Classical Music Forum banner

Was classical music ever popular music?

33K views 122 replies 37 participants last post by  Harold in Columbia 
#1 ·
Classical music (i.e. Haydn, Mozart) seemed to be aimed at the aristocracy and people with money. Only the super-rich it seems had court composers in their employ.

Nowardays it seems classical music is still a pirsuit of the the well-off. Why is this?

Might it be that educated composers just can't see eye to eye with the great unwashed?

Do we want the great unwashed to listen to classical music?

What was pop music like in Mozart's day?

Was classical music ever universally popular?

Will classical music ever be popular?

Should classical music be popular?

What are the social ideals that classical music promotes?

I do not have strong views about these subjects because I merely enjoy the listening and study of classical music. Perhaps classical music isn't popular because you have to know a bit about it to enjoy it. Who knows?!
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Well, you sometimes read about the man in the street whistling tunes from this or that opera in 19th century Italy, so I suppose it must been quite popular at the time.

As for if classical music SHOULD be popular - let's just say that it DESERVES to be popular and that many people don't realize how much it could potentially enrich their lifes if they gave it a chance. Sure - knowing a bit about it always helps, but you learn as you go along. Besides, even though most of it is less complicated than classical music, knowing a bit about the history of popular music and the differences in styles and so on makes one enjoy pop/rock/jazz/whatever more also. What doesn't help is prejudice, and unfortunately many of the uninitiated suffer from that when it comes to classical music.
 
#4 ·
Tapkaara, from your banal sarcasm, I deduce that you believe classical music should be universally enjoyed. Please correct me if you were in fact being serious!

jhar26, it's interesting you should mention prejudice being the inhibitor of classical music. Maybe the prejudice people have is that classical music is only for posh/interlectual snobs. What do you think?
 
#7 ·
jhar26, it's interesting you should mention prejudice being the inhibitor of classical music. Maybe the prejudice people have is that classical music is only for posh/interlectual snobs. What do you think?
Yes, I think that's unfortunately part of the problem. Also the lack of new works that have any popular appeal (not speaking of artistic merit here). Although I obviously wasn't there I imagine that in the past the premiere of, say a new Puccini opera or Elgar symphony raised some interest in the media and among the public whereas now classical music is seen by many as a museum art form. Most people don't even know that there is such a thing as modern classical music. To them U2 is modern music and classical music is something from the 18th and 19th centuries.
 
#6 ·
Well, if "popular" means "of the people," then no, classical is not popular music. Not saying that it is not worthy of being popular, just saying it is not.

Mozart and Haydn wrote for aristrocrats, not for pub-goers. Perhaps it was here where "classical" got off on the wrong foot.

Ever since, classical music...or shall we say art music...has always been a dressy, black-tie type of affair. I think this is how the tradition was started.

Plus, the meandering, rhetorical nature of a lot of classical music also makes it a turn off, I think. People have short attention spans. If there is not a distinct tune with a persistant back beat to hold it all together, you're going to lose people's interest. As a classical fan, even I have trouble sitting through works where the music just kind of keeps going and going. I've never sat through Verdi's Requiem in one sitting, for example. Usually takes me a weekend. So, in a world of 2.5 minutes radio jams, who wants to listen to an epic symphonic ork lasting an hour or more...what's next in the rotation?

Long story short, I believe there are two things that prevent it from being truly popular: the "music for aristocrats" tradition that has permeated to the present day (yes, it is still very much in effect) and the not-always-tuneful aspect which can come off as "boring" or "too complicated" to someone who hasn't any patience. And let's face it, not a lot of people do not like anything that lies outside the realm of instant gratification.
 
#9 ·
Ever since, classical music...or shall we say art music...has always been a dressy, black-tie type of affair.
But has it? Even though there is a certain social group that operates like that, there seem to be a quite a lot of listeners who simply don't make much of a fuss about it. Here in the UK they phone requests in to Classic FM, and get something played that they like, and they don't care too much (it seems) about the fact that it's just a single movement of a symphony, or something. And the station seems to thrive on this, issuing CDs of popular classics that (I presume) sell quite well. Certainly their magazine is sold in all the major supermarkets around here (while Gramophone is not). I'm not suggesting that it attracts the sizes of audience that true pop music does, but it seems to have carved a significant niche in popular listening culture here.

