GMG Classical Music Forum

Like everything also classical music has it's negative aspects. One of those aspects I think is the elitism, which associated with it. From my point of view there are at least 4 different kinds of elitism:

1.  I can only speak about the situation in Germany, but here I feel that classical music or attending to classical music events is still used by some people to show their status as part of the upperclass.
There are many events where ordinary mortals have only little access to, e.g. opening events at classical festivals like the Wagner-festival in Bayreuth or the Salzburg festival. I have the impression
that quite a portion of the people that attend to those events, come rather for the social event but for the music itself. Generally I would say classical music is still associated with the upperclass as
opposed to rock- and pop-music (in Germany particularly Schlagermusic - very simple songs with texts that exclude everything even approximately problematic in the world) that I think is still rather
associated with the working class.

2. Similar to the point above regarding the upperclass, classical music is also used by some people to show their status as being part of the academic elite (<> working class, like with the upperclass).

3. Classical music is used by music snobs to show off their superior taste in music. Those people despise others for their taste in music.I think you can find snobism among fans of all kinds of musical
genres (for example rock-snobs may consider themselves as particularly cool, rebellious and maybe also youthful at heart), but classical music snobs are perhaps particularly confident of their superiority.
Musical snobism is also involved, when composers of a specific category of classical music distance themselves from other categories of classical music. A famous example would be the arrogance some
serialist composers like Pierre Boulez showed to composeres of the more traditional type.     

4. Classical music is a national status-symbol. This is perhaps the most unsympathetic and in history most destructive kind of elitism associated with classical music. The most famous example is the
propagandized superiority of German music (with Wagner being on the top) in the 3rd Reich. But also before there was a connection between classical music and nationalism. Schönberg e.g. said about
his 12-tone system it will ensure the superiority of German music for the next 100 years and Debussy is reported to have been a strong nationalist who wanted to compose for the pride of the French nation.
Fortunately that kind of musical snobism diminished a bit in the time after the 2nd world war.

How do you think about this topic? Are there other kinds of elitism, that are coming to your mind?

I think this sums up the status of classical music in the whole of western Europe. In the Netherlands its more or less the same.
The distinction and visibility falls away when only ordering music through internet. I stopped going to concerts a long time ago, apart from 3 years ago when friends of mine tricked me into a Wagner extravaganza. Still have trauma's about that. Come to think of it, coming Monday is my birthday, so I will go into hiding me thinks.

Quote from: James on September 20, 2014, 05:00:08 AM
Elitism / elites is like some awful dirty word that gets bandied around by politically correct automatons. My perspective is that if it weren't for elites, we'd all be in the gutter, except there wouldn't be a gutter to be in because cause the idea of a gutter quite probably originated from an elite.

Don't get me wrong. I am not against competition and not an advocate of egalitarianism, but I feel there are people, that don't really love classical, but use e.g. classical events to show off their social status, superior taste or their nationalism. Perhaps you have a word better than elitism. I'm not a native English speaker and may not find the right word here.

Quote from: Harry's on September 20, 2014, 05:03:11 AM
I think this sums up the status of classical music in the whole of western Europe. In the Netherlands its more or less the same.
The distinction and visibility falls away when only ordering music through internet.

I agree the internet definitely has a positive influence on the situation.

Quote
I stopped going to concerts a long time ago, apart from 3 years ago when friends of mine tricked me into a Wagner extravaganza. Still have trauma's about that. Come to think of it, coming Monday is my birthday, so I will go into hiding me thinks.

I also feel a bit uncomfortable at some of those events. Maybe it is not only the elitism but also the different milieu, I have to acclimate with. However for me the music mostly compensates for that. Still with maybe only 3-times per year, I'm not the biggest classical concert goer.

Quote from: James on September 20, 2014, 05:23:25 AM
Phonies.

Yes those people are phonies, but it is a very special kind of phonies, you meet at classical music events, I think as a negative consequence of elitism.

What would be the alternative?
Classical music on radio broadcasts, youtube etc. is free and even CDs are cheaper than ever before.
So in a sense classical music is there for everybody to enjoy very cheaply.

Concerts are not so cheap, but in Germany (and Austria and probably elsewhere in Europe) classical concerts and especially opera are already financed by everybodies taxes. If that were not the case, there would be fewer and they'd be much more expensive. Overall they are usually cheaper than rock star concerts or fancy musicals (like the Hamburg "Cats") If we scare away the (economical) "elite", even if some of them are ignorant fools, what would we gain?

I do not think the national status symbol aspect of CM is so important anymore (except in Austria, because they suck at soccer...)

So while you may be right in some respects, I think that Classical Music is so marginalized that it doesn't even work well as a status marker nowadays (much better use your car, your watch, your last holiday, your summer home). A lot of the most avid fans are probably musicians, students, teachers who are often barely middle class, economically speaking.

And as you point out there is also snobbish behavior by fans of popular music, defending their narrow niche against other stuff which is supposedly commercialized charts trash or whatever.

Because I do not live in/near a big city I go to very few classical concerts (I am too poor to travel a lot for classical music). But in my impression that the audiences of the concert I have been to has been quite mixed/diverse.

To prevent misunderstandings regarding the word elitism. I accept or even like if somebody is good at something, e.g. has a good job and earns a lot of money or is a superb musician or an expert on a specific subject. Maybe those people belong to a specific elite. This however does not make them superior to others in general. The field they are good in is not life as a whole, but only a specific field.

My feeling about elitism is simple: if someone wants to act like a pompous ass then by all means let them do it. At the end of the day, this attitude will only reflect poorly on them.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 20, 2014, 06:13:35 AM
What would be the alternative?
Classical music on radio broadcasts, youtube etc. is free and even CDs are cheaper than ever before.
So in a sense classical music is there for everybody to enjoy very cheaply.

I agree the availability of CM is better than ever before. At least for home-listening.

Quote
Concerts are not so cheap, but in Germany (and Austria and probably elsewhere in Europe) classical concerts and especially opera are already financed by everybodies taxes. If that were not the case, there would be fewer and they'd be much more expensive. Overall they are usually cheaper than rock star concerts or fancy musicals (like the Hamburg "Cats") If we scare away the (economical) "elite", even if some of them are ignorant fools, what would we gain?

Yes - the prices are quite ok. Don't get me wrong. I'm no socialist and don't want to scare away the (economical) "elite". I only think it is a characteristic of CM music, that it is used by (maybe small) parts of the (economical) "elite" for showing off.

Quote
I do not think the national status symbol aspect of CM is so important anymore (except in Austria, because they suck at soccer...)

Agreed. It diminished more than just a bit.

Quote
So while you may be right in some respects, I think that Classical Music is so marginalized that it doesn't even work well as a status marker nowadays (much better use your car, your watch, your last holiday, your summer home).

I agree there are many other (maybe more important) status-symbols nowadays, but these would be better suited for a car-, yacht or whatever-forum.

Quote
A lot of the most avid fans are probably musicians, students, teachers who are often barely middle class, economically speaking.

That would be the academic or "intellectual" elite I wrote about. Beeing an academic myself I'm not against academics, however I know some, that really think they are better than non-academics and
have specific sign to show it. One of those sign can be attending at classical music events.

Quote
And as you point out there is also snobbish behavior by fans of popular music, defending their narrow niche against other stuff which is supposedly commercialized charts trash or whatever.

Right.

Quote
Because I do not live in/near a big city I go to very few classical concerts (I am too poor to travel a lot for classical music). But in my impression that the audiences of the concert I have been to has been quite mixed/diverse.

From my experience it depends on the events. At some events the audience is quite mixed, at others not so much.

Of course I think that I have better taste in music than most other people and I am probably also smarter and better educated and more knowledgeable than about 90% of them. I am not advertising these facts and they do not make me a morally better or happier person (although I would be rather unhappy if I could not enjoy classical music, now that I know that I enjoy it so much). As I do not get any special treatment anyway it would not help me a lot either. It's still true...

What do we mean with elitism? Isn't it that once you are "inside" some circle you have lots of unfair advantages that are not directly connected to your abilities (or that your abilities are rewarded completely out of proportion? the latter of course happens in capitalism anyway).
Of course I deplore the parade of prominent idiots, politicians and show biz people in Bayreuth. And I guess many of them get the tickets for free. I am against such socialism for the rich. I also deplore that people might therefore think that Wagner or CM in general is only for the upper class.

But this does not mean that I have to deny that Wagner's music is truly in a different class than e.g. Lord Lloyd Webber's. If that means I am an elitist, so be it.

