar with its virtues as he was, but he enjoyed it and I didn't, because that work's particular set of virtues pushed his buttons and not mine, while its particular set of flaws pushed mine and not his.

As an example in the other direction, _The Lord of the Flies_ has a number of problems that I recognize - constant violations of the laws of nature - but I like it very much because it is loaded with extensively developed symbolism - even allegory! - constant allusions to _Paradise Lost_, relatively few insignificant details, and the moral of the story is easily missed unless you read fairly carefully. Readers who demand physical plausibility and moral clarity will not enjoy it as much as I do, even if they have exactly the same awareness.

So there are four really good, maybe even great works of literature. If someone is about as aware of such things as I am, we can disagree about the novels, enjoy them differentially, and have very rewarding conversations about them. I mention those four because I have had such conversations with people whose insight into literature is at least as penetrating as mine: we generally see the same stuff, but we feel differently about it. We have _different_ tastes, but no one's tastes are superior or inferior. Great conversations, the world moves along swimmingly.

I can imagine a reader with a strong dislike of vulgar humor and moral ambiguity, who really loves stories about reasonable characters who overcome their emotions and behave rationally, or stories where an unambiguously good character defeats an unambiguously bad character; a reader indifferent to symbolism and puns, who doesn't enjoy comparing and contrasting scenes or characters to each other, or puzzling out political/religious implications of a story, or analyzing scenes from minor characters' points of view. Such a reader could understand Shakespeare as well as I do, and yet not enjoy his most famous works. I haven't met such a person yet, but I can imagine one. Her awareness could be equal to or greater than mine, but we'd have very different tastes.

But I've often talked to people who read _Catcher in the Rye_ without being aware of, say, the fact that Holden losing the foils in the subway probably signifies something, or who like _Chronicle of a Death Foretold_ without being aware that the fallibility of memory is a major theme. It's not that they don't like the kind of thing that Salinger or Garcia Marquez are doing in the books; they're just unaware of them. They have a right to their opinion, and I won't try to convert them, but I'm not going to seek them out for conversations about literature, because I see that they don't have a lot to offer. (Of course if I somehow met my younger self, I wouldn't talk to him about literature either, unless he were in a mood to listen relatively quietly.) Even when they like the books, I suppose it's good that they got some pleasure, but clearly I enjoyed them at a deeper level.

When someone reads, unaware of the kinds of things I've been discussing, we could be critical of that person's reading ability, whether they agree with me or not - though it wouldn't be polite conversation, and I wouldn't expect people to like me if I made a point of doing so. So there can be greater and lesser insights into works of art, but matters of taste are a different issue.

It would be bad enough to publicly flaunt my awareness of literary devices and language, visibly "turning my nose up" at people who for whatever reason haven't been able to educate themselves about such things; it would be even worse to pretend that my particular, arbitrary preferences are inherently superior to anyone who disagrees with me about the merits of a work.

In other words: having greater insight into a work of art is admirable, and though it is undeniable that some people don't have as much insight as others, it's not good conversation and anyone who makes a habit of pointing out their superior insight (even if they actually do have it) should expect to make enemies rather than friends. And insulting someone merely for having different tastes is even worse.

All this translates fairly straightforwardly into the realm of music. I'm not aware that the drummer hasn't played a measure exactly the same way all night, someone else is: he undeniably has insight that I don't. Two people both aware of that, one who thinks it's amazing and another who thinks it's excessive showboating: different preferences. Neither of them are wrong.

Unless they start insulting each other over it: then both of them are wrong.

Fortunately, that's uncommon in my experience. Like probably many people on this site, I'm blessed to have a fair number of friends who are professional musicians, composers, scholars, or work in the music industry. They all know far, far more than I do about music. They sometimes tell me about something that they think (usually correctly) that I haven't heard in the music, but they've never insulted me (and I certainly haven't insulted them) for liking something they didn't, or not liking something that they did.

I'm trying to think of the last time that happened to me in real life (as opposed to the internet). Not as good-natured teasing, but as actual personal condemnation for different musical tastes. I really can't remember any specific instance, but I'm sure it must have happened sometimes in early high school. The grunge rock guys, the rap guys, the country music guys, the top-40 guys - someone must have said something sometime about the Christian rock I was into back then. By my third or fourth year, I remember when I first got into Yanni, and a few of my friends were visibly skeptical, but none of them took an insulting tone about it, and at least one converted. In college I dated a Curtis alum (funny story: Hilary Hahn came over to my house with her one day, and my dad, who had no idea who she was, thought Miss Hahn had a crush on me) - I cannot remember her even implying anything demeaning about classic rock or hip hop, though judging by her CD collection she wasn't a fan of any of that.

But for some reason it happens on the internet all the time.


----------



## josecamoessilva

Speaking as a Classical music fan, I'm not only not dismissive of other genres as I'm even more interested in some of them: Baroque and Renaissance, for example. And I listen to Medieval, Romantic, and Modern fairly frequently. Being the open-minded person that I am, sometimes I'll even listen to musical theatre (by Puccini or Mozart, that is).

So, no, I don't think Classical music fans are dismissive of other genres.


----------



## ksargent

science said:


> It's not that. I haven't read most of either of your posts.
> 
> But for some reason it happens on the internet all the time.


Unfortunately the anonymity of the internet gives some the license to build their own egos by disparaging others. I've only been on tis forum a short time and have experienced it. Of course they are the first to cry foul when they think they are on the receiving end. Best to just ignore them in my view.


