Why do people hate classical these days? (Started by Jack123...now a guest)

[Elgarian]

But I can listen to a pop song in three minutes! 

Many of Elvis's masterpieces are all over in only 2! Never was so much said so loudly with so much enthusiasm by so few for so many in so small a space. Or something.

[Elgarian]

We're hear to spearhead Music Appreciation Reform!

May I be Deputy-Chief Cheerleader Assistant in the New Movement?

[MN Dave]

Many of Elvis's masterpieces are all over in only 2! Never was so much said so loudly with so much enthusiasm by so few for so many in so small a space. Or something.

Let that be a lesson to Mahler.

[Franco]

We're hear to spearhead Music Appreciation Reform!

Here, here.

[Elgarian]

Let that be a lesson to Mahler.

Yeah!

I would like to propose a new, Greener approach to Music Appreciation Reform. (Why use 5 million notes when half a dozen will do?) Remember there are only a limited number of available musical resources on the planet, and it's up to each of us to increase our consumption of Renewable Music. It is your DUTY to sell your stereo system and build an Aeolian Harp in your garden.

[71 dB]

Haven't you heard? People are idiots.

People are smart in many things but not when it comes to music! People allow art in literature, movies etc. but not in music. Why is this? Because in music, commercialism has been most successful in removing art in order to "dumping down" consumers to buy commercial products. We let capitalism do this and this is the ugly result.

[Keemun]

Haven't you heard? People are idiots.

Indeed they are; and I do not exclude myself from this statement because God knows I've been an idiot a few times.

[Todd]

"dumping down"

I'm not sure that's the correct phrase.

I'm also not sure that movies and literature are much better off.  Witness the blockbusters of today, both at the box office and the Borders. 

[MN Dave]

I'm not sure that's the correct phrase.

I'm also not sure that movies and literature are much better off.  Witness the blockbusters of today, both at the box office and the Borders.

Exactly.

[71 dB]

I'm not sure that's the correct phrase.

Sorry about my less than perfect English. To dumb, make dumber is what I mean.

I'm also not sure that movies and literature are much better off.  Witness the blockbusters of today, both at the box office and the Borders.

Yes, literature and cinema have suffered from this too but not as badly as music. In a stupid blockbuster movie you may have brilliant concept design, good camera angles and decent movie music. Many who accept art in movies like "Mulholland Drive" do not allow art in music.

[Florestan]

People are smart in many things but not when it comes to music! People allow art in literature, movies etc. but not in music. Why is this? Because in music, commercialism has been most successful in removing art in order to "dumping down" consumers to buy commercial products. We let capitalism do this and this is the ugly result.

I don't get it: what's capitalism got to do with it? Do you really believe that before its advent ordinary people enjoyed Buxtehude or Dittersdorf on a daily basis? Chances are that most of the people never ever heard about them in their whole life, let alone listening to their music. You would have been in the same league, unless, of course, you were born in an aristocratic or bourgeois family, or made your way into the clergy.

But actually you enjoy your favorite composers in the quiet of your home, because some enterprising people, taking advantage of the capitalistic environment, risked their money setting up ventures like Harmonia Mundi or Naxos. That they succeeded big time is proof enough that, if anything, capitalism has been beneficial to classical music by spreading it and making it available to all people interested in a proportion and a range of tastes completely unknown in pre-capitalistic times.

It's always amusing to see how people to whom capitalism has been enormously beneficial attack it without ever pausing to have a second thought...

[Szykneij]

So, classical is for those who have lots of spare time. 

There is actually much truth to that statement. I won't have enough time to listen to a symphony today. If I'm lucky, I'll get a chance to hear a track or two of a new Sarah Chang CD. 

[Ten thumbs]

As a pianist, I'm lucky in that I have well over a thousand short classical pieces (under 3 minutes) that I can play and I often take a short break to do so. However there are far fewer pianos in homes than there used to be. There is also a wealth of classical song but young people nowadays find it difficult to relate to the lyrics, as well as the musical ethos.

[CRCulver]

There is also a wealth of classical song but young people nowadays find it difficult to relate to the lyrics, as well as the musical ethos.

It's not just young people. I think that lieder has appealed to a very minority audience for a few decades now. Just look at concert attendence. Your average classical fan is likely to enjoy symphonic warhorses or operas, but the combination of voice and piano just isn't so popular.

[mc ukrneal]

I don't think people hate classical music. But I think the setup of 'love or hate classical' is all wrong (so perhaps it is just the structure of this discussion). In reality, people LOVE classical music. When you ask someone if they like it, they think of some stuffy room, some music they don't understand, and (sometimes) some arrogant/nerdy guy 'tsk tsk tsking' them. Of course they'll say they hate it. They secretly love it.

Most people I know loved the music to Star Wars, Schindler's List, Braveheart and/or Lord of the Rings. Soundtracks are very much in the vein of incidental music or even Wagner in some movie series. I think soundtrack music is one of the evolutions for classical music. If someone likes soundtrcks, they will probably like some classical music (which is most people).  Not convinced?

Ask if they like Tom and Jerry (specifically the one when they chase Jerry in the piano while Tom plays). Or maybe they know the Woody Woodpecker episode where he's playing the piano as he 'moves' around the train. Maybe they know 'Kiw the Wabbit'. I've found that most people like this music, because there is a story and it allows you to visualize (and associate) as you listen. I remember a diamond commercial that was popular some years ago too.

