Elitism and (classical) music

31 minutes ago, SSC said:

I'd say you need time and dedication to read at all. Which is why reading is not nearly as popular as, say, watching random garbage on youtube or binging some random series on netflix (or whatever.)

 

That is exactly what I mean. Of course one can just "hear music", but a duck could do the same, as Stravinsky (supposedly) quipped. Active listening is an integral part of the classical experience. With simple music, you get away with diverting your attention to something else. Just because aristocrats in Mozart's time were fools with too large a fortune on their hands and how Rieu plays simplified versions for the superficial masses, this does not take away the potential depth of classical music. I wonder why you think that "watching random garbage on youtube" is below reading but do not apply this scheme to music genres. Moreso since there are many genres in literature(Young Adult might be the most prominent) which might as well be below random YouTube garbage themselves.

2 hours ago, Jan-Peter said:

But I do think to widen your taste can be a good thing. For instance you can listen to Shakuhachi music. Thank me later.

Kudos. I myself always recommend listening to reharmonizations of jazz standards to keep your vocabulary flexible and identifying or harmonizing sounds in daily life. Putting a tritone on that one annoying water boiler truely is the peak of modern art.

5 minutes ago, KStoertebeker said:

I wonder why you think that "watching random garbage on youtube" is below reading but do not apply this scheme to music genres.

Random garbage is a bit of a hyperbole, there's nothing wrong with watching random garbage on youtube. However, my point was that it is much easier to do that than to read.

9 minutes ago, KStoertebeker said:

Active listening is an integral part of the classical experience. With simple music, you get away with diverting your attention to something else. Just because aristocrats in Mozart's time were fools with too large a fortune on their hands and how Rieu plays simplified versions for the superficial masses, this does not take away the potential depth of classical music.

Active listening can apply to anything really, which was John Cage's argument when it comes to what music really is. Either way, I think it's probably the case that you can make a good argument that classical music has more depth in general, if anything because it's much longer than almost every other genre. You have a lot more time to do things, rather than canning it to 3'30'' so it can fit on a radio program. So potentially, this is can be the case. On the other hand, I guess we have to decide what "depth" means, since I think you can make something very short and still have a lot of depth to it (Schubert's Winterreise is a good example, as are many character pieces from the late 19th century. Something like Schumann's der dichter spricht from Kinderszenen has quite a bit of depth to it, I could argue, and it's only a single page long.)

Another reason why classical music has more potential depth is because the composer is a lot freer in a classical composition, than in almost any other genre. You can select from any number of instrument combinations, you can select from a whole lot of forms, or make your own. Never mind the musical language itself. There's a whole lot of available options, in fact, almost too many, which leads to a lot of younger composers having option paralysis.

Exactly. After all, art really only is about meaning. Composing a mirror fugue for the most part is more of a technical exercise than deep introspection and many operas have no meaningful plot. Yet they often make up for that through intricate compositional devices. If a work has no personality or emotion, one should at least exercise his technical skills. This holds true for other genres as well. Best example: technical death metal. Batshit insane lyrics you cannot understand anyway paired with a wall of sound, but they still have nice grooves and scales going for them.

I still do not understand what Tantacrul's problem is. Actively enjoying classical music beyond Rieu's hitlist will always have a high barrier of entry. That is true for all of art. I for myself do not care about painting at all, but not because hipsters ruined Monet. I just do not get it and it will probably stay this way. 

4 hours ago, Jan-Peter said:

I think the main reason classical music isn't  appreciated as much as pop music is because classical music is perceived as 'boring' by the youth

The reason why it is perceived as "boring" by many people today has to do with the fact that the orchestra was the first "genre" shall we say of music that was taken over with abstract conceptualism and the "Picassos" of the music world and so a lot of it they're exposed to IS boring and lame.

These people were well connected with the types who had taken over academia back then and were able to promote the crap out of this crap and teach new generations of composer how to make the same sort of noise. Thus, we get guys like SSC who literally say they didn't teach anything about composing melody when he "studied composition™"

So a lot of people will dismiss "Classical" music out of hand because they are under the impression that the majority of it is the Picasso-tier garbage cranked out by the likes of the "Second Viennese School" rather the Beethoven or Mozart works, or into later eras like Holst, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Korsokov (prob spelling that wrong but whatever)

The latter groups most people do enjoy upon hearing it. For example, Star Wars/John Williams have tons of fans who don't otherwise listen to orchestral music. Same with Zelda fans and so on.

These people are easy to get into Holst and the like. One of my old mentors used to show his students "The Planets" and they loved it because it sounded like Star Wars and actually sounds musical. 

Rather than some pretentious dik who has eliminated all hierarchy of pitch from his music (DEEP political statement, bro) and has created some piece for an orchestra that has no clear rhythm, no identifiable tune, etc. but is rather a wash of "colors™" that we're supposed to play a trite game of figuring out what it all "means".

The real answer, of course, is that it means the composer has no idea how to compose.

That's why so many people claim to not "get" Classical music or Art. Because most of what they've been shown through schools and modern galleries can hardly be called "music" or "art".

25 minutes ago, KStoertebeker said:

I still do not understand what Tantacrul's problem is.

I think he's coming from the perspective of trying to get more people interested in classical music, cuz classical music is cool. He thinks it's possible that there are issues with how people frame classical music as being something "only for the rich" and hence people are pushed away, or maybe you get told that X or Y composers are just brilliant and you should shut up, like Johnny Rotten's example. Also, If everyone says that Mozart is amazing, and when you listen to it you think it's boring, what do you think is more likely to happen? Most people would just nod their heads and move on, never to bother with this kind of music again, rather than ask why people say it's amazing.

But then again, it's complicated.

9 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

That's why so many people claim to not "get" Classical music or Art. Because most of what they've been shown through schools and modern galleries can hardly be called "music" or "art".

Considering that 1% of the music industry is classical music and out of that the music you don't like is basically a rounding error, gotta say most people think of classical music as being the traditional stuff and very rarely are they even aware that there is such a thing as a contemporary classical music. Or, also very likely, they think it all sounds like horror film music and I can't blame them for that.

