Thinking about it .. look at all the famous composers of the past:
Bach .. worked for the Margrave in Kothen?
Haydn .. for the Esterhazi family?
Handel .. for a royal family in England ?
Mozart .. for the Emperor of Austria?
Beethoven .. for Prince/Count whoever?
Chopin .. in salons of aristocracy?
So my question is: given the above, do you think the masses back then listened to classical music? Was it mainstream, like pop nowadays?
Or was classical music only mainstream for the percentage of people who liked it, even back then (just as it is nowadays).
What do you think?
Are there any historical facts or clues?
I apologize if this is an overly academical/historical question, but I am curious to discuss this with you.
It was mainstream for the audiences it was written for and had the means to play, perform or listen to it. Remenber that a significant part of the population had little access to music. Saw somewhere that at the time of Beethoven, 25% af Vienna population were the target group for "classical" music (they would have called it contemporary).
Correct me if I'm wrong but...
Even Strauss and all his waltzes. I wouldn't think the everyday person went to balls and waltzes. I mean look:
(http://www.wien.gv.at/english/flowerball/images/saal.jpg)
Some people might make jokes about his waltzes but there's no way a normal person back there could afford to go let alone the getup that would suit the place.
There were venues where people danced to Strauss waltzes, which were within affordability of the sub-rich.
Well, notice that the composers that you name all lived during a certain historical period. And to be a bit nitpicky, Beethoven worked for Beethoven. After 1781, Mozart worked for Mozart, too, even though he had a sinecure as the "Imperial Chamber composer".
There was a period from perhaps 1815 to 1900 when classical music was as mainstream as it was ever going to be. It was at least middle class rather than being restricted to the upper classes. A huge number of people had instruments in their homes (mainly pianos) and bought the latest and greatest sheet music to play for themselves and their friends. It was a mainstay of courtship, for example. But to be strictly accurate, even the middle class wasn't the majority of the population, so what was mainstream for them still wasn't as "popular" as folk and other novelty musics.
Most people only ever got to hear "good" music in church. And of course, that was pretty mainstream in those days... :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
The Complete Piano Sonatas of Haydn (2 of 14) - Christine Schornsheim - Hob 16 47 Sonata #19 in e for Keyboard 3rd mvmt - Finale: Tempo di Menuet
Hoy, Gurn! YHM 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 02, 2008, 10:14:35 AM
Hoy, Gurn! YHM 8)
Done and done. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
The Complete Piano Sonatas of Haydn (2 of 14) - Christine Schornsheim - Hob 16 05 Sonata #8 in A for Keyboard 3rd mvmt - Presto
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2008, 10:13:40 AM
Well, notice that the composers that you name all lived during a certain historical period. And to be a bit nitpicky, Beethoven worked for Beethoven. After 1781, Mozart worked for Mozart, too, even though he had a sinecure as the "Imperial Chamber composer".
There was a period from perhaps 1815 to 1900 when classical music was as mainstream as it was ever going to be. It was at least middle class rather than being restricted to the upper classes. A huge number of people had instruments in their homes (mainly pianos) and bought the latest and greatest sheet music to play for themselves and their friends. It was a mainstay of courtship, for example. But to be strictly accurate, even the middle class wasn't the majority of the population, so what was mainstream for them still wasn't as "popular" as folk and other novelty musics.
Most people only ever got to hear "good" music in church. And of course, that was pretty mainstream in those days... :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
The Complete Piano Sonatas of Haydn (2 of 14) - Christine Schornsheim - Hob 16 47 Sonata #19 in e for Keyboard 3rd mvmt - Finale: Tempo di Menuet
Nice thought about the church, slipped of my mind (but was it restricted to church music?)
QuoteA huge number of people had instruments in their homes (mainly pianos) and bought the latest and greatest sheet music to play for themselves and their friends.
But instruments at home correspond to records and CDs nowadays, and this does not mean that everyone plays classical music nowadays on their CDS. Similarly we cannot assume that everyone back then played classical music on their instruments.
QuoteThere was a period from perhaps 1815 to 1900 when classical music was as mainstream as it was ever going to be.
True but could have this been largely related to the personalities of this particular era. I assume that the popularity of classical music markedly increased during that century due to the emergence of "interesting" performers: and I mean Paganini and Liszt, and their followers.
QuoteBut to be strictly accurate, even the middle class wasn't the majority of the population, so what was mainstream for them still wasn't as "popular" as folk and other novelty musics.
It seems difficult to determine, but ultimately I would have to agree with you on that. Because their seems to be a notion that classical music was "music of the past" that had its heyday, but it seems to me that it was only accessible for its target audience. Therefore, one can assume that in our age, classical music is more popular than ever given the easy medium of recordings and mp3s, something which was not available to old folks who could not afford instruments or buying sheet music back then.
