Thread: What does the future hold for classical music?

Broad I know... but i thought it would be good to get a discussion going on the future of classical music in all it's guises and what we think is in store?

I for one believe that the future is very bright indeed. I live in london and over the last few years I have felt a real change in attitudes towards classical/opera, particularly among the younger generation 18-35. I think accessibility has improved at the same time that people are looking for more 'earthly' and refined cultural experiences. New venues are opening across town, festivals are aplenty, and their is an intriguing live scene that combines classical music performers with dance music DJs - One of the pioneers is the grandson of Prokofiev!! - not everyones cup of tea I know but I think it's an absolutely fantastic thing to be happening and vital to the ongoing development of the genre.

I could go on but what does everyone else think?

I don't see that exact thing happening here in the States. The UK, however, is much closer (geographically and otherwise) to a lot of the cultures and history surrounding the genre, so what you mentioned comes as no surprise.

In the near history, Im sure classical music will become more "popular," but in a different way, where what we begin to hear is not purely classical music but some uncongenial hybrid of classical music and popular music--a lot of which you can hear right now. But, that's the way life is around here, I guess. Things never change, they adapt (for better or for worse).

Classical Music has always been very popular in many film scores.

But the same as the title post is happening in Perth Australia.

What do you all mean by the phrase "classical music"? Sounds like you mean a particular and recognizable style. A certain "sound," if you will.

But listen to some Orlande de Lassus for awhile. Now listen to some Xenakis. Both of those have been categorized as "classical," even though stylistically, sonically, they are so different as to not even seem from the same planet.

Or?

Now listen to some Xenakis. Both of those have been categorized as "classical," even though stylistically, sonically, they are so different as to not even seem from the same planet.

This is an example of what will not be the future of Classical Music. If indeed it has any hope of becoming the slightest bit popular at any rate.

If we are in a time when it is at least somewhat difficult to discern which music is "classical" music, then we are in very bad times, indeed (not to sound too apocololyptic).

I think you'd find it hard find someone who doesn't recognise a Liszt, Beethoven or Bach Keyboard Piece; a Stavinsky, Mahler or Mozart orchestral piece; any opera or any choral piece as 'that boring classical stuff'.

Originally Posted by Yagan Kiely

Originally Posted by some guy

Xenakis

This is an example of what will not be the future of Classical Music.

Thanks for the empty assertion, Mr. Kiely.

Perhaps in the future the term "classical music" will mean music with dynamics, or perhaps that's the case now.

If indeed it has any hope of becoming the slightest bit popular at any rate.

But when has the arts been judged by what is popular at the time? Taking art as an example - some of the most innovative and groundbreaking artists of the last century (plus a bit) for example: Van Gogh, Jackson Pollock, Picasso were not recognised at the time, and were seen as childlike with no real talent, rather than what they are... in my opinion obviously. It always amazes me that people never seem to learn from the past. That isn't a personal attack Yagan since I have no idea what your personal musical preferences are.. but it seems almost impossible to judge will happen in the future if what is happening in the present is so wildly discredited.

But maybe this is me just being back home stuck in the countryside and away from all the contemporary concerts I would normally be able to go to...

Originally Posted by Drowning_by_numbers

But when has the arts been judged by what is popular at the time?

But maybe this is me just being back home stuck in the countryside and away from all the contemporary concerts I would normally be able to go to...

I am also in the countryside and 2-3 hrs from a decent venue but would not go to a concert which featured only contemporary composers [unless the were the ones that I do like] even so all of the concerts that I have attended over the past couple of years have had one work by a living Composer most were local as we have a charter that forces the promoters to include a certain amount of local Talent or they loose the subsidy that is given by the Arts Ministry the majority I did not enjoy, but must confess that one or two were very good.
Only time will tell which of these are good enough to last but even so there are a handful of contemporary composers that are loved by the majority of present day music lovers.

But when has the arts been judged by what is popular at the time?

Music from almost 100 years ago is still not popular. It's had its time to become popular and hasn't. And this is it's own fault. Atonal music and the like has no natural phenomenon that the untrained listener can appreciate. Humans work in pattern recognition (as all animals that I know of) and we cannot see a pattern in atonal music.

present is so wildly discredited.

It always amazes me that people never seem to learn from the past.

You seem to have ignored the fact that Schoenberg died 1951, Varese in 1965 and Schaeffer's a lot of Schaeffer's Music was pre WWII. They have had a long time for their music to become popular, it hasn't and it won't.

Xenakis died recently, but apart from his music being composed a long time ago (and it having many year to get popular) it is far too complex for an overwhelming majority of people to enjoy. Noise music is impossible to be popular for the same reason.

You seem to think I am basing it off my personal preferences: I am not.

Originally Posted by Yagan Kiely

Humans ... cannot see a pattern in atonal music.

Really. Well, mom always did say she thought I was from another planet. But seriously, Yagan, atonal music has plenty of patterns. (Anyway, talking about the recent past, are you sure that "atonal" is quite the thing? The atonal/tonal debate was over, at least among musicians, around 1936 or so. Well, among SOME musicians, anyway....)

