classical music and "elitism"

[Izzy Black]

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).

I imagine there are a lot of reasons to consider here. My guess is that the desire to project the authority of one's opinions and/or to find a general agreement with others is something more basic to begin with and common among people across cultures, but it probably goes well beyond this, given the many centuries of cultural reinforcement that goes into prizing excellence and greatness, particularly in Western society. In America, for instance, the pursuit of excellence is clearly a very important value (but this very Western value can be traced all the way back to Ancient Greece). It sits well, generally speaking, with the competitive and stratified nature of American society. But I like to lean more on the more basic explanation that deep down people just want to find commonality with others. I suspect that the notion that the things that move us most profoundly in life (i.e. art) might be an entirely subjective phenomenon is rather frightening and alienating to people. To be each one's own, is to be, perhaps, on your own, and that's, well, a lonely place to be. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it may just be the case that there are, in fact, objective features in aesthetic judgments, full stop. Consequently, the tendency to want to maintain these judgments merely arises from a rational commitment in the recognition, or in any case, the belief, or feeling, that they do in fact exist. From a psychological standpoint, then, it's quite intelligible to me why people feel compelled to argue, debate, and universalize their opinions. It facilitates at least one interpretation of a social community, one that invariably lends itself to hierarchies. I'm sure I'm only just scratching the surface here on the many factors that likely explain this tendency in people.

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.

I actually wasn't defending any particular view. I was merely attempting to explain how someone who rejects the Kantian line might still encounter difficulty in explaining how objective judgments might work. Nevertheless, I am in fact sympathetic to this view, or at least something akin to it. I made suggestions of my view in my first post on this page. Perhaps some of the psychological factors I note above might explain my tendency toward shared criteria, but personally, I just think that I can't help but detect shared values across cultures when observing people's activity and our engagement with art. Similarly, I can't give up that nagging feeling of shared moral principles in social discourse, however obscure, perplexing, and even contradictory disputes about moral values may be. This is based on my understanding and conception of human nature. I tend to think the majority of us are far more alike than we are dissimilar, and that we share and participate in much of the same values of beauty as we do of goodness.

It's important, however, to separate this inclination toward preserving the universality of aesthetic judgments from the tendency toward preserving superlative standards of aesthetic judgments. You might still think some artists are greater than others without assuming these judgments are universal. On the other hand, you might think there are shared standards (i.e. objective features) of aesthetic criticism and analysis without also assuming some artworks are superior to others. This will all just depend on your aesthetic theory. As to your specific concern with the tendency to praise some artists over others, I can tell you that at least in my case, this comes from the very basic fact that I can't help but acknowledge that some artworks affect me more profoundly than others. It's a very short walk from here to get to comparative hierarchies, lists, and cannons. I personally think this should be a more constructive enterprise with an aim toward acknowledging greatness rather than focusing on the negative by denigrating perceived "lower" forms, etc; I think this can be reasonably teased out and framed within the original discussion of elitism and how it bears on proper standards of civil discourse and aesthetic appraisal, but I think this can be accomplished without altogether giving up on the notion that we might not compare the greatness of Beethoven to his contemporaries or his successors.

[jochanaan]

Florestan, what some of us, myself included, are trying to get included in any serious discussion of aesthetics is music that (in its original form at least) owes nothing to European or European-colonial traditions, such as Indian ragas, Japanese taiko or shakuhachi music, and Peking opera.  (Even the last has been influenced somewhat by EuroAmerican opera traditions, but it's still a very different form.)  Both the technical and the "spiritual" attributes of such musics are judged by very different criteria than those used to judge "our" music.  So how can we form any "absolute" aesthetic criteria without including these very different aesthetic events?

[Florestan]

Florestan, what some of us, myself included, are trying to get included in any serious discussion of aesthetics is music that (in its original form at least) owes nothing to European or European-colonial traditions, such as Indian ragas, Japanese taiko or shakuhachi music, and Peking opera.  (Even the last has been influenced somewhat by EuroAmerican opera traditions, but it's still a very different form.)  Both the technical and the "spiritual" attributes of such musics are judged by very different criteria than those used to judge "our" music.  So how can we form any "absolute" aesthetic criteria without including these very different aesthetic events?

Seems like you misunderstood me, and not only you. Or rather I didn't express myself clear enough. Let me restate it as clear as I can. I've heard many times the accusation of Eurocentrism made against classical music, together with the already classic one of dead white males writing for dead white males. I simply contend that there is nothing Eurocentric in it, it's just a fact of history that for several hundred years this music developed exclusively in Europe (well, almost: there is an extremely interesting Latin American Baroque), for reasons too many and too obvious to discuss here. To dismiss classical music on grounds of Eurocentrism strikes me as an absurdity; and I hasten to add that equally absurd is the dismissal of non-European classical music or performers on the ground that they are not part of the grand European tradition of interpretation (something former GMG member M Forever specialized in, to the point of explicitly insulting Texans or Midwesterners.)

