Why is classical music unpopular?

Oh, you're right, my analogies (like many analogies) aren't perfectly adequate. My point was just that the fact that there's music which is more popular than classical music doesn't mean classical music is unpopular.

Probably not, but we can't really know the statistics of what people back then "would have listened to". The point remains that a lot of the "art music" created back then was also written for a small elite, and even if every guy on the street had an iPod, he might not have listened to Haydn's string quartets, even during Haydn's time. There's a lot of folk music for instance that's simply not as well preserved and researched since it was never written down.

I don't mind if people want to discuss why "pop music" is more popular than "classical music" (even considering that neither of these terms is very clear…). I simply question whether it's valid to call classical music "unpopular", when you can go to tons of concerts every week, buy a huge range of different CD's in any bigger CD store, which contain certain pieces in tons of different interpretations you can choose from, can take clarinet or violin lessons along with tons of other people, and so on.

Oh, I don't think it's unpopular at all. I just said, relatively speaking, classical is being blown away by country, rock, rap and girlpop. In other words, as a society we could be listening to/playing a lot more of it.

Not that we necessarily need to... diversity is good... but I wonder sometimes, when I see this...

YouTube - Trace Adkins - Honky Tonk Badonkadonk

Classical music is hardly unpopular. There are more classical artists making a living at making music than ever before... Record companies are finding classical music is one of their best downloads, reaching into the millions.

As a classical music reviewer, I can not even come close to keeping up with the number of CD's released in a given month.

There are a lot of numpties out there who think classical music is dead or dying, but I'm not seeing the evidence.

Classical music is hardly unpopular. There are more classical artists making a living at making music than ever before... Record companies are finding classical music is one of their best downloads, reaching into the millions.

As a classical music reviewer, I can not even come close to keeping up with the number of CD's released in a given month.

There are a lot of numpties out there who think classical music is dead or dying, but I'm not seeing the evidence.

I think it's society. People nowadays are more into video games or rap music, and dub classical as uncool.

Society moved to the plebeian. So has art music -- look at the variety of styles in respected high-art musicians. Then look at the ones that are harder to find, yet make at the very least avant-garde musics -- hardly the bemoaned "pop" music.

[...] the plebiscite could never achieve this. However, if their masters saw with their own eyes the power they wielded [...]

I wouldn't worry so much about it...

Because people have gotten tired of it.. some people still like it, but I think the reason a lot of people don't like it is because they think that classical is all Mozart and Beethoven and composers like that... but it isn't... and if they would listen to more modern music maybe they would like that...

LISTEN TO IT!!! ;)

Because it sucks, and is lame.

People like to listen to exciting music.

And it has to be real too.

I like how Walmart grosses more than the United States in someone's metaphor.

Russia, actually. That's a fact.

Russia, actually. That's a fact.

Well, I don't know how Walmart got started but okay! :P

If these new releases weren't the same damn 100 tired old pieces I might take that statement seriously.

Actually, only about 10% of the music I am reviewing is in that "top 100" list. There are a surprising number of new composers, Kevin Puts, Libby Larson, Jennifer Higdon and Gabrielle Franks just to name a few who are being performed and recorded an quickly growing in popularity. Older "greats" like John Adams, Philip Glass, Elliot Carter and Steven Reich are already established composers and yet still producing new works. Steven Reich won a Grammy for his latest work just premiered about a month ago.

So, perhaps you need to take another look around and stop listening to classical FM's on Sunday mornings (which is when they play their top 100 favorities). There is a LOT going on the classical music world.

Actually, only about 10% of the music I am reviewing is in that "top 100" list. There are a surprising number of new composers, Kevin Puts, Libby Larson, Jennifer Higdon and Gabrielle Franks just to name a few who are being performed and recorded an quickly growing in popularity. Older "greats" like John Adams, Philip Glass, Elliot Carter and Steven Reich are already established composers and yet still producing new works. Steven Reich won a Grammy for his latest work just premiered about a month ago.

So, perhaps you need to take another look around and stop listening to classical FM's on Sunday mornings (which is when they play their top 100 favorities). There is a LOT going on the classical music world.

Maybe you need to take a look around and stop listening to only the classical CDs and radio stations. Classical/modern "art music" is outnumbered any way you look at it. It isn't something you can argue.