----------



## GrosseFugue

I should've also pointed out that this web-board (as do many Classical sites) also carries a forum for NON-Classical Music discussion. Also, you'll find members here who play instruments outside the traditional Classical range, e.g., electric guitar, etc.

But you'd be very hard-pressed to find any pop/rock/rap/metal/etc web-board that also includes a forum for CLASSICAL music. There the mere mention of say a Stradivarious violin would probably draw immediate vitriol and get you kicked out. 

So the conclusion seems obvious: It's the POPULAR MUSIC FANS who are the most dismissive!

PS -- I remember the Pulitzer-winning music critic, Tim Page responding to a woman who, on a website for Glenn Gould, got embarrassed for bringing up Bruce Springsteen. Tim told the lady something to the effect: "Hey no sweat! I like the Boss too." Could you ever imagine the REVERSE happening on a pop/rock/rap/metal/etc. site? *Hell no! *  If somebody brought up the merits of Beethoven everyone would howl him down, say he was a moron and that Beethoven "sucked". Believe me, I've seen it happen too often.


----------



## science

GrosseFugue said:


> I should've also pointed out that this web-board (as do many Classical sites) also carries a forum for NON-Classical Music discussion. Also, you'll find members here who play instruments outside the traditional Classical range, e.g., electric guitar, etc.
> 
> But you'd be very hard-pressed to find any pop/rock/rap/metal/etc web-board that also includes a forum for CLASSICAL music. There the mere mention of say a Stradivarious violin would probably draw immediate vitriol and get you kicked out.
> 
> So the conclusion seems obvious: It's the POPULAR MUSIC FANS who are the most dismissive!
> 
> PS -- I remember the Pulitzer-winning music critic, Tim Page responding to a woman who, on a website for Glenn Gould, got embarrassed for bringing up Bruce Springsteen. Tim told the lady something to the effect: "Hey no sweat! I like the Boss too." Could you ever imagine the REVERSE happening on a pop/rock/rap/metal/etc. site? *Hell no! *  If somebody brought up the merits of Beethoven everyone would howl him down, say he was a moron and that Beethoven "sucked". Believe me, I've seen it happen too often.


On a jazz forum a few years ago I started a thread called "classical music for jazz listeners." One of the participants complained that there would never be a thread on a classical forum about jazz music.

Mind-forged manacles.


----------



## Argus

Do classical music fans have thick skin? Judging from this thread, they have rice paper epidermis.


----------



## mmsbls

Argus said:


> Do classical music fans have thick skin? Judging from this thread, they have rice paper epidermis.


The same conclusion would apply to humans in general.


----------



## smoledman

Increasingly there is a blurred line between popular and classical music with all the use of orchestras, string quartets, acoustic pianos in pop/rock music. Heck in 2009 the band Muse released an honest to god rock symphony called "Exogenesis" in 3 parts.


----------



## Delicious Manager

smoledman said:


> Increasingly there is a blurred line between popular and classical music with all the use of orchestras, string quartets, acoustic pianos in pop/rock music. Heck in 2009 the band Muse released an honest to god rock symphony called "Exogenesis" in 3 parts.


I saw this post and had to respond as it is a subject about which many people seem to harbour a misconception. There is no music on the planet which is defined by the instruments that are used to perform it. Acoustic pianos have been used in ALL genres of music since it was invented 300 years ago. There is nothing intrinsically 'classical' about the piano. What about ragtime, jazz, swing, rock 'n roll? All of these genres used the piano from their very beginnings. That didn't blur any lines between them and 'classical' music. In addition, the string quartet (or any other string ensemble) has been freely used in pop and rock music since they were 'born' in the 1950s/60s; there is nothing new about it.

Also, you can call a piece of pop/rock music a 'symphony' eg Muse's _Exogenesis Symphony_, the Verve's _Bittersweet Symphony_, the Pet Shop Boys' _October Symphony_, but no-one would pretend that any of these had anything to do with classical music, would they? Just the same as _Phantom of the Opera_ is not an opera!


----------



## smoledman

Delicious Manager said:


> Also, you can call a piece of pop/rock music a 'symphony' eg Muse's _Exogenesis Symphony_, the Verve's _Bittersweet Symphony_, the Pet Shop Boys' _October Symphony_, but no-one would pretend that any of these had anything to do with classical music, would they? Just the same as _Phantom of the Opera_ is not an opera!


If you ever actually listened to "Exogenesis" you'd see it's a symphony first with rock elements added, rather then the other way around.


----------



## brianwalker

science said:


> On a jazz forum a few years ago I started a thread called "classical music for jazz listeners." One of the participants complained that there would never be a thread on a classical forum about jazz music.
> 
> Mind-forged manacles.


He said pop/rock/rap/metal, not Jazz. I'm not sure why your one example disproves his central point.


----------



## brianwalker

Argus said:


> Do classical music fans have thick skin? Judging from this thread, they have rice paper epidermis.


If their epidermis is rice thin metalheads have no skin whatsoever, judging by this thread.

http://www.talkclassical.com/2824-metal-music-death-metal.html


----------



## brianwalker

science said:


> Regarding excellence of taste - as far as I can see, there are two separate things we need to distinguish: awareness, and preference. Let's use literature because it's easier for me to illustrate the difference.


How do we distinguish between awareness and preference in music?

I'm not aware that the drummer hasn't played a measure exactly the same way all night, someone else is: he undeniably has insight that I don't. Two people both aware of that, one who thinks it's amazing and another who thinks it's excessive showboating: different preferences. Neither of them are wrong. 