Originally Posted by Yagan Kiely

You seem to have ignored the fact that Schoenberg died 1951, Varese in 1965 and Schaeffer's a lot of Schaeffer's Music was pre WWII. They have had a long time for their music to become popular, it hasn't and it won't.

You seem to have dropped some of your facts. Here, let me pick this one up for you: all of Schaeffer's music is post WWII. 1947 on. In any case, if it is true that it's not popular and never will be, why do you have to say it? If you're right, it will remain unpopular all on its own, without your help. Or don't you even believe it yourself?

Originally Posted by Yagan Kiely

Xenakis died recently, but apart from his music being composed a long time ago (and it having many year to get popular) it is far too complex for an overwhelming majority of people to enjoy. Noise music is impossible to be popular for the same reason.

Yagan, the music of Franz Josef Haydn is far too complex for an overwhelming majority of people. Or does Haydn pack 'em into stadiums down your way?

Xenakis' was actively composing from the early fifties to the late nineties. Which part of that are you defining as "a long time ago"? And why are you pretending there's no recent music of his?

Not sure if you're using "noise music" as a technical term or not, but the thousands of people that cram into clubs all over the world to hear noise artists (and who spend many thousands a year on CDs) might wonder what you mean by "popular."

I know I do.

Not that "popular" is quite the point. Beethoven is less popular than any pop music you could name. So what? Beethoven's music isn't considered good because it's more popular than Beyonce; it's considered good because it has enough variety and complexity (!) to make it a satisfying experience for the people who understand it, no matter how often they listen to it.

Really. Well, mom always did say she thought I was from another planet. But seriously, Yagan, atonal music has plenty of patterns.

You cut out the important thing in my statement. I can't comment on this until you actually take it into account rather than cut around it.

(Anyway, talking about the recent past, are you sure that "atonal" is quite the thing? The atonal/tonal debate was over, at least among musicians, around 1936 or so. Well, among SOME musicians, anyway....)

That has absolutely no point what-so-ever. Many article on wikipedia have many discussions on whether to keep an articles that change over time. Laws are abolished after many times of trying. Just because you believe that the argument is over, doesn't mean it is.

Yagan, the music of Franz Josef Haydn is far too complex for an overwhelming majority of people. Or does Haydn pack 'em into stadiums down your way?

You are missing the point. No one, no matter what their preferences of music thinks that Haydn is unmusical or noise - they just don't like it. You still don't understand what I mean by complex do you...

Xenakis' was actively composing from the early fifties to the late nineties. Which part of that are you defining as "a long time ago"? And why are you pretending there's no recent music of his?

Because... um... I didn't? What are you talking about? I said that he was compising a long time ago (ooh 50 years thankyou), so his music has had enough time to 'become popular'

Not sure if you're using "noise music" as a technical term or not, but the thousands of people that cram into clubs all over the world to hear noise artists (and who spend many thousands a year on CDs) might wonder what you mean by "popular."

If you actually think that they frequent the clubs to listen to the music you are grossly missinformed.

Not that "popular" is quite the point. Beethoven is less popular than any pop music you could name. So what? Beethoven's music isn't considered good because it's more popular than Beyonce; it's considered good because it has enough variety and complexity (!) to make it a satisfying experience for the people who understand it, no matter how often they listen to it.

I wasn't responding to you, I was arguing against the common (and flawed) aregument that if you give it time, it will become popular. This can't happen.


All your post is based on the fact that you ignored one sentence of mine. Without that sentence my post is meaningless, which is why you ignored it.

Only time will tell which of these are good enough to last but even so there are a handful of contemporary composers that are loved by the majority of present day music lovers.

But perhaps that is true because present day music lovers have only heard a handful of contemporary composers.



[quote]Music from almost 100 years ago is still not popular. It's had its time to become popular and hasn't. And this is it's own fault.[/quote}
What?! Stravinsky, Debussy, Ravel… these people are not popular among present day music lovers, as Andante says? They are as popular in music as Van Gogh is in art. Without a doubt. Unless of course we are talking main-stream popular, in which case we probably have to discount all classical music. Leaving atonality aside which is a trickier issue for many people, there a lot of composers who have written in the last 100 years who are very popular. For example – in England there are dozens of English composers who I bet masses of music listeners know the names of – Benjamin Britten, Vaughan Williams, Elgar… to name the main ones. All very popular composers, and they will remain so for a very long test of time.

You seem to have ignored the fact that Schoenberg died 1951, Varese in 1965 and Schaeffer's a lot of Schaeffer's Music was pre WWII. They have had a long time for their music to become popular, it hasn't and it won't.

No you are correct, they have not become as popular as the composers I have named above – Britten being especially relevant since he died in the ‘70s. But perhaps this is because of the new ideas and content in the piece. Perhaps not, perhaps they are just bad. But I really really do not wish to ever type that again about Varese!

You seem to think I am basing it off my personal preferences: I am not.

I never suggested it. I am and I don’t believe it makes my argument any weaker.