Quote from: bassio on February 02, 2008, 11:17:24 AM
Nice thought about the church, slipped of my mind (but was it restricted to church music?)
Music played in church was pretty broad based. One needn't think of it only as masses, if that's what you mean. Oratorios were performed in churches in some countries, and even the services themselves contained sinfonias and sonatas.
QuoteBut instruments at home correspond to records and CDs nowadays, and this does not mean that everyone plays classical music nowadays on their CDS. Similarly we cannot assume that everyone back then played classical music on their instruments.
Actually, you CAN assume with some degree of confidence that what we call "classical" music was very commonly played at home. Chamber music, accompanied sonatas, piano transcriptions of symphonies and other big works, arias and Lieder, lots of 4 hand piano music, all of those were in the classical idiom. No doubt some played "Chopsticks", too... :) BTW, the #1 selling piece of sheet music in the 19th century was Hummel's Piano Quintet in Eb...
QuoteTrue but could have this been largely related to the personalities of this particular era. I assume that the popularity of classical music markedly increased during that century due to the emergence of "interesting" performers: and I mean Paganini and Liszt, and their followers.
The rising middle class and
nouveau riche didn't wait for the Age of the Virtuoso to take over the music scene, they already had it by then. However, the virtuosi added greatly to the forming of taste, and broadening the base of music lovers.
QuoteIt seems difficult to determine, but ultimately I would have to agree with you on that. Because their seems to be a notion that classical music was "music of the past" that had its heyday, but it seems to me that it was only accessible for its target audience. Therefore, one can assume that in our age, classical music is more popular than ever given the easy medium of recordings and mp3s, something which was not available to old folks who could not afford instruments or buying sheet music back then.
Yes, it is the "music of the past" for US, it wasn't for
them. lot of the big composers, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Brahms etc. were contemporaries, not distant memories. And they also didn't play or listen much to "old" music either. They wanted new music and they got it.
As for whether "classical" music is even more widespread now than it was then, my own opinion is that there are a lot more people listen to it now than did then, but the reason for that may well be access, as you say by pointing out the media of today. There is far more variety available today than there was then, so the appeal is there for so many more people. As an example, my interest is in obscure composers of the Classical Era, and I can get as much of their music as I can afford, which even 30 years ago few if any people could say. So there is actually a renaissance going on, far from the death predicted and lamented by so many current pundits. IMO, most of the crepe hangers are suffering from Cranio-rectal Inversion Syndrome... :D
----------------
Now playing:
The Complete Piano Sonatas of Haydn (3 of 14) - Christine Schornsheim - Hob 16 14 Sonata #16 in D for Keyboard 2nd mvmt - Menuet
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2008, 12:34:10 PM
Actually, you CAN assume with some degree of confidence that what we call "classical" music was very commonly played at home. Chamber music, accompanied sonatas, piano transcriptions of symphonies and other big works, arias and Lieder, lots of 4 hand piano music, all of those were in the classical idiom. No doubt some played "Chopsticks", too... :) BTW, the #1 selling piece of sheet music in the 19th century was Hummel's Piano Quintet in Eb...
I have seen this phenomenon mentioned a number of times in the last few years, often in discussions about music education (or rather, lack of). People want to blame the educational system, and rightly so, but lack of music performance at home seems an equally valid reason. Few people do this any more.
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2008, 12:34:10 PM
As for whether "classical" music is even more widespread now than it was then, my own opinion is that there are a lot more people listen to it now than did then, but the reason for that may well be access, as you say by pointing out the media of today. There is far more variety available today than there was then, so the appeal is there for so many more people. As an example, my interest is in obscure composers of the Classical Era, and I can get as much of their music as I can afford, which even 30 years ago few if any people could say. So there is actually a renaissance going on, far from the death predicted and lamented by so many current pundits. IMO, most of the crepe hangers are suffering from Cranio-rectal Inversion Syndrome... :D
I agree: today's access to classical music is more widespread than ever, thanks to the Internet, radio and the still-viable-for-the-moment recordings market. And this includes music from all periods, not just contemporary works. It actually annoys me lately that people see a decline in classical music, when if anything, the availability has exploded. There is more music available at this minute--never mind new recordings coming out tomorrow, next week, or next month--to keep a listener occupied for
decades.
--Bruce
CM is pretty much eletist, high class, the romantics will never die in maintstream classical groupies.
Which is why i seek the underground CM. Elliott Carter, Pettersson, Schnittke. I'd say the 3 second viennese greats are also underground.