This isn't my way of enjoying classical music, but it's a way of enjoying it. Classic FM makes me squirm quite a bit because it so often seems to miss a lot of the real richness of classical music, but so what? We tend to get a bit snooty, ourselves about all this, don't we? - but that's no more defensible that the Glyndebourne-going social elite's attitude. It seems to me that classical music does have a significant foothold in popular consciousness, in its own unembarrassed 'picking out the plums' way.
 
#8 · (Edited)
Very good points, jhar.

Very true, much "modern classical" has very little popular appeal, but, as far as I'm concerend, it does not appeal to lot of classical fans, either. I am certainly a devotee of classical music, but a lot of the modern masterworks that are being produced since the 1950s till today are pieces of fussy, intellectual nonesense.

Film soundtracks (yes I know there is a thread about this) are, in my humble estimation, legit works of classical music. At least they are classical in term of their conception and scope. Film scores often have very popular appeal, and how many time have you heard someone say they got into classical becuase they loved the Star Wars soundtrack? (We should embrace good film scores, not poo poo on them because they are not the demented musings of some 'modernist' hack from Eastern Europe.)

Since when did it become a sin to admit you like music that is tonal, a little bombastic and has great stick-in-your-head melodies? And so what if the music accompanied a dogfight in outer space?

But even the most popular film soundtrack will still be obscure next to the latest hit from Beyonce.
 
#10 ·
I think one problem why classical music is not appreciated by the masses, is because they think it's too damn long!!....The attention span of modern homo-sapiens is not attuned to sitting down for two/three hours and watching or listening to ear-splitting sopranos over-acting anymore and you can't get up and jig around like you can to Kylie! So...it's appreciated by only a few elites..

Classic FM is only popular because it tries to reduce classical music to bight-size portions...
 
#11 ·
Classic FM is only popular because it tries to reduce classical music to bight-size portions...
But my point is that it is popular, and it does play classical music - no matter how small the chunks, and even if they are bleeding. And after all, many classical pieces are short. We don't sniff at a Boyce symphony because it only lasts 10 minutes. Size doesn't always matter.
 
#12 ·
Well, maybe I should have said that classical is MOSTLY a black tie affair. But, when you go to enjoy a symphonic concert, the performers are (usually) dressed to the 9s and concert goes also like to pull out tgeir formal attire that doesn;t fit anymore. I used to like getting all gussied up to go to the symphony, but nowadays, I just go in jeans with a sweater or something like that. I'm more comfortable that way, and I'm certainly not the only one who isn't in tophat and tails.

As for Classic FM, I've only heard it over the internet as I live in the US. Bot I know what you mean. Our National Public Radio plays classical music over night, but they rarely will play a whole symphony and, if the do, it's a short one. At least this has been my experience.

Our local FM classical outlet here in San Diego is atrocious. Not only is their rotation stale and predictable, but they are VERY guilty of only playing one movement from a multi-movement work. This makes no sense to me, but I guess this is applealing to our "grab and go" culture.

Yes, length of pieces can be dauntiing, and not only for the general public. I mentioned earlier I cannot sit through Verdi's Requiem, for example, except if I take it in chunks. Perhaps I am a heretic for doing so, but even I can only take so much. I can usually sit throgh Mahler, though, in one stting, but he keeps my attention much longer than Verdi.
 
#19 ·
Our local FM classical outlet here in San Diego is atrocious. Not only is their rotation stale and predictable, but they are VERY guilty of only playing one movement from a multi-movement work. This makes no sense to me, but I guess this is applealing to our "grab and go" culture.
Are you talking about XLNC1? It is isn't it? :p

Do you mine if I ask what part of San Diego to you live in?

As for the popularity of classical music, at one time during the 19th century Opera was considered a very popular enterntainment even still in the very early 20th century, it was seen as such.
 
#13 · (Edited)
I suppose we already have the latter half of the 20th century behind us, with its rapid expansion of mass culture and its "instant gratification" and oversimplified bubble gum-like "products". Therefore, I am not buying that "short attention spans in modern homo sapiens" slogan. Just because we are made into working faster and thinking less about our own delights, we do not become a new species that is unable to listen to pieces of music that are longer than 2 minutes. In the 21st century we no longer spend our days in front of a tv screen feeding us with preselected worthless pulp. We sit in front of the computer which gives us CHOICE. And by the way, not being able to sit the whole Verdi requiem and being able to take the whole Mahler at once may simply mean that you like Mahler a bit more than Verdi and perhaps not necessarily that we turned into a new species that can only listen to short tunes :)

Also, I think the actual state of "general public" is rather different than the stereotypical assumptions that mass culture is trying to make us believe. I think people are smarter and fond of more complex things than is generally assumed. I even tend to believe that the "general public" is so bored with mass culture "products" that a lot of people become very interested when they find something that goes beyond the usual "pulp".

