Classical Music Forum banner

A Problem Posed by Musical Snobbery

7K views 57 replies 31 participants last post by  Janspe 
#1 ·
Before I used to listen to classical music I used to listen to a variety of music until I started listening to Radiohead. I liked this group so much that I stopped listening to most other types of music but it did lead me to listen to Aphex Twin as well. After a while I exhausted these two artists but didn’t feel inclined to go back to what I had used to listen to because it seemed to be so inferior by comparison. It is part of the reason I got into classical. Classical was a complete departure from the sort of music I used to listen to so I didn’t find myself so inclined to compare it unfavourably with Radiohead and Aphex Twin.
My liking for Radiohead and Aphex Twin was born of a sort of snobbery in which I felt I had found a superior form of music and no longer felt that other types of music were worthy of listening to. The snobbery was partly based on the fact that I felt Radiohead and Aphex Twin were not easily accessible artists likely to be liked by everyone.
Now that I’m listening to classical I am wondering if the same might happen and I don’t really want it to because it will limit me as it did before.
Specifically the older music is less sophisticated because technique has evolved and improved over the years. I try to appreciate the fact that older artists were geniuses in their time and every bit as skilled as those composers that followed but when I hear something that is more modern I am wondering if it is ruining my ability to appreciate the composers from long ago who could not employ the same range of techniques because they had not been developed.
I don’t know enough about classical to give concrete examples but it would be something like Beethoven maybe being influenced by Mozart but then developing music beyond this. Composers who followed Beethoven were more likely to be influenced by Beethoven than Mozart because he had taken Mozart’s music to the next level. Does this mean that as listeners we are wasting our time listening to Mozart rather than Beethoven?
In more general terms (genres rather than specific composers) music has evolved from Baroque, through Classical and Romantic to Modern. I know that Shostakovich is not exactly modern (or is he?) but his music seems to break new territory in that it began to be less tonal and I know that what followed was a revolution in music in which it began to experiment with atonality. Again, when I listen to music from the likes of Shostakovich it can make me feel that music by the likes of Mozart is relatively simplistic and my snobbery of wanting to listen to less accessible forms of music kicks in.
I’m not saying that Mozart wasn’t one of the greatest geniuses ever but I still find myself wondering if music hasn’t progressed to a point where he is less worth listening to.
Of course you might say to me “listen to what you enjoy and stop thinking about things in this way” but attitude towards music can affect ones enjoyment of it. Am I just guilty of snobbery or is my inclination towards less accessible music justified in some sense? Really I want to be open to all that classical has to offer because if I limit myself too much I will find that I very quickly exhaust the music within the niche I create for myself.
By the way, I am not a completely lost cause yet, I do listen to all sorts and I still enjoy it but I have a sense of the inclination I have just described and I want to stop the rot before it goes too far.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I created a Radiohead laser show for the Miami Space Transit Planetarium and an interesting tidbit (and hilarious!) about the show is that it started off with '2 + 2 = 5' and Prince (yeah, the performer) rented out the dome after a laser show one Friday night for a private showing for him and a girl...I showed him the stars of the season which they sat through and enjoyed very much and then the manager/handler dude came up to me and asked to keep going, 'anything'...so, the lasers still nice and warm I popped in the Radiohead show...he didn't even make it past the first song...bodyguard dude hands me a hundred bucks tip and says they're out...Prince claimed it was "sensory overload"...ahhh, the magic of music.
 
#3 ·
Its an interesting question, one that may be mused about theoretically for many hours. However, no matter what conclusions I could reach, if I go listen to the Jupiter Symphony after a day of Stockhausen I cannot deny its immediate and ever-lasting beauty.
 
#13 ·
I don't understand your point (incidentally: although, grammatically, the 'its' above refers to Stockhausen, I assume you meant the Mozart). Surely your appreciation of the Mozart is independent of your appreciation of the Stockhausen. Why would listening to Stockhauen risk you losing the ability to discern beauty in the Mozart? Indeed, why would listening to Mozart risk you losing the ability to discern beauty in Stockhausen's music?