I think we should expend more effort to get CM "to the people", beginning in primary school. But we are already doing quite a bit. It's just that today's popular culture (lots of which I truly detest) is extremely powerful, omnipresent and not conducive to a broad appreciation of classical music. Just think attention spans, immediate rewards, complexity etc.

This is an interesting, albeit tricky, subject. First of all, I'd say we might be confusing two terms: elitism and snobbery. Elitism per se is not necessarily bad, as I get the impression more and more that (almost) anyone is or wishes to be part of an elite: a monetary elite, an intellectual elite, an athletic elite, or even a "trashy" elite (nostalgie de la boue)... A certain yearning to stand out from the "others", and simultaneously belonging to a "select group" of people, is something that may be inherent to mankind (at least in the western world)...

Although the official definition of snobbery coincides very much with what I've described above, I would call a snob someone who frequents people (or, in our case, artistic events) not for themselves, but rather for what they represent or because they think those people (o events) will help him or her stand out from the rest. It's a small nuance, I grant, but an important one.

Chadfeldheimer mentioned Bayreuth, among other events, in his initial post. I was at Bayreuth this summer (for the third time), and took my children, aged 23 and 20 (their first visit). We attended performances of the controversial but impressive Petrenko-Castorf Ring (the second cycle). What can I say about the audience? Well, it was varied. Yes, there were German and international representatives of the "leisurely class", there were classical music "freaks", but there seemed to be a vast majority of people who, at a considerable expense and with long trips behind them, were there to enjoy the work of Wagner performed under very special conditions in a very special theatre. Most of these people dress up for the occasion, but this only shows (I think) their desire to dress accordingly to what the "festival" component of Bayreuth ("die festliche Aufführung der Werke Richard Wagners") represents--the "sense of occasion", and most of them were delighted by the "workshop" ("Werkstatt Bayreuth") aspect of this festival (regardless of whether a particular production and performance was of their liking or not).

But I did encounter one case of extreme "snobbery". A fellow Spaniard, involved in the (inevitably limited) operatic scene of his hometown, was at the festival for the first time (on a journalistic assignment). In the long intermissions, in which most people mingle and chat, and exchange impressions on the performance, etc., this gentleman's demeanour clearly showed he wasn't enjoying himself. Back in Spain, this gentleman published a piece that, in a nutshell, came to say that Bayreuth wasn't really that special, that the singing was third-rate, the productions revolting, and that most people were there for an alleged "pilgrimage" to the Green Hill. Furthermore, according to him, those who complained of the legendary heat inside the theatre simply did so, because they were overdressed: dispense of your jackets, and everything sill be OK (he was dressed in slacks and a polo shirt). This online article incensed me: to come form the Spanish provinces, and try to demolish the "myth" of Bayreuth (without understanding, IMO, what the place is all about), in order to show how knowledgeable and "cool" you are, is the maximum degree of snobbery I can think of.

I apologize for the length of my two cents worth...  ;)

Regards,

I understand your point, James, but I think you are referring to pepole professionally involved with music. Unless I am mistaken, the discussion was focusing on (real or alleged) music lovers, i.e. audiences, and my comment you quote was just extending this to the broader society...

Regards,

Quote from: James on September 20, 2014, 08:18:37 AM
Yes I know, but it doesn't work that way. Either you really, really love something OR you seek to be seen. These are 2 very different things. Different goals, different intents, different motivations.

That I can't agree with...it's not black or white...there's a lot of gray in between. You might want to explore something you're not passionate (or knowledgeable) about just for the sake of broadening your horizons and getting exposed to things your not familiar with...and that doesn't make you a snob. Once I had to say of myself (in another context) that I am not a musician, I am not a musicologist, I am not even an intellectual; I just aspire to be a cultivated man (who happens to be passionate about music and other arts). :-[

Your saying that "you either love something or you seek to be seen" could be interpreted as the most extreme kind of elitism.. :-X

Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 20, 2014, 05:20:26 AM
I feel there are people, that don't really love classical, but use e.g. classical events to show off their social status, superior taste or their nationalism. Perhaps you have a word better than elitism. I'm not a native English speaker and may not find the right word here.

Yes, I suppose there are such people, but so what? Those people know Wagner, but they don't have a clue about Tunder or Finzi. In their case classical music is just a tool for elitism.

Because of the ambiguities respective elitism I let me define it (this may differ from other definitions - I just want to be understood and do not have the approach to be scientifically correct) as a exaggerated awareness in respect of social hierarchies (not only economical, but also intellectual and regarding ancestry), accompanied by a superiority complex and a exaggerated impulse to show respective status symbols. I think that classical music is sometimes used as symbol to show ones membership to  a specific class (upperclass, intellectual elite, taste-elite, nationality ..). I would would call somebody an elitist if his main reason for attending e.g. a classical music event is to show off his status and not to actually to enjoy the music.

In my very own definition elitism is not the ambition to create something particular beautiful (like a composer, that is true to himself) or to learn passionate about your favorite topic (as a music expert, that is only satisfying his thirst of knowledge).

I agree elitism and snobism are quite similar. I thought elitism might be better in respect to social or intellectual class consciousness and snobism in respect to musical taste.

Maybe everyone has something of an elitist or a snob, however I would only call a people an elitist or snob, if elitism or snobism is really a dominant characteristic of that person.

Quote from: 71 dB on September 20, 2014, 08:47:42 AM
Yes, I suppose there are such people, but so what? Those people know Wagner, but they don't have a clue about Tunder or Finzi. In their case classical music is just a tool for elitism.

I agree in their case classical music is only a tool, but it is one that is quite frequently used.

Quote from: James on September 20, 2014, 10:06:52 AM
You've lost track of the topic here. We were essentially talking about elitism as it pertains to the field of music, and the type of people it can attract. Classical music events can attract (and even advertise to) a lot of folks who want to appear cultured, apart of a musical elite .. but they don't really know or care about the music at all. For them, the most important thing - is to be seen. To what extent this occurs these days, I don't know .. but it is something chad has observed to certain extent, and it is a stereotype too. What I was saying goes right to the heart of the matter .. either a person has superior abilities or they don't. True elitism. If they do .. then this would set them apart from the rest, garner attention, put them into a special (elite) category etc. And these things aren't the goal, motivation or intent of their actions ..  those things are often consequences of a lot of hard work that gets noticed. What you were describing earlier has nothing to do with being an elite. You (& chad) were describing folks that want to be seen .. there is a difference between that and what I have been saying. If you want to be a cultivated man, that's fine .. but that has nothing to do with elitism either, and it doesn't put a person into an elite category.

If I understand you right then a person that is part of a specific elite is also an elitist. I don't think that's right. There are for example superb composers (part of the composers-elite) that nevertheless stayed modest and do not feel themselves superior at all (as a human being, as a composer of course they must feel superior if they are true to themselves and others). I' think György Kurtág is one of those composers, I would not call an elitist.

Simply the notion that someone has to have "superior abilities" to genuinely enjoy classical music (or any other art form) is completely foreign to me, and has an exclusive tinge that, in my opinion, is detrimental to the art form.

Looking at it from another perspective: classical music no longer "socially elevates" its audience, as it would have done 100 years ago. The moneyed international elite (in most of Europe, at least) is much more likely  to be seen skiing in Courchevel, clubbing and yachting in Ibiza, and golfing in Scotland, than attending a performance of Don Giovanni in Salzburg or travelling to Birmingham for the première of Mittwoch aus Licht. As a matter of fact, an interest in the arts in general, and in classical music in particular, is almost frowned upon as old-fashioned, uncool and boring (boredom being a capital sin in this society). Even the opera, which until not that long ago was the social occasion to "see and be seen", and appear cultured at the same time, has lost much of its allure in that respect (with few exceptions, like the opening of Bayreuth mentioned by Chad or, locally here in Madrid, when the previous Queen--a genuine music lover-- attended a performance at the Teatro Real).

The vast majority of people that attend concerts here are just ordinary people with a passion for music (albeit with widely diverging tastes, usually on the conservative side), and that usually display real enthusiasm for this art form. The least they need is to be frowned upon not only by those who think they are démodé, but also by those who believe that you must have something special to enjoy Beethoven or Boulez.

Quote from: ritter on September 20, 2014, 10:40:48 AM
Simply the notion that someone has to have "superior abilities" to genuinely enjoy classical music (or any other art form) is completely foreign to me, and has an exclusive tinge that, in my opinion, is detrimental to the art form.

Totally agree with you.

