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

[karlhenning]

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".

Along with, For music to be of the best, it's got to be Heavy Business!

[Florestan]

I didn't attack capitalism, I attacked people allowing capitalism do what it has done.

What it has done has been mostly beneficial to most of the people, and certainly to you personally was highly beneficial, but you are just too blinded by ideology to see it.

Shostakovich wrote praised music in socialistic country.

He did it not because of, but in spite of, Socialist worldview and aesthetics. Are you really not aware of the trouble he had all throughout his life with Soviet authorities?

[Florestan]

Capitalism allows for the widest variety of musical expression; what a person does under this umbrella is simply exercise personal preference.

Word. But more than that: capitalism is responsible for spreading classical music in the society and making it known and available to people that in pre-capitalistic times would have been completely unaware of its mere existence.

[jowcol]

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.

You managed to say what I was trying to say in much less space.  Well done! 

[Elgarian]

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.

Bravo! Well said!

[Grazioso]

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.

It's true that open-minded (better, open-hearted) exploration can be deeply rewarding and salutary. Yet part of the reason we too easily dismiss things is precisely because we refuse to make the effort to engage in substantive evaluation. It's far too easy to spit out casually formulated opinions based solely on momentary moods. It would be better if more people took the effort to really study works of art and their contexts, to really engage in serious criticism, so that they could more readily assess and express both their own reactions and judge the art on its own terms.

Instead of jumping to conclusions or trotting out platitudes about either pop or classical music, why not delve into both and study them seriously: the musicology, the history, the sociology, the economics, etc. Learn the theory, learn the schools of criticism, learn to play them or write them. The more frameworks you have for evaluating things, the more terminology and concepts you command, the more angles from which you can view things and the better you can express your reactions and thoughts.

When you really delve into a subject, you start to see things that others don't, and you start to incorporate other frames of reference than your own, so that you're no longer governed by your own opinions. For example, a professional chef or food critic will likely notice far more--and have far more of interest to explain--about a meal than your average diner, whether they personally like it or not. Why? Because they've studied the subject, taken part in it, and have taught themselves to evaluate it in a critical manner and discuss it with an elaborate jargon fitted to the nuances of the topic.

[71 dB]

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.

So, what is the point of this discussion then? Why do we care if people hate classical music if that is simply personal preference made possible by capitalism?

Your claim "Capitalism allows for the widest variety of musical expression" is not a self-evident truth but it is most probably true. It all depends on how wide variety of expression people want (or have been manipulated to want in case of commercial music) .

[71 dB]

What it has done has been mostly beneficial to most of the people, and certainly to you personally was highly beneficial, but you are just too blinded by ideology to see it.

I don't deny the benefits. All I said was that even capitalism has it's problems (just think what has happened globally recently!). Don't take me for a communist just because I like Slavoj Zizek's thoughts. Don't think that black and white.

He did it not because of, but in spite of, Socialist worldview and aesthetics. Are you really not aware of the trouble he had all throughout his life with Soviet authorities?

Sometimes struggle in life is the source of great art.

[Florestan]

I don't deny the benefits. All I said was that even capitalism has it's problems

Of course it has. There is no such thing as a perfect system. But when you compare capitalism as practiced in the democratic countries with the socialism as practiced in the former Soviet Union and its satellite countries, capitalism wins by a wide margin on each and any account you might think of.

  Don't take me for a communist just because I like Slavoj Zizek's thoughts. Don't think that black and white.

I don't remember calling you a Communist.

Sometimes struggle in life is the source of great art.

Sure, but this is no excuse for Stalinism. 

[karlhenning]

Struggle is not exclusively the source of great art. (Just saying.)

[DavidW]

I agree with 71 dB on the issue of classical being too dynamic for many people.  The loudness war to move lps, then cds and now mp3s have been going on for decades but it seriously escalated in the last ten years.  It needs to sound good on an ipod with a poor amp in noisy mobile conditions, and sound good on computer speakers since people have gone digital with their music.  Even though now it's not difficult to get digital music to a hifi, music is focused around the ipod and the pc for many.