I promised someone over at amazon board that i would give Mahler another chance, due to an impropriety and offensive comment I made ona topic, "Who is the greatest 20th C symphonist,Sibelius or Mahler..I went and said something foolish about both composers in realtion to the journey into CM. Wish me luck on Mahlers syms 5-9 ::)
Quote from: paulb on February 02, 2008, 01:05:14 PM
CM is pretty much eletist, high class, the romantics will never die in maintstream classical groupies.
Which is why i seek the underground CM. Elliott Carter, Pettersson, Schnittke. I'd say the 3 second viennese greats are also underground.
I promised someone over at amazon board that i would give Mahler another chance, due to an impropriety and offensive comment I made ona topic, "Who is the greatest 20th C symphonist,Sibelius or Mahler..I went and said something foolish about both composers in realtion to the journey into CM. Wish me luck on Mahlers syms 5-9 ::)
Exactly the point, paulb, there is even something for YOUR taste! I personally disagree about the elitism though. I am as far as you can get from being an elitist, and for that matter, so are you.
Don't worry a bit if you come up empty on Mahler. I did, and I don't care one way or the other. That's another nice aspect of the availability of so much music today, there is something to appeal to everyone. I like nothing that you like, and you like very little that I like. And we're both happy. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
The Complete Piano Sonatas of Haydn (4 of 14) - Christine Schornsheim - Hob 16 02 Sonata #11 in Bb for Keyboard 3rd mvmt - Menuet
Quote from: bhodges on February 02, 2008, 12:57:15 PM
I have seen this phenomenon mentioned a number of times in the last few years, often in discussions about music education (or rather, lack of). People want to blame the educational system, and rightly so, but lack of music performance at home seems an equally valid reason. Few people do this any more.
I attribute my love of music in general, not just classical, to the fact that we had a piano at home when I was growing up, and lots of people who could play it (not me, sadly :'( ). There is nothing that equals live music, even played by amateurs, for developing a love of music in a young person. I can't remember the exact figure, and am too lazy to look it up, but there were thousands of pianos in the homes of the Viennese middle class. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
The Complete Piano Sonatas of Haydn (4 of 14) - Christine Schornsheim - Hob 16 02 Sonata #11 in Bb for Keyboard 3rd mvmt - Menuet
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2008, 01:14:17 PM
Don't worry a bit if you come up empty on Mahler. I did, and I don't care one way or the other. That's another nice aspect of the availability of so much music today, there is something to appeal to everyone. I like nothing that you like, and you like very little that I like. And we're both happy. :)
Agree here, too. As long as you have actually listened to a given composer--and I mean really given his or her work a fair chance--I firmly believe you can cross off any composer from your list, including Mahler, Beethoven, Wagner, or anyone else. There are just too many different voices out there to worry about not liking one.
--Bruce
Norwegian violinist Ole Bull sold small flasks with his used bathwater to admiresses. That was in Paris.
Do you wanna be a rock n'roll star?
Quote from: paulb on February 02, 2008, 01:05:14 PM
CM is pretty much eletist, high class, the romantics will never die in maintstream classical groupies.
Which is why i seek the underground CM. Elliott Carter, Pettersson, Schnittke. I'd say the 3 second viennese greats are also underground.
I promised someone over at amazon board that i would give Mahler another chance, due to an impropriety and offensive comment I made ona topic, "Who is the greatest 20th C symphonist,Sibelius or Mahler..I went and said something foolish about both composers in realtion to the journey into CM. Wish me luck on Mahlers syms 5-9 ::)
Well, Paul, I'm sure you've heard the first 30 seconds of each symphony by now. What's your verdict? ;D
Sarge
I would actually argue that classical music is more "mainstream" these days than people acknowledge. This is primarily due to movies: for every movie with a crappy soundtrack of fluffball atmospheric pieces and tinkly piano solos, there are films which call for the construction of elaborate symphonic works. I'd say that one of the most popular bits of music from ANY genre in the last decade is the soundtrack of "Lord of the Rings." I personally didn't like it, but a great many folks my age loved the score from that trilogy. A music major friend of mine actually bought a performance score of "Sweeney Todd: Demon Barber of Fleet Street" to analyze the contrapuntal passages with more care. Mainstream film-viewers may not know that that music has anything in common with "classical" music - and even most of us would argue over whether it qualifies as classical - but there's no doubting the enthusiasm there. And many household names from the world of the soundtrack are talented composers whose music can stand well without the context of film - in older days Steiner, Waxman and Korngold; now people like John Williams.