Quote
Looking at it from another perspective: classical music no longer "socially elevates" its audience, as it would have done 100 years ago. The moneyed international elite (in most of Europe, at least) is much more likely  to be seen skiing in Courchevel, clubbing and yachting in Ibiza, and golfing in Scotland, than attending a performance of Don Giovanni in Salzburg or travelling to Birmingham for the première of Mittwoch aus Licht. As a matter of fact, an interest in the arts in general, and in classical music in particular, is almost frowned upon as old-fashioned, uncool and boring (boredom being a capital sin in this society). Even the opera, which until not that long ago was the social occasion to "see and be seen", and appear cultured at the same time, has lost much of its allure in that respect (with few exceptions, like the opening of Bayreuth mentioned by Chad or, locally here in Madrid, when the previous Queen--a genuine music lover-- attended a performance at the Teatro Real).

The vast majority of people that attend concerts here are just ordinary people with a passion for music (albeit with widely diverging tastes, usually on the conservative side), and that usually display real enthusiasm for this art form. The least they need is to be frowned upon not only by those who think they are démodé, but also by those who believe that you must have something special to enjoy Beethoven or Boulez.

So you think the cliche of the classical music snob or elitist does not hold true anymore and does rather refer to the situation of the past, right?

Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 20, 2014, 10:55:19 AM
So you think the cliche of the classical music snob or elitist does not hold true anymore and does rather refer to the situation of the past, right?

In general, yes. I don't know Germany that well, but here in Spain the snobs will much rather flaunt their wealth and show off their supposed connaisseurship on contemporary art (which has a tangible market value and does not require you to sit through the torture of 5 hours of Meistersinger  ;D ) than on music. The contemporary art fair ARCO is a must of the social calendar, a premiere at the Teatro Real most definitely is not.

Even in the corporate world this applies: I work for a very important financial institution, which, as could be expected, sponsors all kinds of things. A corporate invitation to a major sporting event is very sought after among clients or counterparties. If you invited them to a classical concert, they might accept out of politeness, but would go only reluctantly (with exceptions, obviously).

Quote from: James on September 20, 2014, 11:13:08 AM
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.

Quote from: James on September 20, 2014, 11:32:17 AM
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,

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.

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.

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?

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".

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...

Quote from: jochanaan on September 21, 2014, 04:02:58 PM
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."

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. 

Quote from: jochanaan on September 20, 2014, 01:55:02 PM
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.

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?

Quote from: Ken B on September 22, 2014, 07:08:50 AM
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?  ;)

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.)

Quote from: Jo498 on September 22, 2014, 08:39:57 AM
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.

Quote from: edward on September 21, 2014, 05:37:06 PM
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.

Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 22, 2014, 08:47:53 AM
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.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 22, 2014, 08:39:57 AM
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").

Quote from: Ken B on September 22, 2014, 08:45:19 AM
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.

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.

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 22, 2014, 08:54:32 AM
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.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 22, 2014, 09:06:00 AM
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.

Well, in terms of dancability Britney Spears might be superior.  ;)

Quote
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.

I think sometimes such criteria are quite useful and for science they are even a must.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 22, 2014, 09:06:00 AM
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.

For an interesting discussion of something like "objective aesthetic criteria," Kant's Critique of Judgment is a good (and traditional) place to begin.  He believed that a judgment of aesthetic taste, by definition, could not be based on objective criteria, because it would then belong to the realm pure or practical reason (i.e., logic or ethics)--in other words, what would distinguish such a judgment as "aesthetic" in the first place?  On the other hand, he also said that such a judgment could not be completely subjective to the extent that it would depend on each person's idiosyncratic preferences (for example, disliking a painting of a cow because you just happen to dislike cows, or the shade of brown with which they are painted), since that would be completely different for everyone and unworthy of serious discussion.  Rather, he argued, aesthetic judgment is a kind of "disinterested" response (in that you try to bracket out your own individual preferences, as well as any objective knowledge or sense of moral purpose) that you experience as if it were objective, though you know it's really not.

Whether his conception makes sense to us or not, it is an interesting starting point (and is very helpful in understanding Bourdieu's argument that I mentioned above).  Just out of curiosity--what do you think objective criteria for aesthetic judgments should be based on?

Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 22, 2014, 09:13:00 AM
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.

I agree, except that the "unspoken" aspect is normally what anchors the snobbery and makes it possible in the first place.  The reason that we are loathe to explicitly state the reasons why Mozart is supposedly "superior" to Britney Spears or Pink Floyd is that doing so (for example, "Mozart is superior because his work contains more harmonic and/or contrapuntal complexity, and such complexity is superior because ...") takes the judgment out of the realm of taste and the aesthetic and into something more open to objective debate (and more like politics, perhaps).  As I understand it, snobbery depends on having a sense of superior taste that really isn't open to being proven true or false, but something one "just has."  Making the criteria explicit makes it all too democratic for an elitist.

I think nowadays most people without knowledge of Kant or similar philosophical discussions take "subjective" to mean "idiosyncratic personal preferences" which is, as you point out, not at all what Kant's quasi-objective disinterested delight (how is this rendered in translation "interesseloses Wohlgefallen") is supposed to be. As I understand it, Kant's point is that the aesthetic qualities are not in a strong sense objective truths about a thing as shape/weight etc (on the one hand and instrumental goodness for an end or moral goodness on the other). They arise in a particular interaction of the faculties of sense and knowledge with the object, but because of the disinterestedness they are strongly intersubjective and do not depend on personal preferences (I think Kant says something like "general, but not (logically/demonstrably) universal" judgments)

Admittedly, I find this more interesting (and it is a brilliant fitting of aesthetics into Kant's system) than plausible. ;) E.g., often we seem to care too passionately about art to be really disinterested. In any case, Kant is tackling the problem in a highly abstract manner (he is as much concerned with beauty and sublimity in nature as in art, e.g.), so it might be hard to get criteria for actual aesthetic judgments out of it. Of course there are a few hints. When we describe e.g. some passages of Beethoven or Bruckner as "sublime" we can connect this with the feeling of immeasurable power, vastness, the infinite as Kant does in his discussion of the sublime. And beautiful things evoke a sense of the fitting of parts seamlessly, of an organic/functional unity, but without serving an actual function etc. which could also be connected to Kant.

But to get more concrete, I think one has to be more modest. The criteria are often not so general, but stem from a cultural background, more or less from the complete historical development of Western Art Music (WAM, also Mozart's initials ;)) And it is not so easy to get anything clear cut, because during the development often the most original or even revolutionary music departs from the "rules" governing the average music of the age. Most of the criteria we usually cite: part-whole-cohesion, "logical" development, complexity have to be balanced with each other and with contradicting ones, e.g. spontaneity, surprising or original features, getting to the point without meandering etc. There is comparably "simple" music, e.g., Schubert Lieder, that is deemed more convincing and relevant than highly complex music (say Reger's string quartets).

And of course, if an external criterion like "music you can dance to" is used, the evaluation will be different.

In any case, nowadays it seems almost provocative to claim anything beyond idiosyncratic taste could be said about aesthetic experiences. So it's not just a specific set of criteria that might be contested, but the very idea that there could be more than personal preferences or sociological causes, like snobbism etc.

Quote from: edward on September 21, 2014, 05:37:06 PM
...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."

:laugh: ;D :laugh:

Quote from: Ken B on September 22, 2014, 08:51:38 AM
...People looking for more out of music than factory pop.

...which describes most of us here. 8)  Does that indeed make us elitists? ???

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 22, 2014, 05:11:05 PM
I agree, except that the "unspoken" aspect is normally what anchors the snobbery and makes it possible in the first place.  The reason that we are loathe to explicitly state the reasons why Mozart is supposedly "superior" to Britney Spears or Pink Floyd is that doing so (for example, "Mozart is superior because his work contains more harmonic and/or contrapuntal complexity, and such complexity is superior because ...") takes the judgment out of the realm of taste and the aesthetic and into something more open to objective debate (and more like politics, perhaps).  As I understand it, snobbery depends on having a sense of superior taste that really isn't open to being proven true or false, but something one "just has."  Making the criteria explicit makes it all too democratic for an elitist.

Yes - in that regard the snob's reason for not speaking about criteria for judging e.g. Mozart's music would be not to disenchant his superior taste, right? In my post the reason was rather to hold an advantage of knowledge, that should not be revealed to people who don't have it, in order to be able to continue feeling superior to them.

@Jo498
Agreed - not everything in music can be judged on basis of specific criteria. I think this is one of the reasons, why music is still so attractive. 

