Just to add my $0,02 worth to this very interesting thread... I totally agree that people listening to classical music are also deeper thinkers and more sensitive overall. However, a few years ago when I still cared to listen to "mainstream" crap, I discovered that certain catchy passages of either techno or hip hop (yes, that "awful" thing) can easily be tranformed into catchy "classical" passages if played on "classical" instruments like violins. At least it is easy when you try to imagine that in your head. Nonetheless, I soon came to realize that the classical provides more depth and complexity than "shallow" genres, especially pop, and the "catchy" phrase which constitutes a whole tune in a pop song would only be one of many elements in the vast richness of a classical piece. Also, I tend to think of classical, jazz and ethnic as "healthier" in that they use sounds that an actual physical object could make, instead of any artificial noise whose effects on the body and mind might be rather erratic. And just to add a bit of perspective - "our" classical is not the ONLY classical there is - there are also things like non-western classical (like Indian or oriental), not hundreds but thousands of years old, and they also seem to be comparably complex and to refer to the deeper parts of the mind and the heart. For instance, I love the complex sound of sitar, definitely more complex and "advanced" than a classical guitar, as well as the sound of tabla and shehnai.

This post won't be anywhere near as fancy as anyone else's!

Firstly, while there obviously is a distinct corrolation between smartness and a love of classical music, I know plenty of people who are pretty normal teenagers, with average intelligence, that appreciate classical music.

I have one friend who is hardworking and friendly, but she's also pretty streetwise and not particularly intelligent to be blunt. Nevertheless, she's a great fan of classical music (as well as many other forms of music). To quote her words,
"I wish people would just give classical music a chance."

When I listen to Classical Music I don't stop to think,
"Oh what a clever way the composer used the warm cellos to compliment the rich tone of that mezzo-soprano's voice." I think that if a piece of music is great then you shouldn't have to stop and think about what the music is doing, your emotions should be able tell you that.
When I listen to Classical Music I just let it wash over me, I relax and I unwind. One of the greatest assets of Classical Music is that you can enjoy it without having to think.

I have been listening to good music for about seventy of my eighty-one years. My first rembered experience was an aria from "the Messiah", heard on an old wind up Victrola I doubt very much that it impresed itself upon me by any appeal to intellect, it just struck me as something that gave me a great deal of pleasure. Since the record was one of only a few I played it constantly until the rest of the family urged me, in the most earnest way, to cease and desist. As time went on and I grew I never lost the feelings of pleasure as I heard new music either over the radio or records. When I began to buy records I had to choose between the superficial pop music of the day and weightier stuff. The latter won, as it still does and I gave up long ago wondering why it has such appeal. Suffice to say that it gives me pleasure, it never tires, and because I can't imagine not wanting to listen to it over other music. Indeed, I would say I can't help myself in loving it. I could care less if anyone has an opinon as to why I crave Mozart? Why not Mozart?
In the simplest terms I'd have to say that I can't help loving it. Threre is no choice in the matter.

Getting back to elitist
I am not sure if you mean it is music of and for the elite.
Classical is not elitist music. Some may like to think that they are elite because they like it, but, remember where the roots of Classical lie, The people that go to concerts are in the main, grey haired and very ordinary most of them also like other types of music, Rock, Jazz, Folk etc etc.
Sure their musical taste may be more concentrated than the average but the term elitist is usually applied in a derogatory fashion by those that do not like it.

As a old man I have thought about this many times and to me there seems to be no answer. If I had been raised in a different way than I was would I have ever found music?
Again I don't know. I do know that my life would have been much less enriched, much less exposed to the profound and much less complete.
My love affair with music began at about seven or eight and to this day I have no idea why it means as much as it does. I know that it would be impossible to "not" love music, to not savor the experience of sound itself. I don't like to use the term "classical music", I prefer "serious music" since listening and participating in music is a rather serious affair, at least is to me, I think I am drawn to it for the same reason one is drawn to reading books; the urge to grow, to widen horizons, to learn.
At 81 I still can grow, still can learn and serious music takes me to other places, other times, it changes me into more of what I think I should be. To not know music would be a terrible burden I think. I feel sorry for those who don't know it.