I mean, this is the billboard top classical albums:

https://www.billboard.com/charts/classical-albums/

Mostly soundtracks and traditional music. So I don't understand where you're getting that people are driven away from classical music because they think it's all Stockhausen and Schaeffer. In fact, in conservatories, outside of composition classes, it's not common to even see people playing contemporary or even 20th century music unless it's mandated by an exam or something. You even mentioned game music, and that's also mostly traditional-style compositions. You need to go out of your way to actually listen to experimental or contemporary music in general.

So I really, really, don't understand where you're coming from with that argument. Like, yeah sure you don't like that music, fine, but you need to go really out of your way to even know it exists, so how is that the reason that people don't like "classical music"? Weird.

31 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

The reason why it is perceived as "boring" by many people today has to do with the fact that the orchestra was the first "genre" shall we say of music that was taken over with abstract conceptualism and the "Picassos" of the music world and so a lot of it they're exposed to IS boring and lame.

These people were well connected with the types who had taken over academia back then and were able to promote the crap out of this crap and teach new generations of composer how to make the same sort of noise. Thus, we get guys like SSC who literally say they didn't teach anything about composing melody when he "studied composition™"

So a lot of people will dismiss "Classical" music out of hand because they are under the impression that the majority of it is the Picasso-tier garbage cranked out by the likes of the "Second Viennese School" rather the Beethoven or Mozart works, or into later eras like Holst, Grieg, Tchaikovsky, Korsokov (prob spelling that wrong but whatever)

The latter groups most people do enjoy upon hearing it. For example, Star Wars/John Williams have tons of fans who don't otherwise listen to orchestral music. Same with Zelda fans and so on.

These people are easy to get into Holst and the like. One of my old mentors used to show his students "The Planets" and they loved it because it sounded like Star Wars and actually sounds musical. 

Rather than some pretentious dik who has eliminated all hierarchy of pitch from his music (DEEP political statement, bro) and has created some piece for an orchestra that has no clear rhythm, no identifiable tune, etc. but is rather a wash of "colors™" that we're supposed to play a trite game of figuring out what it all "means".

The real answer, of course, is that it means the composer has no idea how to compose.

That's why so many people claim to not "get" Classical music or Art. Because most of what they've been shown through schools and modern galleries can hardly be called "music" or "art".

 

I disagree, there isn't that much contemporary music during classical music performances today, or most often not anything at all, and todays masses of people still don't go to classical music performances. The fact things could have started that way isn't the reason things are still this way. If people would like the music of Bach or Mozart or Beethoven, for instance through the use of advertisement on television, they would start to listen to it and go to concert etcetera. Your view is highly one-sided. If we would throw out all modern music in classical music scene, have only the music until the 1900 and maybe the music in late Romantic style from the 20th century, do you really think people would come back? I don't think they would. It is far more complex. And why would be people not get Mozart because they don't get Schönberg? You make some huge leaps in your argumentation...

Personally I think the right music education can help a great deal in attracting and keeping audiences for classical music. If children are stimulated and get lots of opportunities to play an instrument from a young age, the Russian system comes to mind or El Sistema in Venezuela, and they are teached classical music as a good basis to start on... Things will turn out differently, not completely but still in a significant way. You can make an argument classical music is a good way to start a kids education in music. Of course you can ruin that too. A friend of mine send his children to musicschool in France. The kids had to do first two years of solfege and theory before they even could touch an instrument. His children quit very fast... You got to do it in a smart and effective way...

9 minutes ago, Jan-Peter said:

Things will turn out differently, not completely but still in a significant way

Well the video goes into some detail as to why China's classical music industry is actually growing. It seems this is the reason.

10 minutes ago, Jan-Peter said:

A friend of mine send his children to musicschool in France. The kids had to do first two years of solfege and theory before they even could touch an instrument. His children quit very fast... You got to do it in a smart and effective way...

Here in Germany there's quite a lot of opportunities for kids to engage with classical music, either at school or in childrens' concerts and opera, etc. I know a lot of young people who form bands and are active in some way or another with music, even if it isn't classical. But I think that so long as you're engaged with music, there's a chance you also end up appreciating classical music, but not necessarily. Honestly there's just so much music out there and yet most "classical music" people know is a tiny portion of even a single composers' repertoire. I'm pretty sure if people had more of a chance to experience different music they'd find something that would click with them, that isn't necessarily mainstream classical.

7 hours ago, Jan-Peter said:

I disagree, there isn't that much contemporary music during classical music performances today, or most often not anything at all, and todays masses of people still don't go to classical music performances. The fact things could have started that way isn't the reason things are still this way. If people would like the music of Bach or Mozart or Beethoven, for instance through the use of advertisement on television, they would start to listen to it and go to concert etcetera. Your view is highly one-sided. If we would throw out all modern music in classical music scene, have only the music until the 1900 and maybe the music in late Romantic style from the 20th century, do you really think people would come back? I don't think they would. It is far more complex. And why would be people not get Mozart because they don't get Schönberg? You make some huge leaps in your argumentation...

No, you misunderstand the point.

People "get" (quotation marks) Mozart. The reason why most don't "get" Schönberg is because Schönberg sucks. Schönberg or Mahler today is taught as revolutionary and "meaningful" where as Mozart or whatever is "White Supremacy" and antiquated "elitist" drivel that you're not supposed to pay attention to. "Chords" are racist now, if you've not heard.

Your use of concert-attendance as a barometer, however, is effectively irrelevant. Just because someone isn't going to concerts of music, doesn't mean they don't enjoy the music itself or they don't listen to it. Mozart has hundreds of millions of plays on Spotify alone, so people still listen to him but I doubt any of his concerts pull in a total of 59 million guests. Schönberg's plays don't hold a candle to Mozart's despite the effort to promote his style over Mozart's.

