classical music and "elitism"

[Jo498]

Yes - I also notice some hypersensitivity against snobism and anti-intellectualism, especially in certain parts of the society. For example I think it is relatively wide-spread among people from the "working-class", which could be a reason, why this group of people is underrepresented at classical concerts.

I think this is much more widespread than lower class. The interesting thing is that until about 40-50 years ago at least parts of the lower and lower-middle classes aspired to middle and upper-middle class culture. This was one of the great things of radio broadcasts, records and later TV. If you remember German TV shows from the '80s, less than 30 years ago, you could actually encounter Hermann Prey or Anneliese Rothenberger on stage there. Of course, these shows were dominated by popular and lighter music and such classical stars would usually sing something from an operetta or well known opera (e.g. Prey one of Papageno's arias). But they were to some extent present in all-purpose TV Saturday night the whole family would watch. As I have not seen such shows in ages, I am not sure whether Netrebko would show up there once in a while. But I am quite certain that there is much less classical music present on general TV and now there are 60 channels instead of 4 or 5.

Do you mean another reason why classical music does not get the respect it deserves?

No, I mean they are a reason for denying that there are objectice differences in aesthetic quality.

[jochanaan]

...It is simply a different way of judging if I state: "That's a cadence in D major" or "That's beautiful"....

I don't see it that way.  The first statement is one of fact; the latter, one of personal perception.  Neither are "judgments" in any real sense...

[Jo498]

"Judgment" is in this context a technical term from Kant's philosophy. Judgments correspond more or less to what we would call assertions or statements. His point is roughly that aesthetic statements are not statements of fact, but they are not merely statements about "mere perceptions" either. Or in any case the "cognitive mode" of aesthetic perception and receiving pleasure from it is a special one that has to be distinguished from a bunch of other modes. Kant would e.g. deny that the pleasure from a warm bath is an aesthetic experience (it is merely "pleasant" (angenehm) not "beautiful" (schön)).
Maybe North NY can try to explain it better, my English fails me here a little, also because of the technical Kantian terms I am only familiar with in German.

[NorthNYMark]

"Judgment" is in this context a technical term from Kant's philosophy. Judgments correspond more or less to what we would call assertions or statements. His point is roughly that aesthetic statements are not statements of fact, but they are not merely statements about "mere perceptions" either. Or in any case the "cognitive mode" of aesthetic perception and receiving pleasure from it is a special one that has to be distinguished from a bunch of other modes. Kant would e.g. deny that the pleasure from a warm bath is an aesthetic experience (it is merely "pleasant" (angenehm) not "beautiful" (schön)).
Maybe North NY can try to explain it better, my English fails me here a little, also because of the technical Kantian terms I am only familiar with in German.

Actually, your English is so outstanding that if not for seeing your location on your profile, I would have no idea whatsoever that you were not a native speaker (and an unusually eloquent one at that).

And yes, by "judgment" Kant is specifically trying to define a manner of cognition that is neither entirely subjective nor entirely objective. Basically, if you like something in the way that you have an actual interest in it [in the sense of "self-interest" or "conflict of interest"]--in other words, if its existence would make your life better in some way, or even if you simply desire its existence in the actual world (like wanting a painting so you can hang it in your living room, or wanting to listen to a symphony because it will soothe you or make you feel happy), Kant would define that kind of totally personal and subjective "liking" as the agreeable (or the gratifying).  When discussing whether or not something gratifies (or "agrees with") you, you are only describing your own idiosyncratic feelings and interests, and therefore not making what he considers an aesthetic judgment.

Likewise, if you approve of something because you think it is objectively good, either in the sense that it would improve the world, or in the sense that it fulfills a particular, defined goal (such as, "this sonata is a perfect demonstration of counterpoint,"), Kant defines such approval (which depends on some pre-determined concept) as involving "the good."  He argues that aesthetic judgments can by definition involve neither the agreeable nor the good--the first is simply a subjective preference, while the second is simply an objective (or at least logical)  statement.  To judge a flower beautiful (rather than agreeable/gratifying), you have to separate yourself from any prejudice regarding its color or scent, as well as any desire to have it (or be affected by its actual presence); to judge it beautiful (rather than "good"), you have to bracket out any knowledge (biological, for example) of its function that might allow you to say that it perfectly fulfills that function.  He specifically claims that beauty is "finality without end," meaning having the appearance of being perfectly designed for some function, but in the absence of any evidence of what that function might actually be.  Basically, if you can say of something, "It seems perfect, but for what I have no idea, and it therefore pleases me in such a way that I don't really care whether or not it actually exists in my world," then, and only then, are you making an aesthetic judgment (of the beautiful) uncontaminated by the agreeable or the good.  Since you have supposedly bracketed out your own personal interests and prejudices in making such a judgment, you assume it to be universal (that is, you assume anyone else who has similarly bracketed out their interests and prejudices will have to arrive at the same conclusion), even though it has no objective basis.