Many people liked Pavarotti or Domingo. Yeah, it is a more commercial side. It doesn't matter how you get in so long as you start down the road. Some rock groups are very much founded/connected to classical and I have been often surprised how someone most unexpected will know a lot about a certain genre of classical.

The real point I want to make though is that most people would be interested if they just understood what they were hearing.  When all you hear on the radio these days is 3-4 minute songs (one after another) with a catchy tune, it is not exactly easy to relate to Mahler's 2nd symphony or a Brahms concerto (for examples). But my experience is that once you open the door for people a bit, they start to appreciate (and even like/love) what they are hearing.

[Florestan]

Your average classical fan is likely to enjoy symphonic warhorses or operas, but the combination of voice and piano just isn't so popular.

This is true not only for lieder, but for chamber music as well. It is my personal experience that, of the people who regularly attend symphonic concerts, less than a quarter are interested in chamber music concerts.

[71 dB]

I don't get it: what's capitalism got to do with it? Do you really believe that before its advent ordinary people enjoyed Buxtehude or Dittersdorf on a daily basis? Chances are that most of the people never ever heard about them in their whole life, let alone listening to their music. You would have been in the same league, unless, of course, you were born in an aristocratic or bourgeois family, or made your way into the clergy.

But actually you enjoy your favorite composers in the quiet of your home, because some enterprising people, taking advantage of the capitalistic environment, risked their money setting up ventures like Harmonia Mundi or Naxos. That they succeeded big time is proof enough that, if anything, capitalism has been beneficial to classical music by spreading it and making it available to all people interested in a proportion and a range of tastes completely unknown in pre-capitalistic times.

It's always amusing to see how people to whom capitalism has been enormously beneficial attack it without ever pausing to have a second thought...

I didn't attack capitalism, I attacked people allowing capitalism do what it has done. We are not haters of classical music so we are not discussing what we can listen to. Shostakovich wrote praised music in socialistic country.

[jowcol]

My 2 cents worth-
I get nervous when the conversation veers to "the music we listen to has meaning, and the stuff everyone else listens to is shallow".  I've heard this refrain numerous times on jazz lists, rock lists, and even folk music lists.  (And yes, I've seen people "dis "classical music as too limited and old fashioned on those lists.  Their loss)   My personal belief is that there is probably something worthwhile in every genre-- but a lot of garbage to wade through.   One of the advantages with classical is that time has winnowed out more of the mediocre stuff. But I'm sure there was a lot of "bad classical music" written.  (And I'm equally sure we won't agree on what belongs in that category.

The distinction between Art and entertainment is sometimes very arbitrary.  Shakespeare and Dickens may be (and are, IMO) the greatest writers in the English Language, but they were not clouded by ideas of art.  They wrote to a specific audience.  (Shakespeare needed more repertory to perform Dickens wrote serials).   If these were pop, why do we still cherish them?  Weren't all of Bach's Cantatas written for performance at special occasions? Does this make them less than art?

Length doesn't always make the distinction.  A lot of jazz, electronica, jam bands and prog rock groups, among others, don't aim at the three minute song.   Satie wrote short stuff that was pretty approachable.  Does that make him shallow?

Because it's jazz and improvised, does Ornette Coleman's Free Jazz count as light music? Cecil Taylor?  Sun Ra?  Some of that stuff is more abrasive than serialism.  In fact, one result of the decentralization of the music industry thanks to the internet is a lot more niche stuff in different genres that doesn't need to have the "three minute hit" to survive.

What about composers like Dvorak,  and Gershwin that incorporated folk or pop elements into their music.  Do they have less meaning?

In my own view, dislike of whole genres comes from letting your internal classifications tell you what to like and not like, not your ears.  We can say that about people who don't like classical-- but should apply some introspection when we devalue the music others listen to -- particularly if we don't have a detailed reason why.

Pop tunes require a great deal of craft and skill to do well. The ones that last , IMO, have more Art than artifice to them.   

I DO think we need to help where we can to foster the appreciation of classical tradition.  The conductor for my son's middle school symphonic group is doing a themed approach with film scores and multi-media, and taking it to local malls.  His motivation is the people have places where they accept orchestral music in their lives (film scores), and it is important to take the music to them.  (Think about how many people can't handle dissonance, yet accept it in a film score).

Getting a wider audience for the music we love is a two way street.  Yes, we want the others to come to our way of thinking.  But we need to reach out to them in ways they understand and  are comfortable with.  (It's like giving them their first dose of heroin for free....)  A crossover chamber group like the Kronos Quartet, Apocolyptica or Invert,  or orchestral performances of film scores may be the first step to draw them in...

[Bulldog]

I didn't attack capitalism, I attacked people allowing capitalism do what it has done. We are not haters of classical music so we are not discussing what we can listen to. Shostakovich wrote praised music in socialistic country.

Capitalism allows for the widest variety of musical expression; what a person does under this umbrella is simply exercise personal preference.  In this matter you're a poor thinker, not a free one.

[Franco]

Jowcol,

I agree with pretty much most of your post, but especially your first paragraph.

I really wish we did not feel a need to evaluate music, books, art in general, and could just open ourselves up to it and see what there is to find.  And if we come back empty-handed, not assume it is because the artist does not have anything to offer.

I often feel that we too easily dismiss that which does not speak clearly to us.