Just because people don't want to go sit in on concerts of music composed by guys dead for 300 years doesn't mean they don't still think their music is good if they hear it or they don't bother to listen to. It's kind of like arguing that in the future, people must not find AC/DC or classic rock interesting because they aren't going to cover band performances of AC/DC who will have been dead for a century by then.

I actually hate going to concerts in general and I don't even go to concerts from most bands I own the entire discography of.

Most people have no idea who Holst was and they have no idea that music like Star Wars, which they already enjoy, existed over 100 years ago and this is thanks to modernist, neo-Marxist @$$holes doing their best to erase the fact that it ever existed and discouraging the continuation of that tradition, of which SSC and his testimony of his time in school and shilling this video is living proof of. Actually, we can just look at what Academia is saying about Western Music today to know that's the case.

Every sort of revolutionary ideology, which is what music like Schönberg's billed itself as, is built on a rejection of the past and re-writing history and the reason for the general perception that "old" music was boring, is because of that: Because boring music like Schönberg's has achieved its mission of presenting itself as the standard in the same way Picasso's $hi!t on canvas is now what comes to mind when many hear the word "art" rather than bizarre outliers, which is what they actually were.

Another revolutionary ideology was Christianity; which banned instruments and dancing for centuries because that was "Pagan", i.e., of the old ways and a return to that would threaten the revolution. So the result is that there is just a lot of boring-af Gregorian Chant going around, even though that's not what most of the peasants would've been doing if they had instruments and can sing.

So the minority is understood to be the standard and the actual standard is treated as something that was the outlier and not really worth paying attention to. So most people just dismiss the real standard out of hand, assuming it's not worth their time. And that is what has happened.

Will more people start going to Holst concerts because of John Williams and the internet?

No, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been a new generation who has come to appreciate Holst's music via it anyway. Hopefully, it will also inspire more composers to continue in that style and rediscover lesser-known composers from the past who were also great and we can hear new, good music that is built off those traditions filling the halls and playlists instead of serialism bullsht or whatever else that rejected those traditions.

4 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Most people have no idea who Holst was and they have no idea that music like Star Wars, which they already enjoy, existed over 100 years ago and this is thanks to modernist, neo-Marxist @$$holes doing their best to erase the fact that it ever existed and discouraging the continuation of that tradition, of which SSC and his testimony of his time in school and shilling this video is living proof of. Actually, we can just look at what Academia is saying about Western Music today to know that's the case.

Yeah, I have to stop you right there. Most people get into classical music through music education and I have never met a single person there, even among professionals, who is into serialism, even throughout the Boulez craze. Most people do not care about Williams or Holst either.

It is neither leftists banning Mozart(this has never happened) nor stiff pretenders at Rieu's who are responsible for the public's lack of interest in classical music. You have to be on the spectrum to not get that classical music is an acquired taste. It is a niche.

@AngelCityOutlaw: 'So the minority is understood to be the standard and the actual standard is treated as something that was the outlier and not really worth paying attention to. So most people just dismiss the real standard out of hand, assuming it's not worth their time. And that is what has happened.' This never happened in the conservatories or culture at large on music. Most people didn't even heard of Schönberg or anyone after him. They don't know Mozart is a lame composer compared to the ever superior composers of the 20th and 21th century including every little note I have written. Oh how I wish they knew! They would abandon that Mozart and that Bach immediately and listen only to ME ME ME. If you can have atonal music why still keep it tonal? Tonality is a terrible cage we should liberate ourselves from! Lets be liberated today! Be empowered! Like pagans! Now! Just joking 😛 but seriously, from which facts are you reasoning here? Schönberg and everyone after Schönberg isn't treated as better than Bach or Mozart. Not here in my country... Besides Schönberg isn't even a contemporary composer. Who still writes music like him? 

9 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Most people have no idea who Holst was and they have no idea that music like Star Wars, which they already enjoy, existed over 100 years ago and this is thanks to modernist, neo-Marxist @$$holes doing their best to erase the fact that it ever existed and discouraging the continuation of that tradition, of which SSC and his testimony of his time in school and shilling this video is living proof of. Actually, we can just look at what Academia is saying about Western Music today to know that's the case.

So, both my professors had PhDs in western art history, one of them did his thesis on Mahler's symphonies and the other on the architecture of ancient Rome and aesthetic use of mathematical ratios. I also had, every week, 3 to 4 hours of music history seminars AND lectures, covering everything from Ars Antiqua to late 80s minimalism, and on top of all this we had hours and hours of analysis and theory, including but not limited to traditional species counterpoint and Riemann-style functional harmony. We also had two orchestration and instrumentation classes, where we did reductions and arrangements of a lot of different music, but the first year was almost entirely Bach - Mozart - Beethoven, then we moved on to Schumann and Brahms and Berlioz. Wow, so modern. On top of all this, I took 4 years of harpsichord along with the obligatory piano, so that included playing a lot of stuff from Louis Couperin to Schnittke. On the piano for my concert exam I played Janacek, Honegger and Schumann. My entire study (including the masters) lasted for 12 semesters.

You have no idea about what I studied, because you never bother to actually ask. I assure you, I spend 80% of my time in my studies analyzing 18th and 19th century music, with the rest 20% being either really old music, or really new (including our own music from our composition class.) When I said we didn't get taught how to "write melodies," it's because we're up to our goddamn necks on traditional music analysis and performance to begin with, ON TOP OF needing to actually pass an entry exam to even start studying, which implied that you got some of those basics down at the very least. My portfolio going in were a lot of Bach-style instrumental counterpoint works, which is the reason I got accepted.

And my composition teachers, one of them studied with Alberto Ginastera and later with Wolfgang Fortner and the other with Hans Zender. It's not like I didn't get exposed to modern and contemporary music, is that all these guys were historical and technical powerhouses. In fact, both my composition teachers were also responsible for the historical analysis and music literature courses, along with a bunch of other things. So, as a consequence, my education was -extremely- historically focused, and that was the same approach we took to the 20th and 21th century music (there was only ONE course in the entire conservatory that dealt exclusively with modern music and it was a seminar so everyone could learn a little about modern music for a semester. Shock and horror.) Needless to say, writing a style copy was not really something we focused on because it was assumed, due to the amount of stuff we were studying and doing, that any of us could do it with relative ease (I decided to put my beethoven and brahms analysis to use and that's why I wrote my first piano sonata which was a neo-romantic style thing. I did this during the last two semesters of my composition study.)