Maybe you need to take a look around and stop listening to only the classical CDs and radio stations. Classical/modern "art music" is outnumbered any way you look at it. It isn't something you can argue.

Saying Classical music is outnumbered is a vastly different topic than "is classical music dead". Yes, classical music is not the biggest seller out there (and I didn't say it was). What I was saying it Classical Music is seeing a resurgence and growth that suggests it is anything but dead.

Read the topic before you go spouting an off topic comment. Your ignorance (or illiteracy) is showing.

I think it can be argued that Classical music was never "popular." A study of music history shows us that Western Art music has always been primarily enjoyed (or listened to) by the aristocracy, the well-to-do middle class and those who studied it. It's still largely enjoyed by the same groups of people.

Everyone else enjoyed folk music, and Hip-hop, pop, rock, etc. is the folk music of our time.

If you wonder why classical music seems less popular or is even "failing" in the U.S, now that's because the government does not fund the arts. Classical music concerts are more popular in Europe because European governments fund the arts. There, many concerts are free or cheap. Since it costs an arm and a leg to get into most concerts in the U.S, it is a past time of "elitist" and as you know "elitism" doesn't jive well with many Americans.

I think it can be argued that Classical music was never "popular." A study of music history shows us that Western Art music has always been primarily enjoyed (or listened to) by the aristocracy, the well-to-do middle class and those who studied it. It's still largely enjoyed by the same groups of people.

Sure, I can go with that...

Everyone else enjoyed folk music, and Hip-hop, pop, rock, etc. is the folk music of our time.

Of course...

If you wonder why classical music seems less popular or is even "failing" in the U.S, now that's because the government does not fund the arts.

I'm sorry WHAT!?

Classical music concerts are more popular in Europe because European governments fund the arts. There, many concerts are free or cheap. Since it costs an arm and a leg to get into most concerts in the U.S, it is a past time of "elitist" and as you know "elitism" doesn't jive well with many Americans.

Free concerts? Yeah? Boy that sounds swell, wanna give us some examples of these free concerts :)? Boy I love free stuff don't you :) NO ONE has to pay for any of it, IT'S FREE!!

Anyway, this crap that the U.S. doesn't "fund the arts" isn't true, the National Endowment of the Arts got a big raise when Bush 43 was in office (but omg he was that dumb republican guy who hates stuff that isn't football, right?) and they got another raise when the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act went through. In fact, it's been going up every year since Bush was elected...and it's at 155 million for 2009. I think the U.K. and countries like Germany spend more than double that amount, but the way our countries partition departments and allocate funds are different and I'm too tired right now to sift through the internets to find out how much of Germany's federal budget was spent on subsidized symphony tickets last year. I just kind of have to ask why you think it's so necessary that the government blindly dump money into something just so you can go to a cheap concert and feel good about yourself. I fail to see what a government bolstering of these things would do, I mean at least if you're talking about "omg the gov't needs to SAVE these orchestras". I personally have no problem with subsidizing artists and whatnot, to an extent...and of course fund students/education.

What are you getting at exactly? Local symphony orchestras already get SOME municipal funds, not to mention sponsorships by rich private businesses in town (always good to support "culture"), so what's the problem. If an orchestra dies, it dies, as Dolph Lundren said in Rocky IV (lawl). But seriously, what's the big woop? If the community wants it, they need to do SOMETHING, get more private donors or something, make it work...but to say, "Man this orchestra isn't getting enough money, we should have the gov't fully fund them" is ridiculous. I don't want to sound like...........a libertarian *shudder*, but come on...really? If you asked me for my real opinion I would say that the gov't shouldn't subsidize "culture" because there's always going to be some kind of FUNCTION behind it (see: every European country). Musicians are artists, and if they can't evolve with the times and remain relevant then they deserve to fail. Anyway, I should ask that you and everyone else here read this...

Arts bailout? - Sandow

For the record, I think the human condition will be able to stay intact if people in already well-to-do countries went without the opportunity of hearing Dvorak's Slavonic Dances. I'm sorry I just get angry people just say, "Well can't the government just feed it more money AHURRR HURRR DURRR" and act like that's the end of it...as if the money doesn't come from anywhere and as if that money will go directly to the purported "interest".

