Classical Music Forum banner

Love of Classical Music means Rejecting the Present

11K views 259 replies 36 participants last post by  shirime 
#1 ·
GENERALLY SPEAKING,
Love of Classical music, of the past, is equal to a rejection of the present age and its music. This seems obvious to me.
Love of Classical music is a search for Platonic perfection, of "masterpieces" of the past, which are timeless.
Love of Classical music is a search for the ultimate, and a search for genius.
Love of Classical music is an embrace of Human qualities, in contrast to the "inhuman" present, in which it seems the Human qualities are disparaged and undervalued.

Don't you think there's a grain of truth in this?
 
#2 · (Edited)
Not really. I have no idea why I have always preferred classical music but it has nothing to do with rejecting the modern world. The first part of my career was in science and later in IT. In both careers I met all sorts of people who enjoyed all kinds of music. Most of my socialising was done where popular music omnipresent in the background.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Given that you're using the upper case 'C' Classical, I'd say there is some truth to what you're saying - this does seem to describe some of the sense of the composers and artists who were trying to recapture what was perceived to be the harmonious proportions and the perfection of the golden Classical age. But less so if this is applied to the broader category of 'c' classical music in that sense of the term.
 
#7 ·
It's true that people who love classical music by and large reject music of today. Classical music is the ONLY arts arena where embracing the past is the norm. Movie theaters, Broadway, books, dance, art -- all thrive on the new. On Broadway they don't only do Show Boat, Oklahoma!, The Music Man, or West Side Story. Nope, there's Hamilton; new. The movie theaters don't play old b/w Humphrey Bogart movies. Novels tend to be new. And so on. Why is this? All art forms venerate the masterworks of the past, but classical music makes a point of it.

I would like to say that I listen to classical because it connects me to genius. But there's a lot of 2nd and 3rd rate music I listen in preference to the new. Maybe it's that composers of yesterday were better at communicating through sound than modern composers. I've long had the feeling that the more complex music gets, the less likely it is that the average brain can comprehend it. For a lot of people, the atonal, serial, aleatoric compositions of the 20th c are unknowable. They cannot understand the music no matter what. And I can't blame them. I still find Webern very difficult and I'm a very advanced listener.

Is this a problem? Sure it is. Classical concerts have become sound museums. Our worship of the past and willful ignorance of the present could spell doom. How much longer will society want to support orchestras that only play music of dead, usually white and European composers? It doesn't matter how great it is, how much better than new music it is. Classical music has declined in popularity quite a bit over the past 50 or more years and shows no sign of recovering. We must support new music.
 
#13 ·
I would like to say that I listen to classical because it connects me to genius. But there's a lot of 2nd and 3rd rate music I listen in preference to the new. Maybe it's that composers of yesterday were better at communicating through sound than modern composers. I've long had the feeling that the more complex music gets, the less likely it is that the average brain can comprehend it. For a lot of people, the atonal, serial, aleatoric compositions of the 20th c are unknowable. They cannot understand the music no matter what. And I can't blame them. I still find Webern very difficult and I'm a very advanced listener.
I think you found the problem right there. The difference between the old, dead, white Europeans and today's composers is that they were able to create music that was not only within reach of average listeners and relatively unsophisticated ears, but at the same time could only have been created by a genius-level mind operating on another plane of understanding. Today's composers certainly operate on that plane, I believe, but their music is very complex, and like you said, strains even the comprehension of advanced listeners like yourself.

Audiences should definitely be more open-minded, but I will risk controversy by saying that music probably has some moving to do as well. You brought up films, broadway shows, and novels, which thrive on being new. That is true, but they also thrive on the audience receiving them favorably. And new films, novels, and shows are still received favorably, despite continuously evolving over the years. They are rarely beyond the comprehension of audiences. Why hasn't music managed to do the same thing?

I don't think the answer is that composers from the past few decades haven't tried to make their music accessible; I certainly don't think composers are obligated to please the masses or owe them an explanation. The issue, I believe, is that composers today tend, and indeed feel obligated, to compose music that can't stand on its own without lengthy explanation. Their works are usually accompanied by a sheaf of program notes that may or may not increase the audience's understanding. The composers of the past didn't need that. It's a mystery to me how they were able to create such high art and still connect with the layman.