What are the technical aspects of "awareness" that you value? Lack of tone deafness? Music theory?

I'm not facetious, I genuinely want to know your answer to this question. For example.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R18SWJ...004R8TO&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful



> But if only that were all. However, sonics aside, I must admit that after listening to this disc I was left completely puzzled as to why this would qualify as a "great recording of the century". Simply because Klemperer is conducting and we are allowed to hear Schwarzkopf's disappointingly wobbly soprano? Klemperer met Mahler, so his Mahler must be good? Has the mythology around these names evolved sufficiently to convince us that sloppy ensemble, out of tune instruments, ignoration of the composer's instructions, and general lack of inspiration amount to great music making? Well, not for me; even in the brief fragment of the first track that you can listen to here on Amazon, you'll hear a bassoon defiantly coming in a full beat too early. And it goes on like that, and on and on. The violins are out of sync on many occasions. Instrumental entrances are incomprehensibly approximate, time and again. The Scherzo is plodding and humourless, and features horribly out of tune flutes somewhere near the beginning. The first few bars of Urlicht struck me as refreshingly unfussy, but lead into an ungainly, foursquare reading that lacks any poetry whatsoever, and has an ugly crescendo on "leuchten", where Mahler writes pp. Then again, Klemperer does not care much about Mahler's many markings anyway. Rather than giving us an "ernst" and "feierlich" first movement, Klemperer hurries through as if he has a train to catch. Phrases are hardly allowed to breathe. At the end, where Mahler wants Tempo I for the downward runs of triplets, Klemperer makes a mad dash for it. Another characteristic instance occurs just before nr. 46 in the finale: Mahler writes "nicht schleppen" and K. slows down; then, at 46, Mahler writes "Langsam" and K. switches to a faster tempo. If that is greatness, I can do without it. I'm a long-time fan of Kaplan's first recording of this work, which is dedicated, precise, exciting and moving all at the same time. But Haitink, Bernstein (DG), Mehta (Decca) and many others too offer alternatives that are far more impressive than this unbelievably overrated disc.


 If someone is about as aware of such things as I am, we can disagree about the novels, enjoy them differentially, and have very rewarding conversations about them. I mention those four because I have had such conversations with people whose insight into literature is at least as penetrating as mine: we generally see the same stuff, but we feel differently about it. We have different tastes, but no one's tastes are superior or inferior. 

So what do you do when you're confronted with someone with far more expertise than you? Say, Harold Bloom? He makes a pronouncement on the literary merits of poem X, and his awareness (I've read his books, he's pompous sometimes but he makes fantastic connections, he's famous for a reason) is (hypothetically) far greater than yours (or anyone's, for that matter), for example, when he makes a comment on a romantic or modernist poem, he delves into how it's influenced by poems from numerous historical periods.

http://crab.rutgers.edu/~barbares/New Modernism/Criticism/Bloom, Reflections on TSE -8-2-Fall 88.pdf

Or someone like James Wood. He's read so many novels it's obscene, and his reviews are far more illuminating than any other regular book reviewer.

http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/2009/02/james-woods-best-books-since-1945-circa-1994.html

At what level of "awareness" does "awareness" disappear into preference? Does it ever?

Would it be correct to say that for two listeners with "_minimum x awareness_" of "band y" disagree on the merits of "band y", even to a very large degree, it's "just preference"?

For example, you said that "the laws of nature", and its violation in The Lord of the Flies, made the book worse for you. Is there a similar "law" for music or something analogous to a law?

In addition; suppose you're the faculty on a university, or a high school, and you're in a meeting to decide which books to place in the curriculum, how would such a thing go ultimately? Voting? Does democracy solve this issue?


----------



## science

brianwalker said:


> What are the technical aspects of "awareness" that you value?


Any that you can think of.



brianwalker said:


> So what do you do when you're confronted with someone with far more expertise than you?


Hopefully, I listen, perhaps ask a few questions, and learn a lot!



brianwalker said:


> At what level of "awareness" does "awareness" disappear into preference? Does it ever?


I guess you might mean that, in a psychological/spiritual sense, people's biases affect their awareness. That's a weakness in their awareness.



brianwalker said:


> Would it be correct to say that for two listeners with "_minimum x awareness_" of "band y" disagree on the merits of "band y", even to a very large degree, it's "just preference"?


I don't know about "minimum x awareness," but if two listeners of approximately equivalent awareness disagree, it is probably a matter of preference.



brianwalker said:


> For example, you said that "the laws of nature", and its violation in The Lord of the Flies, made the book worse for you. Is there a similar "law" for music or something analogous to a law?


I didn't say that there was a law for literature, so I'm not sure why you would ask this. Perhaps I wrote confusingly or am not understanding what you mean.



brianwalker said:


> In addition; suppose you're the faculty on a university, or a high school, and you're in a meeting to decide which books to place in the curriculum, how would such a thing go ultimately? Voting? Does democracy solve this issue?


I really don't see how this relates to the discussion. Perhaps you're assuming that we ought to try to put the best books on the curriculum, and asking how we would decide which those are. Well, I don't think there is an objective way to judge. As far as I know, pure mathematics is the only realm where objective certainty, strictly speaking, is possible.


----------



## Philip

smoledman said:


> If you ever actually listened to "Exogenesis" you'd see it's a symphony first with rock elements added, rather then the other way around.


muse is my favourite band.

i don't know if i would consider Exogenesis an actual "symhpony" per se, but i do agree that it isn't just some rock song with an added string section. the lead singer is mostly self-taught on the piano and guitar, both with strong classical influence (especially romantic on the piano).