There's a more than acceptable performance of the Mozart clarinet concerto conducted by Stockhausen and containing a stunning cadenza to the last movement which breathtakingly synthesises the Mozart with Stockhausen's style.
 
#4 ·
I don't think that what you say is necessarily true. As you discover more classical music you'll begin to see that there really is no continual progression in complexity, in fact there is often a revolution against it as in the case of movements such as Rococo, Neoclassicism, and Minimalism. Check out any late Bach contrapuntal work for instance. Honestly, Shostakovich could be for simpletons in comparison.

For Mozart, there's always the fugue at the end of the Jupiter symphony. But even with works like his clarinet concerto, there's a lot of intricacy involved that has more to it than just how dense the texture is. A lot of the intervals are spaced in a very special way, and the melodic lines take a lot of emotional work to learn how to grasp - complex emotion that is often less overt and not as "in your face" but equally profound.

Even the most seemingly "simple" music may have a good deal of complexity behind it - composers like Mozart are in no way accessible as many people seem to think. For many in the general public I think, Shostakovich can definitely be the more accessible of the two, if we are going to go by that comparison.
 
#5 ·
This may not help you, but... do you suppose there has been a recurring phenomenon, wherein young composers have had the strong sentiment: "Those ingenious ******** have mined out this musical mother lode. I have to do something else to make my mark." ?

Regarded just right, that concept makes the succeeding 'periods' equally valid - just different.
 
#6 ·
Specifically the older music is less sophisticated because technique has evolved and improved over the years. I try to appreciate the fact that older artists were geniuses in their time and every bit as skilled as those composers that followed but when I hear something that is more modern I am wondering if it is ruining my ability to appreciate the composers from long ago who could not employ the same range of techniques because they had not been developed.
I don't know enough about classical to give concrete examples but it would be something like Beethoven maybe being influenced by Mozart but then developing music beyond this. Composers who followed Beethoven were more likely to be influenced by Beethoven than Mozart because he had taken Mozart's music to the next level. Does this mean that as listeners we are wasting our time listening to Mozart rather than Beethoven?
This is simply false. The timeline of music has not simply progressed from less to more 'sophisticated'. Perhaps if you defined what in your opinion is sophistication? Different periods emphasized development of different aspects of music, I would not dare say Chopin is more sophisticated than Bach:

Bach: Intricate and complex polyphony
Mozart: Less complex harmony, highly developed melody
Beethoven: Less melodic, more complex development and form
Schubert/Chopin: Expanded harmony, simpler forms
Wagner: Rich orchestration, long, complex free-form development
Debussy: Richer harmony, loose rhythmic ambiguity
Stravinsky: Abandonment of conventional harmony, strong pulsating rhythms (early Stravinsky)
Schoenberg: Total abolishment of conventional harmony
Reich: Extremely simple harmony and repetitive phrasing, complex phasing effects
 
#7 · (Edited)
I sometimes get this way a little bit (snobby) about classical music in general, I do try and avoid it. However, I've never really thought about 'classical' music itself quite in the same way as you because I honestly just feel that there is an incredible amount of good stuff out there from all time periods. Different stuff suites different moods. Bach and Mozart are both beautifully complex and unique. Both probably directly or indirectly influenced Shostakovich, that doesn't mean that by listening to Shostakovich you are also listening to Bach and Mozart. You have to listen to the earlier composers for a while to get them too. The rewards are incredible and completely distinct than what you get from listening to Shostakovich - and definitely no less powerful. Each time period has its own unique qualities and merits.

edit - I didn't see all the other posts before I posted this but I more or less agree with hilltroll couchie and air
 
#9 ·
Radiohead and Aphex Twin? I thought snobbery was usually directed against them. Maybe I've been doing it wrong.