The question inevitably arises: is it actually possible to judge anything in this "disintersted" way?  And when people want to claim that some works can be aesthetically "superior" to others, and moreover that this claim is not entirely subjective, yet they are unwilling to explain their objective criteria, are they not implicitly making a claim to Kantian "disinterested" judgment?  I think they are, and therefore need to deal with critiques offered by thinkers like Bourdieu.

To me, the question of elitism or snobbery is never easy when it comes to aesthetics, as the very category of "the aesthetic" kind of implies something outside the sphere of everyday experience, and some groups of people are more identified with the "everyday" than others.  At the very least, I believe those of us involved with "aesthetic" cultures or milieus would benefit by being very humble when considering such questions--not all elitism is conscious, and the most effective forms may be those of which we are least likely to be conscious.

[jochanaan]

...The question inevitably arises: is it actually possible to judge anything in this "disintersted" way?  And when people want to claim that some works can be aesthetically "superior" to others, and moreover that this claim is not entirely subjective, yet they are unwilling to explain their objective criteria, are they not implicitly making a claim to Kantian "disinterested" judgment?  I think they are, and therefore need to deal with critiques offered by thinkers like Bourdieu.

To me, the question of elitism or snobbery is never easy when it comes to aesthetics, as the very category of "the aesthetic" kind of implies something outside the sphere of everyday experience, and some groups of people are more identified with the "everyday" than others.  At the very least, I believe those of us involved with "aesthetic" cultures or milieus would benefit by being very humble when considering such questions--not all elitism is conscious, and the most effective forms may be those of which we are least likely to be conscious.

And also, such thinking is very likely to be strongly ethnocentric. African drumming, Indian ragas, Japanese taiko, and music from many other traditions may not find their way into our aesthetic judgments...

[NorthNYMark]

And also, such thinking is very likely to be strongly ethnocentric. African drumming, Indian ragas, Japanese taiko, and music from many other traditions may not find their way into our aesthetic judgments...

I agree.  In fact, one of my earliest exposures to classical music (outside of cartoons, movies, etc) involved a remarkably explicit demonstration of this kind of Eurocentrism.  Though my deeper exploration of classical music is relatively recent, I did take an introductory (classical) music history course as an undergrad, and the instructor (a woman in what I would guess to have been her late 60s) made a number of pretty shocking dismissals of other types of music.  I actually challenged her when she made a comment about how much more music there was on European television than American--"I mean, GOOD music--CLASSICAL music!" was the phrase that initially left me dumbfounded.  When I objected to the absolutism of such a characterization, she claimed that the sheer complexity of classical music made it self-evidently superior to pretty much any other forms or traditions.  Most shockingly, for the next class she brought in a recording of African drumming, specifically to demonstrate what she considered its obvious inferiority (!) to Mozart and Haydn (while completely ignoring the culturally specific nuances that several of us students were pretty sure were present in the African music).  This experience may have been a factor in my delay in fully embracing classical music.

[chadfeldheimer]

Yes, and there is a kind of "reverse snobbery" . . . of people who are "proud" that they don't know that "high-falutin'" stuff . . . .

Nice term - "reverse snobbery". This pretty much nails it. I have the impression there is a whole culture that opposes to the "high-falutin" stuff. There are so many cultural products out there, that seem to be produced according to the motto "the dumber the better". People who like that are not necessarily dumb too. Maybe they just celebrate their anti-intellectual live style.

[chadfeldheimer]

I think this is much more widespread than lower class. The interesting thing is that until about 40-50 years ago at least parts of the lower and lower-middle classes aspired to middle and upper-middle class culture. This was one of the great things of radio broadcasts, records and later TV. If you remember German TV shows from the '80s, less than 30 years ago, you could actually encounter Hermann Prey or Anneliese Rothenberger on stage there. Of course, these shows were dominated by popular and lighter music and such classical stars would usually sing something from an operetta or well known opera (e.g. Prey one of Papageno's arias). But they were to some extent present in all-purpose TV Saturday night the whole family would watch. As I have not seen such shows in ages, I am not sure whether Netrebko would show up there once in a while. But I am quite certain that there is much less classical music present on general TV and now there are 60 channels instead of 4 or 5.
No, I mean they are a reason for denying that there are objectice differences in aesthetic quality.

