Accompanied by an opium pipe.

Sorry. Sometimes philosophy "gives me the giggles".

Too big an ask, it would seem.This is an interesting "tangential point," as you say. Prior to the advent of recorded music, I suppose nothing could engage a serious listener's necessity to focus on every second of a live performance quite so much as the realization that it might be several years before one would have the chance of hearing many such works again.

Ok.

I agree with you Mr. Chi_town/Philly, that classical music can affect us on a profound emotional level (and the best music does - Bach, Beethoven, etc). The subtle ambiguities of this music allow exploration of quite complex and evolved feelings, a far cry from the sentiment of your average pop song. Also some of the best classical music (in my view) is religious music, as the refined purity of sound and depth of expression can express spirituality very well. Exploring the role of world music in the spiritual life of different peoples really opens one's mind to an aspect of music which we in the west seem to have lost - music as insight into the nature of existence and life's meaning, and as communication with the divine - and so on.

Personally I don't really value the intellectual side of classical music, but perhaps that's because its gotten so out of proportion these days (to me, university level music theory is about as musical as mathematical formulas). The problem is that it doesn't give one an insight into what the music means, unless you're either content with mathematics or creative enough to find something valuable in there. Call me a fool, but music theory plain baffles me.

As for the comments on introversion. It's nothing new - Beethoven's contemporaries spoke a lot about how when listening to his music one was drawn into an inner world of private experience. I think this depends on the composer, his personality and musical intentions. I find Beethoven the most interesting composer in this regard - one can feel the inner conflicts coming out in his music: "Now he takes the majestic flight of the eagle; then he creeps along grotesque paths. After penetrating the soul with a sweet melancholy he soon tears it to pieces with a mass of barbaric chords."

Regarding contemporary music, I don't think its our fault that the music is difficult - many composers went out of their way to make their music unapproachable to the public. This was because, in the 20th century, 'pandering to the masses' was seen as lacking in artistic merit, so the best way to become respected artistically was to write 'difficult' music. Genius was seen as being far beyond the public's level of comprehension and ahead of its time (the idea is taken from Beethoven's late music, and Bach, among others). Hopefully it's a fading viewpoint, this Romantic myth of the isolated genius artist, off in his own world of divine inspiration, completely divorced from public life.

Just a few thoughts.

Let me first qualify my rebuff by saying that I think one needn't understand music theory to fully appreciate the depth, complexity and above all else beauty of a work of classical music.

Now, that said...

Composition is an extremely technical art, and the composition process (i.e. of a symphony) is not necessarily akin to the creative processes that it takes to improvize a fantasitc jazz solo. Composers didn't just "hear the music" and "write it down as they heard it". This is a highly simplified view popularized by films like "Amadeus", and perhaps even by composers themselves, who when discussing their works sometimes prefer to overstress the "Inspiration" and understate the technical toil, possibly to gain favour with their audiences.

But the simple truth is that all that "Theory Stuff" (formal studies in harmony and counterpoint) isn't something that professors through the ages invented after studying the works of Beethoven and Brahms. These theories and the ingenious ways in which the great composers were able to apply them are the Very Stuff that those beautiful, inspired sounds are made of.

I can site countless very specific examples of where Theory creates the Music, but I will leave that for further discussion, if necessary.

__________________
The Sibelius Forum
My New Website
New ZSO Website

Thank you for your post, Phatic... I have to think back a while for the last time I was as happy to be proven wrong.True... any more than not knowing the difference between an Elizabethan and a Petrarchan Sonnet is a barrier to appreciation of Shakespeare's efforts in that genre.

It seems that the ground has shifted a little bit, away from the aesthetics of appreciation towards the aesthetics of creation. That more rigor is attached to the latter isn't subject to dispute. I want to make clear that I admire the accomplishment involved in comprehensive knowledge of Music Theory. (My wife, for instance, is a "natural" at it.) I think we can agree that we need not have patience for the attitude of "you don't know Theory, so you're not qualified to have conversations about these recondite matters" pap that you sometimes get in other circles.

Still (to modify Phatic's point a little bit), I remain convinced that too many overvalue the intellectual side of Classical Music.

Your last statement is right on the money, Chi-Town, and if Phatic agrees with the paraphrase then I can agree with him on that. It is perhaps this precise over-valuation (is that a word?) that led to the serialist movement that alienated broader audiences from new music completely, and whose negative effects are perhaps still felt today 40 some years after its demise.

__________________
The Sibelius Forum
My New Website
New ZSO Website

Yes I fully agree.