Anyway, context is important. The Classical era was about balance and elegance, so you gotta look deeper than whether or not Mozart strikes you as dainty and simple compared to an obviously tortured artist like Shostakovich.
 
#10 ·
I agree with previous posters. I am a bit snobby, because I just cant be otherwise when listening to Bach\Beethoven\Mozart\Brahms etc. and then Pop.
And I can solve your problem. Listen to any piece of modern music you want, and then listen to Bach's Art of the Fuge and see what's more complex.
 
#11 ·
Good advice offered aready and I would also add that if you're at the start of your Classical journey then you have all the time in the world to listen to and get to know many different Composers (and theres no reason you cant continue to listen to your other genres of music too as I do) so don't worry that you have to "prioritise" certain forms of music over another :)
 
#12 ·
Thanks for your comments. There were some good points and to be honest the argument is going the way I hoped it would because I certainly don't want to lose my enjoyment of composers like Mozart by listening to the likes of Shostakovich. It is evident from your posts that the idea that complexity necessarily increases as times goes by is actually wrong. But even if composers like Mozart have ostensibly simpler music in some respects their music is not so in other respects. What's more simplicity does not equate to inferior. I'll be keeping an eye on this thread to see what anyone else thinks but I already think I was looking at things the wrong way and that my snobbery was just misguided. Silly as it may sound it will make a difference to my receptiveness to the music I listen to and therefore my enjoyment of it. Thanks.
 
#14 ·
You're exactly correct Jeremy, listening to Stockhausen does not create the risk of losing my ability to appreciate Mozart, nor is the opposite true. That was my point.

If you read the OP and then re-read this post it should become clear.
 
#15 ·
IMO, the key is to realize that classical music and pop music are doing different things.

I don't know Radiohead, so I won't comment on that.

But although I've been listening almost exclusively to classical music for about a decade, I still enjoy Johnny Cash, Elton John, the Beatles, Muddy Waters, and so on. My appreciation of some of them has grown, in fact. Of course I don't expect to hear counterpoint or a lot of interesting melodic variations in their music, but that's not what it is about.
 
#16 · (Edited)
What an interesting subject! It's been really interesting to see the comments. I've always wondered the same questions. I've experienced exactly what Martin E has gone through, and these are the lessons I've learned through becoming consumed with one kind of music.

1. There isn't anything wrong having a passionate love for one kind of music. The only problem comes when you start misusing it (playing it too much until you wear it out) and abusing other kinds of music (saying to yourself everything else is awful in comparison). That must never be the mentality you have, because bad-mouthing other music by comparing is snobbery.
2. The phase will end! It always does! Whether you try or not, you will always find something new that you will enjoy nearly as much or more. And you will still be able to love what you already know at the same time, even from different eras. As others said here, the changing styles weren't what made one better than the other, they were only different.
3. Most of all, don't obligatorily search for music, as if it's absolutely imperative you like it. Forcing yourself to hear things you aren't interested in is the last thing that will help you. Listen to it only if you're curious. If you want to listen to something that you've no clue what it's like, that's the point! But don't listen to Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and whoever else telling yourself, "I have to like this, I have to like this, if I don't I'm a snob." Let it come to you. Then you will learn how to truly appreciate, and more than that, truly love the piece of music. That's how you have an open mind.
 
#17 ·
Thanks for the advice Huilunsoittaja, I'm being quite successful in keeping myself open to the various eras of classical at the moment although I must be honest and say that I do not bother listening to other types of music. I still have a tendency to "try" and like stuff I find least appealing because I have found in the past that a degree of persistance sometimes pays off although at other times it never really does grow on me. I suppose I'll carry on trying to like stuff but not push myself to the point of boredom with it; there has to come a time when one moves on and says "Oh well, that's not for me." Regards, Martin
 
#18 ·
Wow, long post, and poorly paragraphed. Break that up and be more concise next time. I suggest this mainly because it was an interesting question.