My point above has nothing to do with judging other musical traditions by the criteria used for classical music. I don't object in any way to those traditions being included in the general picture of music across time and space, nor do I dismiss them as being inferior to classical music.

I hope I made myself more clear.

[Florestan]

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.

Not just as, but even more. New York or Montreal or Buenos Aires had probably more of a share in matters cultural than the remote Transylvanian village.   

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?

Not at all, actually.

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.

I don't subscribe to that view.

[Mirror Image]

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.   

I never said that American or Canadian or Australian classical music didn't owe something to Europe. They most certainly do, but where I'm getting at is this doesn't make these countries outside of Europe any less important and not only that but the music itself simply needs exposure. How many times will you hear a Romanian orchestra play William Schuman or Revueltas this year, Florestan? Exposure and the music being performed live is what will draw more people into these composer's sound-worlds and, hopefully, motivate them to buy recordings and support art outside their cultural comfort zones.

[jochanaan]

...it's just a fact of history that for several hundred years this music developed exclusively in Europe (well, almost: there is an extremely interesting Latin American Baroque), for reasons too many and too obvious to discuss here...

Clear enough; yet the traditions I mentioned also have thousands of years of history behind them.

[Florestan]

How many times will you hear a Romanian orchestra play William Schuman or Revueltas this year, Florestan?

You kidding? Romanian orchestras don't even play Enescu, save for one of the Rhapsodies every now and then.   

The only non-European music I heard in concert in about 4 years were Barber's Adagio, Ginastera's Estancia and The Buggler's Holidays. 

[RJR]

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.).

Many of them are heirs because they studied with Nadia Boulanger in Paris. Including Astor Piazzolla.

[RJR]

Many of the heirs to the European tradition from other countries and continents studied with Nadia Boulanger in Paris. Including Astor Piazzolla. Three cheers for Nadia!

[Ken B]

Many of the heirs to the European tradition from other countries and continents studied with Nadia Boulanger in Paris. Including Astor Piazzolla. Three cheers for Nadia!

Indeed! An astounding list of students.

[torut]

Many of the heirs to the European tradition from other countries and continents studied with Nadia Boulanger in Paris. Including Astor Piazzolla. Three cheers for Nadia!

Indeed! An astounding list of students.

Yes, it's impressive. Even just American composers, Copland, Thomson, Carter, Diamond, Glass, ... She was strict but very supportive of American music. Thomson wrote: What endeared her most to Americans was her conviction that American music was just about to "take off" [...] Glass's memoirs of Boulanger is interesting and fun to read.

[Phrygian]

I suspect that the notion that the things that move us most profoundly in life (i.e. art) might be an entirely subjective phenomenon is rather frightening and alienating to people. To be each one's own, is to be, perhaps, on your own, and that's, well, a lonely place to be.

An intelligent and interesting discussion!!! 

Izzy;  I think the things which move us profoundly in life are 'entirely subjective', since we cannot experience anybody else's reality.

"To be each one's own" is axiomatic, but it does not necessarily imply alone-ness.  I don't think this should be conflated with a"frightening and alienating.....lonely place".  Perhaps it's the call to the emotions which is at the heart of what you're saying?  That "the things which move us profoundly" have to be put at arms length because of their very nature.  For the longest time I've believed that it's precisely this call to the emotions which keeps boys from engaging less frequently than girls with literature.  Ergo, it's not the 'lonely' place;  more the "confronting" or "challenging" place.  (When - and if - boys mature into confident men they can engage with literature and the emotions and find a satisfying inner life that is not a "lonely" but a richly rewarding one.  That's not to say all boys have this experience;  there are those in the minority who are equipped with sophisticated tools for an emotional connection from a comparatively early age.  Background, IQ and upbringing are key to this.)

There are common features in great art - music, for the purpose of this discussion - which render aesthetic judgments universally accepted.  I can only 'speak' about the Western European tradition because that is my primary cultural experience.  What I find extremely illuminating is the degree to which non-Western cultures have adopted the art music of Western Europe.  This would suggest to me that there's a generally acknowledged value, irrespective of race and culture, accorded to that tradition.  In order to establish what those might be we need look no further than the writings of estimable musicologists, academics, critics, musicians and philosophers. 

I think most would agree, for example, that the music of JS Bach reflects the logic, beauty and profound musicality of a genius - and to a degree which is rare in human history.  It's difficult music;  demanding and not at all for the dilettante.  You cannot sit down and listen to "The Art of Fugue" or "The Goldberg Variations" without considering its complexity and submitting yourself to the journey.  This implies a fair degree of musical 'knowledge' as a prerequisite;  not a degree per se, but 'familiarity' with such a musical tradition.