Rachmaninoff influence:





what really makes muse stand out as a band is their unique mix of rock, electronic, classical influences into a guitar driven high energy arena-type space music. for a 3 member band, their sound is massive, and it might cause all other rock groups to sound like crap after a listen.

Stockholm Syndrome live:


----------



## Eviticus

Philip said:


> for a 3 member band, their sound is massive, and it might cause all other rock groups to sound like crap after a listen.


Nah. Muse went downhill after Origin for me... In fact, after Showbiz. 
I just want to grab Mat and say cut down the GODAMWARBLIN'! He's at his best when he cut's down his warblin' in later singles like Super Massive Black Holes and Starlight. Queen were the same IMO. When they over did their vocals it tainted great records (classic examples being the intro's to 'You take my breathe away' and much later 'Breakthru').

Now i know what your going to say Philip - you are going to say that Muse only got better after Origin aren't you? _The Radiohead era debate incarnate._


----------



## Philip

Eviticus said:


> Now i know what your going to say Philip - you are going to say that Muse only got better after Origin aren't you? _The Radiohead era debate incarnate._


but are you a TRUE fan??


----------



## Eviticus

Philip said:


> but are you a TRUE fan??


Don't know constitutes a 'true' fan. Was big in to Showbiz, saw them 3 times and even met them and had my picture taken with them at v2000 (i think) in the special guests tent. They certainly knew how to put on a show and Matt is a brilliant and captivating musician and front man. Later got Origin but it didn't hit the heights of Showbiz and despite my girlfriends feverish love and constant force feeding of the third album - i started to go off them. Listened to Origin recently and decided i had overlooked 'Darkshines' and only have kept a handful of singles since. Saw them do Glastonbury and it occurred to me just how massive they went on to be and how many huge hits they have with fans but many of them don't float my boat. The singing, the instrumentals are just too overdone for my pallet now.


----------



## Philip

Eviticus said:


> Don't know constitutes a 'true' fan. Was big in to Showbiz, saw them 3 times and even met them and had my picture taken with them at v2000 (i think) in the special guests tent. They certainly knew how to put on a show and Matt is a brilliant and captivating musician and front man. Later got Origin but it didn't hit the heights of Showbiz and despite my girlfriends feverish love and constant force feeding of the third album - i started to go off them. Listened to Origin recently and decided i had overlooked 'Darkshines' and only have kept a handful of singles since. Saw them do Glastonbury and it occurred to me just how massive they went on to be and how many huge hits they have with fans but many of them don't float my boat. The singing, the instrumentals are just too overdone for my pallet now.


(i was just asking so brianwalker would overhear and go berserk on science again, but good answer nonetheless!)


----------



## moody

Philip said:


> (i was just asking so brianwalker would overhear and go berserk on science again, but good answer nonetheless!)


If you want to see Brianwalker going berserk have a look at the von Karajan thread of the last few days.


----------



## Oliver

A lot of 'metal heads' boast that that they love classical music, some even try to say they're related. A lot of classical fans like jazz too, which I personally can't stand. I'm personally quite dismissive of other genres though. I used to listen to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Nirvana etc. but sort of moved on.


----------



## ComposerOfAvantGarde

GeneralOJB said:


> A lot of 'metal heads' boast that that they love classical music, some even try to say they're related. A lot of classical fans like jazz too, which I personally can't stand. I'm personally quite dismissive of other genres though. I used to listen to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Nirvana etc. but sort of moved on.


Listen to some Frank Zappa.


----------



## neoshredder

GeneralOJB said:


> A lot of 'metal heads' boast that that they love classical music, some even try to say they're related. A lot of classical fans like jazz too, which I personally can't stand. I'm personally quite dismissive of other genres though. I used to listen to Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Nirvana etc. but sort of moved on.


Some of it is. Metal fans that love classical are the type of metal fans I like. The same for classical fans that love other genres like metal, jazz, and etc. 80's metal is to me the golden age of metal and has dropped off considerably since then.


----------



## peeyaj

I've haven't changed my opinion after spending time listening to some baroque composers. The complexity of a classical music composition could never be accomplished by a 3-minute pop song.


----------



## MaestroViolinist

peeyaj said:


> I've haven't changed my opinion after spending time listening to some baroque composers. The complexity of a classical music composition could never be accomplished by a 3-minute pop song.


I agree, but I can't "dismiss" other types of music mainly because I have to put up with it quite often.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I used to belittle pop, jazz when I discovered classical music. But not anymore.
It is music - just less complex and its aims are different.


----------



## QuietGuy

I'm not dismissive of other genres. I like Classical, 60s & 70s Pop, Broadway & some operatic arias. There are exceptions to everything, though.

I don't like jazz. I don't consider rap to be music at all. I began to lose my appetite for pop beginning in the 80s.


----------



## norman bates

QuietGuy said:


> I'm not dismissive of other genres. I don't consider rap to be music at all.


I suppose you don't consider rap even worth to be considered a genre :lol:


----------



## KenOC

Must have missed this thread. There are other genres? How quaint.


----------



## Serge

norman bates said:


> I suppose you don't consider rap even worth to be considered a genre :lol:


Yeah, rap is more like rhythmic poetry or whatever. Hip-hop can be pretty catchy though.


----------



## Serge

KenOC said:


> Must have missed this thread. There are other genres? How quaint.