I think, as someone else suggested, you are incorrect in saying that modern composers are more technically proficient than boroque composers. From my experience, modern composers are more likely to use dissonant chords, and experiment with "stranger" sounding melodies and moods, but technically proficient? I think not. If anything, boroque music comes way closer to musical mathemitization than anything modern I've heard.

And about the snobbery thing. I'm not sure I understood the question (see first paragraph). However, if you like things that are inaccessible, then good for you (although radiohead is not my idea of good music, nor do i feel it is all that inaccessible).

Thinkers don't wanna listen to boring music; we want to broaden our horizons; we want somthing "interesting." If that's a bad thing than so what. The reason modern music is probably more fashionable among classical musicians is because it is interesting, not boring like a lot of boroque, classical etc.

That said, if you are worried about not being able to relate with people by have too high brow of tastes, then I'd say classical music is the wrong genre altogether!

Peace.
 
G
#19 ·
Martin - music should be enjoyable, or, failing that, at least interesting. As soon as people defined progress in music as changing the rules, then it was only a matter of time before modern geniuses dished up a cacophony of doorbell sounds and called it art. In the process, the primary objective of enjoyability was often lost (although some will always claim they greatly enjoy those doorbells and chicken scratches). Nowadays, if anything, there seems to be a move away from cleverness for cleverness' sake, and back towards producing enjoyable music.

I suppose a similar process has occurred in other artistic fields, to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps only the culinary arts have never lost sight of the primary importance of enjoyment - not many people would be willing to pay for the culinary equivalent of John Cage's 4'33".

If the primary purpose of music is to create enjoyment, then our jobs as listeners is to figure out what eras of music are most appealing to us personally, irrespective of how exclusive or acquired the taste may be. Everyone's tastes are different - the trick is to learn yours.
 
#20 ·
I suppose a similar process has occurred in other artistic fields, to a greater or lesser extent. Perhaps only the culinary arts have never lost sight of the primary importance of enjoyment - not many people would be willing to pay for the culinary equivalent of John Cage's 4'33".QUOTE]

Good point, it wouldn't really fill a hole would it? :lol:
 
#23 · (Edited)
Culturally, it seems to me that classical music is still widely recognized as the most elite music, followed by jazz. The next rank down is the older pop, stuff from the 60s or earlier, rock or blues or R&B or country or whatever. As long as it's old.

Probably the next level down is the subcultures: world music, electronica (or whatever it's called now), musical theater, and so on. Fans of a subculture genre admire themselves much more than others admire them, but they are generally recognized to be above ordinary pop music. The key to identifying such a genre is that it has a passionate and self-congratulatory fan base, but no radio stations. If an artist from such a genre gets radio time, that artist's status becomes ambiguous.

The stuff that dominates the major radio stations, regardless of genre, may be the most popular but is not as respected as those forms.

Probably below them are things that obviously target pre-teens and early teens. I believe we've increasingly seen the "contemporary pop" music bifurcate into a market for them, and a distinct market for late-teens and young adults. The early teen stuff is currently lowest on the social scale: most people would lose a little respect for an adult who professed, without any sense of irony, to like it.

Within the top level, most classical music fans are comfortable to enjoy their superiority over the other genres, but if you want to assert yourself within this group there are a few strategies. The main one is to champion modern music while showing either scorn for or boredom with the standard repertoire. In the not-too-recent past, insisting on period instruments and historically informed performance was also fairly common; that bled into an "early music" movement, which for some time had its own quasi-avant-garde status. Thse strategies amount to microcosms of the subcultures. There are other sub-cultures: the champions of Haydn, or Baroque opera, and so on. Those are smaller, not large enough to form a meaningful community, but they get a bit of extra respect compared to ordinary classical music fans. Minimalism sometimes seems large enough to have its own subculture.