We live in the age of moral and cultural relativism;  there are those who (for whatever reason) would have us believe that each cultural artifact has the same "value" as any other.  I radically eschew this viewpoint, as it is intellectually lazy and verges on preposterous.

Thanks for the opportunity to end my year with something stimulating to consider.  All the best!

[Fagotterdämmerung]

   I think there is a small amount of elitism, slightly larger in some circles than others, and partly justifiable: when all you need to achieve musical stardom is to appear in the right tv talent show, someone who's spent their life training and perfecting their playing and/or performance could get a little bitter. It seems to have decreased substantially over time, thankfully.

[CRCulver]

What I find extremely illuminating is the degree to which non-Western cultures have adopted the art music of Western Europe.  This would suggest to me that there's a generally acknowledged value, irrespective of race and culture, accorded to that tradition.

One has to take into account that non-Western cultures adopted the art music of Western Europe only after adopting many other features of Western culture, and that a desire for economic advancement/increased prestige may entail imitating artistic trends imported from elsewhere regardless of what objective values they may have. It's well-documented, for example, that the first reactions to Western classical music in Japan were negative, and it wasn't until Japan had become westernized in general to a much greater degree that European classical music was widely accepted.

[Phrygian]

One has to take into account that non-Western cultures adopted the art music of Western Europe only after adopting many other features of Western culture, and that a desire for economic advancement/increased prestige may entail imitating artistic trends imported from elsewhere regardless of what objective values they may have. It's well-documented, for example, that the first reactions to Western classical music in Japan were negative, and it wasn't until Japan had become westernized in general to a much greater degree that European classical music was widely accepted.

No matter what the motivation, these comments suggest that Western European culture has a substantial value to other cultures - be they economic, social or cultural - and these values form part of the continuum which will ensure its durability.  If, as you suggest, these non-Western nations initially wanted the prestige attached to our culture then it's fairly obvious that there was something about that culture which conveyed prestige.  (I wouldn't buy a Volkswagon if I wanted prestige;  I'd buy a BMW!)  The Japanese, for example, have maintained their own cultures - Noh Theatre and the like - despite their advocacy for the Western European traditions.

Aesthetic appreciation is a by-product of greater understanding and familiarity.  If the music and the culture had little or no value then it is certain the non-Western nations would soon modify or adapt that culture to suit their own.  I've seen no evidence of that at this stage.  It's a fact that at any given time up to 20 million Chinese are learning the piano (for the promulgation of art music).  I don't see this as "imitating", else we must claim that Western students of the piano (or any other instrument) are also merely "imitating". 

This idea of mimicry and imitation has a lot of possibilities;  for example, how many in our own culture go to concerts and recitals merely because they think it's the thing to do.  We must conclude that cultural/aesthetic prestige has something of greater value attached to it than that.  Using the car analogy, whether we want to demonstrate how much money we have or we simply like the design features of a classic car or its engineering innovations - or merely to 'keep up with the Joneses' - there is undoubtedly value and prestige in certain models of cars which, by consensus, exists.  I think we can extrapolate the same kind of argument for culture.

Thanks for your great comments.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

My dad certainly seems to think I'm elitist because I listen to classical music. Although he still likes some pieces by Verdi such as Va, pensiero from Nabucco. In general if he likes any part in any opera, it's a chorus.

[Jo498]

In Italy they sing "Va pensiero" in the soccer stadium, it's about as far from "elitist" opera gets. But that's Italy...

[Karl Henning]

Yes, it's impressive. Even just American composers, Copland, Thomson, Carter, Diamond, Glass, ... She was strict but very supportive of American music.

And indeed, in the case of Piazzolla (e.g.) was suportive that he should be true to himself, and be a great tanguero rather than a half-hearted Euro-wannabee.

[Karl Henning]

In Italy they sing "Va pensiero" in the soccer stadium, it's about as far from "elitist" opera gets. But that's Italy...

It's an Italian genre, and has always (or, since Verdi, certainly) had an of the people vibe.

[Gurn Blanston]

My dad certainly seems to think I'm elitist because I listen to classical music. Although he still likes some pieces by Verdi such as Va, pensiero from Nabucco. In general if he likes any part in any opera, it's a chorus.

Your Dad needs to see the difference between appreciation of the finer products of culture and snobbery about it. That's what 'elitism' is; not the appreciation of something special, but the sense of superiority over others which some people derive from it. Ism's are generally not a good thing.

In that vein, and I say this based on hundreds of posts and communications with people over the years here, if we took a poll, how many people here actually feel 'different' in a positive way because of their love for classical music, or if they feel different in a negative way because modern society doesn't particularly esteem their passion the way it did even 50 years ago? 

You can only be 'elite' if society grants you that status, you can't grant it to yourself. Otherwise you are no more than a hero in your own room.