Wow, someone like me


excently said. I would like to add a couple points though. WE LIVE IN AMERICA (or western Europe, seeing as I'm new, I've noticed a few posters arn't from the USA), the bastion of CAPITALISM. Pop music is tendy because it is catchy and sells. What's on TV comercials? at the movies? who's on countless magazine at the supermarket?everywhere there is a product to be hawked? yep, you guessed it modern "pop" and it's "stars"

Look at American Idol, people tune-in in droves to listen to crappy 2nd rate performances of "hit" rock songs. Why, because the songs are catchy and they know them almost by heart WITHOUT investing countless hours trying to digest them!
How many classical tunes do you find yourself huming after listening to them for the very first time? I've FINALLY learned to like (and really appreciate) Mahler's first (my first real dive into a romantic symphony), after what I'd say was 10 or more complete listen throughs (50 some minutes a pop too). Let me tell you, that's a lot of time, altough well spent time I'd say.

How long does it take to pick up an average Brittney Spears song? Probably most are humming or singing along in the second refrain!!!! Also with pop music, what are they selling, the MUSIC or the performances/performer/personality? In must pop music, the MUSIC takes a back seat to the artist, why because the artist is who/what they can sell and make a quick buck off of.

This is something that my brother just recently pointed out to me and is actually quite unsettling. How many "great" works of art came from the later vulgar Roman empire? How does that compare to the current state of affairs in 20th/21st century America? The French Enlightment time period (continuing till WWIish) is LOADED with what we now (and people past) have considered significant pieces of art. Ancient Greece also has more than it's fair share of "classics". Early Rome also contributed it's fair share of what are considered masterpieces, be it in art, music, writing, or whatever. You can probably guess my view on the current state of the arts. It's all catchy pointless meaningless garbage that's sole purpose is to sell itself and other products!!!

Let me sorta go off topic, but I see a parallel. I'm a diehard hockey fan (duh, New York Islanders). Hockey, and the NHL in particular isn't recieved too well in the mainsteam USA. The TV rating are less than spectacular. The NHL sees this as a serious problem, and is working feveriuosly to market the game to joe average sports fans instead of die-hard hockey fans. What's happening, well, lets just say alot of die-hard feel alientated. The parallel that I see with classical music is more of a divergence. The NHL is trying desperatly to sell out to "make-it" big, while I see the genre of classical music going an entirely differnt way, the way of letting itself evolve over it's own course and be damned what critics and marketers think. Where that takes classical music no-one really knows, but it atleast, to me, seems to be following the same course that it followed from Baroque to Classical to Romantic to modern classical, something different and unique!!! Pop music it isn't and pop music it doesn't strive to be!!!

I love this thread and I find it extremely pleasing that not only the music itself is so rich and full of passion but even the philosophy behind listening is also so fascinating. Let me add a few new twists and turns to this story:

1. Pop is dominant but not entirely. Advertisements and films widely use parts of classical pieces so that one could say classical music is also everywhere. The difference is, unlike with pop, they do not mention the authors and titles and do not enable the audience to find the recordings and purchase them.

2. I guess the turning point was when people switched from live events to television as the main source of entertainment. This encouraged developing a universal visual content that would sell to everyone - and thus dumbing the content down. In consequence, everything else was also dumbed down - pop music emerged along with junk food - both simple and straight to the point - and without any depth to them.

3. The dawn of the internet allowed for "de-massification" of the mass society by enabling them to pursue niche interests. I recently discovered that a lot of people who own mp3 players and have a deeper understanding for sound, also tend to reach out into the classical realm out of curiosity and discover they like it, making the classical at least one of the genres they listen to.