Agreed - it is more widespread than the lowerclass, but I think it is particularly present in the working class. With working class I mean rather the non-academic class,whose members are not necessarily in a bad economic situation and therefore part of the lower-class. Some workers (e.g. technicians in huge companies) might earn a lot more money than certain academics (maybe in the field of arts).
Being in my late 30s I don't know the German TV from 40 years ago, but I also noticed a change, especially after the start private TV stations like RTL and SAT1 in 1984. The tightened competition made it much more difficult for the public service television to fullfill their educational mandate and at the same time hold their audience rates.

[Jo498]

My impression is that most people do not really have classical music on their "radar" at all. And if, then it is a "distorted" picture, dominated by New Years Concert, Three tenors, or even Paul Potts. It's understandable that they often do not even dislike it, they just do not care.
I am not much older than you, but I do remember the early 80s on TV. Of course the way classical artists were presented may even have strengthened the idea that it was "Grandmother's music". But they were more present in TV shows everyone watched (like Quiz, Game shows etc.) And on Sunday mornings and afternoon there were often real concerts on TV. Or later at night on weekday. When I started listening to classical in the late 80s I watched Bernstein's Vienna Beethoven concerts with introductions and later on also some Mahler and other things on "normal" German TV.

Another interesting thing is that even among university graduates classical music is not well known. Much less than theatre/drama or modern art, I'd guess.

[Mirror Image]

The whole 'Eurocentric' side of elitism is what really irks me to no end. There's some fantastic music in other countries outside of Europe, especially in the US, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, etc.

[Florestan]

The whole 'Eurocentric' side of elitism is what really irks me to no end. There's some fantastic music in other countries outside of Europe, especially in the US, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, etc.

That's true and good, but let's face it, folks: "classical" music, or whatever term you want to use instead, was born and developed in Europe long before US, Mexico, Canada and Brazil became states in their own right.  When it comes to this type of music, Europe owes nothing to US, Mexico, Canada, Brazil etc, while these latter owe everything to Europe. That's not Eurocentrism, that's an amply documented historical fact.   

[NorthNYMark]

That's true and good, but let's face it, folks: "classical" music, or whatever term you want to use instead, was born and developed in Europe long before US, Mexico, Canada and Brazil became states in their own right.  When it comes to this type of music, Europe owes nothing to US, Mexico, Canada, Brazil etc, while these latter owe everything to Europe. That's not Eurocentrism, that's an amply documented historical fact.   

This may be the case, but it seems to miss the point that non-European musical traditions not fitting within the confines of "classical" tend to be disparaged via the standards and/or assumptions peculiar to the "classical," which can lead to a kind of parochialism (my music class anecdote above being just one remarkably blatant example). Generally, when United Statesians refer to "Eurocentrism," we don't mean European disparagement of the US, Canada, etc., but basically Western disparagement of the non-Western (or indigenous) cultures--in other words, as former European colonies, we tend to consider ourselves part of the "Euro" of Eurocentrism in most cases where that term is used.

However, as a devotee of many "new world" classical composers, Mirror Image may well have meant it in exactly the way you have have understood it here (that is, an assumption that classical music is best when composed and performed by people born in continental Europe). But to me, composers like Copland or Villa-Lobos are just as much heirs to the European tradition as any of the Europeans composing at the time who were also exploring and incorporating more indigenous folk traditions into their music (Bartok, etc.).

[Florestan]

an assumption that classical music is best when composed and performed by people born in continental Europe.

I don't subscribe to that and it wasn't my point at all.

But to me, composers like Copland or Villa-Lobos are just as much heirs to the European tradition as any of the Europeans composing at the time who were also exploring and incorporating more indigenous folk traditions into their music (Bartok, etc.).

Agreed, with an emphasis on heirs. They inherited a made in Europe tradition, to which they added their own contribution. As for incorporating indigenous music, Bartok did it indeed, but the indigenous music was in itself European (Hungarian and Romanian). 

[North Star]

The whole 'Eurocentric' side of elitism is what really irks me to no end. There's some fantastic music in other countries outside of Europe, especially in the US, Mexico, Canada, Brazil, etc.