Anyway. So before you mouth off stuff about me and my education, let's get the facts straight.

19 hours ago, KStoertebeker said:

Yeah, I have to stop you right there. Most people get into classical music through music education and I have never met a single person there, even among professionals, who is into serialism, even throughout the Boulez craze. Most people do not care about Williams or Holst either.

It is neither leftists banning Mozart(this has never happened) nor stiff pretenders at Rieu's who are responsible for the public's lack of interest in classical music. You have to be on the spectrum to not get that classical music is an acquired taste. It is a niche.

 

Okay, it's obvious that despite your Sam Hyde meme you sent me, you don't really have much experience with what's going on out there. 

You'd have to be on the spectrum to suggest that the plethora of good music that was written back then is a taste which must be "acquired" rather than just listen to the piece and have people be like "this is a good piece". It's like suggesting that Renaissance paintings or architecture are an "acquired" taste to appreciate rather than just looking at it with your eyeballs. It's retarded.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, requires any special exposure or training to realize Fur Elise or Divertimento in D is good. Even if it's not what they normally listen to.

https://nypost.com/2021/03/30/oxford-wants-to-ban-sheet-music-over-complicity-in-white-supremacy/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/that-sound-youre-hearing-is-classical-musics-long-overdue-reckoning-with-racism/2020/07/15/1b883e76-c49c-11ea-b037-f9711f89ee46_story.html

https://worldcrunch.com/culture-society/no-more-mozart-classical-music-v-cancel-culture-1

Oxford is straight up changing their curriculum to focus less on White, European composers and dropping guys like Mozart in favor of some microtonal drivel from the middle east or whatever else to combat "racism in music". They want to get rid of SHEET MUSIC ffs.

and this isn't a new thing either. 10+ years ago when I went to school, the big thing in music was whether or not the definition of "Chord" should be changed because it's mean that other cultures didn't figure out triadic harmony.

Even Adam Neely is on this bandwagon. Oh, and look who is right on the thumbnail!

I guarantee you he had help getting to this video. These thoughts were put in his head.

SSC freely admits they didn't study melody-writing when he went to college.

19 hours ago, Jan-Peter said:

Who still writes music like him? 

The growing majority of people who come out of music education today wind up writing inane, abstract conceptualism like he did because this is praised by the professors. Maybe not always literal serialism, but abstract conceptualism all the same. It's the exact same, and actually worse, in the visual arts. Look at how fast JJayBerthume's music went to hell after he graduated. He was a better composer when he was 16 and self-taught!

Quinn had a thread on this very forum a couple weeks ago saying he "hates film music" and used the latest Zimmer shtpiece score for "Dune" as an example of why.

Hans Zimmer, his billions of clones, have such a stranglehold on the industry and educational resources for composing film music today, that his meandering, droning garbage is what people associate with "film music" now. You think it's limited to film music though? That this kind of thing hasn't been slowing infecting all aspects of the arts since before you were born?

If it's possible to create this negative perception of film music via this tactic today, maybe said tactics have been utilized before?

We may never know why the masses today are under the impression that classical music is something lame, boring or even evil and it's not worth their time. It's not like there's an obvious culture war demonizing it and elevating mediocre imposters in its place or anything. 

I mean, they only take disciplinary action against professors who don't go along with the idea that Western Music is evil

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-professor-sues-univ-after-being-punished-saying-music-theory-isnt-racist

If the masses can recognize that the bottom is better, they can do the same with music.

https://blog.bimsmith.com/Survey-Shows-Americans-Prefer-Classical-Architecture-for-Federal-Buildings

No "acquired taste" necessary. People don't need to acquire a taste to things which are actually good.

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

We may never know why the masses today are under the impression that classical music is something lame, boring or even evil and it's not worth their time. It's not like there's an obvious culture war demonizing it and elevating mediocre imposters in its place or anything.

And yet the majority of concerts and classical music that's consumed is traditional tonal music.

https://www.metopera.org/season/2021-22-season/

Omg how modern, Strauss, Puccini, Tschaikovsky, Wagner, Mozart... oh no, there's a few modern pieces sprinkled in there, but otherwise?

How about

https://www.staatsoper-berlin.de/en/programme/

Mozart, Verdi, Fauré, Bach...

Or how about

https://www.operadeparis.fr/en/programme-and-tickets

Puccini, Rossini, Mahler.

Or how about

https://www.lpo.org.uk/what-s-on/22-23-london-season.html

Dvorjak, Smetana, Williams, Bartok, Hindemith. Though these guys do more modern stuff than the above example, most of it is tonal neo-romantic. But then right underneath? Offenbach, Beethoven, Sibelius, Brahms. There's the one odd out that they'll do Schoenberg's Gurrenlieder, but this seems to be an exception rather than the norm, and Schoenberg is still almost 100 years old, so by that point it's a historical thing.

Like, both in real life as on the internet, you need to go out of your way to listen to anything that isn't traditional. Obviously, since traditional stuff is where the money is. Which then also means that in most conservatories people do play traditional stuff, because if they want to make a career out of playing music, they need to play what sells. So, honestly, where is the "evil leftist academia" in all of this? Where are the people being forced to listen to atonal music? Do you have any evidence that this is a thing rather than posting a few articles that seem to be the exception that prove the rule?

I've had to sit through enough student concerts to know that you can bet money that most pieces performed are traditional tonal music. That's the reality of the business, or do you think people are being forced to ONLY play music they don't like? Who the hell got into classical music because they liked Varese or Schnittke? Almost nobody.

Needless to say, some random guy's opinion piece on the internet is of little interest. What matters is what actually exists and where the actual money is. That's the reality of things, no matter who wants to spin it. Hell, people still play Wagner's music, quite often in fact, and he was a raging antisemite and all these other horrible things. Nobody cares, really, because at the end of the day Wagner's operas are popular and people want to see them.