Just to give you an example, if the classical is so "boring" and "unappealing" to general public, why do we have the aria from Lakme sampled in this hip hop piece:



By the way, I also think that Beyonce, Kylie and others also get more sophisticated and complex and tend towards the world beyond "pulp", "pop", "soda", "plastic" or whatever you call it. If you compare 1980s Kylie and 2000s Kylie there is a HUGE difference, isn't there?

So, just to sum things up - I think if popular means that 90 % of Western population listens to the classical then no, it is not popular by any means. However, if popular means being one of the directions the more sensitive listeners will go, then yes, it IS popular now even more than before and since records are bought on Amazon and elsewhere on a daily basis, one has to disagree with the assumption that the general public is not "smart enough" to discover classical for themselves. As for Classic FM and such, even though they are something in between pop and classical as far as the format is concerned, they still prove there is some longing for a better world and a better sound among the more general public.
 
#18 ·
As for Classic FM and such, even though they are something in between pop and classical as far as the format is concerned, they still prove there is some longing for a better world and a better sound among the more general public.
Yes, that's pretty much what I was trying to suggest. In the context of the discussion we're having, the format hardly matters, though. The crucial thing is that a substantial number of people are listening to the music it plays and, presumably, finding it rewarding. And I think it may be relevant that the most popular piece in one of their major polls (I forget the details of when and how) was 'The Lark Ascending'. That isn't what I'd have guessed, by any means. There's something quite interesting going on 'out there', I think (though I'm not sure what I mean by 'out there').
 
#14 ·
Well, very true...I do like Mahler more than Verdi. So, it all kind of comes together, doesn't it?

Points all well taken, Ciel rouge. And I think that classical music has to be popular to some extant, thus classical radio stations exist, live concerts still go on, etc. But I still think it is a terra incognita to the general public, and thus cannot truly be deemed "popular music." It may be music that is enduringly popular, but its mass appeal is obviously less than the Top 40 Countdown.
 
#15 ·
Yes, I just think the top 40 popularity does not mean much as the music is simply forced upon some kind of an "imaginary listener" :) Another funny thing is that some of the pop icons, after they accumulate substantial wealth, simply start travelling and getting familiar with many other flavours of music. I suppose this is why we sometimes get pop artists involved with some folk music or other projects on the side and bits and pieces of that actually get into their pop albums later on. However, I still wonder how hip hop artists come across classical pieces like the Flower Duet aria used in the video that I linked earlier or how techno artists get familiar with pieces like Adagio For Strings or why heavy metal artists occasionally play Bach or Beethoven on their electric guitars and why there are such genres as "symphonic metal" and "sort of operatic" voices in some pieces. Any ideas?
 
#16 ·
However, I still wonder how hip hop artists come across classical pieces like the Flower Duet aria used in the video that I linked earlier or how techno artists get familiar with pieces like Adagio For Strings or why heavy metal artists occasionally play Bach or Beethoven on their electric guitars and why there are such genres as "symphonic metal" and "sort of operatic" voices in some pieces. Any ideas?
This isn't entirely new. Back in the late 60's many budding rock groups started trying to make their genre more serious (as jazz groups had done much earlier I have discovered) and started incorporating classical pieces into their compositions, creating the bombastic and much maligned "progressive rock." Some groups even tried to crreate suites with movements in the sonata allegro form or as tone poems. I still find it some of the most adventurous inventive music ever made.

But it too was as esoteric as classical, maybe even more so. I for one hope it stays that way. Too often I have latched on to an underdog style or genre, then the world jumps on the bandwagon and ruins the fun for the cognoscenti.
 
#17 ·
Ah yes, so-called "prog rock" and classical. Emerson Lake and Palmer, whom I love, were great musicians who owed as much to classical as they did to rock. The were influenced by classical and performed classical, but did it in such a way that it could be "rockin'" music too. Really brilliant.
 
#20 ·
Indeed, I speak of XLNC1. I don't even bother listening to them because their signal is very shaky and their offerings are generally pretty lousy. Maybe I'm just being to picky.