Quaint? Where's an online dictionary when you need it..


----------



## Morimur

well, most popular music is very easy to dismiss.


----------



## Tristan

I'm not dismissive of other genres, but I do notice that a lot of classical fans are pretty dismissive of popular music, though judging by the "non-classical" section of this site, I think we have a pretty good appreciation for it. 

Still, sometimes I respond by being dismissive to people who say things like "classical is boring" and "classical is irrelevant", both things I have heard from people I know.


----------



## Serge

Well, the Classical music fans may have better appreciation and judgment of music. That's all.


----------



## julianoq

I am not "dismissive", but since I started to really enjoy classical music (less than two years ago) I noticed that I spend less and less time with other genres. Sometimes I still listen to some Beatles, Tull, Dylan or some jazz or bossa nova, but it quite rare at this moment. I got all I need from classical, and there is so much there to discover..


----------



## Deacon Don

I'm new to this forum, i.e. talkclassical. I've been a professional musician, 
teacher and arranger for over 30 years.

My credentials mean little.

I believe most critical listeners of Classical/Orchestral music aren't musicians 
per se. They tend to be self righteous listeners who have allowed themselves 
the ability to expand their listening borders and who will not accept anything 
they don't consider "classical music". 

I'm quite disturbed by this notion. I like many genres of music. I'll accept a 
string quartet arrangement of "Your Cheatin' Heart" as well as something by 
Mozart. As long as music is good why should we put parameters on it?

Some people have conditioned themselves to be very, very divisive as far 
as good music is concerned.


----------



## Serge

Deacon Don said:


> ... who have allowed themselves
> the ability to expand their listening borders ...


Hey, Don! Welcome to the forum!

Could you please expand on that passage there, because I don't quite understand what that means. Sounds like a bad thing though...


----------



## Blake

I adore a ton of musical genres. But I will agree that much of popular pop/rock tends to be the hardest not to criticize. It's so blatantly awful.


----------



## Morimur

Deacon Don said:


> I'm new to this forum, i.e. talkclassical. I've been a professional musician,
> teacher and arranger for over 30 years.
> 
> My credentials mean little.
> 
> I believe most critical listeners of Classical/Orchestral music aren't musicians
> per se. They tend to be self righteous listeners who have allowed themselves
> the ability to expand their listening borders and who will not accept anything
> they don't consider "classical music".
> 
> I'm quite disturbed by this notion. I like many genres of music. I'll accept a
> string quartet arrangement of "Your Cheatin' Heart" as well as something by
> Mozart. As long as music is good why should we put parameters on it?
> 
> Some people have conditioned themselves to be very, very divisive as far
> as good music is concerned.


That's good for you, Don. But at the end of the day, people will listen to what they please regardless of others' attempts to 're-educate' them. If one desires to limit one's self to classical music, who's to force them to do otherwise? The same can be said of those who only listen to whatever's in fashion. In North America, people are free to choose and criticize as they see fit (for the most part). Ain't that grand?


----------



## neoshredder

I used to think Classical and Metal went together. Especially Progressive Metal. I guess this forum proved how wrong I am.


----------



## Blake

neoshredder said:


> I used to think Classical and Metal went together. Especially Progressive Metal. I guess this forum proved how wrong I am.


Just don't ever make that mistake again. 

I'm kidding. I dig some Progressive Metal


----------



## Jonathan Wrachford

peeyaj said:


> We are all enthuasiasts here in TC. We discuss classical music, argue in a composer's merit, participate in classical music poll and etc..
> 
> *
> Do you think Classical Music enthuasiasts tend to be dismissive of other musical genres?*
> 
> I've asked this question because I've read a post dismissing the ''pop music'' today as a garbage (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, anyone?).
> 
> I think some of us committed a form of snobbery by dismissing other genres.. Jazz, I think is highly regarded in TC, while the overproduced/autotuned pop music is looked down.. Granted, that pop music (or any other modern music) tend to be just regurgirated etc... It seems that classical music enthuasists see ''classical'' as a pinnacle of music (high art)..
> 
> What do you think?


classical and sacred are my only accepted genres of music. Sorry, but I just don't get along with other kinds.


----------



## Serge

I'll listen to anything that I like, what do I care?


----------



## BurningDesire

Its not even a question of what anybody thinks, its a plain fact that most classical fans look down on practically all other music. They're really no better than pop music fans that dismiss all classical music when all they know is Eine Kleine Nachtmusik and the opening motto to Beethoven's 5th Symphony.

The fact is there's tons of music outside of classical that is just as beautiful and worthwhile as the great music of the classical tradition. A classical fan that recognizes this and ventures out into the world to experience these other kinds of music as well will live a far more musically fulfilled life.


----------



## arpeggio

*Music as Experience*



Deacon Don said:


> I'm new to this forum, i.e. talkclassical. I've been a professional musician,
> teacher and arranger for over 30 years.
> 
> My credentials mean little.
> 
> I believe most critical listeners of Classical/Orchestral music aren't musicians
> per se. They tend to be self righteous listeners who have allowed themselves
> the ability to expand their listening borders and who will not accept anything
> they don't consider "classical music".
> 
> I'm quite disturbed by this notion. I like many genres of music. I'll accept a
> string quartet arrangement of "Your Cheatin' Heart" as well as something by
> Mozart. As long as music is good why should we put parameters on it?
> 
> Some people have conditioned themselves to be very, very divisive as far
> as good music is concerned.