2 hours ago, SSC said:

And yet the majority of concerts and classical music that's consumed is traditional tonal music.

https://www.metopera.org/season/2021-22-season/

Omg how modern, Strauss, Puccini, Tschaikovsky, Wagner, Mozart... oh no, there's a few modern pieces sprinkled in there, but otherwise?

How about

https://www.staatsoper-berlin.de/en/programme/

Mozart, Verdi, Fauré, Bach...

Or how about

https://www.operadeparis.fr/en/programme-and-tickets

Puccini, Rossini, Mahler.

Or how about

https://www.lpo.org.uk/what-s-on/22-23-london-season.html

Dvorjak, Smetana, Williams, Bartok, Hindemith. Though these guys do more modern stuff than the above example, most of it is tonal neo-romantic. But then right underneath? Offenbach, Beethoven, Sibelius, Brahms. There's the one odd out that they'll do Schoenberg's Gurrenlieder, but this seems to be an exception rather than the norm, and Schoenberg is still almost 100 years old, so by that point it's a historical thing.

 

Like, both in real life as on the internet, you need to go out of your way to listen to anything that isn't traditional. Obviously, since traditional stuff is where the money is. Which then also means that in most conservatories people do play traditional stuff, because if they want to make a career out of playing music, they need to play what sells. So, honestly, where is the "evil leftist academia" in all of this? Where are the people being forced to listen to atonal music? Do you have any evidence that this is a thing rather than posting a few articles that seem to be the exception that prove the rule?

 

I've had to sit through enough student concerts to know that you can bet money that most pieces performed are traditional tonal music. That's the reality of the business, or do you think people are being forced to ONLY play music they don't like? Who the hell got into classical music because they liked Varese or Schnittke? Almost nobody.

 

Needless to say, some random guy's opinion piece on the internet is of little interest. What matters is what actually exists and where the actual money is. That's the reality of things, no matter who wants to spin it. Hell, people still play Wagner's music, quite often in fact, and he was a raging antisemite and all these other horrible things. Nobody cares, really, because at the end of the day Wagner's operas are popular and people want to see them.

 

Have you turned on the radio? The TV? Have you seen what the YouTube algorithm recommends? Have you listened to any of the blockbuster film scores in the last 20 years? Have you been to an art gallery that doesn't already house historic works?

This sht is shoved down your throat no matter where you go. There are plenty of art galleries that won't even accept anything that isn't abstract garbage today. The radio stations play mostly the absolute-worst music that is included in a royalty package they pay annually. There hasn't been a movie trailer since 2010 that isn't "BWWWWAAAM" and calling it "music". Etc.

I'd recommend by the way, since you're a fan of lengthy videos, that you read this book by a dude who has a Master's in art. He says the same things I do.

The original point was "Why do people have negative preconceptions (and they do) of classical music today?"

The answer is for the same reason Quinn has a negative preconception of film music — because via media and academics and other gatekeepers, low-skill garbage is promoted that it appears to be the standard.

To your point:

Politics today and the alleged "democracy" we live in should show you full well that people are generally getting things they don't actually want and aren't allowed to oppose.

Most people prefer classical architecture of stone over oppressive concrete towers. However, if you say you're an "architect", they assume you build the latter...because you probably do.

Most people prefer John Powell to Hans Zimmer. But if you say you're a "film composer", they're going to think more like Hans Zimmer. 

Most people prefer Da Vinci to Picasso, but if you say you're an "artist", they're going to think you're a weird hipster into abstract crap and bananas taped to a wall.

Most people, including your grandma, prefer "Enter Sandman" to "Raining Blood", but if you say you play "Metal", they generally assume you're into the latter.

and lastly, most people prefer Mozart to Mahler when it comes to "Classical™" music, but when you say classical, they mostly assume it's boring stuff like the latter.

People see all of these things they do like as exceptions; something they like in the midst of something that they generally don't. "I don't like classical music, BUT Eine Kleine Nachtmusik is catchy!" In historical reality, though — their "preference" used to be fairly ubiquitous. I mean, most guys doing film scores today don't even have the skills that were needed for an entry-level composer just 30 years ago. Again though, don't take my word for it, John Debney was saying it 20 years ago.

https://www.ascap.com/playback/2003/march/debney.aspx

So there is much more out there that people would enjoy, but they are unaware of and don't feel inspired to go looking for because they assume they won't and/or are shouted down for it anyway. 

and this goes back to your OP, is that when people like myself say that actually, these preferences are what really are and rightfully SHOULD be the standard and promoted, you guys come back with "that's elitist/racist/supremacist/etc." As you started this thread with.

@AngelCityOutlaw

Tantacrul, just like Neely, is a lazy blowhard who sprinkles his rambling liberally with (leftist) buzzwords. This instantly reminded me of mouthbreathers like Contrapoints getting high on obscure trivia with their five-dollar words. One hour of video, five minutes worth of ideas, that was my main gripe.

As pointed out by @SSC, music still is very much common practice period. Your studies at a university will be many semesters of counterpoint and classical form. You will not study melody because there is not much (academic) study to melody. Go, look it up, I just did it for our universities. Mostly, it is grifters/journalists from outside who push for change and seldom succeed.

And who does even know Mahler? Mahler did advance the classical tradition to its pinnacle, yet people know Mozart, Chopin and Beethoven, not him. People like accessible, popular things and much classical music requires stiff attention to get pleasure out of it or you will miss the most of it. Tchaikovsky, Bach and Mozart have billions of views on YouTube, Stockhausen does not. You absolutely have to be a total sperg to think people have even heard of Schoenberg.