I live in Allied Gardens but moving to Lakeside next month. :)
 
#27 ·
"Ode to Joy" is probably the best example of this. I played it a ton on recorder and what not when I was little. The first time my dad played the real deal for me I was astounded. Classical music has always given to popular music and taken things out of popular/folk music, but classical music has never been popular. I think that in a sense art is inherrently not popular. The definition of art is a very touch subject (and I am quite eliteist about it); but part of the distinction between art and non-art is that art takes work to appreicate/understand (there's always something more to get in a piece). This trait makes it non-appealing to the masses, except in its "Ode to Joy" and "Cannon in D" form. (Pachobell's Rant, anyone? If not, search on youtube.)

On the other hand, Opera houses were very popular in 19th century France among ALL CLASSES. Blood sports died down in favor of more artistic flavored entertainment. (Thanks AP Euro)
 
#29 ·
I think that in a sense art is inherrently not popular.
I think that on the contrary, it could be argued that art may be the second most popular thing there is and has ever been. People have been dancing, singing, playing musical instruments, decorating things, making sculptures, putting paintings on walls (even cave walls) for as long as there have been people. A lot of it may not be what some of us think is good art; but it is art, and it is important to people. The fact that we may sniff and disapprove of the art they're enjoying is our problem, not theirs.

part of the distinction between art and non-art is that art takes work to appreicate/understand (there's always something more to get in a piece)
Some art is like that, and it's a point I raise whenever anyone has difficulty appreciating any work of art. But it doesn't have to be hard work to be good, or worth our attention. Cezanne was known to give paintings away to people on occasion, just because they said they liked them. Here's one of the greatest painters of his time, and the comment 'I like that' from a passing stranger was a good enough response, for him.

Remember that quote of Vaughan Williams's (which I can never remember exactly) about the soldier and the bugle. When the soldier is going over the top into battle, he wants to hear the bugle play. He doesn't want to hear a discussion about whether it was played well, or an analysis of the score. (And there is a sense in which the metaphor speaks for all of us: we're all soldiers going into battle, much of the time, even if the battles are internal ones).

So I think art is more than just popular. I think art, in all its basic forms, is demonstrably necessary; but in our western culture we've managed to argue ourselves into so many different intellectual corners that the lines of communication have all but broken down. The chap driving home, worn out after a day's work, and feeling better for a quick burst of 'Ode to Joy' on Classic FM, is enjoying his music, then and there, in the way that matters most to him, whatever we might think about it.
 
#28 · (Edited)
Nowadays it seems classical music is still a pirsuit of the the well-off. Why is this?
I don't buy into this philosophy of classical is just for people who are well-off. I think that's a terrible way to look at music. People who are musicians and who love music enjoy classical. People from all sides of the world can find enjoyment in it. That is, if they like what they hear.

Might it be that educated composers just can't see eye to eye with the great unwashed?
I don't buy into this either. I have no comment for this question.

Do we want the great unwashed to listen to classical music?
I don't care who listens to it or not. If people are naturally curious about music, then they will discover the world of classical.

What was pop music like in Mozart's day?
No comment. I don't know why don't you call him up and ask him?

Was classical music ever universally popular?
I don't know, but it's still being played in concert halls around the world, so that might tell you something.

Will classical music ever be popular?
No and I hope it doesn't become popular. Music, like art, will stand on it's own. It will always be there to be appreciated. It all depends on how curious you are and how passionate you are about it.

Should classical music be popular?
YES!!!! Of course it should. What are you crazy? I would love to hear someone walking down the street humming some Berlioz, but this is an imperfect world, so I doubt that will ever happen.

What are the social ideals that classical music promotes?
Who cares. It makes me happy. It gives me great joy. That's all that matters to me.
 
#32 ·
I don't buy into this philosophy of classical is just for people who are well-off. I think that's a terrible way to look at music. People who are musicians and who love music enjoy classical. People from all sides of the world can find enjoyment in it. That is, if they like what they hear.
The working class in Britain listen exclusively to dance/trance/hip-hop/rap, this is a solid fact. Are you saying that any offspring of these may possibly find meaning in a classical work?

I don't buy into this either. I have no comment for this question.
Why? Composers are the peak of artistic academia, while they may be able to empathise with the working class (in Britain at least), I really can't see them attending to their need for instantly gratifying music

I don't care who listens to it or not. If people are naturally curious about music, then they will discover the world of classical.
What circumstances does one need to have in order to be naturally curious about music? Given the academic nature of classical music, I'm not sure Beethoven would go down a bomb in a Manchester estate!

No comment. I don't know why don't you call him up and ask him?
I suppose a more possible approach would be to subvert the techniques used in musicology to determine what music was popular in Mozart's day. I also don't appreciate the sarcasm.