So, should today's musicians figure out how to get music back to that place where people were excited to hear the newest symphony or opera, same as the newest show or film, without compromising artistic integrity? I believe it's something they have to figure out; I certainly don't feel qualified to answer. The classical world seems to have made up its mind that some more accessible idioms, such as great orchestral film scores, are not worth their time in the concert hall. New music, then, seems bound and determined to stay highly academic and sophisticated. There is nothing at all wrong with music like that, but if most audiences haven't warmed up to it in 70+ years after it was introduced, can we admit that audiences may not have actually been the ones that moved?
 
#8 ·
Don't you think there's a grain of truth in this?
Not necessarily, I guess 100 classical music listeners could give 100 different explanations for their love of classical music.
Considering that classical music (magazines, recordings et cetera) belongs to the music industry of our time I doubt that consuming it - no matter your personal reasons for doing it - may qualify as a rejection of the present age and its music, since - like it or not - classical music is part of it.
Bach (just like every other past composer) wrote masterpieces "embracing human qualities" while living in an "inhuman" present, idealization of the past can surely be one of the 100 reasons to listen to classical music I guess.
 
#9 ·
I tend to disagree with the OP. If the old and new were the same styles, and people inexplicably prefer the old, and not just out of nostalgia, then I'd think you have a point.
 
#10 ·
The OP poses an interesting question, but I disagree that loving classical music must involve rejection of modernity. I see the two as unrelated. For example, I enjoy reading history on the kindle app on my iPad... And discussing classical music in an on-line forum. I would concede, however, that lovers of classical music (on average) likely share an affinity for history and the past.
 
#11 · (Edited)
A grain of truth, yes, but not for everyone. It depends on what you consider "classical music," and what you think of what's being produced now under that heading. The ability to appreciate music's past achievements doesn't have to imply a lack of interest in the present, but it's possible to think that present-day efforts in the "classical" tradition fall short, or may not represent that tradition at all.

Perhaps it's more likely that a musical interest focused on contemporary genres implies indifference to the past.
 
#14 ·
The question arises as to just what is classical music of the present. In the past, you could expect that even a new work would, within limits, fall within certain predictable constraints. There would be something you could get your arms around and say, 'Yes, this is classical music.' But these days, it seems that anything that happens to be composed for a piano or instruments of the orchestra is called classical music no matter how bizarre.

Some of contemporary music remains accessible, some of it even excellent. However, an example of where things have gone off the rails: The Ojai Music Festival (held in California) has had a long storied history as a classical music event. But this year, it appeared to have been hijacked in an attempt to stick it to 'traditionalists'. One day featured the 'music' of one Michael Hersch.

One particular work of his was 77 minutes after which a woman stood up and shouted, 'I hated that so much, I want to fight someone.' Following was the opening movement of his Violin Concerto. What is one to make of this? Is this a treasured category of contemporary classical music? Is this what it has come to?

 
#15 ·
There are plenty of novels that aim for a small, elite audience. It's not like any novels reach the kind of audience that pop music reaches, but a "popular" author like Steven King is probably about the equivalent of John Williams, a composer that does enjoy a huge audience. You take someone like Cormac McCarthy, you can consider him popular but he doesn't reach nearly as many people as Steven King, and a composer like Philip Glass probably has an audience of about the same size. You take someone like Julian Barnes, his audience is probably not so much larger than that of Kancheli or Gubaidulina.

Though you can find plenty of people lamenting the difficulty of making a living as an author in the age of Amazon, the narrative of imminent doom doesn't hang over other arts to the same extent that it does classical music. I don't think it's because of the actual condition of the arts themselves - everything is constantly changing for everyone, and everyone is constantly having to adapt, and rosy nostalgia is everywhere, and someone is always figuring out a way to succeed in the new conditions.

Instead, it's because for many people "classical music" is inherently backward looking in the same way that the term "classical literature" is. If we used a label like "art music" our perspective would have to be more positive.
 
G
#21 ·
I really love music, and so-called classical music is as diverse as the number of people working in the industry. There are a great many new things going on in 'classical music' that are relatively unnoticed, but possibly because a large part of the more commercial aspects of the 'classical music' industry do not value it as a culture that constantly renews itself and explores new areas based on what has come before and what is happening currently. There are a greater number of other industries in the arts and outside of the arts that have a clearer focus on cultural renewal.
 
#40 ·
i shall bring up a point as well... via contemporary composers.

But first, I love contemporary composers.

Now.