By the way, if I use your logic then it's all circular. People in the upper income bracket are the ones most likely to pay for and attend these sorts of concerts right? These people will also pay the most in taxes. With your want for gov't spending increases, taxes will go up, and this demo will wind up paying taxes for things they are statistically most likely to attend anyway, and most likely spending MORE money than they would if the taxes hadn't gone up. It's a vicious cycle for them, and the people in the income brackets lower than them won't care because they less likely, statistically, to attend these concerts... what happens is you end up with wasted money when those upper income people would have just went to the concerts anyway and probably would have made sizable donations.

P.S. Please don't insult the country of my birth, and yours as well. "and as you know "elitism" doesn't jive well with many Americans." It's annoying *Bill Maher* and there are a lot more constructive and correct ways to critique things that the government does.

K I'm done

For me, maestro Daniel Barenboim answered this question in a lecture several years ago. His point was simple. For all of history, and today, most people have lacked the crucial ability to listen. Listening means to give your whole attention to something, to engage with it and not be distracted by outside stimuli. Classical music requires this ability to be appreciated properly. It's why we ask for silence whilst the music is playing, and that you silence your phone, and don't applaud until the end; so that everyone can hear and comprehend everything in the music. Unfortunately we live in a world which has developed to be highly hostile to the cultivation of this ability. We are bombarded by stimuli from all sides - advertising, media, noise, colour, smells, propaganda - which are contrived specifically to encourage and appeal to a short attention span. We crave instant gratification and easy pleasure. But I think the real crime, the real despicable act, is that those producing all this sensory clutter know that great art and great music requires that we concentrate, that we shut out all the trivial and distracting rubbish we are being bombarded with, and focus only on the one important thing we are now presented with. They hate and fear this, for if we are giving all our attention to some work of art, we are ignoring whatever it is they are trying to stimulate us with or, more usually, sell us. So, they have encouraged this myth to grow that classical music or painting or film or whatever are elitist and strange; that people only take an interest in these things out of snobbery, or else that they have an eccentric taste that is irrelevant to what is 'normal' and important. After all, art music is strange and individual, dangerously so.

Actually, here is another point. We are supposed to be individualist and rebel against convention, but in reality we are more homogeneous than ever, and so is our culture. You are encouraged to express yourself by buying things, the same things as everyone else, and absorbign the same culture as everyone else. Real individualism is to compose a piece in microtones or that lasts for ten years or that does not even use notes. But, of course, that is not 'popular' and easy to comprehend, and it is not suited to being put to use as a loud brief stimulation, so it is therefore derided. No, true individualism is dangerous, and must be discouraged. I think there is also a genuine puzzlement as to why anyone would choose this form of stimulation. Why would we deny ourselves the instant gratification of a pop song carefully crafted to make us feel happy (and buy stuff) and instead choose a Wagner opera that goes on for five hours for our stimulation? Recently, the marketeers have found a way to make classical music sell; they dress a quiet pop song up as 'classical' by adding a few strings in the background, or worse, add some kind of synthesised drum loop to a masterpiece. The latter is not only unimaginative appropriation of somebody else's work, but also as offensive as spraying a graffiti tag onto an oil painting by Rembrandt. In the end, it is the same brief, shouting cry for attention as we hear all the time. Truly great art, in all its forms, does not need to do this. It waits patiently for people to seek it out and to absorb it for its own merits.

The saddest thing of all is that classical music is not elitist, because in fact everyone has the potential to cultivate this ability to listen. Yet it requires a course of action and a way of thinking that is discouraged by the world we encounter. If people knew how to listen, and of the value listening, our society would be enriched in many ways beyond the appreciation of music. It is my belief that you cannot have a true enemy if you are able to listen, for through listening comes understanding, and hate is never found where there is understanding.

Saying Classical music is outnumbered is a vastly different topic than "is classical music dead". Yes, classical music is not the biggest seller out there (and I didn't say it was). What I was saying it Classical Music is seeing a resurgence and growth that suggests it is anything but dead.

Read the topic before you go spouting an off topic comment. Your ignorance (or illiteracy) is showing.