1 hour ago, KStoertebeker said:

Mahler did advance the classical tradition to its pinnacle

My guy,

Mahler was one of the first modernist composers. He didn't advance the tradition. He pissed on it. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Mahler

Listening to his music over mozart's actually makes you dumber

https://web.archive.org/web/20210416075817/https://www.arep.at/article/13091-mozart-sharpens-and-mahler-degrades-the-word-memory-trace

Quote

We conclude that word memory traces sharpened after Mozart’s music because the sonogram and spectrograms showed that this music had self-contained and bounded phrases like in psycholinguistic structures of words and sentences. In contrast, word memory traces may have washed out and degraded during the delay because Mahler’s music was flowing like a foreign language speech stream where a native speaker would not be able to parse words.

Thank you for this post though, because it proves my point that you all vigorously argued. Here you associate him with "classical tradition" and "the pinnacle". He isn't.

Which lines up perfectly with exactly what I've been saying: Modernism IS NOT classical. This sort of music and its derivatives are unappealing to the masses, but they are understood, even by yourself, to be the "pinnacle" and representative of the classical genre. Thus, people who are led to believe that will generally not investigate further because they're under the impression most of the music there sucks as bad as Schoenberg. 

It doesn't matter if people know who Mahler and Schoenberg were specifically. Just like most people don't know who Clement Greenberg was. However, they have seen the legacy these people left and the works they set the groundwork for and have seen how terrible it is. 

In the public consciousness, that legacy overshadows the truth.

1 hour ago, KStoertebeker said:

much classical music requires stiff attention to get pleasure out of it or you will miss the most of it.

No, it doesn't. Nothing which is actually beautiful and good requires "stiff attention" to realize that it is. That's the crux of all this.

1 hour ago, KStoertebeker said:

Tchaikovsky, Bach and Mozart have billions of views on YouTube, Stockhausen does not.

Yes, because Stockhausen was another serialist, modernist, sht composer and once again, not classical. 

Tchaikovsky, Bach and Mozart were skilled composers who wrote beautiful music and it's immediately obvious upon listening. That's why they have millions of plays and Stockhausen deservedly doesn't. Not because people are too stupid to "get" Stockhausen. Obviously, people don't require "stiff attention" to "get" Mozart (classical music) if he has millions and millions of plays, now do they?

That doesn't mean the average person isn't under the general impression that Tchaikovsky & Mozart are just "the good ones" in an otherwise terrible era of music. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Al Marconi is 100x the musician and songwriter that Nicki Minaj is and I guarantee you that if left to a vote across the age ranges after being shown examples of the two, most would prefer Marconi. Guess which one the record execs picked up and chose to pay millions of dollars and blast over the airwaves, though?

So who the hell even knows Al Marconi?

1 hour ago, KStoertebeker said:

will not study melody because there is not much (academic) study to melody

Mozart himself referred to melody and melody writing as "the essence of music".

There absolutely is an academic, rigorous study on melodic composition and what goes into making a good one.

But, in keeping theme with the thread, just because people don't know about it anymore — doesn't mean it never existed.

Anyway, you guys have fun trying to unravel why people today are under the impression classical and orchestral music is "boring" and such. Perhaps everyone is simply retarded. Maybe space aliens are to blame. Maybe it's because it doesn't have rapping.

I'm satisfied, however, with the obvious answer that "the music has been misrepresented as something ugly and oppressive" which I feel I've presented more than sufficient evidence for being the case.

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Nothing which is actually beautiful and good requires "stiff attention" to realize that it is. That's the crux of all this.

Explain the 1% market share of classical music (which, as I've demonstrated, is mostly Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) If it's so "actually beautiful" why isn't it in the top 10? All the time? If what you're saying is true, then shouldn't the numbers reflect this? Yet, they do not.

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

There absolutely is an academic, rigorous study on melodic composition and what goes into making a good one.

Prove it. Show me universities that at a PhD and Masters programs level (for composition) have a "melody writing" course or program. I'm really curious.

Quote

Mahler was one of the first modernist composers. He didn't advance the tradition. He pissed on it. 

Not really. Besides being influenced by Bruckner and Wagner in his own compositions(so avant garde), he mostly conducted traditional music for most of his life, too, so that's far from "pissing on it." Like, did you even read the wiki article you yourself posted:

Quote

...Here, Mahler conducted his first full-scale opera, Verdi's Il trovatore...

...Despite poor relations with the orchestra, Mahler brought nine operas to the theatre, including Bizet's Carmen, and won over the press that had initially been sceptical of him...

...He enjoyed early success presenting works by Mozart and Wagner, composers with whom he would be particularly associated for the rest of his career...

... One of his final Budapest triumphs was a performance of Mozart's Don Giovanni (16 September 1890) which won him praise from Brahms, who was present at the performances on 16 December 1890...

Yeah, that's sure "pissing on it," huh? I mean, with such MODERNISTS as Verdi, Bizet and, GASP, MOZART and WAGNER. He did conduct Schoenberg and co, but that was probably a minority of his concerts to be sure, if not running completely at a loss for doing that.

As for the research paper, here's a link cuz yours doesn't work:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341678724_Mozart_Sharpens_and_Mahler_Degrades_the_Word_Memory_Trace

It doesn't seem to be a knock on Mahler, just that Mozart and Mahler phrase and compose differently, and this interacts with brain language centers differently as well. That you think this suddenly makes Mahler's music "worse" and Mozart's "better" is entirely on you. Also the bit that listening to Mahler makes you "dumber." I don't personally care much for Mahler's music but this seems like a rather dubious (and hilarious) claim, to say the least.

On top of that, Mahler is still played regularly:

https://concertfix.com/tours/mahler

Which is just a tiny sample. You can just go on google and type "mahler concert 2022" and get a ton of hits from just the past 4 months. Clearly people like him, I'd say, he puts butts in seats at concert halls. I guess people like getting "dumber," huh?

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Al Marconi is 100x the musician and songwriter that Nicki Minaj is and I guarantee you that if left to a vote across the age ranges after being shown examples of the two, most would prefer Marconi. Guess which one the record execs picked up and chose to pay millions of dollars and blast over the airwaves, though?