I don't know, but it's still being played in concert halls around the world, so that might tell you something.
So there you're infering classical music has a worldwide fan base. That doesn't tell me what types of people go to see these concerts.

No and I hope it doesn't become popular. Music, like art, will stand on it's own. It will always be there to be appreciated. It all depends on how curious you are and how passionate you are about it.
So now you say classical music isn't popular. Isn't this a contradiction of your last comment?

YES!!!! Of course it should. What are you crazy? I would love to hear someone walking down the street humming some Berlioz, but this is an imperfect world, so I doubt that will ever happen.
But in your last comment didn't you say you hope classical music doesn't become popular? I find this just a little misleading!
 
#31 ·
IMHO putting classical piece into some damn commercial is great missunderstanding. It looks sarcastic when they show humanoid-looking carrots walkin' in the line with some Beethoven's music background. Actually there is a Nescafe commercial with Prokofiev's Dance of Knights and it looks like they are trying to show how noble is the taste of their coffe. It's funny but somehow I dislike those commercials.
 
#33 ·
I find it sad that you think Classical music can't be appreciated by the working classes. I am working class and have always liked it. I have known several other working class people who liked it to. Whilst the mass of the population of likes other types of music there will always be people of all classes who enjoy classical music. Such comments reflect the British obsession with class more than why classical music is or isn't popular.

On the topic of popular music in the past don't forget during the 19th and much of the 20th century most towns and villages in Britain had brass bands and choral societies which played classical music which would indicate it was known and popular with the masses.

You should also remember other countries will be different from Britain. For instance I have seen a lot about the passion that Italians have for opera.
 
#34 ·
I find it sad that you think Classical music can't be appreciated by the working classes. I am working class and have always liked it. I have known several other working class people who liked it to. Whilst the mass of the population of likes other types of music there will always be people of all classes who enjoy classical music. Such comments reflect the British obsession with class more than why classical music is or isn't popular.
Well said, Mr Dull - I will sign up to your manifesto! I too am 'working class'. I'm not rich either - far from it. I know many people who are also 'working class', who also are not at all rich, but who love classical music, literature, and the visual arts. There's great confusion in this thread in my view about exactly what is being discussed (and I confess to being as confused as the next man!)
 
#36 ·
You make a valid point, and if I were nice and non-eliteist I would agree with you. However I do take pride in my eliteism.

But seriously, you are right that language is totaly inadequate to express the emotions I find in music. Poetry may come close, but it's not the same. So really, the term philosophy of music is slightly oxymoronic and to discuss music trans-genre doesn't work. I like to belive that classical/art music has a kind of emotional expression that no other form of music does. Anybody I debate this point with ends up hating me so....
 
#37 ·
However I do take pride in my eliteism.
Well, of course that's your choice (and there are times when I find myself reacting that way too) though it's a character trait, not an argument.

But seriously, you are right that language is totaly inadequate to express the emotions I find in music. Poetry may come close, but it's not the same. So really, the term philosophy of music is slightly oxymoronic and to discuss music trans-genre doesn't work. I like to belive that classical/art music has a kind of emotional expression that no other form of music does.
Well it's true. It does. That's part of the power of art - each art form has its own kind of expression. There are certain things human beings need to express, or to experience, that can only be expressed or experienced through music of a certain kind, or paintings of a certain kind, or poetry of a certain kind, and so on. And because we're all different, we all shift the priorities around. So, I often read opinions that music is somehow more expressive than the other arts - and clearly for those who say that, it is. But it isn't so for me, nor for many other people I know. The visual arts are no less important to me than music, and literature only slightly behind them. Indeed, all are necessary to me. As long as we have all these diverse needs and desires, as individuals (i.e. always), it's going to be impossible to maintain a credible intellectual stance that elevates one form over another. What we can do is exchange ideas, compare notes, and try to understand each other's views better - and perhaps, even, our own ...

Anybody I debate this point with ends up hating me so...
Well, some of the debates on this forum become very bad-tempered, but there's no excuse for it. A passionate defence is one thing, and I'll argue about the ideas that are important to me as doggedly as the next - but any discussion that ends with one of the parties hating another is a failure, surely? That's not a discussion, it's a fight.
 
#44 ·
Look guys, I'm not spreading class hatred, although considering the way I poorly worded my previous posts on such a delicate issue I can appreciate why you would come to that conclusion.

My main beliefs stand thus: Classical music is out there for every single human being to enjoy. Because of many circumstances (mostly combinations of circumstances) including class, prejudice and background, many people who would otherwise benefit from listening to classical music, don't.