In addition a more pernicious facet of contemporary culture - or at least, that's how it's perceived - is even closer to making classical styles "mainstream." I'm thinking of video games; Bioshock, strategy games like Civilization (which included Brahms' Third Symphony and Adams' Tromba Lontana in its latest edition)*, and especially the Final Fantasy series. A music major friend of mine specializes in video game music, and startled me with a piano clip from a Japanese game written specially - and brilliantly - in the style of Rachmaninov. Granted, the average player doesn't know they're listening to faux Rachmaninov, but I would still contend that they are listening to and, in most cases, genuinely enjoying well-constructed classical music.
--
*Also several of Dvorak's Slavonic Dances. On a recent visit to a Civ4 internet forum, I was shocked to find multiple threads, each containing well over 25 posts, of gamers who were wondering where they could find more Dvorak because they loved his music so much!
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 02, 2008, 02:04:23 PM
Well, Paul, I'm sure you've heard the first 30 seconds of each symphony by now. What's your verdict? ;D
The opening 30 seconds of Symphonies 5-9 are all quite good actually. In fact, now that I think about it, all of Mahler's symphonies generally have great openings!
But whether or not Paul is prepared to listen to the rest is his choice. ;D
Quote from: Brian on February 02, 2008, 03:47:32 PM
I'd say that one of the most popular bits of music from ANY genre in the last decade is the soundtrack of "Lord of the Rings." I personally didn't like it, but a great many folks my age loved the score from that trilogy.
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the main theme from the Lord of the Rings soundtrack sounds very similar to the theme played by the brass near the end of the first movement of Sibelius's 3rd Symphony? Ever since I first heard Sibelius's 3rd, it's been constantly bugging me...
Quote from: Symphonien on February 02, 2008, 05:41:54 PM
Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that the main theme from the Lord of the Rings soundtrack sounds very similar to the theme played by the brass near the end of the first movement of Sibelius's 3rd Symphony? Ever since I first heard Sibelius's 3rd, it's been constantly bugging me...
Sibelius was such a plagiarist. ;D
Quote from: Gurn Blanston on February 02, 2008, 01:14:17 PM
Exactly the point, paulb, there is even something for YOUR taste! I personally disagree about the elitism though. I am as far as you can get from being an elitist, and for that matter, so are you.
Don't worry a bit if you come up empty on Mahler. I did, and I don't care one way or the other. That's another nice aspect of the availability of so much music today, there is something to appeal to everyone. I like nothing that you like, and you like very little that I like. And we're both happy. :)
8)
----------------
Now playing:
The Complete Piano Sonatas of Haydn (4 of 14) - Christine Schornsheim - Hob 16 02 Sonata #11 in Bb for Keyboard 3rd mvmt - Menuet
Excellent Gurn, we have acheived what the mideast may never, peace among our 2 camps. BRAVO ;D
eletism , meaning more like a superior sensibility vs the common man. Not in the sense of being better than the common. Just in sensibility as to high art.
Heck there may be a copy of Schnittke's 4th vc/Kremer/Rozh laying on the ground and a common man may walk right past it, or worse accidently stomp it and look down with a "gee, wonder what that was, ...lloks to be of nothing of value, just some classical cd or whatever" :o :'(...my Schnittke cd >:(
We here are not any sort of superclass homosapiens, just have the edge on whats great art, which common man is dead to.
Mahler didn't go well with you, heh? I must at least try, once again. ::)
Quote from: bhodges on February 02, 2008, 01:19:52 PM
Agree here, too. As long as you have actually listened to a given composer--and I mean really given his or her work a fair chance--I firmly believe you can cross off any composer from your list, including Mahler, Beethoven, Wagner, or anyone else. There are just too many different voices out there to worry about not liking one.
--Bruce
The other day while driving home, thought I'd turn on NPR local CM station.
A Beethoven sym was on, and was it
jamming. Usually i change the station at that point, but the sym was rocking. Just thought I'd let you guys know that i did find some interest in beethoven. Later on the web site found out was the 8th , which I previously called a dud (little did i realize), and the orch which was UNREAL, The Vienna, Abbado. Stunning and spectacular playing.
I'll be looking into Mahler's late syms this summer.
Quote from: Sergeant Rock on February 02, 2008, 02:04:23 PM
Well, Paul, I'm sure you've heard the first 30 seconds of each symphony by now. What's your verdict? ;D
Sarge
Hi Sarge
Actually i did 5-7 minutes of various Mahler syms at Tulane's ML late one night...maybe i did doze off at places ;) I need to go further into the late syms , so i can say
been there/done that ;D Sort of complete my journey, a step I missed along the way was Mahler.
I'm listening to various clips of Mahler.
I will not explore Mahler , call me any name in the book
SkuddleButt whatever, i will not explore Mahler further. End of that story.
Quote from: paulb on February 02, 2008, 07:26:00 PM
...I'm listening to various clips of Mahler.