Quote from: Jo498 on September 23, 2014, 12:32:05 AM
In any case, nowadays it seems almost provocative to claim anything beyond idiosyncratic taste could be said about aesthetic experiences. So it's not just a specific set of criteria that might be contested, but the very idea that there could be more than personal preferences or sociological causes, like snobbism etc.

Why do you think it to be almost provocative to claim anything beyond idiosyncratic taste? Because the suspicion of being a snob is lurking? Did the society get hypersensitive against snobism?

Quote from: jochanaan on September 23, 2014, 08:34:29 AM
...which describes most of us here. 8)  Does that indeed make us elitistse? ???

Better question

Yes, society may be hypersensitive against certain kinds of snobism. It also became anti-intellectual in many ways (the latter is much more obvious in the US). Classical Music and Opera fare worst, maybe because they were most obviously associated with upper-class snobism or because they seem particularly old-fashioned, artificial and irrelevant. And dead white males dominate the field even more than other art forms... Opera and symphonic concerts are also the most expensive, because you often need a LOT of qualified people to perform it, some of them very well paid.
Just look at the comments someone quoted in another thread with the former rock critic turning to classical.

Another, more philosophical reason may be that many people think only stuff that can be quasi-scientifically measured can be objective at all. This is a viable position, but one usually gets rather vulgarized versions of it.

Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 23, 2014, 09:41:46 AM
Yes - in that regard the snob's reason for not speaking about criteria for judging e.g. Mozart's music would be not to disenchant his superior taste, right? In my post the reason was rather to hold an advantage of knowledge, that should not be revealed to people who don't have it, in order to be able to continue feeling superior to them.

Yes, I think it is something very different from keeping knowledge from the masses in order to maintain superiority.  What I think is more central to what I see as elitism is the notion that what is "superior" about Mozart is something that cannot be explained concretely without trivializing it--from such a perspective, simply to ask the question of what makes Mozart superior is to demonstrate an inherent lack of taste.  True snobs, as I see it, do not believe themselves to be superior due to education or circumstances, but due simply to having been born with that "special something."  They don't believe taste can be taught, or its criteria explained concretely.  To use a very visible example, art world elites tend to reject audio-tours when they visit museums, often viewing them as distasteful, because they believe the idea of explaining art is in some fundamental way to miss the point of the aesthetic experience (and as an art historian, I struggle with this tendency myself, despite knowing that additional background information need not interfere with any aesthetic experience I may wish to have in front of the work).

Quote from: Jo498 on September 23, 2014, 12:32:05 AM
I think nowadays most people without knowledge of Kant or similar philosophical discussions take "subjective" to mean "idiosyncratic personal preferences" which is, as you point out, not at all what Kant's quasi-objective disinterested delight (how is this rendered in translation "interesseloses Wohlgefallen") is supposed to be. As I understand it, Kant's point is that the aesthetic qualities are not in a strong sense objective truths about a thing as shape/weight etc (on the one hand and instrumental goodness for an end or moral goodness on the other). They arise in a particular interaction of the faculties of sense and knowledge with the object, but because of the disinterestedness they are strongly intersubjective and do not depend on personal preferences (I think Kant says something like "general, but not (logically/demonstrably) universal" judgments)

Admittedly, I find this more interesting (and it is a brilliant fitting of aesthetics into Kant's system) than plausible. ;) E.g., often we seem to care too passionately about art to be really disinterested. In any case, Kant is tackling the problem in a highly abstract manner (he is as much concerned with beauty and sublimity in nature as in art, e.g.), so it might be hard to get criteria for actual aesthetic judgments out of it. Of course there are a few hints. When we describe e.g. some passages of Beethoven or Bruckner as "sublime" we can connect this with the feeling of immeasurable power, vastness, the infinite as Kant does in his discussion of the sublime. And beautiful things evoke a sense of the fitting of parts seamlessly, of an organic/functional unity, but without serving an actual function etc. which could also be connected to Kant.

But to get more concrete, I think one has to be more modest. The criteria are often not so general, but stem from a cultural background, more or less from the complete historical development of Western Art Music (WAM, also Mozart's initials ;)) And it is not so easy to get anything clear cut, because during the development often the most original or even revolutionary music departs from the "rules" governing the average music of the age. Most of the criteria we usually cite: part-whole-cohesion, "logical" development, complexity have to be balanced with each other and with contradicting ones, e.g. spontaneity, surprising or original features, getting to the point without meandering etc. There is comparably "simple" music, e.g., Schubert Lieder, that is deemed more convincing and relevant than highly complex music (say Reger's string quartets).

And of course, if an external criterion like "music you can dance to" is used, the evaluation will be different.

In any case, nowadays it seems almost provocative to claim anything beyond idiosyncratic taste could be said about aesthetic experiences. So it's not just a specific set of criteria that might be contested, but the very idea that there could be more than personal preferences or sociological causes, like snobbism etc.

What a thoughtful and provocative post!  It seems to me that we are interpreting Kant in pretty much the same way.  I also agree that his criteria for purely aesthetic judgments may not actually be practicable (i.e., is it really possible for us to bracket out both our individual gratifications and any utilitarian or ethical concerns from our judgments?  What is left in that in-between space?). I also agree on how you interpret both beauty and the sublime.

Where I'm a bit uncertain as to whether we agree is on the question of the relationship between objectivity and aesthetics in general.  To me, one either agrees with Kant that aesthetic judgment is neither fully objective nor fully subjective, but "quasi-objective" as you put it--and would therefore be open to Bourdieu's critique of Kantian disinterest (i.e., if a hungry man makes a bad food critic, then food criticism (and, by extension, any sort of aesthetic criticism) is by definition restricted (or at least more accessible) to those free of material need. 

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!" (which is essentially how I read the original instance of the example). They may also realize that any such criteria are themselves open to charges of arbitrariness (why, for example, would we presume that lengthy thematic development or elaborate counterpoint make music superior to music that doesn't feature those characteristics)? It's far easier (and more socially effective, from an elitist's point of view) just to make Kantian pronouncements of taste than to try to defend claims of objective superiority.  Hence, Bourdieu's argument that Kantian aesthetics are a remarkably effective weapon in the process of social distinction.

(For me, I guess I just refuse to make claims about what is and isn't aesthetically "superior" or "better" unless I am willing to be open about my specific criteria, even if I may personally experience something that feels like a Kantian response to some works now and then).

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 23, 2014, 12:58:38 PM
... 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...

We might come a little closer to the multicolored, multifaceted truth if we say that Mozart's work, or Bach's or Beethoven's or any of the other Great Masters for that matter, has thematic development, contrapuntal virtuosity, and the like, and STILL manages to draw a positive sensual, emotional and spiritual response from many folks.

Quote from: jochanaan on Today at 08:34:29 AM: "...which describes most of us here. 8)  Does that indeed make us elitistse? ???

Quote from: Ken B on September 23, 2014, 10:45:52 AM
Better question

Well, I certainly don't get PAID like a member of the elite! :laugh:

Quote from: jochanaan on September 23, 2014, 04:25:48 PM
Quote from: jochanaan on Today at 08:34:29 AM: "...which describes most of us here. 8)  Does that indeed make us elitistse? ???Well, I certainly don't get PAID like a member of the elite! :laugh:

You need to be part of the Met Opera Chorus.

Quote from: jochanaan on September 23, 2014, 04:23:20 PM
We might come a little closer to the multicolored, multifaceted truth if we say that Mozart's work, or Bach's or Beethoven's or any of the other Great Masters for that matter, has thematic development, contrapuntal virtuosity, and the like, and STILL manages to draw a positive sensual, emotional and spiritual response from many folks.

Good point!  :laugh:

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 23, 2014, 12:58:38 PM
Where I'm a bit uncertain as to whether we agree is on the question of the relationship between objectivity and aesthetics in general.  To me, one either agrees with Kant that aesthetic judgment is neither fully objective nor fully subjective, but "quasi-objective" as you put it--and would therefore be open to Bourdieu's critique of Kantian disinterest (i.e., if a hungry man makes a bad food critic, then food criticism (and, by extension, any sort of aesthetic criticism) is by definition restricted (or at least more accessible) to those free of material need. 

I do not have a theory of aesthetics. I think Kant is right in identifying aesthetic judgment as a particular mode of cognition. It is simply a different way of judging if I state: "That's a cadence in D major" or "That's beautiful". Still I think there are objective properties of beautiful things that are possible causes for such judgments. And I think Kant is somewhat to general or incomplete, because he does not say much of the cultural background which is important for works of art and the actual criteria implicitly used for judging them.