And much of the Eurocentrism is followed by the emphasis on music from eras before western classical music really had taken off anywhere else (how many non-European composers from before the 20th century can you name?)

The matter of non-Western traditional music is different of course.

This may be the case, but it seems to miss the point that non-European musical traditions not fitting within the confines of "classical" tend to be disparaged via the standards and/or assumptions peculiar to the "classical," which can lead to a kind of parochialism (my music class anecdote above being just one remarkably blatant example).

True. And exposure to these musics isn't too commonly available, either  - unless you deliberately seek for e.g. Youtube videos or buy CD's, but something must make one curious about these musics in the first place.

However, as a devotee of many "new world" classical composers, Mirror Image may well have meant it in exactly the way you have have understood it here (that is, an assumption that classical music is best when composed and performed by people born in continental Europe). But to me, composers like Copland or Villa-Lobos are just as much heirs to the European tradition as any of the Europeans composing at the time who were also exploring and incorporating more indigenous folk traditions into their music (Bartok, etc.).

I'm sure he meant exactly that. And you're of course right that these composers' music is just as European as Debussy's, Stravinsky's Ligeti's or Britten's.

[Jo498]

I think the "eurocentrism" and comparative neglect of non-european traditions is not all that relevant to the status of classical music in the west (which was the OP's point). As we all know classical music is gaining audiences and musicians in Asia, especially East Asia.
Although I do not have any data I guess it is more likely for a western classical music lover to be interested in the "classical" musical traditions of e.g. India and in "ethnic" music from indigenous people than for a lover of western popular music. Despite the occasional use of Indian instruments already by the Beatles.

[NorthNYMark]

I don't subscribe to that and it wasn't my point at all.

Agreed, with an emphasis on heirs. They inherited a made in Europe tradition, to which they added their own contribution. As for incorporating indigenous music, Bartok did it indeed, but the indigenous music was in itself European (Hungarian and Romanian). 

Good points, but I'm not entirely sure what you are actually trying to emphasize with the bolded phrases.  Of course the traditions they inherited would be European ones, because they were European colonies--when you say they inherited a "made in Europe" tradition to which they added something of their own, I'm not sure exactly how that is  different from the equivalent generation of European composers who also took what they inherited from earlier generations and added something of their own to it (especially in the case of those European nationalist composers who tried to emphasize their indigenous differences from the dominant Austro-German tradition).  Pointing out that those traditions were still technically "European" misses the point those composers were trying to make, it seems to me. A remote Transylvanian village was probably just as culturally provincial (and therefore "distant") in relation to Vienna and Paris as any location in the (European-settled) "New World" would have been at the time. Are there significant ways in which Bartok's combining those distant influences with the culturally dominant Viennese tradition is much different from a Latin American composer doing the same thing?

In any event, the term "Eurocentrism" wouldn't normally refer to the attitudes of someone assuming the superiority (or more authentic "Europeanness") of a Dvorak to that of a Copland or Villa-Lobos, but more to the attitudes of someone assuming the superiority of the likes of Dvorak, Copland, and Villa-Lobos (because of their shared "Europeanness") to the indigenous cultural traditions that they all incorporated into their very European musical language. 

[NorthNYMark]

I think the "eurocentrism" and comparative neglect of non-european traditions is not all that relevant to the status of classical music in the west (which was the OP's point). As we all know classical music is gaining audiences and musicians in Asia, especially East Asia.
Although I do not have any data I guess it is more likely for a western classical music lover to be interested in the "classical" musical traditions of e.g. India and in "ethnic" music from indigenous people than for a lover of western popular music. Despite the occasional use of Indian instruments already by the Beatles.

Good point.  Some  ethnomusicologist colleagues of mine would be great examples of what you are describing. I'm not so sure that it is entirely irrelevant, though.  For example, some might argue that when devotees of classical sneer at the simplicity of, say, rock music in general (and I'm not saying that most devotees of classical music would do such a thing, but it would be a pretty obvious instance of the kind of snobbery most often associated with the world of classical music), they may be missing out on some very culturally meaningful aspects of the blues, for example, that derive ultimately from non-western (or suppressed/dominated) traditions that aren't recognized or valued within a Eurocentric cultural outlook.  I'm not, by the way, attempting to argue that all pop music should be valued in this way, but the very fact that many (though hardly all) classical music aficionados commonly make sweeping dismissals of rock or pop music in general, without acknowledging key distinctions among the genres,  may speak to certain cultural blind spots.

[Izzy Black]

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?

