classical music and "elitism"

[Mandryka]

I never said that at all. You are clearly not understanding what I'm meaning at all.

Enjoying classical music doesn't make one have superior abilities, and it doesn't require superior abilities to listen-to or explore, either.

Maybe what it does require is a sense of curiosity about the arts. You know, pop music's everywhere, but Stockhausen isn't, so you have to have an itch to go find out about it. And that curiosity may come through a certain type of liberal education, which isn't met so much in state schools in England. There's a link there to elitism.

There's also a historical tradition. There's a connection between pop music and working class songs which goes back a long time, much less so with classical music. And in the UK at least there's a connection between opera, Covent Garden etc, and posh people at their leisure.

[ritter]

Again .. you're just describing social and cultural stereotypes .. none of this has much to do with elitism.

I suggest you reread Chad's initial post...that way perhaps the conversation can be refocused on what he was asking.

Cheers,

[Israfel the Black]

This discussion reminds me of a scene from James Gray's film Two Lovers starring Joaquin Phoenix and Gwenyth Paltrow. Set in a posh restaurant at night, the boyfriend of Gwenyth Paltrow's character says to Leonard, played by Phoenix, "I don't know if Michelle told you [but] we got opera tickets the other night. We try to go often as we can (...) You know what the great thing about it is? For me? It makes you feel special when you're there." The character espousing this sentiment is of course some hotshot New York attorney at a large firm that very much enjoys the spoils and privilege of his upper-middle class Manhattan lifestyle (and in effect, impressing his relative superiority to Leonard on Paltrow's character by underlying Leonard's working class/unemployed status).

In some ways, though, at least in the states (my native country), this sort of sentiment is largely an artifact of the past. I think this is the case for several reasons. For starters, while it may be true that there may be a small, insular select group that take themselves to enjoy a certain status enhancement from attending classical music events, I think this number has (1) diminished in quantity, and (2) diminished in social significance. In other words, whereas at one time, I think such events were in fact perceived as a status symbol by a majority of others, this is significantly much less the case now. In the states, classical music might often be perceived as boring, stuffy, and relegated to use as background music in things like commercials, elevators, and holding queues by call centers. This is further driven by the fact that consumption of classical musical at one time was something that was only consistently possible for the rich, but now, due to the rise of social media and the digital age, its mass distribution and cheap cost has made it something that anyone out on the street can enjoy. Which is to say, it no longer occupies the same social role in society as it once did. Its air of sophistication has been cheapened and parodied by mass culture, largely because its historical class associations are no longer respected in the way that it once was. In America, it's perceived as a relic of an aristocratic age no longer respected, or at least, if we're speaking in terms of prestige and as a signifer of class.

Another turn of events is that the relative distinction between "high" and "low" culture has broken down quite significantly. (This is related to the point about the effect of digital media. For instance, pop artists these days might draw on influences both "high" and "low" as you might just as likely find Mozart on a popular artist's iPod as you would Sir Mix-a-lot). I think ritter's earlier point about the new elite is spot on, as the same holds in America. The new money elite in the 25-45 age bracket on Wall Street, for instance, are more likely to listen to Kanye West and to be seen attending celebrity pop cultural outings, downtown clubs, yachting trips, vacations in the Hamptons, and fashion shows than they are to be seen at the Met. It seems to me that a celebration of wealth and signifiers of wealth are the only real stateside status symbols anymore. The values associated with classical music events and that sense of feeling "special" from being seen at the opera house have largely been replaced. These values of sophistication, refinement, and intellectualism may still be an artifact of the past inherited by the academic elite, as the OP mentioned, but in my eyes, the academic elite occupy a very small minority of the cultural elites these days compared to the past, where intellectual and cultural sophistication often went hand-in-hand.

[jochanaan]

There is an elephant in the room here, and it is the economic reality that, since (at least here in America; I've heard things are a little different in some European countries) income inequity and concert prices are both rising, only the economic "elite" are able to afford to go to concerts regularly.  However, here in Denver and in many other places "on this side of the pond," there are lots of events that don't cost nearly as much: amateur or semi-professional orchestra and choral concerts, college recitals, house concerts and the like.  At those events, there is much less elitism and snobbery as those terms are commonly understood.