Would they tho? Not only is this a shaky claim, but also total nonsense since Marconi is in an entire different genre than Nicki Minaj. What kind of claim is this anyway? Are you aware music has different genres for a reason? Demographics don't always overlap so it is entirely possible (and likely) that someone who likes Nicki Minaj has no interest in Marconi's stuff, even if exposed to it.

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

I'm satisfied, however, with the obvious answer that "the music has been misrepresented as something ugly and oppressive" which I feel I've presented more than sufficient evidence for being the case.

Which is frankly ridiculous and I've shown you numbers, statistics and even concert programs that demonstrate that people attend traditional music concerts just fine today and they also purchase and partake in that music online as well, rather than the music you don't like. You need to come up with a better answer since this one does not hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Additionally, evidence is something quite absent from your posts tho. But since your claims require extraordinary evidence, I'm not surprised.

2 hours ago, KStoertebeker said:

Tantacrul, just like Neely, is a lazy blowhard who sprinkles his rambling liberally with (leftist) buzzwords. This instantly reminded me of mouthbreathers like Contrapoints getting high on obscure trivia with their five-dollar words. One hour of video, five minutes worth of ideas, that was my main gripe.

I actually like Tantacrul, even if he does on occasion quote Adorno who I think is a garbage intellectual, but to be honest he does try to actually make arguments that are, for the most part, neutral. And I think that he's trying to figure out how to get more people into classical music is not a bad thing, and the point of the video isn't trivial. The bit where he demonstrates how advertisements use classical music is very telling of how people tend to relate classical music to "high society" and the "elite." That's not just his interpretation, it's what those ads are banking on entirely for them to include that music.

I also think that the video is long, but he didn't spin his wheels, in my opinion. He went over a large amount of topics and ideas and I think he did a good job in presenting them.

Then again, I'm also able to listen to people who may have opinions that differ from mine. Sadly, it seems this is a lost art in this day and age.

2 hours ago, SSC said:

Explain the 1% market share of classical music (which, as I've demonstrated, is mostly Mozart, Beethoven, etc.) If it's so "actually beautiful" why isn't it in the top 10? All the time? If what you're saying is true, then shouldn't the numbers reflect this? Yet, they do not.

Prove it. Show me universities that at a PhD and Masters programs level (for composition) have a "melody writing" course or program. I'm really curious.

Not really. Besides being influenced by Bruckner and Wagner in his own compositions(so avant garde), he mostly conducted traditional music for most of his life, too, so that's far from "pissing on it." Like, did you even read the wiki article you yourself posted:

Yeah, that's sure "pissing on it," huh? I mean, with such MODERNISTS as Verdi, Bizet and, GASP, MOZART and WAGNER. He did conduct Schoenberg and co, but that was probably a minority of his concerts to be sure, if not running completely at a loss for doing that.

As for the research paper, here's a link cuz yours doesn't work:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341678724_Mozart_Sharpens_and_Mahler_Degrades_the_Word_Memory_Trace

It doesn't seem to be a knock on Mahler, just that Mozart and Mahler phrase and compose differently, and this interacts with brain language centers differently as well. That you think this suddenly makes Mahler's music "worse" and Mozart's "better" is entirely on you. Also the bit that listening to Mahler makes you "dumber." I don't personally care much for Mahler's music but this seems like a rather dubious (and hilarious) claim, to say the least.

On top of that, Mahler is still played regularly:

https://concertfix.com/tours/mahler

Which is just a tiny sample. You can just go on google and type "mahler concert 2022" and get a ton of hits from just the past 4 months. Clearly people like him, I'd say, he puts butts in seats at concert halls. I guess people like getting "dumber," huh?

Would they tho? Not only is this a shaky claim, but also total nonsense since Marconi is in an entire different genre than Nicki Minaj. What kind of claim is this anyway? Are you aware music has different genres for a reason? Demographics don't always overlap so it is entirely possible (and likely) that someone who likes Nicki Minaj has no interest in Marconi's stuff, even if exposed to it.

Which is frankly ridiculous and I've shown you numbers, statistics and even concert programs that demonstrate that people attend traditional music concerts just fine today and they also purchase and partake in that music online as well, rather than the music you don't like. You need to come up with a better answer since this one does not hold up to even the slightest scrutiny.

Additionally, evidence is something quite absent from your posts tho. But since your claims require extraordinary evidence, I'm not surprised.

I actually like Tantacrul, even if he does on occasion quote Adorno who I think is a garbage intellectual, but to be honest he does try to actually make arguments that are, for the most part, neutral. And I think that he's trying to figure out how to get more people into classical music is not a bad thing, and the point of the video isn't trivial. The bit where he demonstrates how advertisements use classical music is very telling of how people tend to relate classical music to "high society" and the "elite." That's not just his interpretation, it's what those ads are banking on entirely for them to include that music.

I also think that the video is long, but he didn't spin his wheels, in my opinion. He went over a large amount of topics and ideas and I think he did a good job in presenting them.

 

Then again, I'm also able to listen to people who may have opinions that differ from mine. Sadly, it seems this is a lost art in this day and age.

 

Why don't you just cut the sht already and say what is you ACTUALLY want to in this thread and why you started it.

Because you didn't start it to discuss why people don't show much interest in classical. Rather, you started it to b!tch about classical being a standard.

C'mon. You came here to make a statement, so do it.

@SSC

To me, it is more the presentation than anything. I have read master theses in under sixty-two minutes. He could easily have done it in less than half of the time and it reeks of self-importance. Granted, he is important to many a thousand people all around the world but still. At least give the viewer an idea of what is to come, you are not livestreaming the discovery of the world formula.

@AngelCityOutlaw

> implying that listening to Mozart makes you smarter

13 minutes ago, KStoertebeker said:

To me, it is more the presentation than anything. I have read master theses in under sixty-two minutes. He could easily have done it in less than half of the time and it reeks of self-importance. Granted, he is important to many a thousand people all around the world but still. At least give the viewer an idea of what is to come, you are not livestreaming the discovery of the world formula.

Fair enough.

21 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Because you didn't start it to discuss why people don't show much interest in classical. Rather, you started it to b!tch about classical being a standard.