Quote
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!" (which is essentially how I read the original instance of the example). They may also realize that any such criteria are themselves open to charges of arbitrariness (why, for example, would we presume that lengthy thematic development or elaborate counterpoint make music superior to music that doesn't feature those characteristics)? It's far easier (and more socially effective, from an elitist's point of view) just to make Kantian pronouncements of taste than to try to defend claims of objective superiority.  Hence, Bourdieu's argument that Kantian aesthetics are a remarkably effective weapon in the process of social distinction.

I do not doubt that elitists act or argue in such a way but think this would be an abuse (to some extent) of the Kantian aesthetics. Kant may not be an egalitarian in the modern sense and he would probably agree that one has to learn to become a tasteful person (one with a good faculty of aesthetic judgment) by being exposed to beautiful things and forming habits (another big Bourdieuan point I guess). And I think he explicitly says somewhere that there are no "rules" for beauty, otherwise we would not need creative genius to produce great art, so there is always something "unanalysable" about beauty. Which agrees with his idea that the cognitive faculties are engaged in such a way in the aesthetic mode that the do not come to an end as opposed to scientific/everyday factual judgments (like "this statue is made of copper"). But the "disinterestedness" seems to imply that everybody can enter the mode of aesthetic judgment. I am not sure if the example with the hungry person who will not be a gourmet should be generalized. One could be hungry and appreciate the beauty of a building. But a civil engineer will regard a bridge differently whether he looks at it in "professional mode" or in "aesthetic mode"; I understand the hungry person example similarly.
Because of the quasi-objectivity I think Kant would say that everybody can learn to have good taste and while one can not demonstrate rigorously that something is beautiful one can point out features and give other hints.

I agree that it seems somehow evasive if one points out that e.g. the Mozart symphony is complex and has lots of other features like counterpoint, is emotionally varied etc. and therefore aesthetically more rewarding. These may be necessary (I am not even sure about that), but certainly not sufficient features. Arbitrary they are not, if one takes, as I suggested above, the position of Mozart in the history of music. Of course this should maybe used only as a point of departure from which one then would try to reach more universal features. It makes comparisons of Mozart with not only Britney Spears but also with Cage or Machaut difficult (as they probably should be, because they are from such different historical backgrounds).

Without a doubt this is difficult and there is a lot of handwaving involved. But being difficult is not a good reason not to try ;)

Quote from: Jo498 on September 23, 2014, 11:45:49 AM
Yes, society may be hypersensitive against certain kinds of snobism. It also became anti-intellectual in many ways (the latter is much more obvious in the US). Classical Music and Opera fare worst, maybe because they were most obviously associated with upper-class snobism or because they seem particularly old-fashioned, artificial and irrelevant. And dead white males dominate the field even more than other art forms... Opera and symphonic concerts are also the most expensive, because you often need a LOT of qualified people to perform it, some of them very well paid.
Just look at the comments someone quoted in another thread with the former rock critic turning to classical.

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.

Quote
Another, more philosophical reason may be that many people think only stuff that can be quasi-scientifically measured can be objective at all. This is a viable position, but one usually gets rather vulgarized versions of it.

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

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 23, 2014, 12:24:35 PM
Yes, I think it is something very different from keeping knowledge from the masses in order to maintain superiority.  What I think is more central to what I see as elitism is the notion that what is "superior" about Mozart is something that cannot be explained concretely without trivializing it--from such a perspective, simply to ask the question of what makes Mozart superior is to demonstrate an inherent lack of taste.  True snobs, as I see it, do not believe themselves to be superior due to education or circumstances, but due simply to having been born with that "special something."  They don't believe taste can be taught, or its criteria explained concretely.  To use a very visible example, art world elites tend to reject audio-tours when they visit museums, often viewing them as distasteful, because they believe the idea of explaining art is in some fundamental way to miss the point of the aesthetic experience (and as an art historian, I struggle with this tendency myself, despite knowing that additional background information need not interfere with any aesthetic experience I may wish to have in front of the work).

Yes - people that consider themselves as superior by birth are also in my opinion the worst kind of snobs. Thereby those IQ-tests come to my mind, that should allegedly be able to measure your inborn intelligence. There is also a club called Mensa of people that passed such tests with 130+ or so points (average is defined to be 100) and therefore feel intellectually superior to most others. A former collegue of mine was member in that club and he was spending much of his free time solving exercises from intelligence tests. Maybe he was afraid that his next test could have been below 130. But if really the inborn intelligence was measured, practicising would have no effect, or?

Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 24, 2014, 09:24:48 AM
Yes - I also notice some hypersensitivity against snobism and anti-intellectualism, especially in certain parts of the society.

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

Quote from: chadfeldheimer on September 24, 2014, 09:24:48 AM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 24, 2014, 12:25:53 AM
...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...

"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.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 24, 2014, 11:06:58 PM
"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.

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 25, 2014, 02:50:20 PM
...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...

Quote from: jochanaan on September 26, 2014, 08:57:57 AM
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.

Quote from: karlhenning on September 24, 2014, 09:58:08 AM
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.

Quote from: Jo498 on September 24, 2014, 10:27:57 AM
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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 27, 2014, 08:41:30 AM
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.   ;D

Quote from: Florestan on September 27, 2014, 08:54:14 AM
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.   ;D

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.).

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 27, 2014, 09:32:38 AM
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.

Quote
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).  :)

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 27, 2014, 08:41:30 AM
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.

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 27, 2014, 09:32:38 AM
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.

Quote from: NorthNYMarkHowever, 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.

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.

Quote from: Florestan on September 27, 2014, 09:52:05 AM
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. 

Quote from: Jo498 on September 27, 2014, 10:00:31 AM
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.

Quote from: Ken B on September 22, 2014, 07:08:50 AM
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.

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 23, 2014, 12:58:38 PM

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.

Quote from: Izzy Black on September 28, 2014, 01:09:48 PM
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.

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 28, 2014, 01:38:51 PM
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.

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 28, 2014, 01:38:51 PMIt 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.

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?

Quote from: jochanaan on September 28, 2014, 05:35:53 PM
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.

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 27, 2014, 10:59:29 AM
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.   :D

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote from: Florestan on September 27, 2014, 08:54:14 AM
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.   ;D

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.

Quote from: Florestan on September 29, 2014, 12:37:16 AM
...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.

Quote from: Mirror Image on September 29, 2014, 09:32:03 AM
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.   ;D

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. 

Quote from: NorthNYMark on September 27, 2014, 09:32:38 AM
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.

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!

Quote from: RJR on December 28, 2014, 05:48:21 AM
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.

Quote from: RJR on December 28, 2014, 05:48:21 AM
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!

Quote from: Ken B on December 28, 2014, 05:54:15 AM
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 (https://books.google.com/books?id=tykImG0WAsAC&lpg=PA323&ots=-wfoSyL50-&dq=she%20saw%20an%20error%20in%20something%20called%20hidden%20parallel%20fifths&pg=PA322#v=onepage&q&f=false) is interesting and fun to read.

Quote from: Izzy Black on September 28, 2014, 03:20:07 PM
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!

   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.

Quote from: Phrygian on December 28, 2014, 12:38:18 PM
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.

Quote from: CRCulver on December 28, 2014, 07:38:40 PM
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.

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.

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

Quote from: torut on December 28, 2014, 10:12:56 AM
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.

Quote from: Jo498 on December 29, 2014, 04:51:26 AM
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.

Quote from: Alberich on December 29, 2014, 03:18:36 AM
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.

8)

Notions of elitism give birth to some peculiar progeny.  I dated a woman (for a short time) who firmly believed that no one really liked classical music - it was all for show and social status.  Her preferred tunesmith?:  Rod Stewart.  Which made me laugh because I also had a German prof. who maintained that no one really liked rock music, it was all for gaining peer acceptance, she maintained.

Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2014, 04:58:47 AM
It's an Italian genre, and has always (or, since Verdi, certainly) had an of the people vibe.

Di tanti palpiti from Rossini´s Tancredi was an instant hit. In Venice it was even sang by the audience in courts of law.  :D

Opera is actually (or certainly was until Wagner) the least elitist of genres, especially in the Italian States. In the numerous Venetian and Neapolitan opera houses people of all classes and trades rubbed shoulders without any affectation or snobbery. Then came Wagner and everything changed --- for the worse.  ;D ;D ;D

Tangentially, Carlos Williams's remark: "T.S. Eliot gave poetry back to the academics — the damned fool."

Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on December 29, 2014, 05:09:35 AM
Notions of elitism give birth to some peculiar progeny.  I dated a woman (for a short time) who firmly believed that no one really liked classical music - it was all for show and social status.  Her preferred tunesmith?:  Rod Stewart.  Which made me laugh because I also had a German prof. who maintained that no one really liked rock music, it was all for gaining peer acceptance, she maintained.