I will not explore Mahler , call me any name in the book SkuddleButt whatever, i will not explore Mahler further. End of that story.
No names ;) , just a question: Why not?
Quote from: jochanaan on February 04, 2008, 11:23:52 AM
No names ;) , just a question: Why not?
He's a 'Frere Jacques' purist. ;)
Quote from: paulb on February 02, 2008, 07:16:20 PM
Heck there may be a copy of Schnittke's 4th vc/Kremer/Rozh laying on the ground and a common man may walk right past it, or worse accidently stomp it and look down with a "gee, wonder what that was, ...lloks to be of nothing of value, just some classical cd or whatever" :o :'(...my Schnittke cd >:(
I've always joked to myself about if someone broke into my car or my flat-- they wouldn't get much-- I laugh to myself to think what someone would think pilfering through all my CDs, they wouldn't know what to do with them.
Paul, there was a video store that also sells used CDs-- I forget the name of it-- not sure if its still there, but it was in Metairie near where the Causeway & Veteran's Blvd. cross. I was selling off a few CDs for cash (this was around 1998 when I lived there the first time) & the girl at counter said, "I'm sorry, we don't buy
classics." ::)
QuoteMahler didn't go well with you, heh? I must at least try, once again. ::)
I struggle with Mahler too-- the whole aesthetic just doesn't appeal to me at all. :P
Major Video! That was the place-- on Veterans-- they did at least have a semi-decent foreign film selection...
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 04, 2008, 11:39:25 AM
I've always joked to myself about if someone broke into my car or my flat-- they wouldn't get much-- I laugh to myself to think what someone would think pilfering through all my CDs, they wouldn't know what to do with them.
Paul, there was a video store that also sells used CDs-- I forget the name of it-- not sure if its still there, but it was in Metairie near where the Causeway & Veteran's Blvd. cross. I was selling off a few CDs for cash (this was around 1998 when I lived there the first time) & the girl at counter said, "I'm sorry, we don't buy classics." ::)
I struggle with Mahler too-- the whole aesthetic just doesn't appeal to me at all. :P
:D
lakeview has had no less than 100 burgleries in the past year, as you all know 70% of the houses are gone. They caught both sets of evil doers..
Anyway i had fear of losing everything but my cds, my most valuable possession. My $8K+ stereo can be replaced, cds much more difficult.
Jochanaan
This will serve as my respond to your why not?
The whole aesthetic just doesn't appeal to me at allEphemerid nailed it better than i ever could.
We should all realize by now that certain composers music repels us, others attrack us. All music in itself is perfectly neutral, when it comes in contact with a human being then a chemical/emotional reaction takes place.
That experiment cannot be controled by the
free will. Its spontaneous how this connection between composer and individual works itself out. Now sure in the beginning our aesthetic capacities are hardly developed, holds for the majority of us here. Chris Forbes and a few other well gifted musical personalities are awake early on, and have that quickness of musical perception. My development can relatively late, starting around age 45. That late development was more my decision to hold on exploring CM until things were more equilberated in my stormy life. Only Mahler's 1st sym on a tape was part of my early development, his others never made it to my LP collection. For some instinct within me, I knew Mahler was not for me. But that instinct applied to most the romantic era. I made few experiements in buying LP's of romantic works.
Right now i am just discovering the realms of Wagner's 6 operas i love, and thats quite enough from the romantic era to keep me a very happy man fora very long time.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 04, 2008, 11:42:10 AM
Major Video! That was the place-- on Veterans-- they did at least have a semi-decent foreign film selection...
CM is new orleans is probably on a lower level of valuation than most cities.
I'll look into MV's foreign film section, thats one area I want to explore in the comming yrs. the french film forum was informative and have at least 10 films on wish list.
Quote from: paulb on February 02, 2008, 07:23:05 PM
The other day while driving home, thought I'd turn on NPR local CM station.
A Beethoven sym was on, and was it jamming. Usually i change the station at that point, but the sym was rocking. Just thought I'd let you guys know that i did find some interest in beethoven. Later on the web site found out was the 8th , which I previously called a dud (little did i realize), and the orch which was UNREAL, The Vienna, Abbado. Stunning and spectacular playing.
Brainwashing, to be sure.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 04, 2008, 02:55:46 PM
Brainwashing, to be sure.
My point was more to the effect that no other och can play Beethoven to the degree the Vienna can. And less that i actually like the music.
It was just a 2 cent comment, nothing more
There was less of a cultural divide between the classical and the popular when there was a piano in the parlor and people made their own music. Taste was not regimented to the degree that has prevailed since the rise of radio, the phonograph, and all that followed. This has increased during my lifetime, in part as a result of commercial decisions. Classical music was not entirely an elite preoccupation in the '50s and early '60s when you could see the great orchestras on TV (not just public TV).