Way to resort to ad hominem. I was, in fact, keeping the topic on track; the topic title is "why is classical music unpopular"? There was a comment made about classical music dying, which was followed up, and my post said "let's keep in mind, this isn't about it dying, but about not being popular".

By the way, attacking someone on the grounds that they usedan ad hominem attack is itself an ad hominem attack. Just pointing that out. :D

Maybe you need to take a look around and stop listening to only the classical CDs and radio stations. Classical/modern "art music" is outnumbered any way you look at it. It isn't something you can argue.

"Outnumbered"? Maybe. Unpopular? No. Well, at least not in my experience. (And no, I don't really hang out with very musical people.)

SIWI: Actually, here is another point. We are supposed to be individualist and rebel against convention, but in reality we are more homogeneous than ever, and so is our culture. You are encouraged to express yourself by buying things, the same things as everyone else, and absorbign the same culture as everyone else.

WOOOAAAAH WOAH WOAH Hold on there Ginsberg! I guess here comes another wall of text...don't worry, it will be entertaining and not tl;dr

I just want to preface all this with...you're setting a really offensive and dangerous precedent by saying that only the WONDERFUL, AMAZING, ILLUSTRIOUS EUROPEAN CLASSICAL MUSIC is "complex enough" so that it requires a sacrificing of self as a whole. You know? "Oh that other music doesn't require you to listen, but THIS music NEEDS you to really really listen!!" When you said that, that proved to me that you are truly culturally ignorant. Now for a quote breakdown, lawl.

Listening means to give your whole attention to something, to engage with it and not be distracted by outside stimuli. Classical music requires this ability to be appreciated properly.

Says who? The composers? Critics? Historians? Philosophers? Bernstein (LOL!)? I think any music can be appreciated in any way by anyone however they want. That means we get people who want to intellectualize it and put it on a pedestal, and others will just use it as background music. This is true to every genre of music.

It's why we ask for silence whilst the music is playing, and that you silence your phone, and don't applaud until the end; so that everyone can hear and comprehend everything in the music.

No, actually Gustav Mahler was asked for that when he was an opera director. Since Mahler was a big player in the scene it immediately became canon, like Greedo shooting first AMIRITE!?

Unfortunately we live in a world which has developed to be highly hostile to the cultivation of this ability. We are bombarded by stimuli from all sides - advertising, media, noise, colour, smells, propaganda - which are contrived specifically to encourage and appeal to a short attention span. We crave instant gratification and easy pleasure.

Oh uh, here comes the "Grr I hate capitalism and globalization because it's washing out European culture!!" argument

But I think the real crime, the real despicable act, is that those producing all this sensory clutter know that great art and great music requires that we concentrate, that we shut out all the trivial and distracting rubbish we are being bombarded with, and focus only on the one important thing we are now presented with. They hate and fear this, for if we are giving all our attention to some work of art, we are ignoring whatever it is they are trying to stimulate us with or, more usually, sell us.

So, they have encouraged this myth to grow that classical music or painting or film or whatever are elitist and strange; that people only take an interest in these things out of snobbery, or else that they have an eccentric taste that is irrelevant to what is 'normal' and important. After all, art music is strange and individual, dangerously so

MOLOCH! MOLOCH!

Quick sidebar: What about playing Beethoven 6 in a cello section makes you an individual? The funniest thing about this is, classical musicians are the most hive minded people I've ever known. Some of them who actually have musical intuition break out of that mold and are doing quite well for themselves right now, but the people who are just automatons and play the music you put in front of them and that's it....well...that just makes me LOL in quite a way when these same people deride "popular music" as if everyone is being duped out of individualism. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Actually, here is another point. We are supposed to be individualist and rebel against convention, but in reality we are more homogeneous than ever, and so is our culture. You are encouraged to express yourself by buying things, the same things as everyone else, and absorbign the same culture as everyone else.

Examples? This argument is way too abstracted, thin, and emotionally based.

Real individualism is to compose a piece in microtones or that lasts for ten years or that does not even use notes. But, of course, that is not 'popular' and easy to comprehend, and it is not suited to being put to use as a loud brief stimulation, so it is therefore derided. No, true individualism is dangerous, and must be discouraged. I think there is also a genuine puzzlement as to why anyone would choose this form of stimulation. Why would we deny ourselves the instant gratification of a pop song carefully crafted to make us feel happy (and buy stuff) and instead choose a Wagner opera that goes on for five hours for our stimulation?