You have identified an issue that seems to be the cause of many of the disagreements that I have seen in all of classical music forums that I have participated in.

The older I get the one philosophy of esthetics that makes the most sense to me in John Dewey's _Art as Experience_. How we react to a work of art is depended on our experiences and what we have been exposed to.

Even the perceptions of an amateur musician like myself is going to be different than those of a professional.

Unfortunately there is an impression among some that different means better. Of course this in nonsense. Different only means different.

As a result those who have experience of actually performing music are accused of being arrogant and/or elitist or all sorts of other foibles. Musicians live in an academic ivory tower and are incapable hearing music like real people.


----------



## hpowders

OP, only if they mistakenly see themselves as elitists.


----------



## Morimur

BurningDesire said:


> The fact is there's tons of music outside of classical that is just as beautiful and worthwhile as the great music of the classical tradition. A classical fan that recognizes this and ventures out into the world to experience these other kinds of music as well will live a far more musically fulfilled life.


I don't know about having a 'more musically fulfilled life' if one ventures outside of classical. Classical music, especially from the 20th century onwards, is incredibly diverse. I don't believe one would be limiting one's musical experiences by focusing on Classical alone.


----------



## starry

BurningDesire said:


> I its a plain fact that most classical fans look down on practically all other music.


I'm not sure if it's most. Maybe it's some older people primarily.


----------



## Vasks

I would never announce other styles as being trash...I might think it... but on this issue I'm going to be politically correct


----------



## violadude

Some music must be dismissed...on the sheer ungodliness of not dismissing them.

Case in point:





If there is a god, I think he smiles on everyone who dismisses this music


----------



## KenOC

violadude said:


> Some music must be dismissed...on the sheer ungodliness of not dismissing them.


Somebody agrees with you. "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


----------



## violadude

KenOC said:


> Somebody agrees with you. "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


One does not accustom themselves to Kesha, they subject themselves to her.


----------



## millionrainbows

peeyaj said:


> We are all enthuasiasts here in TC. We discuss classical music, argue in a composer's merit, participate in classical music poll and etc..
> 
> *
> Do you think Classical Music enthuasiasts tend to be dismissive of other musical genres?*
> 
> I've asked this question because I've read a post dismissing the ''pop music'' today as a garbage* (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, anyone?)
> *
> I think some of us committed a form of snobbery by dismissing other genres.. Jazz, I think is highly regarded in TC, while _*the overproduced/autotuned pop music is looked down.. Granted, that pop music...tends to be just regurgirated, etc...*_


Huh, that sounds like an oblique defense of pop music. After all, this music and its lifestyle values (youth, beauty, sex, drugs, raves, wealth, fame) seem to appeal to young people like* peeyaj. *Additionally, pop music allows a participation with others in a celebration of 'belonging-ness' and assimilation into the culture, which is becoming world-wide. So, no matter where in the world you go, if you have a laptop, you are an 'instant member' in this worldwide lifestyle culture.

Don't forget tradition, though; the highest aspiration of our Western culture is its* classical *music, replete with full-dress tuxedo. You'll be 'in like Flint,' and dressed to kill!

So enjoy your youth while you can, but remember, as* Prince *said, _"Life is just a party, and parties weren't meant to last." _You need to finish up that medical degree, so you can perform surgery on old guys like me, when our gall bladders go rotten.


----------



## starry

millionrainbows said:


> Additionally, pop music allows a participation with others in a celebration of 'belonging-ness' and assimilation into the culture, which is becoming world-wide. So, no matter where in the world you go, if you have a laptop, you are an 'instant member' in this worldwide lifestyle culture.


But some people may even look at classical music like that too. The internet is worldwide, forums are a club to some people which they see themselves as needing to be assimilated into.

I think any kind of music can have creativity. But people often judge what they don't know on the most famous examples which by their nature can often be the most overhyped as well. 'Pop' itself is such a vague term and can be applied across different types of music too.


----------



## KenOC

millionrainbows said:


> After all, this music and its lifestyle values (youth, beauty, sex, drugs, raves, wealth, fame)...


Wow! No wonder pop outsells classical! Maybe Bartok would help? Other suggestions?


----------



## Woodduck

The day when I find no musical genres to dismiss will be the day they put a tag on my big toe and shut the drawer.


----------



## techniquest

> Its not even a question of what anybody thinks, its a plain fact that most classical fans look down on practically all other music.


It always concerns me when 'plain facts' are offered without a shred of evidence to back them up. How many classical music fans did you survey to come to this factual conclusion?



> I would never announce other styles as being trash...I might think it... but on this issue I'm going to be politically correct


For a split second there, I read you comment as 'I would never announce Harry Styles as being trash..." :lol:


----------



## brotagonist

People who don't like CM dismiss all kinds of music, including CM. Are they snobs for doing so?

You don't have to like everything, and just because you do like CM, does not make you a snob... unless you use a monocle, of course :lol:


----------



## hpowders

I don't mind folks not liking classical music. It's just when I hear "I HATE Classical Music!!!" said with such venom, as if castor oil were being offered in a glass, that I have a problem.


----------



## science

hpowders said:


> I don't mind folks not liking classical music. It's just when I hear "I HATE Classical Music!!!" said with such venom, as if castor oil were being offered in a glass, that I have a problem.


I suspect that we all implicitly understand "I HATE classical music!" to mean, "I hate people who wield classical music as a tool to increase their social status."

If we fans of "classical music" would just accept ourselves and our music as a subculture like any other, that kind of sentiment would probably be even more rare than it is now.