The point earlier about establishing the relevant criteria is apropos. I think certain criteria are operational within certain groups and cultures, and these shared standards are what render the possibility of a kind of "objective" judgment (more properly construed as "intersubjective"). This is relevant to the Kant discussion on the last page, of course. I may follow up on some of those posts later.

Thus, given a certain cultural framework and attitude, it's quite sensible to say, yes, Seven Samurai is indeed a better film than Thor.. But no, liking Seven Samurai needn't make you a better person, since this would go beyond the scope of a mere aesthetic theory and would entail a moral theory, or in any case, a more general theory of value.

[Izzy Black]

On the other hand, if one thinks Kant is wrong, and that truly objective factors can play a role in aesthetic judgment, then one should have no trouble identifying the objective factors at play. In the case of Mozart's supposed superiority to Britney Spears and Pink Floyd, for example, one could say that Mozart is objectively superior to either of them if the criteria for "superiority" involve thematic development or use of counterpoint.  However, I rarely hear people making such claims about Mozart's superiority, and I think it is because they feel that to reduce it to such objective criteria diminishes the simple force of a statement like,"Surely you cannot deny the obvious [universal?] superiority of Mozart!"

I am not so sure about this. I think the matter is more complicated than that, since we often encounter ambiguity, nuance, and vagueness in making aesthetic judgments. I think this probably better explains why people tend to be reluctant in making sweeping gestures at establishing Mozart's superiority with such blanket statements. I think many people find aesthetic criticism to be very difficult. I certainly do, which is why I have great admiration for critics that do it well. Which is to say, even if you believe there are things like universal criteria at play in aesthetic judgments, you may not know what they are. These criteria may remain obscure to us. We may have a good feeling as to what they are, but feel ill-equipped to articulate them. Or, alternatively, we might think we could, on principle, discover them after a sufficient level of critical thought and analysis, but we may not be able to supply them off hand. A further, more general problem that relates to these arguable epistemic limitations is that we may know the relevant aesthetic criteria, but find ourselves encountering difficulty in explicating how a given work either succeeds or fails in meeting that criteria.

[NorthNYMark]

I am not so sure about this. I think the matter is more complicated than that, since we often encounter ambiguity, nuance, and vagueness in making aesthetic judgments. I think this probably better explains why people tend to be reluctant in making sweeping gestures at establishing Mozart's superiority with such blanket statements. I think many people find aesthetic criticism to be very difficult. I certainly do, which is why I have great admiration for critics that do it well. Which is to say, even if you believe there are things like universal criteria at play in aesthetic judgments, you may not know what they are. These criteria may remain obscure to us. We may have a good feeling as to what they are, but feel ill-equipped to articulate them. Or, alternatively, we might think we could, on principle, discover them after a sufficient level of critical thought and analysis, but we may not be able to supply them off hand. A further, more general problem that relates to these arguable epistemic limitations is that we may know the relevant aesthetic criteria, but find ourselves encountering difficulty in explicating how a given work either succeeds or fails in meeting that criteria.

I think these are some great points.  However, given your observation that I put in bold, I guess my question becomes one of why people seem to be so insistent that there are objective or universal criteria at play in aesthetic judgments in the first place. I get the sense that it is important to some people to be able to say, with authority, that Mozart truly is superior to whomever (Salieri, Britney Spears, and Pink Floyd have come up so far, but I can imagine the formula being applied to Haydn, Beethoven, Bartok, Stockhausen, etc.).  To some extent, what I am trying to do here is question that very need--why do we need to do that, and might we not want to try to overcome it?  Now, that does not mean that a comparative analysis of specific aspects of the outputs of Mozart and one or several of the aforementioned artists might not be very illuminating.  But why do we need to use the word "superior" or as a generality?  (Again, I can see 'superior to some specific artist at some narrowly specific skill," but that is a different matter entirely).

It sounds a bit like you are advocating a somewhat Kantian position, in that you may be concerned that to give up the idea of universal, objective criteria would be to reduce all aesthetic criticism to "everybody has a right to her opinion."  However, I think it is possible to look deeply into works to find insight into them while resisting the desire to rank in terms of what may be a chimerical and/or culturally biased notion of "aesthetic quality."  The very vagueness of Kant's attempts to describe aesthetic judgment, wherein he does a far better job of describing what it is not than what it actually is, may suggest that it involves an ultimately unfulfillable desire for a "universal subjectivity." I don't mind people having the desire, but wish we would more often acknowledge its (arguably) inherent limitations and biases when indulging that desire.