4. There are also certain "border" phenomena, which clearly show where the mass dumbed-down "product" ends and where true art begins. Consider Nigel Kennedy and Vanessa Mae. On one hand they draw attention to the genre which is a great way of promoting the classical and reversing the ignorance and even bad publicity still lingering in the minds of "post-mass culture" society (the general bad publicity that used to be created in the mass media is making the classical music seem "boring", "outdated" or "incomprehensible"). So in order to get into the mainstream media, both Kennedy and Mae had to sacrifice some of the non-mass qualities of the classical. Let us consider the following example:

Vanessa Mae - The Devil's Trill

Apart from a fair interpretation of the classical Tartini piece, it also features some annoying and absurd "modernising" elements like the artist exiting out of a cryo-stasis chamber :-) as well as the "visual selling" obsession by making her into a "sexual" object in a very conventional way, which has nothing to do with her music.

Another example is what Nigel Kennedy did to one of my favourite parts in the Four Seasons:

Nigel Kennedy, Vivaldi´s Summer - III Presto

Again - the viewer is distracted by the visual aspect - he also was made into a "sexually appealing product" by having an "updated" haircut and there were some "improvements" added - namely his strange "dance" as he performs and his sort of over-violent interpretation - again dumbing the piece down and making it more "visually apealing" and more suitable for shallow reception.

I hope this adds further depth to this discussion and inspires more posts to follow :-)

One of the more interesting things I have discovered so far in listening to classical music is how many people around me listen to at least some classical themselves. From friends to employees to neighbors to co-workers. All but a couple are into classical as much as I am, but they all have their niche of stuff they are familiar with and enjoy.

When I really started to analyze on what the common denominator was in these cases (after all we are talking about such a variety of people form different social, economic, ethnic, regional cultures) where there shouldn't be - or at least at firts glance.

Then I recognized it. They all had these three things in common - with those who listened to classical in comparrison had these things even more so:

1) They all listen or have a familiartiy with several genres of music, versus just one or two (bearing in mind that here in classical there are several genres as well, this makes "sense" to me that those who enjoy a variety of genres are more likely to enjoy some aspect of classical music).
2) They all consider themselves music buffs.
3) They all consider themselves audiophiles of some degree or another.

#1 is the one that sticks out the most to me. People who are willing to explore and look into different genres of music period seem to have a greater appreciation of classical. So an open-mindness about music I think is a very strong indicator of how or why someone would like classical music.

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

I must say i definitely agree with HorizontalCaveman. I am 17 as well and just a few months ago my friend and I went to see Joshua Bell perform with the local symphony orchestra. On the way there I realized we were breaking all stereotypes of people our age. It was a Saturday night and we were dressed up somewhat formally, listening to the local classical music station on our way to see a world famous violinist. Its the people our age who ride around in their "pimpin" Honda Civics blaring tasteless rap music where the lyrics are all about having sex, doing drugs, killing people and all sorts of other fun stuff that really make our generation look bad. There is some rap I like, mostly Youngblood Brass Band (look em up) but all their rap lyrics are mostly political statements and their harmonies and beats and stuff are pretty cool. But unfortunately it doesnt appeal to our generation because its not the same mind numbing pulsating beat laced with a heavy dose of synthesized sound that has extremely simple musical structure, if any at all. If more people from our generation would actually make some effort to engage their minds and listen to music that is actually musical, I think that society as a whole would be a much better place. And I don't think I would enjoy the fourth movement of Dvorak's 9th symphony any less just because it was popular. I listen to classical music because I enjoy it, not because I want to make a statement and be different. If more people could appreciate the emotional power of Beethoven's Piano Sonatas, I really think the world would be a much more peaceful place.

I love classical music, but I still love the Ramones, and Bob Marley, and even some hip-hop. I don't think you can stuff the fine arts into good and bad genres. There is good and bad art, but many times in life, I have discovered that when I dismiss something as bad art, I really haven't taken the time to look at it in the perspective of those who love it. I hated Mozart and Mariachi for a long time, but then I discovered that a lot of questions of taste can be broken down into what one regards as dramatic, ie melodrama or restraint. Both are perfectly valid, and an enlightened listener enjoys both Dudamel and Arvo Part.