On the other hand, I'd like to know when we'll stop saying "I HATE rap" with venom as if it were crude oil offered in a glass. I realize that it is objectively inferior in a gajillion ways and that fans of rap really ought to defer to us as their betters, but maybe if we disarm unilaterally we could achieve a kind of détente.

Edit:



millionrainbows said:


> Huh, that sounds like an oblique defense of pop music. After all, this music and its lifestyle values (youth, beauty, sex, drugs, raves, wealth, fame) seem to appeal to young people like* peeyaj. *Additionally, pop music allows a participation with others in a celebration of 'belonging-ness' and assimilation into the culture, which is becoming world-wide. So, no matter where in the world you go, if you have a laptop, you are an 'instant member' in this worldwide lifestyle culture.
> 
> Don't forget tradition, though; the highest aspiration of our Western culture is its* classical *music, replete with full-dress tuxedo. You'll be 'in like Flint,' and dressed to kill!
> 
> So enjoy your youth while you can, but remember, as* Prince *said, _"Life is just a party, and parties weren't meant to last." _You need to finish up that medical degree, so you can perform surgery on old guys like me, when our gall bladders go rotten.


Looks like we'll have to disarm vis-à-vis pop music as a whole.

Could happen.

Perhaps a good first step would be for us to disarm versus each other, allowing each other to like or not like Schoenberg, Cage, Babbitt, Boulez, Stockhausen, Whitacre, Higdon, Williams, Grieg, Alkan, Rubinstein, Delius, Vivaldi, Bach, Beethoven, even Mozart with less recrimination and witty, passive-aggressive judgment.


----------



## Knotsofast

They are no more dismissive as a group than any other fans of any other genre of music . It really is'nt accurate to "Stereotype"
any group based on personal experiences we have with individuals who may be part of a group

There are as many people who are as just as dismissive of certain music even within the genre of music of their preference. This 
is another one of those sujective questions that does'nt have a definitive answer.


----------



## Polyphemus

Musical snobbery exists in all genre's whether it be Classical Jazz or Popular. Even the preceding statement exhibits an unintended form of said snobbery. All of these forms of music were the popular form's of their day. However over time the dreaded elitist groups emerged in all aspects of the arts, performing or otherwise.
Sadly speaking this trait is part of the human condition. This is particularly obvious in Rock/Pop music where an intellectual hierarchy evolved making the likes of Pink Floyd, King Crimson et al became legends to the detriment of equally musically good bands without the intellectual cachet this was true of many bands. Mr Emerson made a huge reputation and a huge fortune raiding the classical repertoire. 
Jazz is also littered with these populist demigods whose flame burns brightly and then fades. 
Classical music does not escape either. How many composers have had their greatest hit and then sink back into the relative obscurity from whence they came.
We the record buying public are responsible for a lot of this in our insatiable quest for hero's. Needless to say the Record Industry in it's avarice will produce anything of whatever quality to produce a bottom line. There are so many records being released today that just do not have the quality of a properly prepared and rehearsed studio recording. The amount of live recording's being released is bordering on the absurd. There is a frisson in a concert hall that can never be recaptured in one's living room no matter ho comfortable or how nice the glass of wine one is having with it. No the release of live recordings is just another cost cutting exercise on the part of the record companies.
If you want to see how a studio recording should be prepared then get a copy of John Culshaw's 'Ring Resounding', but that was in the days before the men with calculators ruled the music business.


----------



## millionrainbows

peeyaj said:


> We are all enthuasiasts here in TC. We discuss classical music, argue in a composer's merit, participate in classical music poll and etc..


Yeah, you wish. What about the John Cage, modernism, and minimalism bashers?



peeyaj said:


> *Do you think Classical Music enthuasiasts tend to be dismissive of other musical genres?*
> 
> I've asked this question because I've read a post dismissing the ''pop music'' today as a garbage (Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, anyone?).
> 
> I think some of us committed a form of snobbery by dismissing other genres.. Jazz, I think is highly regarded in TC, while the overproduced/autotuned pop music is looked down.. Granted, that pop music (or any other modern music) tend to be just regurgirated etc... It seems that classical music enthuasists see ''classical'' as a pinnacle of music (high art)..
> 
> What do you think?


If I were you, I wouldn't feel guilty one bit about liking pop music; I myself come from a rock/blues/country background.

Popular music has a universal appeal which enables our disparate society here in America to become unified and homogenous, even in the face of language barriers and cultural differences.


----------



## Blake

millionrainbows said:


> Popular music has a universal appeal which enables our disparate society here in America to become unified and homogenous, even in the face of language barriers and cultural differences.


Sure. It lets everyone know - "Hey, I'm just as dumb as you! Lets be friends."

I'm kidding. But really, it's the truth.


----------



## science

Vesuvius said:


> Sure. It lets everyone know - "Hey, I'm just as dumb as you! Lets be friends."
> 
> I'm kidding. But really, it's the truth.


So the answer to the OP's question is abso-freakin-lutely.


----------



## Haydn70

starthrower said:


> The old folks said that about the Beatles almost 50 years ago, but people are still listening to them today.


That is because, for the most part, the people listening to the Beatles today are folks in their late 50s, 60s and 70s who listened to them growing up.

I have seen numerous posts on various threads here on TC where people think that 50 years of musical currency is proof of permanence. It isn't.

Hardly anyone will be listening to the Beatles in 50 years...just as hardly anyone today cares about the popular music of 1919.