But IMO, the most successful strategy for maximing snob cachet is to appear above it all, demonstrating appreciation for a wide variety of musical forms from many cultures. You've got to be careful not to endorse any "pop" too enthusiastically, but you've got to coolly acknowledge its worth as well. You should have just a few eccentric opinions - say, that Madonna or Andrew Lloyd Webber are better than generally appreciated, and perhaps that Turkish court music deserves as much fame as the Indian classical traditions - but you have to be careful, because if your eccentricity outruns your apparent knowledge, then you lose a lot of status.

This of course applies only to North America, the scene I know best. In Korea, the hierarchy would shake out differently, but I cannot decipher it very well.
 
#25 ·
Culturally, it seems to me that classical music is still widely recognized as the most elite music, followed by jazz. The next rank down is the older pop, stuff from the 60s or earlier, rock or blues or R&B or country or whatever. As long as it's old.

Probably the next level down is the subcultures: world music, electronica (or whatever it's called now), musical theater, and so on. Fans of a subculture genre admire themselves much more than others admire them, but they are generally recognized to be above ordinary pop music. The key to identifying such a genre is that it has a passionate and self-congratulatory fan base, but no radio stations. If an artist from such a genre gets radio time, that artist's status becomes ambiguous.

The stuff that dominates the major radio stations, regardless of genre, may be the most popular but is not as respected as those forms.

Probably below them are things that obviously target pre-teens and early teens.
And just below the pre-teen pop: John Milton Cage Jr.
 
G
#26 ·
Well, Science, I think you've certainly nailed much of the esoterica of the intellectual snobs who circle "classical music" (I prefer 'art music'). However, I disagree with your heirarchy: I think, yes, classical then jazz but after that the cool sounds of American musical theatre and popular song (Gershwin, Porter, Kern, Berlin, Rodgers & Hart etc.), who were total geniuses and wrote in an extremely sophisticated way. But I loved your subtle distinctions between people in sub-groups who want to play the role of antagonist and become acolytes for the avant-garde - I hasten to add these people are in much larger numbers in the world of visual art. But, a good call Science, and I think you know a lot about HIP and the baroque. Well done.
 
#27 ·
I was a little uneasy with my placement of the "musical theater" group. I haven't been around enough to know how they are generally viewed.

I am completely unfamiliar with any of the visual arts since about 1970 (let's say Andy Warhol), and even more completely unaware of the social dynamics therein, but your judgment doesn't surprise me. I'd guess similar dynamics must apply with in the theater community, for instance.

It's a thing humans do whenever status gets attached to something. It's this way with coffee, fashion, theology, literature ...

Anyway, I was glad you responded. I'm surprised the post didn't get more attention.
 
#30 ·
The older I get, the less I think of music as a Top 100 list that has to be organized in order from greatest to least, and the more I look at it as a smorgasbord where different items please me for a while and I have to go back for seconds (or maybe thirds). This could be a product of my feeling I'm running out of time and I need to fill my ignorance before it's too late. :)

In proof: In the last six months I have introduced myself to three "Classical" genres about which I knew very little before: Renaissance, Early Baroque and Contemporary; and one "non-Classical" genre: Contemporary European acoustic. I've been immersing myself in them (though not to the exclusion of older loves), but I don't know how long that will last. I've found great stuff in all these genres, along with what I would call "chaff".

Just a slightly different perspective.
 
#31 ·
Possibly two definitions of elite, i.e., consider medieval troubadours who probably did not become wealthy from their craft and a commercial pop music industry that dominates the market compared to, say, recordings of music once performed by medieval troubadours.
 
#32 ·
Thank goodness I am no musical snob! Literally... and anyone can complain about that to me.
 
#33 ·
Just because one listens only to classical music doesn't make one a musical snob. CM, in itself, is extremely diverse, spanning musical styles of centuries and incorporating vocal, orchestral, chamber, solo, electronic etc. musics. About every seventh day, I put on one of my old albums; I still have them. When I changed my collection over to CD from LP, I selected the ones that meant the most to me and got them on CD, too, not just the classical music.
 
#34 ·
Agreed... I listen to about 75 percent classical music but that's all I have time for... so much variety to catch through.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top