The purpose of this thread is to explore why this is the case. I would very much like to hear all your opinions on this. This thread is not to shy away from controversial steriotypes, but to explore why we have them and why they impede the popularity of classcal music.
 
#46 ·
Look guys, I'm not spreading class hatred, although considering the way I poorly worded my previous posts on such a delicate issue I can appreciate why you would come to that conclusion.
Just to clarify: I never thought for a moment that you were doing any such thing, EE. Please don't feel in the least under attack from me. I'm just voicing my uncertainty about the suggested correlation with class, and no judgement of you or anyone else is implied.
 
#45 ·
First of all, universally speaking the great artists were poor and emotionally unsettled. I think the whole rich stereotype has to do partly with the expense of classical concerts. It is true that in my experience concert halls are filled with well-off elderly people. I think among youth there is much less of a wealth bias. I do think there is a positive coorelation between a taste for classical music and intellegence. Most of the musitians at school are honor roll students.

The real reason why classical music is not popular is that it is not "cool". The present metaculture is largely about instantaneous rewards: sex, drugs, and rock n' roll to be exact. People want to have fun, right here, right now. Classical music isn't like that. You can't have no listening experience and then be brought into a different emotional state by Mahler's 5th. I took my school-orchestra peers to a symphony. They sorta liked Mahler's 1st, but were restless and did not experiance it with the depth that an experienced listener does. Some say 2000 hours + listening is required to "understand" classical music in a deep, complex manner. Regardless of your opinion on that, you must admit that classical music has a learning curve. The other aspect of the "not cool" arguement is that classical music isn't even enjoyable most of the time. Late romanticism is largely about pain, sorrow, longing, etc. Even the most beautiful pieces have this eerie element of some form of grief in them. Classical music can make you feel good--or it can make you want to rip your flesh apart.
 
#51 ·
I think the class issue is a bit of a red herring as it is so difficult to define what we mean by class. I consider myself to be working class, I'm a member of Glyndebourne Festival Society and spend a large part of my disposable income on classical music (concert tickets, opera tickets, CD's. hifi etc). IS any music popular with most of the population? I think the beauty of our diverse society is that we have different likes and dislikes, I can not stand (possibly understand) jazz, yet I love Abba! Does it matter? As long as there is a market to keep the music going we should be content.
 
#55 ·
The only cellos or violins worth millions are ancient or had an illustrious previous owner - same with electric guitars owned by Jimi Hendrix or something like that.

A more relevant point is not the maximum price of instruments, but how much instruments cost in a low to mid-range. One can purchase a violin for a hundred pounds, and classical guitars are almost always cheaper than electric. What's more, electric guitars require amplifiers which further adds to the cost. I know from experience the costs involved for these things.
 
#56 ·
Well, where I'm at the cheap seats in the symphony are $15 and $18 depending on which town's symphony I go to. Student tickets are about half that price. Maximum prices is $55. (Unless there's a superstar playing like Perlman who, I'm thinking, must have made a decision to give up some money because he wanted to play somewhere smaller where people wouldn't normally be able to see him. Because even with the higher ticket prices I don't think that size theater, even sold out, could generate the fees that a Perlman command.)

The symphony pays its players, but not much. I remember spotting this one girl who looked about 13 years old who was a violinist. A couple of years later I was working with someone and it turned out to be his daughter. She was a teenager. He said they don't pay much, but that's also not why the musicians do it. (The "Little Theater" is all volunteers and I think the Opera only pays the principal players.) He was pretty well off, so his daughter wasn't doing it for the money. In fact, he was in the middle of buying her a new violin and had $100,000 worth of violins shipped to his house for his daughter to try. And that was more than 15 years ago, so goodness knows what those violins would be worth today. She wasn't even going to be a professional violinist or even study music. Playing the violin was just an amateur pastime for her.

We have a university so they do free chamber music. They'll set up the students at a church. Some of the churches will have chamber groups in occasionally, but they'll have usually $10 "donation" suggested.

Rock / Country / Pop concerts by any "name" person / band are going to be a lot more than that. Many years ago, no, the ticket prices were lower as they looked at earning their money through albums sales and merchandising. Nowadays even the cheap seats go for $50 -- and we don't get the huge names like the Rolling Stones or U2, those go to New Orleans or Atlanta. My neighbor went to see Cher a few years back and the nosebleed seats cost $70. The only "names" that I know of that are cheaper than $50 are the well past their prime bands that play the casinos and small venues.
 
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