Regarding composition process, I understand your point Kurk. I guess my main objection isn't to theory itself, but rather the way that it is taught and / or used. Sitting in an exam room in complete silence, analysing chord progressions, I often wonder: How does this help me understand what the music means? The way that its taught (at university level) almost forces one to treat it as a non-musical discipline, like mathematics. I wonder if it helps performers when they are playing that music?

Why Classical?

Because it's full of good tunes, and the alternatives are too boring to develop meaningfull attachments to.

Perhaps there are different, even better ways to master theory, but that hard spade-work seems to get results in a short space of time. The way I pick it up, asking my wife from time to time, "How did he do that?" pretty much guarantees that I will go to my grave with a grasp of only a tiny smidgeon of the full academic view of our music. That's fine by me.
But why classical? Perhaps it's the rewards of real listening, engaging the attention and various faculties rather than being satisfied with the surface sheen of some other musics. The total focus on an elegantly crafted work of art (not just classical music) brings a satisfaction that's largely unknown to the TV generations, and probably to previous ones too.

__________________
"Music is a social act of communication among people, a gesture of friendship, the strongest there is."
- Malcolm Arnold.

it seems you're not a connoisseur in modern music either (prove me wrong if you're offended),
you generalize modern music to rap, and rap to the commercial gangstah rap you see on tv.
try to make a difference between 'most modern music' and 'the most listened or popular modern music'.

it's nice to see you exploring music from the past, but nothing keeps you from exploring contemporary music too. start with looking beyond your television screen.
i'm absolutely positive there are heaps of songs you'd like.

ps: defaitism doesn't suit that much people

greetings

For as long as I can remember, I've always enjoyed music in almost all of it's forms and genres. Different kinds of music affect me different ways and even styles within a particular genre affect me differently. I work in marketing and sales and it's been my experience that I am not alone in this. Want to boost morale during a sales meeting? Put on some popular dance music, turn up the volume get eveyrone on their feet and clap along to the music. Results? Usually positive - there are always those who are not affected or simply fake it. The majority though gets "pumped up" - and therefor get more positive and a "joo can do it" attitude.

Likewise, want to kill a room of telemarketers so they won't call you? Put on that "elevator music" or jazz. ZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzzz within minutes if not seconds. Same applies to country music in most cases (again not all). At my place of employment I have no fewer than one third of my employees who can carry on a conversation about classical music at my level and above. Granted, thats not saying much. But we all agree - at work we don't want to listen to classical music. Put on that toe tapping background beat stuff - whether rock, soul, "modern" country, etc.

I am a reflective guy and my time to and from work are the most formulative of my mind frame - for being who and what I need to be at work and likewise back at home. Oftentimes not one and the same. While I listen to various music all day and turthfully enjoy it, my mind tends to wander wherever that music is taking me. Examples, if I am listening to pop 80's rock I tend to day dream of my days back in the clubs and school. Heavy metal, gives me a chip on the shoulder. Country and classic rock both tend to send me to specific memory blocks. For someone who needs to be in control, sometimes this "lead by the music" is nice, other times a little frustrating. The times to and from work though I started to listen to contempary christian music. Not because I'm overly religious, but it did help me focus my mind on things that were important. It added to my worship and so I was able to kill a couple birds with one type of music.

Then I hit classical music. Wow. For the first time I can remember in a long, long time, I have this pleasant ability to either direct my mind where I want it to go period, without interference form music at least or - and this is better yet - focus on the music itself and be entertained and encompassed by it and not have stray thoughts as much (can you tell I'm a tad A.D.D. yet?).

I still listen to other forms of music. At work, I slip the occassional classic or jazz CD in when I am doing setup work and few if anyone is around. Otherwise it's whatever generates the best mood in my employees (meaning usually it's going to be pop 20, classic rock, soul or *sighs* rap - least we keep it PG) that particular night. I listened to heavy metal on the plane ride home this morning - why? I needed the energy and heavy metal - while it can put that chip on my shoulder, can also simple energize me when I am tired and not in the mood for a nap.

I guess what I am trying to share about all of this in relation to the subject here, is that for me at least - it has nothing to do with intelligence or aesthetics but rather a balancing of my own emotional and mental objectives that I need (or someitmes want) to go through on a daily basis. Can I say classical music is making my life better? Actually, yes I can and to me thats what is important - or should I say becoming more and more important to me about classical music in the first place.

I believe that if given an opportunity in the right setting - and/or the willingness to explore classical for a short while, most people would come to enjoy it. Because of it's so many forms and styles in itself, there is something for everybody. And in the end, there's always the 3 SW's.

My apologies for bringing up an old thread that had died, but it's late and I came across it and got me to thinking about my thoughts on the matter.