Wonderful stories, both!

Probably someone smarter than me has done this already, but I'd really like to write an essay "Against Nothingbutism" one day. From postmodern criticism to scientific/reductionist "debunking" of all kinds of traditional or common sense conceptions there is an all too frequent fallacy that the mere possibility of alternative explanations does suffice to "debunk" something. It does not.
That we are made out of quarks does not mean we are nothing but quarks. That some people use classical music to show status and be pompous pr*cks does not mean that classical music does not have very special qualities that may take some training, experience and sensitivity to appreciate etc.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 05:07:46 AM
That's what 'elitism' is; not the appreciation of something special, but the sense of superiority over others which some people derive from it.

When my grandmother was a school girl, almost 100 years ago, girls used to do adages or short bible verses in embroidery to show their capabilities in fine stitching and needlework. Your sentence is a bit long, but this really would deserve such a treatment!

Quote
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.

Yeah, it is more probable to be considered a nerdy outlier than "elite" in any meaningful way...

Quote from: ZauberdrachenNr.7 on December 29, 2014, 05:09:35 AM
Notions of elitism give birth to some peculiar progeny.  I dated a woman (for a short time) who firmly believed that no one really liked classical music - it was all for show and social status.  Her preferred tunesmith?:  Rod Stewart.  Which made me laugh because I also had a German prof. who maintained that no one really liked rock music, it was all for gaining peer acceptance, she maintained.

That's funny: I was told the same thing by a co-worker: "You don't really like that Scheiß, you just want people to think you are smarter than them". Which defines elitism quite nicely, despite the fact he was wrong on at least two counts. :)

8)

Quote from: Jo498 on December 29, 2014, 05:45:19 AM
When my grandmother was a school girl, almost 100 years ago, girls used to do adages or short bible verses in embroidery to show their capabilities in fine stitching and needlework. Your sentence is a bit long, but this really would deserve such a treatment!

Live by the aphorism, die by the aphorism... :)

QuoteYeah, it is more probable to be considered a nerdy outlier than "elite" in any meaningful way...

Exactly what I think. Nerdy outlier. :-\

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 05:56:46 AM
That's funny: I was told the same thing by a co-worker: "You don't really like that Scheiß, you just want people to think you are smarter than them".

Which brings us to the delicate topic of reverted snobbery. That co-worker of yours felt himself very important and cool for ¨debunking¨ you. He swallowed the fashionable anti-elitist and anti-intellectualist propaganda but he never for a moment questioned its validity, let alone try to ¨debunk¨ it too. Elitism is bad, ignorance is bliss. ;D

Quote from: Florestan on December 29, 2014, 06:06:10 AM
Which brings us to the delicate topic of reverted snobbery. That co-worker of yours felt himself very important and cool for ¨debunking¨ you. He swallowed the fashionable anti-elitist and anti-intellectualist propaganda but he never for a moment questioned its validity, let alone try to ¨debunk¨ it too. Elitism is bad, ignorance is bliss. ;D

Yes, well it didn't take any effort at all on my part to debunk him. He conferred elite status on me simply by implying I thought I must be.    "Elitism is bad, ignorance is bliss"  Yes, sadly, this is what the world is coming too. Can anything, seriously, be worse than anti-intellectualism? We might as well leave it to the chimps then... *sigh*

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 05:07:46 AM
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? 
8)

I was bullied in high school because I liked to sing opera. This one guy even broke my nose. Now granted singing opera to yourself in public can be bit weird (I'm slightly autistic so that was probably one of the reasons I did that, after the excessive bullying I grew out of it) but that still felt pretty bad.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 07:53:58 AM
Yes, well it didn't take any effort at all on my part to debunk him. He conferred elite status on me simply by implying I thought I must be.

And people who talk thus just don't get that they have no basis for decrees like "you cannot like that."  Born to bloviate . . . .

Quote from: Alberich on December 29, 2014, 08:10:10 AM
I was bullied in high school because I liked to sing opera. This one guy even broke my nose. Now granted singing opera to yourself in public can be bit weird (I'm slightly autistic so that was probably one of the reasons I did that, after the excessive bullying I grew out of it) but that still felt pretty bad.

Give me a name and an address, and I will "take care" of the guy for you!   $:)

Quote from: Alberich on December 29, 2014, 08:10:10 AM
I was bullied in high school because I liked to sing opera. This one guy even broke my nose. Now granted singing opera to yourself in public can be bit weird (I'm slightly autistic so that was probably one of the reasons I did that, after the excessive bullying I grew out of it) but that still felt pretty bad.

That´s the typical reaction of ignorants when confronted with something that far surpasses their limited understanding: to destroy, either symbolically or physically, what doesn´t fit into their worldview, first and foremost on their long list of grievances being the pursuit of, and interest in, matters intellectual or fine arts . The nose-breaker had the excuse of being just a kid (and still...), but the problem is there are lots of fully grown adults who display the same feature and a problem greater still is that many journalists, politicians and other socially influential people seem to enocurage such behavior in the name of a misguided egalitarianism and common-man-ism.

Thank you for your sympathies. :) There was an arbitration, the parents of the bully offered some ridiculously small amount of money as compensation but that didn't even cover medical expences. I certainly never got a penny. But hey, that's life.  :P

"Not even covering the medical expense" is disgraceful.

Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2014, 08:36:28 AM
"Not even covering the medical expense" is disgraceful.

+ 1

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 08:42:08 AM
His reaction was a bit extreme, and their are deeper issues going on there clearly .. but mostly on the latter half of your statement it is met with general indifference, and a view that you are being elitist, pretentious etc. It is really hard to have a decent/normal conversation in a lot of situations when folks just don't have the depth/experience that you do in a particular area (say Music), normally I just stay out of it, and they wax poetic about pop entertainers & celebrities ...

A not unwise course of action...

8)

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 08:42:08 AM
His reaction was a bit extreme, and their are deeper issues going on there clearly .. but mostly on the latter half of your statement it is met with general indifference, and a view that you are being elitist, pretentious etc. It is really hard to have a decent/normal conversation in a lot of situations when folks just don't have the depth/experience that you do in a particular area (say Music), normally I just stay out of it, and they wax poetic about pop entertainers & celebrities ...

Yes, but indifference is just a form of symbolical destruction: what one doesn´t care about, doesn´t exist.  ;D

Staying out of it is of course the wisest option.

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 09:04:34 AMyou come off like a douche in most cases.

It's too bad that in your own case you are a 'douche'. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you really need to learn how to talk to people and get your nose out of the air. You're no better than anyone else, James.

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 09:04:34 AM
A lot of times I'm just blunt & direct about it. You're dealing with people (either young or old) that are stuck in their own narrow circuits of thinking, and a lot of it is a herd & trend oriented mentality that they are fed.

Exactly. Swift´s wise words are very pertinent in their case: Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired...

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 09:04:34 AM
... You're dealing with people (either young or old) that are stuck in their own narrow circuits of thinking ....

I cannot be the only one enjoying the irony here.

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 09:12:32 AM
You say that to me at a safe distance .. lucky you.

If I met you in person and you treated me the way you treat almost everyone on this forum, you'd be lucky I would even dignify you with a response. Continue holding your nose high, James.

Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2014, 09:19:59 AM
I cannot be the only one enjoying the irony here.

:P I'm certainly enjoying it!

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 09:26:39 AM
I've always surmised that after adolescence years (when leisure-time and peer bonding is at it's highest, save for retirement years) cultural intake shuts down because life stuff takes over .. so most folks who live busy lives, career, family .. can only absorb what is easily accessed (mainstream culture within a narrow window). It is only the few passionate ones that stay with something and put in the work and time that is required for a deeper experience. And not everyone can be interested in the same things .. so for me, it's music in a deep way .. for another person it's sports, or cars, or gardening, cooking, travelling etc.

Painting with an extremely broad brush again I see.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 29, 2014, 09:28:22 AM
Painting with an extremely broad brush again I see.

Actually I have to agree with James on this point. There are loads of people who would like to explore the arts, music etc., but the demands of job, family and so forth effectively preclude it.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 29, 2014, 09:33:48 AM
Actually I have to agree with James on this point. There are loads of people who would like to explore the arts, music etc., but the demands of job, family and so forth effectively preclude it.

I am in this situation. Fortunately for me, my degree in music earned when I was young and my current job in the field give me more opportunity than most to stay in touch with classical music, but my time is still limited due to family and job responsibilities, so I can't explore many things I'd really like to.

