Who is "greater," Bach or Beethoven?

[Henk]

Orthogonal, really. People enjoying the art, is an important part of what drives its preservation.

Good point, Karl.

[karlhenning]

Agreed but there is nothing to be gained by diluting the art in order to appeal to undeveloped tastes.

Well, I'll agree that this is an ignoble and unworthy path. I'll agree that more is to be gained, by better methods.

But it is unwisdom to assert that "there is nothing to be gained"; good comes even out of bad, all the time. It is part of what makes good greater than bad.

[karlhenning]

Good point, Karl.

Thanks, Henk (and good to see you back, BTW). On reading further, I see that Neal got there first, but I do not mind.

[mc ukrneal]

Thanks, Henk (and good to see you back, BTW). On reading further, I see that Neal got there first, but I do not mind.

Different takes on the same thing, so still additive!

But is was really mn dave's poster that gave me the biggest chuckle. Very cleverly done (and on subject)...

[Florestan]

Agreed but there is nothing to be gained by diluting the art in order to appeal to undeveloped tastes.

Agreed, that's one of my main point: let's develop taste, by exposure and education!

The fact of the matter is that the only way the average listener can be made to appreciate classical music is if they pour the effort and willingness to learn and understand what's it really about.

Agreed again, but I don't see why fun and enjoyment should play no part in the process. Now, of course, I'm not talking about instant gratification --- but, for instance, of all the fun and enjoyment that comes from music-making among friends or family members, an activity whose importance, not only artistic, but also social, could hardly be overrated and which, unfortunately, seem to have all but disappeared in our world.

To keep the balance between a "stiff necked" approach and a "diluted" approach is not easy task, for sure --- but there is so much music out there which meets both criteria of being profound and enjoyable and which can serve as an excellent starting point.

Today however the very idea that there are things in this world that need knowledge and personal development in order to be appreciated is completely unknown to most.

A third agreement.

It is not the people who are at fault really, or at least no more then they ever were, its our culture that has changed, for the worst.

And a fourth...

I see no difference really, except that The Three Tenors might be comparatively less vulgar, which is another argument altogether.

You're being much too harsh on them. Let's not forget they are (in Pavarotti's case, were) not buffoons, but classicaly trained artists in their own right, whose contribution to the advancement of their art cannot be overlooked and who offered us some excellent performances and recordings.

Maybe opera is a genre that doesn't have much appeal to you, I don't know --- but I doubt you'll find many serious opera lovers who would consider Domingo, Carreras and Pavarotti as just "comparatively less vulgar" than Iggy Pop or would dismiss them altogether for their "pop" concerts and discs.

After all, their greatest merit with respect to the issue at hand is exactly that: they showed that an unbuttoned, relaxed and fun approach -- without compromising in the slightest the artistic sincerity and integrity --- can be succesful and that people can be attracted to this kind of music who normally would not care about it. Now, of course, whether someone was convinced by them to deepen his interest in classical music past The Three Tenors series, I don't know, though I suspect some "conversions" might have taken place. But the very fact that instead of going to crap-ish pop concerts people flocked to hear opera arias, overtures or folkloric tunes is a very positive one.

Well, i can only rely on my own individual impression through out the years. Many times i've have met people who have listed popular classical pieces like the ones i mentioned above among their favored "songs", but you could tell they didn't understand a whole lot about classical music in general.

That's true, but as you conceded yourself, it's not their fault, and a lofty approach is guaranteed to fail with them.

Through out the years, i had a lot more success converting people who were already interested in forms of music of a certain degree of sophistication (such as Jazz, or progressive Rock), people whom would have found The Three Tenors as uninteresting as we do.

Who are this "we" in the last line? Please count me out. 

  I went thought the same process myself. I could never manage to hack through classical music, though i did make a few sporadic attempts. Then one day i became enamored with a group called King Crimson, which i listened to assiduously for more then two years. One day i was reading an interview with the main guitar player, who mentioned Bartok and late Beethoven among his main influences. My curiosity in classical music was rekindled, and this time i had a much easier time delving into the main repertory thanks to my experience with this band, who's music was far more complex then anything i had experienced until then.

Well, for you the trigger was King Crimson. What if for others was Pavarotti singing "Nessun dorma"? Does it seem that unplausible to you?

Personally, unless people are made aware that there things in music which require a certain amount of effort and growth to understand, no progress will ever be made. Most of the people who argue that classical music is stuffy and boring do not even know that there many other things to music then what their limited experience taught them. Their impression is one which is often based upon mere ignorance rather then individual taste (or lack of there of). They say they don't like classical music, but in actuality they don't really know it. For all intended purpose they might fall in love with it, if they knew what it really was.

Well, exactly. I come again and again to the single most important issue: exposure / education.

I was 22 when i first started to listen to classical music in a serious manner, and i had very little musical education up to that point, besides my two years of training with King Crimson. Thus, i don't think its ever too late. All you need is the right type of exposure, not just any type of exposure, which may not be sufficient.

No, it's never too late, you are right, but chances are bigger when the start is early. As for the right type of exposure, I don't think there is one single way to do it. What works for me might not work for you and viceversa.

[71 dB]

Then one day i became enamored with a group called King Crimson, which i listened to assiduously for more then two years. One day i was reading an interview with the main guitar player, who mentioned Bartok and late Beethoven among his main influences. My curiosity in classical music was rekindled, and this time i had a much easier time delving into the main repertory thanks to my experience with this band, who's music was far more complex then anything i had experienced until then.

For me it was the other way around. I found Classical music in 1996 and King Crimson 12 years later, in 2008. Before year 2001 I considered all rock music repulsive noise for simpletons because gems like King Crimson are so carefully kept hidden from public. In 2001 I found soft rock bands Kashmir and Lowgold. I understood that good and interesting rock music exists. We just have to dig it up. Took 7 years for me to find King Crimson! 

[starrynight]

We are swamped with so much information nowadays that it isn't easy to find much of the good stuff, it can take a bit of dedication and time to find some things.

[Opus106]

Take a Rammstein or Lady Gaga fan at random --- what are the chances that s/he'll have the will and patience to listen to a Beethoven sonata or Chopin nocturne?

Just saw this comment on YouTube, for a video* of Bach's two-violin concerto: "I normally don't listen to 18 minute songs but I just couldn't turn it off". No idea if the person was a Rammstein or LG fan. Nor do I know if the person listens to "songs" 17m59s or 18m01s long.



*Concertmaster doubles as soloist?!

[PaulSC]

Just saw this comment on YouTube, for a video* of Bach's two-violin concerto: "I normally don't listen to 18 minute songs but I just couldn't turn it off". No idea if the person was a Rammstein or LG fan. Nor do I know if the person listens to "songs" 17m59s or 18m01s long.

Maybe the comment author was reporting a computer malfunction? 

[jochanaan]

...*Concertmaster doubles as soloist?!

Yes, that happens a lot, and has throughout "our" music's history.

[Florestan]

Maybe the comment author was reporting a computer malfunction? 

[Brian]

Just saw this comment on YouTube, for a video* of Bach's two-violin concerto: "I normally don't listen to 18 minute songs but I just couldn't turn it off". No idea if the person was a Rammstein or LG fan. Nor do I know if the person listens to "songs" 17m59s or 18m01s long.

Another comment: "18 minutes yes.. but it seems split in three parts, or songs even."

Awww... makes me want to hug these people and then give them the Intro to Classical lecture.