C'mon. You came here to make a statement, so do it.

I started it because I thought the topic of the video was interesting. I've also demonstrated that classical music (ALL of it) is not any kind of standard, it's the 1% of the total music consumed according to the music industry statistics and analysis. I didn't make that statement, it's just a fact of the music business. So, my point is that if we want more people to listen to any classical music, maybe the idea that classical music is only for the "elite" isn't great for that purpose and I personally don't agree with that position. Classical music could appeal to anyone, regardless of their socioeconomic status.

So, uh. What's the statement you want me to say?

1 hour ago, SSC said:

I started it because I thought the topic of the video was interesting

The topic of the video was defining elitism as "the belief that some people are naturally superior" at a given thing.

Something I'm certain you take issue with, but don't seem to want to elaborate on.

1 hour ago, SSC said:

So, my point is that if we want more people to listen to any classical music, maybe the idea that classical music is only for the "elite" isn't great for that purpose.

Oh is that your point? Weird because I seem to recall the video was about elitism in music in general, and not specifically about classical although it was a talking point.

It's also interesting that you claim, without any evidence, that people have an idea that classical music is for some "elite" class off limits to themselves. Which is weird that you would assume they have that belief, when you also proudly cite your stats about how tons of people still attend traditional, tonal performances of music and that guys like Mozart have hundreds of millions of plays on various streaming platforms.

Are you sure it's for an elite class and that most people perceive it as such at this point? An awful lot of peasants seem to be accessing and enjoying it. Seems like your "point" is totally incoherent and debunked by your own stats that you cite.

Also, it's interesting that you think people possibly have the wrong idea about WHO classical music is for (based on you just saying they do), but don't think it's possible they could have the wrong idea about what classical music IS when I've shown you how its tradition down to sheet music is becoming increasingly demonized by academics and even that other guy who was arguing with me just showed he's mixed up regarding classical music and modernism. That would seem to lend credibility to my point. Your "refutation" of which being "but ppl go to concerts tho" or some other gibberish.

2 hours ago, SSC said:

That you think this suddenly makes Mahler's music "worse" and Mozart's "better" is entirely on you

What makes Mahler's music worse (we can get rid of the stupid quotes here) is that it is worse. Like how your "Playing Piano" is objectively a lot worse than pieces Beethoven composed for the instrument. All it takes to realize this, is a functioning pair of ears and honesty 

And I'm asking for you to be honest with us for once:

Now, tell us what point is you really want to make regarding "elitism" as defined by the video.

14 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Something I'm certain you take issue with, but don't seem to want to elaborate on.

What, that people have different skills and talents? That people are different? Seriously? Some people can do things better than others, wow shock and awe.

15 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

It's also interesting that you claim, without any evidence, that people have an idea that classical music is for some "elite" class off limits to themselves.

The video demonstrates various examples where pop culture matches high class and rich people with classical music. That's the evidence that this idea is there, and some people do think this. The advertisements that have classical music (mostly for expensive designer brands) are all a good example too. Why have classical music in them if this wasn't a concept? Are you sure you know what the word evidence means?

17 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

An awful lot of peasants seem to be accessing and enjoying it.

1% of the music industry is classical music. That's not "an awful lot." It's a tiny, tiny, minority of people. I'm not saying that the ONLY reason that more people don't listen to classical music is because they think it's elitist, but there's evidence that suggests that it's a concept and some people do think this (again, advertisements, movies, etc, imply this as the video demonstrates.)

20 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

That would seem to lend credibility to my point.

How? It's not about credibility, you need to show your work. Can you show me examples of statistics or surveys that demonstrate that people don't know what classical music is? Or that they believe that it's the "academic" stuff you hate? Actual, you know, evidence? Preferably with a large sample size? Because as far as I can see, people who like classical music listen to traditional stuff (as the data demonstrates and where the money is), and everyone else's conception of classical music basically starts and ends around "Mozart, Beethoven and that other guy with the spooky organ music," cliché as that may be.

25 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

What makes Mahler's music worse (we can get rid of the stupid quotes here) is that it is worse.

Great logic there, champ.

25 minutes ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Now, tell us what point is you really want to make regarding "elitism" as defined by the video.

Why don't YOU just say what you want me to say and I can then say it so you'll be happy? Cuz apparently you're really upset that I'm not somehow saying something you expect me to say?

1 hour ago, SSC said:

What, that people have different skills and talents? That people are different? Seriously? Some people can do things better than others, wow shock and awe.

The video demonstrates various examples where pop culture matches high class and rich people with classical music. That's the evidence that this idea is there, and some people do think this. The advertisements that have classical music (mostly for expensive designer brands) are all a good example too. Why have classical music in them if this wasn't a concept? Are you sure you know what the word evidence means?

1% of the music industry is classical music. That's not "an awful lot." It's a tiny, tiny, minority of people. I'm not saying that the ONLY reason that more people don't listen to classical music is because they think it's elitist, but there's evidence that suggests that it's a concept and some people do think this (again, advertisements, movies, etc, imply this as the video demonstrates.)

How? It's not about credibility, you need to show your work. Can you show me examples of statistics or surveys that demonstrate that people don't know what classical music is? Or that they believe that it's the "academic" stuff you hate? Actual, you know, evidence? Preferably with a large sample size? Because as far as I can see, people who like classical music listen to traditional stuff (as the data demonstrates and where the money is), and everyone else's conception of classical music basically starts and ends around "Mozart, Beethoven and that other guy with the spooky organ music," cliché as that may be.

Great logic there, champ.

Why don't YOU just say what you want me to say and I can then say it so you'll be happy? Cuz apparently you're really upset that I'm not somehow saying something you expect me to say?

 

Do you believe your piano piece is as good as Mozart or Beethoven?

2 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Do you believe your piano piece is as good as Mozart or Beethoven?

Dunno, they're so different I really wouldn't compare them.

What's wrong with liking both things, though?

It's possible to have varied tastes and compose in a variety of different styles. Shocking, I know.