Now the problem with those current listening trends is that it needs to be loud just to be heard.  The larger the dynamic range the harder that is to accomplish. 

From what I've seen in Audacity (it is a wav editor)
1. Current pop has only about a 10 dB range!
2. Older pop and jazz has a range of 20-40 dB, much more breathing room but still can sound loud enough but you'll have to increase the volume.
3. Classical has a range of 60 dB or more, just crazy!  Even with sensitive headphones you have to dial up the volume just to get the moderate and quiet passages resolved.

The result is that current pop is loud, other forms of music not as loud, but at least non-classical is loud enough, classical faces a difficult uphill battle.

Why is this a battle?  People respond better to louder volumes.  I don't think that they are crass buffoons, it's just hard to get people excited about music that they will first hear as quiet or muted.

[Florestan]

Why is this a battle?  People respond better to louder volumes.  I don't think that they are crass buffoons, it's just hard to get people excited about music that they will first hear as quiet or muted.

Yes, especially when they are used to hear music through extremely loud headphones.

[karlhenning]

The best delivery system for classical music is still live performance in the space.  Taking this into account is, I suppose, pretty much The Problem.

[Franco]

It's true that open-minded (better, open-hearted) exploration can be deeply rewarding and salutary. Yet part of the reason we too easily dismiss things is precisely because we refuse to make the effort to engage in substantive evaluation. It's far too easy to spit out casually formulated opinions based solely on momentary moods. It would be better if more people took the effort to really study works of art and their contexts, to really engage in serious criticism, so that they could more readily assess and express both their own reactions and judge the art on its own terms.

Instead of jumping to conclusions or trotting out platitudes about either pop or classical music, why not delve into both and study them seriously: the musicology, the history, the sociology, the economics, etc. Learn the theory, learn the schools of criticism, learn to play them or write them. The more frameworks you have for evaluating things, the more terminology and concepts you command, the more angles from which you can view things and the better you can express your reactions and thoughts.

When you really delve into a subject, you start to see things that others don't, and you start to incorporate other frames of reference than your own, so that you're no longer governed by your own opinions. For example, a professional chef or food critic will likely notice far more--and have far more of interest to explain--about a meal than your average diner, whether they personally like it or not. Why? Because they've studied the subject, taken part in it, and have taught themselves to evaluate it in a critical manner and discuss it with an elaborate jargon fitted to the nuances of the topic.

I have studied music seriously, that is if you consider a college degree serious study - I don't necessarily consider a college music degree significant in and of itself, but it does provide someone with some historical context and some analytical skills, as well as some technical skills which may make someone who has a college music degree better able to evaluate music.

But that is not my point.  I think my enjoyment of music transcends my ability to evaluate it, and I doubt I am unique in this regard.  In some ways I think historical, analytical and technical skills can pose obstacles to hearing the music with an open mind or without preconceived ideas about its quality or worth.  I try to listen without analyzing as much as possible, and if I really want to see how the sausage was made, I will study a score.

The comment you responded to was meant to describe how I react to people dissing music they don't like, and confusing their own dislike with an objective evaluation of its worth.

[karlhenning]

. . . I think my enjoyment of music transcends my ability to evaluate it . . . .

Transcend may or may not be the right verb . . . evaluation is one of my own modes for music's enjoyment.  Not sure what the right word is . . . evaluation and enjoyment, are they complementary, overlapping?

[MN Dave]

It makes pretty sounds in my ears.

[mc ukrneal]

Yes, especially when they are used to hear music through extremely loud headphones.

What's that? You'll have to speak up! I can't hear you over my headphones! 

[Todd]

It makes pretty sounds in my ears.

Ooh, a secret swipe at Schoenberg!  I always knew you were anti-Second Viennese School.

[MN Dave]

Ooh, a secret swipe at Schoenberg!  I always knew you were anti-Second Viennese School.

A secret no longer.   

[karlhenning]

A secret no longer.   

You want Schoenberg's Serenade, Opus 24. You know you want it.