----------



## Bkeske

Not sure about other ‘classical music fans’, but I respect a wide variety of music. As someone who grew up in the 60’s and 70’s, of course the Beatles were a group I loved, and still listen to them. In the 70’s I was more a ‘dead head’, so yes, The Grateful Dead, The Band, Dylan, older Pink Floyd, Hendrix, Zappa, etc. Newer music? Yes, a couple of my favorite ‘bands’ are Tom Petty (god rest his soul), The Cure, or even the Eels, as example. But, I’m also a big fan of ‘bebop’ and ‘straight ahead’ Jazz; Coltrane, Miles, Bird, Modern Jazz Quartet, Ahmad Jamal, Ray Brown, Cannonball Adderly, Monk, Art Blakey, etc. One of my favorite newer Jazz artists is Dave Holland.

I will say though, probably classical or jazz are what I primarily listen to. I believe both have stronger similarities than differences. Both seem more serious about the music than the others, although I know that isn’t necessarily true, it’s probably more my subjective preference of wanting something more complex, engaging, and ‘complete’. I would imagine most here are similar, and especially ‘pop music’ just does not satisfy. Interesting though, most folks who may disregard classical as being too ‘old fashioned’ or boring, should take a closer look. Classical music can be extremely ‘cutting edge’ in its own right, and much more modern and creative than ‘popular music’, even when generations old. Unfortunaley most don’t want to take the time to appreciate that. We are an instant gratification society who wants more immediacy in our various forms of ‘entertainment’. It’s a shame, but then, many wouldn’t want to sit and listen to some of my old Dead jams either. I’m not a musician, so my respect does not come from that experience. My sister was a ballet student while growing up, and I believe that is where my early appreciation for classical music came from. I’m a visual artist/designer and cannot even read music, but enjoy it a great deal as another art form. I’m also somewhat an audiophile, and for me, that goes hand in hand to desiring music which will fully utilize the abilities of my audio equipment without a bunch of compression and distortion.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

ArsMusica said:


> Hardly anyone will be listening to the Beatles in 50 years...just as hardly anyone today cares about the popular music of 1919.


I'm a young person who is mainly into classical music and tends to think, I suppose, relatively (compared to most other people) analytically about it (though of course that is not what I think music's main appeal is). I've "gotten into" the Beatles recently (not really through my parents btw)... and I've gotta say, it's really good music. I am absolutely sure plenty of people will listen to it in 50 years, and probably beyond that as well.

I do think there's an argument to be made comparing the "quality" of classical music to commercial / pop music (though it's rarely ever made well), but categorizing all music that has been popular over the last 100 years as being of "low quality" isn't helping your case in the slightest.

Besides, I think rather than dissing artists as a starting point in your argument, you should look at the music industry as a whole and make claims about that, and then support those claims with evidence from individual artists.


----------



## Enthusiast

(As I have said in another thread) my absolute favourite heart-stoppingly-great pieces of music are all classical but there are many jazz and rock pieces/albums that I love more than a lot of classical music that I do also love. Classical doesn't equal the best but as a discipline it can lead further (up the "ladder of greatness") than other forms.


----------



## ZJovicic

Me too. Born in 1987, discovered Beatles in 2006 (before that time I just thought there were the first rock band... I didn't have a clue about other bands of that time, etc... also I thought they were probably just funny and dated old chaps).

But when I discovered them I found I really LOVE this type of music. Especially later albums. To me it's very satisfying music.

Regarding the main question, I think that being dismissive of other genres of music is quite common, not only among classical music fans.

I think it's especially common among fans of the following genres:

classical music
extreme metal
jazz
classical rock
progressive rock
punk


----------



## millionrainbows

peeyaj said:


> *
> Do you think Classical Music enthuasiasts tend to be dismissive of other musical genres?*
> 
> What do you think?


No, I think classical music listeners are often insecure, and wonder, "Am I cool enough? Why don't I like Ferlin Husky's records? After all, I'm listening to Mozart...will the guys think I'm a ***?"

Anyway, that's the way it was in West Texas.


----------



## ManuelMozart95

There are a lot of Classical fans who are dismissive of other genres but there are also lots of fans of popular genres that are dismissive of Classical Music and excuse themselves saying it is elitist as a way to justify that they don't care.


----------



## Larkenfield

_Do you think Classical Music fans tend to be dismissive of other musical genres?_

I've seen dismissiveness, condescension, snobbery, elitism and outright hostility toward every genre, including _within_ each genre itself, such as the condescension within the CM community toward certain composers viewed as outsiders, including dismissive criticism of what I would consider some of the genuine immortals (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) who gave their lives to the music... But I do believe that much of their perhaps misguided dismissiveness is well-intentioned beneath the surface in an effort to preserve what they believe are the highest standards and best of that genre; so it becomes essential to try to destroy those who are considered inferior examples that might threaten or corrupt those standards. (I'm reminded of Wagner's efforts to destroy the reputations of Meyerbeer and Mendelssohn, which it did to a certain extent.) The problem I've seen with that type of approach is that it can sometimes be emotionally isolating to those individuals and they are capable of seriously mischaracterizing or maligning the composers of genuine ability they may not like or understand.


----------



## Strange Magic

^^^^To attack another's artistic choices is a losing game. The Wise avoid it, both because such choices are (merely) expressions of individual, idiosyncratic phenomena (thoughts, stimuli), and because it only angers others and makes them even more resistant to your opinions. It's always been a source of wonder to me when I'm told I mustn't like A but should instead love B.


----------