__________________
Remember the 3 SW's: Some Will, Some Won't, So What!

A fair amount of classical music requires extensive familiarity to enjoy. Familiarity is a form of education. Classical music (along with some Jazz) is the more complex music and it does require more of a [certain] education.

I don't mean for a classical performer or composer as they undoubtedly require a higher education than most other genres, I mean for the listener. One can listen to a Beatle song (for example) and easily and quickly understand it, but to listen to a Mahler, Wagner etc. piece would be very hard for the average person on the first go. It requires time to understand (not details) of classical music, and what you are getting in this time is an education of sorts.

Most certainly some do.

Classical Music wouldn't be arround if it were like that.
e.g. If everyone listened, then (like rock) people would create amature bands to try and recreate said pieces. This would eventually lead to much simpler less professional music and would cease being classical music. The complexity of classical music requires it to be a minority.

Jazz is the only possible option apart from classical as it is the only (in the list you provided) that has such complexity to rival classical music.

__________________

While you can google up articles on studies that try and correlate music preference with personality (and there may be validity to these studies) that say that preference for classical is associated with more introversion and interest in complexity as well as aesthetic experience, my own answer runs along these lines:

Larger-scale form, narrative and development is of interest to me, regardless of genre. In rock, a 10-minute piece of music will, other things being equal, be of more interest to me than a 4-minute one. Also, my greatest interest since getting into classical about 3 years ago has been the larger-scale structure of exposition, i.e., symphonic form, as distinct from chamber or solo music. I love symphonies. It may not just be the orchestral "timbre," but just the number and variety of instruments brought to the harmonics. Also, I happen to find many more examples of pieces that invite considerably greater aesthetic engagement in classical than I do in rock/pop. This is not to say that there aren't exceptional cases in the rock/pop world that are of personal importance.

Also, I tend to be drawn more towards music that doesn't feel the need to keep your tempo for you by loudly pumping out a back-beat (or front-beat, if you will). The striking of beats in music tends to irritate me, and sometimes incredibly so.

I'm also not big on the vocal aspects of music, and find it just a bit odd that so much rock/pop feels some urgent need to put words into songs rather than let the music speak for itself.

I can see myself in the not too distant future becoming more interested in jazz, which may require me overlooking the "sparseness" of the small ensembles that are often used in recordings there. But if I get to where I don't mind sparseness, the whole world of classical chamber music might be my next focus.

And yes, I am usually classified as far on the end of the introversion/extroversion scale, highly analytical and critically-minded.

I notice that this topic is quite old, but I really like it. I haven't read all posts so I'll reply to the thread creator. You asked if we listen to Classical music because it makes us feel smart and personally I can almost agree with you on that. I also like to listen to it though because I am smart, so its a mixture of the two. The stereotypical belief in my area that I live would most likely be called if someone unintelligent knew I listened to classical music would be 'queer' or something along those lines. It's the word the rednecks resort to when they see someone doing something that they think is stupid, which really disgusts me. I live in the must uncultured, retarded area of the world and I cant say that one person (excluding all those little band members) in my school appreciates classical music. It's either death metal, country, pop, or rap. I too am 17 and commiserate for those are in a similar situation as myself, lol.

One of the other reasons I love classical music so much is that the actual music is just scratching the surface. To be able to understand the work, you have to know what was going on with the composer during that period of his live. It there is text to the piece, you generally have to look it up (even when it's in English for me) to understand what the composer was saying at the time. If I didn't read the english translation of Mahler's 2nd, I wouldn't have been thinking of Jesus' resurrection and I doubt anyone else would had he not included the text. This is sort of peripheral to the actual topic of the thread, but I'm bored..

Azathoth, you make a good point when you ask if everyone listened to classical music, would we still listen to it? I probably wouldn't listen to it as much as I do today, TBH. I completely agree with what you're asking. If everyone listened to this genre of music I have came to love, no, I would never listen to it like I do today.

Thanks for enlightening me.

__________________


Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend. -- Beethoven

I listen to what I like. Most of the time I like music that is a bit complicated and has more going on than just the surface melody and an overly repetitive harmony based on I-IV-V.

It is for the same reason that I choose to read the books I do, and don't very often read the latest murder-mystery novel to hit the shelves.

But, that isn't to say that I never listen to pop, country, jazz, rap, or pretty much any other genre at some time. Nor do I only read Faulkner, Joyce, or Steinbeck.

I overtly shun any notion of snobbishness because I want others to find joy in the things I like, and I want them to feel welcome to explore the areas in which I find so much wonder.