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 09:31:06 AM
You are very weak & soft-skinned if you hold grudges (or a score card) over a few exchanges on here that you deem in "poor treatment". I really think you need to get over the little things & grow up.

Karl, I think it's time for James Bingo! ;D

(* chortle *)

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 08:45:46 AM
You experienced that same sort-of thing out in the real world? Clearly you must ..

Unquestionably. My interest is history; how popular must that be? Music or otherwise... :-\

8)

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 29, 2014, 09:07:48 AM
It's too bad that in your own case you are a 'douche'. I've said it before and I'll say it again, you really need to learn how to talk to people and get your nose out of the air. You're no better than anyone else, James.

ad hominem attacks aside, you should take into account what he is saying. I've seen elements of douchiness (neologism alert) from virtually every person posting in this thread right now, including myself. Beside the fact. It doesn't excuse anti-intellectualism from 'the masses'. Enough of that is bound to make the most gentle soul a douchebag. :-\

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 10:14:03 AM
Unquestionably. My interest is history; how popular must that be? Music or otherwise... :-\

Which leads to a larger point. The issue isn't so much classical music and "elitism," as any kind of serious interest in anything that might get labeled as "intellectual." Could be classical music, or philosophy, or serious literature, or serious film, or [fill in the blank]. Anyone perceived as an intellectual in this society is by definition an oddball.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 10:14:03 AM
Unquestionably. My interest is history; how popular must that be? Music or otherwise... :-\

8)

Then you can answer the burning question:  Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 10:18:45 AM
ad hominem attacks aside, you should take into account what he is saying. I've seen elements of douchiness (neologism alert) from virtually every person posting in this thread right now, including myself. Beside the fact. It doesn't excuse anti-intellectualism from 'the masses'. Enough of that is bound to make the most gentle soul a douchebag. :-\

8)

Wise man, Gurn. I will reconsider my approach to James and just leave him alone. It's just fun picking on him sometimes regardless whether I actually read his posts or not. :)

Pffft

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 29, 2014, 10:24:39 AM
Which leads to a larger point. The issue isn't so much classical music and "elitism," as any kind of serious interest in anything that might get labeled as "intellectual." Could be classical music, or philosophy, or serious literature, or serious film, or [fill in the blank]. Anyone perceived as an intellectual in this society is by definition an oddball.

Exactly. Ours may very well be the first ¨society¨ in history to promote, and to boast about doing so, mediocrity and the lowest common denominator as commendable and praiseworthy. This raises the question: why and how has ¨society¨ reached this low level? I have some answers but not willing to appear more of a douche than I am already, I shall keep silent about them.  ;D

(I write ¨society¨ because only too often it is spoken about, and conceived of, as a being in its own right, a metaphysical person endowed with its own will, feeling and reason, different from, and larger than, the concrete, individual persons that live at a certain point in time and space --- while the exact opposite is true: society is nothing more, nor less, than both (1) the persons living together at a certain point in time and space, and (2) the complex and ever-changing, ever-evolving relationships between them.)

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 11:44:45 AM
From a safe distance of course, in person you wouldn't dare. But we understand, you must get bored living in your Mom's basement all the time.

Gurn, did you read this? A typical James response.

Quote from: Mirror Image on December 29, 2014, 11:47:13 AM
Gurn, did you read this? A typical James response.

Certainly I did. You provoked him, he slapped you back. That post wasn't made out of the clear blue sky. I think I made it rather clear that douche-baggery is rather rampant on both sides here, wouldn't you agree?

8)

Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2014, 10:26:00 AM
Then you can answer the burning question:  Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?

What, WW I ??

8)

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 29, 2014, 10:24:39 AM
Which leads to a larger point. The issue isn't so much classical music and "elitism," as any kind of serious interest in anything that might get labeled as "intellectual." Could be classical music, or philosophy, or serious literature, or serious film, or [fill in the blank]. Anyone perceived as an intellectual in this society is by definition an oddball.

Certainly so. Which is why I, and others of like mind, tend to express ourselves here, rather than out in public, unless we are in a known Nerdist hangout, like the Pizza Shoppe over at The U., or the Game Room in Karl's basement...  :)

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 11:59:57 AM
... or the Game Room in Karl's basement...  :)

"The toniest 'Man-Cave' in the Commonwealth." ~ The Boston Phoenix

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 11:53:38 AM
I'm not so sure, maybe true in some cases but there are all kinds of intelligent people out there, in all areas .. and I think that there is a time & place for intelligent discussion with like minded individuals .. in a lot of cases the context is inappropriate or doesn't facilitate it. But if you search for that kind of stimulation, it can be found.

Easier for some, of course. Life is a series of choices, and if those involve isolation from the larger segment of society, then the tradeoff is having to turn to this (blessed!) alternative, the Internet. Not a lot of call for expertise in Classic Era Viennese history here in the bush... :-\

8)

Haydn-like isolation, we might say.

Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2014, 12:04:18 PM
Haydn-like isolation, we might say.

...forced to be original...  0:)

8)

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 11:59:57 AM
Certainly so. Which is why I, and others of like mind, tend to express ourselves here, rather than out in public, unless we are in a known Nerdist hangout, like the Pizza Shoppe over at The U., or the Game Room in Karl's basement...  :)

8)

First it's MI's basement, now it's Karl's basement.  I'm feeling left out; I don't even have a basement. ;D

Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2014, 12:04:18 PM
Haydn-like isolation, we might say.

I thought you and John were Balakirev fans, Karl...

8)

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 09:26:39 AM
I've always surmised that after adolescence years (when leisure-time and peer bonding is at it's highest, save for retirement years) cultural intake shuts down because life stuff takes over .. so most folks who live busy lives, career, family .. can only absorb what is easily accessed (mainstream culture within a narrow window). It is only the few passionate ones that stay with something and put in the work and time that is required for a deeper experience. And not everyone can be interested in the same things .. so for me, it's music in a deep way .. for another person it's sports, or cars, or gardening, cooking, travelling etc.

Well, sports, gardening, cooking and travelling can be as much eye-opening, character-building and personality-beneficial as music, literature and philosophy. Actually, if done properly, the former are even linked to the latter, as the Renaissance ideal (to which I subscribe in proportion to my very modest and limited intellectual and spiritual qualities) showed clearly, and of which a modern --- even postmodern -- version is given by Robert Heinlein

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects."

Besides. Building, sustaining and taking care of, one´s family and making it a functional and decent one is not the smallest, nor the less important, task facing a man --- on the contrary, it may be more difficult, more demanding and also more rewarding than deciphering the arcane mysteries of the Goldberg Variations. The other day I overheard on a television broadcast an Orthodox priest who is also a learned scholar saying something to the effect that it doesn´t matter how many philosophical tomes one reads (yet if one can do that, God bless him!); what really matters is how many persons one loves, and is ready to sacrifice his life for their sake. Now, can you think of anything more ¨elitist¨ than that in our ¨culture¨, built as it is on instant gratification of the egotistic whims and desires?
 

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 12:07:15 PM
I thought you and John were Balakirev fans, Karl...

8)

Give me Haydn and two pints of beer and I shall move the world.  :D

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 12:39:59 PM
True. Being a parent is the hardest job in the world if you ask me.

Mon semblable, — mon frère!   :)

  I'm thinking on the tangent of people only "pretending" to like classical music. Though I don't think I need to explain to this audience that that isn't always true, it is sometimes true. Often when it comes up that I enjoy classical, I'll get some "me too" responses that are totally insincere: people who want to be seen to like classical music, but can't name a single piece, composer, or performer they like. It's quite odd, because I know if I asked those same people "What are some of your favorite songs?" I'd have an avalanche of names.

  There are plenty of worthwhile pursuits I either have no interest in or know nothing about. I don't feel the need to go "Oh, me too!" if someone say they're into hydraulic engineering, beat poets, or slalom skiing, just because it would create a sense of commonality between us. Yet, this happens often with classical music.

Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 29, 2014, 01:10:25 PM
  I'm thinking on the tangent of people only "pretending" to like classical music. Though I don't think I need to explain to this audience that that isn't always true, it is sometimes true. Often when it comes up that I enjoy classical, I'll get some "me too" responses that are totally insincere: people who want to be seen to like classical music, but can't name a single piece, composer, or performer they like. It's quite odd, because I know if I asked those same people "What are some of your favorite songs?" I'd have an avalanche of names.