[chadfeldheimer]

I'm happy about the brisk discussion on the topic. It seems most of you think that snobism/elitism at classical events has strongly diminished. I'm also not so sure about it's current extent at the classical events I visited, mostly because I seldom really got in contact with other participants of the event, so that I had to judge mainly from the outward appearance. Also like ritter's example of the ill-humored journalist might show, mood does always influence your perception. Nevertheless I am quite sure that classical concert goers do not represent a cross section of the whole society, but rather of the more wealthy and more educated sector of population (thereby I mean rather the top 50% than the top 1%). Working class members are in my opinion considerably underrepresented. Thereby I agree with Jo498 that the main reason is not the concert prices, which are actually relatively low in Germany, even lower than many rock or pop-concerts. Maybe one reason is that working class people do not get in contact that much with classical music, but I also feel some kind of mistrust of many working class people towards classical music. Coming originally from the working class myself, I met many people that reacted like I changed the sides when I touch the topic classical music. Maybe it should be better promoted that classical music events aren't so elitist anymore then they have been. Do you agree that there are still many prejudices around?

[Jo498]

You are probably right. But what can one do except go for better kindergarten and primary school exposition of (classical) music?
My parents (born in the 40s) had both rather lower class backgrounds (not dependent workers, but land-owning peasants and self-employed craftsmen), but in the fifties and sixties striving for solid middle class income and status often did involve going to theatre, opera etc. and develop at least a little interest in "high culture" classical music, although often focussed on operetta and popular opera. This has changed. It's now pop/rock music and rather low-brow musicals with fancy decoration As has been pointed out, nowadayd even the rich often have hardly any use for "high culture".

And popular culture has become much more powerful in the last 50 years. It just dominates everything, unless you make an effort to ignore it. There is hardly any escape (unless we go for some kind of totalitarianism which would be overreacting...). Maybe one can do this locally within a family, but this will usually only be done by parents with a strong background in playing/listening music and receptive of "high culture".

[jochanaan]

Well, lots of folks have either not been properly introduced to it, or have been told "It's good for you!" like a parent trying to coerce a child to eat his vegetables.  I'm not sure what's the best way to introduce our music to someone who has no real acquaintance with it--maybe it's just to present it and let them decide for themselves if it's worth listening to...

[not edward]

Well, lots of folks have either not been properly introduced to it, or have been told "It's good for you!" like a parent trying to coerce a child to eat his vegetables.  I'm not sure what's the best way to introduce our music to someone who has no real acquaintance with it--maybe it's just to present it and let them decide for themselves if it's worth listening to...

Absolutely. Don't force it. If they want to discover the music, they will.

Quite a few people I've known, who had no interest in "art music" or whatever you want to call it, have listened to music or gone to concerts largely because I or other people they know do. Not all of them have taken to it, but some have... perhaps not surprisingly I think most of those who did were interested in the more experimental end of rock.

Funny story: a friend of mine once tagged along with me to a concert in Edinburgh, and was a bit embarassed at how underdressed we were compared to most of the audience. When she mentioned this to me, I was able to point to a guy in shabby jeans and a leather jacket and say "nah, we're dressed about the same as the guy who wrote the next piece on the program."

[NorthNYMark]

I find it hard to get into any discussion of taste and cultural elitism without reference to this fascinating study: [asin] 978-0674212770[/asin]
In this book, Bourdieu, a sociologist, presents data that pretty convincingly demonstrates correlations between different types of cultural taste and different degrees of class status (and he distinguishes between economic and cultural capital, so wealth alone isn't his primary measure of status).  He takes at least two positions I find particularly provocative and interesting.  First, he maintains that more elite tastes tend to be more Kantian, i.e., more "disinterested" (wherein judgments of taste tend to be divorced from either immediate sensual gratification or moral/ethical considerations), and he thinks this is not accidental, though it may seem coincidental to most people (and is more effective when it appears "natural," as in "to the manner born"). Second, he doesn't present his findings as a simple binary of high and low, but maintains that when society is stratified into multiple levels, people at each level are mainly concerned with distinguishing their tastes from the level they perceive to be directly beneath them, rather than the lowest level--for example, some upper-class people might be more inclined to embrace certain working class cultural forms (though in a more "disinterested" manner) if they believe that upper-middle class people (or "new money elite") reject those forms. 

I suspect that the very fact that classical music is not as present among the upper middle classes (who were probably the target markets in the U.S. for recording series like the RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence in the '50s and '60s) may make it all the more secure as a marker of elite status these days. Of course, as someone who comes from a very modest sociocultural background myself, I very much appreciate the wider availability of what may previously have been a far more restricted cultural form. 

[Moonfish]

There is an elephant in the room here, and it is the economic reality that, since (at least here in America; I've heard things are a little different in some European countries) income inequity and concert prices are both rising, only the economic "elite" are able to afford to go to concerts regularly.  However, here in Denver and in many other places "on this side of the pond," there are lots of events that don't cost nearly as much: amateur or semi-professional orchestra and choral concerts, college recitals, house concerts and the like.  At those events, there is much less elitism and snobbery as those terms are commonly understood.