It was still possible for ordinary people to be in touch with high culture as long as the networks thought they shouldn't be deprived of it. Now the attitude seems to be that it's an imposition to expose people to art they aren't demanding. Or maybe it's just that it's easier to serve a narrow predefined audience. It reminds me of how political activists like to reduce voter turnout so they can more effectively manage the docile remainder. People who make highly individuated choices are a pain in the butt.
When you combine that with an anti-elitism emanating from portions of the elite academy (where else?) you have what appears to be a deliberate strategy to infantilize the population. But I seriously doubt any of it really is deliberate, except those decisions about the marketing of pop music genres.
Quote from: drogulus on February 04, 2008, 04:07:23 PM
There was less of a cultural divide between the classical and the popular when there was a piano in the parlor and people made their own music. Taste was not regimented to the degree that has prevailed since the rise of radio, the phonograph, and all that followed. This has increased during my lifetime, in part as a result of commercial decisions. Classical music was not entirely an elite preoccupation in the '50s and early '60s when you could see the great orchestras on TV (not just public TV).
It was still possible for ordinary people to be in touch with high culture as long as the networks thought they shouldn't be deprived of it. Now the attitude seems to be that it's an imposition to expose people to art they aren't demanding. Or maybe it's just that it's easier to serve a narrow predefined audience. It reminds me of how political activists like to reduce voter turnout so they can more effectively manage the docile remainder. People who make highly individuated choices are a pain in the butt.
When you combine that with an anti-elitism emanating from portions of the elite academy (where else?) you have what appears to be a deliberate strategy to infantilize the population. But I seriously doubt any of it really is deliberate, except those decisions about the marketing of pop music genres.
Yes my highly indivuated idocyncracies do grate on peoples nerves.
How else can real change come about? Through peace? Compromise?
There is so much i hate and despise about the Classical Music Industry, makes me turn >:D
Changes will take decades to correct. I plan to plant seeds, after I'm dead, its up to others to continue the struggles to see change happen.
The herds are what they are, lack the capacity for entering high art.
There;'s no conspiracy to keep the masses isolated. They will it upon themselves.
Either you have that inner sense to perceive high art, or one does not.
99% of american adults most likely do not even own one classical cd.
Europe does not have this % of dis-interest, still old europe is stuck in old patterns and ideals.
In europe more people know the name of Bax than they do Schnittke or Pettersson. I see europe as a culturally stagnant place, though better off than in america.
Quote from: paulb on February 04, 2008, 03:36:30 PM
My point was more to the effect that no other och can play Beethoven to the degree the Vienna can. And less that i actually like the music.
It was just a 2 cent comment, nothing more
Right. "A Beethoven sym was on, and was it jamming. Usually i change the station at that point, but the sym was rocking." And Beethoven had nothing to do with it, just the "och." You're so transparent it's not even worth the trouble to answer you any more.
Quote from: paulb on February 04, 2008, 04:34:29 PM
The herds are what they are, lack the capacity for entering high art.
I was 22 when i was exposed to my first classical recording. It's not the herds who are being shortchanged by the way things are going. Ask anybody why they don't listen to classical music and you'd be surprised how many would if only they knew something about it. Drogulus is absolutely correct, btw.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 04, 2008, 05:03:21 PM
Right. "A Beethoven sym was on, and was it jamming. Usually i change the station at that point, but the sym was rocking." And Beethoven had nothing to do with it, just the "och." You're so transparent it's not even worth the trouble to answer you any more.
We don't consciously choose what composers we are drawn to. the music draws us, and conversely we are repeled by certain composers.
beethoven was a greater composer than was rachmaninov. I am not repeled at all by Rachmaninov, but i am repeled by Beethoven.
These things have to do with our inner unconscious makeup, our essense. Who we are in our depths.
mahler would never work out for me, its an impossibility. Just as for many Mahlerians, the music of Schnittke would...
might never work out.
Music chooses us, not we the music.
the iconoclast
Most 'music of the people' or the masses wasn't written down in the prerecording era (the man who hired Beethoven to set Scottish folk songs was trying to preserve music which might have died out otherwise). Therefore, there wasn't the opportunity for pop music to
evolve, feed off itself and extend its development which it has today, when it is still mostly not written down when composed, but nonetheless is preserved by recordings. This IMO is what has really driven classial music more or less to the periphery of the overall culture. Intelligent people, including several presidential candidates I've heard talking about this subject, consider music basically rock and pop, and have never listened much to anything else. Classical muuic to them is an unfamiliar world apart from their interests. They may know a lot of classic rock and later alternative rock artists, but that's about it. So it's really among intelligent, college-educated people that this most surprising cultural change has come about, and as I say it's largely due to recording.