I really find your fundamental argument offensive in this entire post. That "the other" music is simplistic and easy to comprehend, that it only serves as a commodity, that classical music is somehow autonomous while the "other" is calculated and functional. You can't have it both, either all of it is functional or it isn't. Creativity and culture won't just shrivel up and die if people as a whole move away from Bach (which never happened anyway). Are you seriously ignorant of ALL the creativity that's going on in other genres?? That is seriously what astounds me the most with people like you...ASTOUNDING cultural ignorance, and it's right under your nose! It's either ignorance or straight up xenophobia, either way I LOLed.

Your post is reminding me of a segment from a Noam Chomsky lecture I came across a few days ago. I love Chomsky, but he comes off as the bitter dweeb who finally got a soap box, sometimes. VERY rarely though, otherwise I agree with most of what he says. Anyway he was saying that sports franchises are designed to distract people away from political processes and whatnot, and he basically implied that that people who are sports buffs are ignorant of things going on politically and whatnot, which is obviously 100% not true. I mean, not only is that a crap argument anyway (propter hoc for the lawl...I need to stop saying that) but to just assume that a) the amount of people that watch the Superbowl don't vote and b) those same people also choose to not be socially aware, well that's just ridic.

Recently, the marketeers have found a way to make classical music sell; they dress a quiet pop song up as 'classical' by adding a few strings in the background, or worse, add some kind of synthesised drum loop to a masterpiece. The latter is not only unimaginative appropriation of somebody else's work, but also as offensive as spraying a graffiti tag onto an oil painting by Rembrandt. In the end, it is the same brief, shouting cry for attention as we hear all the time. Truly great art, in all its forms, does not need to do this. It waits patiently for people to seek it out and to absorb it for its own merits.

I'm not even going to bother with this, I'll end up repeating myself. "or worse, add some kind of synthesised drum loop to a masterpiece." made me laugh out loud though. I love when musician nerds get angry when a rapper or someone samples or quotes Dvorak or Beethoven. Oooh they get maaaad. By the way, there's nothing offensive about graffiti tagging Rembrandt, in fact I think Cage or Duchamp would love that.

The saddest thing of all is that classical music is not elitist, because in fact everyone has the potential to cultivate this ability to listen.

Nothing is inherently universal or autonomous about "classical music", NEXT

Yet it requires a course of action and a way of thinking that is discouraged by the world we encounter. If people knew how to listen, and of the value listening, our society would be enriched in many ways beyond the appreciation of music. It is my belief that you cannot have a true enemy if you are able to listen, for through listening comes understanding, and hate is never found where there is understanding.

Man, no wonder your government pours so much money into "the arts", enjoy your social engineering and high taxes ;-) Wait, did I say social engineering!? Uh oh, the secret's out.

Umm, yeah wow. I don't think I've ever been more offended by a post on this board than this post you've made, siwi. I don't even know what to think. What's up with Europeans and American-Europhiles? They're all so bitter and blame their dying art and inability to cope on everyone except themselves. European colonists of yore didn't have the foresight to realize that their empire would end and that the victims of their exploits would bounce back and take over culturally (see: every diaspora in Amurica and Europe).

Sooo uuh, yeah siwi, keep being bitter. You just stay the same, okay? All of you, just stay the same. Whatever you do, don't change! Never change! Real men don't adapt or change or progress. Ayn Rand out!

People associate classical music with elitism because of people like half of the people on this thread that seem to think classical music is the highest form of music.

Which it is. But you can't prove it, so therefore...it isn't. :blink:

Right, therefore even the question of it is invalid.

Gavin, I approve of thine posts.

For my taste, many paintings of Rembrandt would be improved with some graffiti.

Really, I often find this the greatest thing about music, in comparison to visual arts: It doesn't stick around forever. (At least not the actual, sounding music. Scores do, but that's still a different thing.)

I think the point that the OP is making has to do with the placement of Classical music within society, and that classical music is not really a reflection of the times like it was for composers like Mozart and Beethoven.