Very true! I think the cost for most concerts and opera events are prohibitive and by default restricts the composition of the audience.

[Ken B]

Let me ask two questions

1 is Seven Samurai a better movie than Thor?
2 does liking Seven Samurai make you a better person than someone who likes Thor?

Okay, I lied, three questions

3 do you have to give the same answer to 1 and 2?

[chadfeldheimer]

Let me ask two questions

1 is Seven Samurai a better movie than Thor?
2 does liking Seven Samurai make you a better person than someone who likes Thor?

Okay, I lied, three questions

3 do you have to give the same answer to 1 and 2?

And what if I like Thor better than Seven Samurai and think this makes me a better person? 

[Jo498]

What do you mean with better? better at judging films maybe or with more refined cultural taste. I have no problem with that. But with unqualified "better" we tend to mean morally better and this doesn't follow at all.
(Admittedly I have not seen either movie, so I am innocent/uncultured in this respect.)

[Ken B]

What do you mean with better? better at judging films maybe or with more refined cultural taste. I have no problem with that. But with unqualified "better" we tend to mean morally better and this doesn't follow at all.
(Admittedly I have not seen either movie, so I am innocent/uncultured in this respect.)

Yes, I agree on all counts. That makes us elitists, but not wankers. It's an important distinction.

[chadfeldheimer]

Quite a few people I've known, who had no interest in "art music" or whatever you want to call it, have listened to music or gone to concerts largely because I or other people they know do. Not all of them have taken to it, but some have... perhaps not surprisingly I think most of those who did were interested in the more experimental end of rock.

Yes it's not surprisingly indeedl, I also took the route from experimental rock (like Velvet Underground, Can, Sonic Youth) over minimalism (Glass, Reich ...) and Avantgarde (Varese, Stockhausen, Ligeti ...) to all kinds of classical music from previous ("older") periods.

[Ken B]

Yes it's not surprisingly indeedl, I also took the route from experimental rock (like Velvet Underground, Can, Sonic Youth) over minimalism (Glass, Reich ...) and Avantgarde (Varese, Stockhausen, Ligeti ...) to all kinds of classical music from previous ("older") periods.

For sure. I found them more recptive to Philip Glass back before he was cool too. People looking for more out of music than factory pop.

[NorthNYMark]

What do you mean with better? better at judging films maybe or with more refined cultural taste. I have no problem with that. But with unqualified "better" we tend to mean morally better and this doesn't follow at all.
(Admittedly I have not seen either movie, so I am innocent/uncultured in this respect.)

Exactly.  While I have not seen either film, one cannot discuss whether anything is "better" than anything else without first clarifying the criteria (in other words, "better at what, in particular?"). Assuming a particular set of (unspoken) criteria may be what distinguishes snobbery most clearly (i.e., "If you don't "get" the criteria, you are clearly not worthy, and we don't even really need to point this out since it will be obvious to anyone in the know").

[chadfeldheimer]

Yes, I agree on all counts. That makes us elitists, but not wankers. It's an important distinction.

That again yields to the question what is an elitist? Someone who belongs to some kind of elite, but is not necessarily proud of it and does not have a strong drive to let hang it out, or someone who thinks he is part of a elite (legitimate or not) and does show it very offensive.

[Jo498]

I guess some people will call everyone "elitist" who insist that there is some sense (and a set of plausible criteria) according to which, say, Mozart's last symphony is (obviously and clearly) superior to everything by Britney Spears. Actually, it's also superior to more sophisticated Rock music like e.g. "The Wall" or whatever.

The idea that there could be such a thing as objective aesthetic criteria is rather foreign to our time and age. Many people implicitly use such criteria, but when challenged they will say that it is only their personal taste.

[chadfeldheimer]

Exactly.  While I have not seen either film, one cannot discuss whether anything is "better" than anything else without first clarifying the criteria (in other words, "better at what, in particular?"). Assuming a particular set of (unspoken) criteria may be what distinguishes snobbery most clearly (i.e., "If you don't "get" the criteria, you are clearly not worthy, and we don't even really need to point this out since it will be obvious to anyone in the know").

I agree, assuming a particular set of (unspoken) criteria can really be a distinctive mark for snobbery, but I think it does not have to be, at least in the case that everone knows the criteria and hence no one is excluded. Then it would perhaps only serve to ease the communication.

BTW: The book from Bourdieu you mentioned in a prior post seems very interesting to me - I think about purchasing it.