Also this dovetails neatly with the lack of classical education in the schools - all kinds, not just music. Marketable career skills have become the sine qua non of education. Shakespeare is still taught, but he's a lonely eminence. The average college graduate has virtually zero familiarity with culture in general - Greek tragedy, poetry, the great 19th century novels, classical music, Rembrandt, Gothic cathedrals - you name it, they don't know about it. A sea change from what the the educated person of 1930 would have been familiar with. Most educated people today watch movies, TV and listen to rock and pop, and that's culture for them. The isolation of classical music is just one aspect of this overall development.
Something not so far mentioned is the popularity in Italy of Opera. Just about every city had an opera house...though no concert halls. Verdi was so popular that his greatest hits were played on barrel organs in the streets. So in that place at that time, clearly 'ordinary' people did enjoy what we call classical music.
From the 1930s onwards, in some countries there were radio broadcasts that turned a lot of people onto serious music. In the UK we had The Third Programme and in the US there were the NBC Toscanini and Met broadcasts.
People did get to grips much more with instruments in the 19th cent. especially the piano. Many pieces would be transcribed in different versions to suit the skill level of the player. I have seen a simplified version of Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata from around 1900, aimed at roughly grade six players.
Mike
No, classical mainstream was never mainstream, but in the past it was more mainstream than it is today, as mentioned above with things like Bernstein on CBS and Toscanini with the NBC Orchestra on radio and TV.
I have a National Geographic magazine from 1947 with a full page ad from RCA Victor, offering a series of records of classical music and a phonograph, so that the man in the picture, who is exclaiming in joy at a concert that he recognizes Dvorak's Ninth Symphony, could introduce himself to classical music.
There was a market, therefore, in 1947, for such people, or at least for those who subscribed to National Geographic.
At the same time the "class warfare" aspect of classical music, i.e. somehow it only appeals to rich people, has been around for decades: there is a Deanna Durbin movie from the early 1940's, where she is singing a classical piece to a crowd of soldiers (with Stokowski on the podium!), and of course a soldier shouts out at the end: "Hey! Sing us some real music now!" After a slight hesitation, she of course starts singing "real" music!
The dance band ditties enjoyed by the common man are the "real music" while classical somehow cannot really appeal to the average person. Somehow, late in the 19th century with the rise of mass advertising and marketing, the idea that the average person might want to aspire to things more culturally difficult was thrown out in favor of selling the public easier and cheaper things.
Recall the rise of VCR's: film critics were talking about how the average person could now rent or buy the greatest movies of all time. Everyone would become a film student/critic and become more discriminating, and therefore movies would become better, because the educated public would demand higher quality.
And of course, the largest genre for decades turned out to be pornography.
Quote from: paulb on February 04, 2008, 06:49:04 PM
. . . but i am repeled by Beethoven.
But,
Paul, did I misunderstand you to say that you like the
Eighth Symphony?
Quote from: Cato on February 05, 2008, 04:03:55 AM
. . . there is a Deanna Durbin movie from the early 1940's, where she is singing a classical piece to a crowd of soldiers (with Stokowski on the podium!), and of course a soldier shouts out at the end: "Hey! Sing us some real music now!" After a slight hesitation, she of course starts singing "real" music!
Chattanooga choo-choo, wontcha choo-choo me home?
Quote from: karlhenning on February 05, 2008, 04:47:55 AM
Chattanooga choo-choo, wontcha choo-choo me home?
Don't write 'em like that ennymore, yew betcha !
Nothin' more
real than a song 'bout a locomotive! 0:)
(Wait!
Honegger's Pacific 231 ought to qualify therefore!)
Quote from: paulb on February 04, 2008, 06:49:04 PM
We don't consciously choose what composers we are drawn to. the music draws us, and conversely we are repeled by certain composers.
I don't necessarily agree. Perhaps initially, but when one takes a deeper listen, no.
When I was in my teens thru to my late twenties, my classical music listening habits were focussed almost exclusively to modern music and some baroque music. Certainly one is initially drawn to certain sounds, and even today those are still my preferences. HOWEVER, over the years my tastes have deepened and matured and broadened into areas I cound not have foreseen when I was younger-- which is why its always good to push one's own personal envelope.
Of course, even when I was younger there were modern pieces I had trouble appreciating, but I plugged at it & something *clicked*. I've found that is true of older, more "traditional" classical music as well. I think there is always some hidden potential within everyone to broaden and deepen one's tastes, its just a matter of timing & openness (even for Mahler, who for the moment still sounds too bloated for my ears, though I've made a little headway this year already).