  There are plenty of worthwhile pursuits I either have no interest in or know nothing about. I don't feel the need to go "Oh, me too!" if someone say they're into hydraulic engineering, beat poets, or slalom skiing, just because it would create a sense of commonality between us. Yet, this happens often with classical music.

Maybe I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were trying to make you feel less isolated.... nah! The most common response I get from people of that sort is 'Oh, I love classical music, it is soooo relaxing!'.  ::)  Well, not for me!   >:D

8)

Quote from: Fagotterdämmerung on December 29, 2014, 01:10:25 PM
   There are plenty of worthwhile pursuits I either have no interest in or know nothing about. I don't feel the need to go "Oh, me too!" if someone say they're into hydraulic engineering, beat poets, or slalom skiing, just because it would create a sense of commonality between us. Yet, this happens often with classical music.

I don't give a crap about professional sports. Yet when I express this, people are visibly taken aback.

In today's world, sports and pop culture are the real manifestations of religious feeling for most people.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 29, 2014, 09:33:48 AM
Actually I have to agree with James on this point. There are loads of people who would like to explore the arts, music etc., but the demands of job, family and so forth effectively preclude it.

Me too.

A telated example. Higher mathematics is in its way very beautiful. To be a mathematician you need to feel that (or else the discipline is arid). Few people can. It seems to me really bizarre to deny that those who understand higher math are a small dedicated bunch who see what others do not.

Quote from: Archaic Torso of Apollo on December 29, 2014, 02:11:50 PM
I don't give a crap about professional sports. Yet when I express this, people are visibly taken aback.

In today's world, sports and pop culture are the real manifestations of religious feeling for most people.

I feel like I wandered over here just to echo Torso...

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 05:07:46 AM
Your Dad needs to see the difference between appreciation of the finer products of culture and snobbery about it.

I want to emphasize two things here.
1 this is an excellent comment.
2 it is what James has been saying.

Quote from: karlhenning on December 29, 2014, 12:02:39 PM
"The toniest 'Man-Cave' in the Commonwealth." ~ The Boston Phoenix

I thought I had the tonyest man-cave in the Commonwealth ...      :'(

Quote from: James on December 29, 2014, 12:08:23 PM
You mean you just can't elegantly & concisely weave info from the vast Haydn database (which is your mind) into the latest at work Toby Keith or Taylor Swift conversation? I do it with my latest Stockhausen-fling all the time. It's a party.  :(

Most of my friends aren't classical music lovers, but they all know about Bartok, Ligeti, and Ravel (among others). A few of them have really taken to them, even -- especially Ligeti, for some reason. One of my best friends downloaded the entire Clear or Cloudy set and tells me that it comes up every now and again.

I'm lucky to have such patient friends. 8)

Quote from: Szykneij on December 29, 2014, 02:41:36 PM
I thought I had the tonyest man-cave in the Commonwealth ...      :'(

Weren't you Ptony with the silent P?

Quote from: EigenUser on December 29, 2014, 06:09:12 PM
Most of my friends aren't classical music lovers, but they all know about Bartok, Ligeti, and Ravel (among others). A few of them have really taken to them, even -- especially Ligeti, for some reason. One of my best friends downloaded the entire Clear or Cloudy set and tells me that it comes up every now and again.

I'm lucky to have such patient friends. 8)

I actually find it not particularly unusual to be able to talk a bit about classical music with many friends and acquaintances (and even in social situations) for whom it is a relatively peripheral interest.  They're bright, and have a wide range of interests, and (the world of classical music being so rich) I always have things to say which they find of interest and even amusement.

The key is, simply, straight out of Social Skills 101:  keep an ear for what the other person is finding of interest, and forbear to go on at length, simply because you know a good deal about the topic; don't act as if the other guy "needs to be taught."

Quote from: James on December 30, 2014, 12:03:37 PM
I do however notice in media findings (especially out of Europe, and larger US cities) .. that there is a larger generation of younger folks (performers & listeners) who take-to or have been more raised on modern composers like Ligeti, Stockhausen, Xenakis .. as that music is more pertinent to the world they live in (of their time, or closer to it) making it easier to relate to .. and not so stereotypical of what "classical music" ought to sound-like.

This accords with my own experience. The largest number of young people are at concerts of contemporary (or at least modern) music. It helps that the format for modernist concerts tends to be more innovative and less formal. And once they catch the modern music bug, at least some of them explore further, into the past to see what led up to all those great new sounds.

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 01:20:31 PM
...The most common response I get from people of that sort is 'Oh, I love classical music, it is soooo relaxing!'.  ::)  Well, not for me!   >:D

8)

I get that a lot too.  Usually an excerpt of Mahler is enough to get them at least to question that stereotype. :o ;D

I tend to think, without any real evidence other than my own unique experience, that if anyone, anyone at all, just sat down and really listened to Bach, Beethoven, Mahler, Varese, or anyone we care to name, they'd fall in love with his/her work.  But we all know it just doesn't work that way.  Some folks just have no interest in exploring music they don't already know.  In that, they differ from us--yet they are just as valuable as persons.  Others have made a sincere effort to learn to like classical or contemporary-classical, and still don't get it.  I really can't condemn them any more than I can condemn many who lost interest in The Lord of the Rings after the first few chapters (while for me, it's about time to reread it for the 21st time ;D ).

In that sense, classical music is not an art for everybody.  But is it by this rendered "elite"? :blank:

Quote from: jochanaan on December 30, 2014, 06:18:41 PM
I get that a lot too.  Usually an excerpt of Mahler is enough to get them at least to question that stereotype. :o ;D

I tend to think, without any real evidence other than my own unique experience, that if anyone, anyone at all, just sat down and really listened to Bach, Beethoven, Mahler, Varese, or anyone we care to name, they'd fall in love with his/her work.  But we all know it just doesn't work that way.  Some folks just have no interest in exploring music they don't already know.  In that, they differ from us--yet they are just as valuable as persons.  Others have made a sincere effort to learn to like classical or contemporary-classical, and still don't get it.  I really can't condemn them any more than I can condemn many who lost interest in The Lord of the Rings after the first few chapters (while for me, it's about time to reread it for the 21st time ;D ).

In that sense, classical music is not an art for everybody.  But is it by this rendered "elite"? :blank:

Yes. Most art is elite as are most fields of endeavour. Quantum theory is an elite subject.  Professional baseball is an elite game. Elite does not mean morally superior.

Quote from: EigenUser on December 29, 2014, 06:09:12 PM
Most of my friends aren't classical music lovers, but they all know about Bartok, Ligeti, and Ravel (among others).

My friend dislikes Wagner but he likes Bach. Which is probably the case with many people. :P

Quote from: Ken B on December 30, 2014, 07:31:27 PM
Yes. Most art is elite as are most fields of endeavour. Quantum theory is an elite subject.  Professional baseball is an elite game.

But watching baseball is not. And passing an introductory Quantum theory class in college is not as elite as getting a Nobel prize for advancing the field. So why should merely listening to classical music be considered elite in the first place?

Quote
Elite does not mean morally superior.

Of course not. I do not think anyone claimed this. But one could still claim to have superior taste ;) The current received wisdom claims that every pleasure is subjective and if people gain pleasure by listening zu Muzak or Rap and gorging themselves on McDonald's feed that's fine. I beg to differ. Not everybody has the inclination and leisure to appreciate every kind of art, but I think that it really is a better life (if only in this respect) if one can enjoy "refined" aesthetic experiences and it is a pity that many people do not even seem to miss this and are happy with Muzak and McDonalds.

Quote from: Jo498 on December 31, 2014, 01:13:51 AM
Of course not. I do not think anyone claimed this. But one could still claim to have superior taste ;) The current received wisdom claims that every pleasure is subjective and if people gain pleasure by listening zu Muzak or Rap and gorging themselves on McDonald's feed that's fine. I beg to differ. Not everybody has the inclination and leisure to appreciate every kind of art, but I think that it really is a better live (if only in this respect) if one can enjoy "refined" aesthetic experiences and it is a pity that many people do not even seem to miss this and are happy with Muzak and McDonalds.

+ 1

Quote from: Gurn Blanston on December 29, 2014, 01:20:31 PM
Maybe I will give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were trying to make you feel less isolated.... nah! The most common response I get from people of that sort is 'Oh, I love classical music, it is soooo relaxing!'.  ::)  Well, not for me!   >:D

8)

It's just that sort of "Classical Music as Sonic Wallpaper for Your Dentist's Waiting Room" rannygazoo which it was an abomination for WCRB in their darkest days to make Policy.

post here but not sure proper
http://nem2013.music.uoa.gr/NEMproc2013.pdf