We view classical music with a sense of timelessness as though we are observing an exhibit in a museum. This is exacerbated (or caused, take your pick) by the fact that no effort is being made to have current music become a part of the repertoire. The audiences hardly get exposed to new music that they are likely to grasp or enjoy, and as a result we have phenomena like "new music" having a negative connotation among listeners.

Think about it. How many classical and romantic composers would have dared hide behind trite bullshit like "you just dont like my music because you dont understand it. You arent educated enough." I mean, by all means compose whatever the hell you want, but if you're going to sit there riding on a tradition that developed specifically because the audience was meant to be entertained when they went to a concert, quit acting entitled to having a room full of people sit there and listen to something they didnt pay to hear just because you wrote it. Really. It's no secret that there is a specific compartment of the classical repertoire that only gets paired with Beethoven Symphonies and Concertos by Brahms and Tchaikovsky.

I feel that in many ways, the way musicians control the manner in which audiences are exposed to classical music sets up some rather strong misconceptions of the nature of the music and composition. Mainly the notion that the reason music fitting into the standard repertoire isnt written anymore is because people are no longer capable of doing what Bach, Mozart, Brahms, and Tchaikovsky did.

Take a look around us. Look at the resources available to musicians and the much higher number of children with access to means of studying music at a young age, and the people with connections that will make sure that their talent receives nourishment.

How many times have we heard "THE NEXT MOZART?!?!" because there is a 5 year old displaying an unfathomable level of comprehension of music. Do they become the next Mozart? No. There is no room for Mozart in classical music's "high art" culture that we have set up.

We don't say that classical music is unpopular co'z it depends on the people of what type of music they want. I think there's a lot of people who like's classical music.

Think about it. How many classical and romantic composers would have dared hide behind trite bullshit like "you just dont like my music because you dont understand it. You arent educated enough."

Umm… lots of them? Historic records are full of composers complaining that their music wasn't "understood" or that people preferred "light entertainment" (or whatever) to their own music. Not saying it's an argument I like - it certainly isn't. But it's by no means a new phenomenon.

I mean, by all means compose whatever the hell you want, but if you're going to sit there riding on a tradition that developed specifically because the audience was meant to be entertained when they went to a concert, quit acting entitled to having a room full of people sit there and listen to something they didnt pay to hear just because you wrote it. Really. It's no secret that there is a specific compartment of the classical repertoire that only gets paired with Beethoven Symphonies and Concertos by Brahms and Tchaikovsky.

I'm actually getting a bit sick of this allegation that is so often made to contemporary composers. Just because there are some composers and other people out there who have said similar things doesn't mean all of them are just sitting out there complaining that people don't listen to their music. The majority composers I know don't "act entitled" to anything, don't use "the audience just doesn't understand it" arguments, don't complain all the time about not being listened to - and are in many cases actually rather content with how things go. Oh, there definitely are self-pitying artists. But I hate it when this image is attributed to all contemporary composers who don't compose V-I cadences as if this was the standard thing…

And really, there are plenty of people who are perfectly willing to fill a room and listen to (and pay for) such music.

How many times have we heard "THE NEXT MOZART?!?!" because there is a 5 year old displaying an unfathomable level of comprehension of music. Do they become the next Mozart? No. There is no room for Mozart in classical music's "high art" culture that we have set up.

I rather think genius cult and prodigy hype is probably not the most contributive thing to a diverse and rich musical culture. If there's no room for a "Mozart" anymore, that's an entirely positive thing to me, as it leaves more room for others. Is it really so important to you to have such "hero" figures that take the stardom of a century, letting many highly interesting ideas of less "glorious" contemporaries be ignored?

Nothing against Mozart. I love his music. I just don't understand why you feel such a need for this kind of "outstanding figures".

I posted a topic on another board about whether we will ever even have another Elvis, the Beatles, or Michael Jackson... the general consensus was no. I think we're beyond those times. There are no more Mozarts. There may not even be another pop icon that changes music forever, like those three did, whether you like them or not.

Umm

And for god's sake that does not need to have anything to do with V-I. I guess I figure that after all these years we might be able to swallow our bloated pride and say "ok maybe we were wrong about Schoenberg."

Just to clarify, are you saying that Schoenberg's music is crap but everyone treats him like a musical god?