There was a time when I never thought I would love Beethoven's string quartets so much, but I do! I have found it pays to return again and again to things outside the scope of one's main interests-- every now & then, new treasures can be discovered! :) We can transcend our own limited scope, and there are many rewards for doing so.
That being said, I won't feel guilty if I find most of Mahler's music unlistenable to my ears. Some things aren't meant to be, but that doesn't stop me from trying every once in a while. 9 times out of 10, there has always been a payoff for me.
That's right, go back a bit later. At some point, it just may hit.
Quote from: karlhenning on February 05, 2008, 04:46:48 AM
But, Paul, did I misunderstand you to say that you like the Eighth Symphony?
You forget: Music chooses us, not we the music.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 05:58:30 AM
I don't necessarily agree. Perhaps initially, but when one takes a deeper listen, no.
When I was in my teens thru to my late twenties, my classical music listening habits were focussed almost exclusively to modern music and some baroque music. Certainly one is initially drawn to certain sounds, and even today those are still my preferences. HOWEVER, over the years my tastes have deepened and matured and broadened into areas I cound not have foreseen when I was younger-- which is why its always good to push one's own personal envelope.
Of course, even when I was younger there were modern pieces I had trouble appreciating, but I plugged at it & something *clicked*. I've found that is true of older, more "traditional" classical music as well. I think there is always some hidden potential within everyone to broaden and deepen one's tastes, its just a matter of timing & openness (even for Mahler, who for the moment still sounds too bloated for my ears, though I've made a little headway this year already).
There was a time when I never thought I would love Beethoven's string quartets so much, but I do! I have found it pays to return again and again to things outside the scope of one's main interests-- every now & then, new treasures can be discovered! :) We can transcend our own limited scope, and there are many rewards for doing so.
Very intelligently put.
Quote from: Sforzando on February 05, 2008, 06:51:55 AM
You forget: Music chooses us, not we the music.
You are right, I
was forgetting 8)
Quote from: karlhenning on February 05, 2008, 06:54:15 AM
You are right, I was forgetting 8)
Yes i did sort of round about confess the 8th had stellar moments. But its like the approach Debussy took to Beethoven, avoidance. I understand Debussy and Ravel of creative necessity avoided some germanic strains, though this should not have anything to do with my opinions of Beethoven.
Beethoven and i are opposites in so many ways, impossible for us to meet as friends. But neither should we be enemies, yet how followers do grate my nerves at times, 'the immortal" and such.. "the god".
And sure you could go to the Pettersson forum and pin this same accusation on some things I said there.
Ephemerid has one of the better posts on the matter, we need to push our experiences. But likewise we should not push something on us that goes contrary to who we are as individuals. Its a new modern development in man's psyche, this individualism. I admit of
being a ,,,having iconoclastic tendencies.
Quote from: paulb on February 05, 2008, 10:41:00 AM
Yes i did sort of round about confess the 8th had stellar moments. But its like the approach Debussy took to Beethoven, avoidance. I understand Debussy and Ravel of creative necessity avoided some germanic strains, and this should not have anything to do with my hearing Beethoven.
Ephemerid has one of the better posts on the matter, we need to push our experiences. But likewise we should not push something on us that goes contrary to who we are as individuals. Its a new modern development in man's psyche, this individualism. I admit of being a ,,,having iconoclastic tendencies.
No, no, no-- as was stated by
Karl & Szforzando in that thread, being a composer, they were trying to establish their voice as creators. I don't think you can use essentialism as an argument against not liking (or liking) certain composers or certain musical styles. If someone is that rigid to other experiences, that has less to do with "who we are as individuals" than it does to prejudices, likes, dislikes, etc. Those limitations can be transcended, or not. The overall experience is a lot more fluid and complex than that.
Quote from: Ephemerid on February 05, 2008, 10:52:13 AM
No, no, no-- as was stated by Karl & Szforzando in that thread, being a composer, they were trying to establish their voice as creators. I don't think you can use essentialism as an argument against not liking (or liking) certain composers or certain musical styles. If someone is that rigid to other experiences, that has less to do with "who we are as individuals" than it does to prejudices, likes, dislikes, etc. Those limitations can be transcended, or not. The overall experience is a lot more fluid and complex than that.
I guess at this point i should confess my father was a fascist, thus my perculiar stance, <"rigidity">. Now that should explain alot about my attitude. I seek no sympathy.
My guess is that before recorded music, people had to make music themselves in order to hear it. This probably meant singing, not just in church. There were probably minstrels or people who had instruments, and folk music was heard. Whistles, flutes, clapping, beating on objects.