I'm one of those persons who had to discover classical music on my own, because nobody in my family listens to it, nor do I have any close relatives involved with it. So I might be a good test case for you classical scientists to examine. Why did I become a classical music listener?

Well, when I was about 12, the popular music I was trying to like, nevertheless did not satisfy me enough. I noticed that it wore out very quickly. The first time, it sounded okay, but the more I listened to it, the more shortcomings I found with it. I wanted something with more depth, I guess.

The classical universe seemed so impenetrable and intimidating to me at the time, but was the one thing I hadn't tried. So....

I went to the nearest store to buy my first "classical" recording, and I bought "Hooked on Classics", which I thought would be dandy since it had all sorts of compositions on it. But I absolutely hated it. They put this stupid beat to it, and even at 12 I was too smart to accept that. So on the next try, I bought a recording of Tchaikovsky's violin concerto, and that started my journey.

I guess, other than listening to the radio, one just has to experiment and trust in one's intuitions, even if they sometimes might be wrong. And one thing leads to another. Tchaikovsky was my first 'favorite' composer and I thought he must be the greatest who ever lived, but since then in 20-some years, he's no longer my favorite, now it's Beethoven or Wagner, or Mozart, or sometimes whomever I'm listening to at the moment.

And since then, I've discovered Argentine tango, Indian classical music, bossa nova, jazz, and much other music I enjoy along with European classical music. I just look for good music where I can find it.

I'm not 81, but I share this questing spirit - not just through music, but through visual art as well. In fact all the arts seem to present different kinds of opportunities for making sense of, and enriching, the baffling experience of being alive. I also think, with you, that to lack access to these things would make life more difficult, harder to cope with.

But there often seems to be some confusion between taste and morality in discussions of this sort. It may or may not be a very good thing to love Wagner, or Elgar - but I'm not at all convinced that it makes me a 'better' person. (If I had to choose between the avid Wagnerian who tries to steal my wallet, and the Britney Spears fan who doesn't, then I'll drink my pint of beer with the Britney fan, please.) On the other hand, there are certain pieces of music that seem to bring deep insights that do have a moral implication: I find it impossible to listen to Elgar's The Spirit of England, for instance, without feeling profound gratitude to those who have sacrificed their lives so that we can live better ones.

I suppose I have to ask, also, whether anyone else benefits from my love of music. When I'm listening to the final minutes of Suor Angelica, blinking away the tears, the only person who is gaining from the experience is me. So I feel very uneasy about taking some kind of moral high ground purely on the basis of what I choose to listen to.

And if I think back, say, to the age of 16, and recall when I first heard the wailing harmonica introduction of the Beatles' Please Please Me, and felt the hairs prickle on the back of my neck, accompanied by the overwhelming feeling of an entirely new and unforeseen musical experience, I don't think I believe that it was somehow inferior to the experience of listening to Elgar's Introduction and Allegro for Strings at the same age, and realising that this evoked a musical landscape the like of which seemed infinitely desirable and strange. All I can say is that these moments of great insight seem to occur more frequently when listening to classical music than when listening to rock music, but they don't seem different in character in any definable way. The near mystical insights offered by the 'Presentation of the Rose' duet, in Der Rosenkavalier, for instance, are matched by insights, different, but no less profound, in Alanis Morissette's 'That I Would be Good'.

I suppose it's obvious from what I'm saying here that I listen to music for reasons that are not 'purely musical'. But maybe I don't really understand what it is to listen in a 'purely musical' way; and perhaps I don't really want to do that anyway. I think Classical music is only elitist if we want it to be - if we want to set ourselves apart in some way that enables us to think better of ourselves compared with others. But mostly I think that's an illusion, and just another of the games people play.

It's something of a digression... (thank goodness for e-mail notification ....)
Welcome back orquesta tipica!