How folk who perform a work is reflected how they see the composer...
If an orchestra were to go on and play something from Beethoven, they are expected to play at their best. Yet, when some contemporary composer is played, like, Webern, Sorabji, Braxton, Xenakis, Even Zappa... (which i had this epiphany from watching 200 Motels... then listening to Jami Symphony... which later reminded me of the anime Nodame Cantibile. during the episode when the virtuoso conducter decided to call in sick after a night of drinking... so the protagonist is the step in conductor... however none of the orchestra was too thrilled... and started testing the protagonist... they were playing Brahms' First Symphony. Anyways, he was all noticing things they were intentionally doing... and such...) :O wait i got side tracked slightly...

But anyways, it was that part of the anime where i ended up with the epiphany after reading this and typing that...

The fact is, most performers wouldn't put all their effort into some contemporary composer's work, because there isn't enough respect in their musical language.

But yes, if Webern was to be performed on the radio stations... in place of Haydn or some other notible composer's work. (i mean we all probably have at least a few of the works played on any radio station, and other radio stations tend to play more recent music a bunch of times... which is particularly why they are so popular.

My point being. Micheal Jackson was played on the radio, on the television. Also had some scandals... i am sure everyone here has heard of him. Lady Gaga, Madonna, Justin Bieber, Justin Timberlake, Janet Jackson, Linkin Park... (also nearly anyone with enough public promotion, Pepsi, Super Bowl, etc.

...a few more names... (and how do we remember these ones?)
The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Pink Floyd, Elvis, Frank Sinatra


in the first list i can assure you that i know of one that not many have heard... Bright Eyes. (they are from my home city...) yet they are at least nation wide... (took them a decade or so just to get to this state.) How ever, the local radio station plays them a lot, yet not many others... (although he is more indie.)

another is The Feint. (which is more electro-pop.) A lot like a 2000s Depeche Mode.

On the second list... one that i know a few of you have heard, but they didn't get as much publicity as the five on the list above. The Moody Blues.


(i could go back in time, with every few decades all the way back to The Hymn of Nikkal. if you would like. but i won't that would be a series of books...)


(and to the mods, this all relates... *suspicious eyes)

*nods, however, back to the direct topic.

Each epoch has a specific language. (publicized or unknown.)

For instance, the Medieval Epoch was mostly vocal, with an Estampie here and there. The Renaissance was primarily 1-3 voices (instrument or voice.) Which also produced a lot of canons. The Baroque evolved the canons into Fugues, and started developing various other genres, like Concertos and such. The Classical, started making symphonies and have adapted a more structural sonata form. The Romantic (although Madrigals were around since Medieval which have evolved into the Opera.) this was more emotional music. which lead us to the Modern, which was where the symphonies evolved into bigger forms, (thanks to Mahler and others.) Chamber music was primarily Piano Trios, String Quartets, Horn Trios, and occassionally others.)

then there was a schism impressionist and expressionist. Which school of though do you think triumphed from this?
anyways, after this we are led to (i won't count 20th century, or 21st century...) Contemporary, where they start implimenting older techniques that not many would regularly hear since the performers tend to overlook these things. So they don't realize the amount of amazing techniques are used.


Sorabji was addicted to fugues, Messiaen was borderline minimallist. Xenakis (in my personal opinion) was attempting to impliment a classical metal fusion. Varese was writing simply to promote electronic instruments among other reasons, also has some really amazing music. Coates is addicted to glissandi and mirror canons.

Various others i could list like crazy... but i won't since some i have no idea on yet...

I do know, Cage has a lot of interesting works, that i sometime want to get into. (i already heard his 4'33"... even though my copy is a second short...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Prat
#44 ·
Not even a homeopathic dose of the truth!

Each age brings new riches. The riches of the past - already fairly reliably tested and filtered - tell us much that remains true today and is also subject to continual reinvention via different performances. Of course, it is crazy if you love music to miss out on what is happening now - it is new, exciting and super-relevant - and I don't limit this to music in the so-called classical tradition (you know, Ferneyhough, Benjamin, Carter, Boulez, Stockhausen, Nono etc. as well as the more tonal composers). Jazz, folk and many forms of popular music are also genres that continue to produce really worthwhile music. And the so-called "world music" field includes much that is exciting and (/or) interesting. But how can loving all this lead you to not loving, to neglecting, our incredible inheritance? Also, aside from any other considerations, much new music is illuminated by the music of our past.

There has perhaps never been a better time for someone who loves music to be alive!
 
#47 ·
Sure, a grain. First Assertion: True for some, false for others--that seems obvious to me.

Second Assertion and Third Assertion: Essentially the same. True for Classical music lovers and also lovers of every other kind of music (at one time or another). The short version of The Year of the Cat by Al Stewart, or Sunshine of your Love by Cream are as close to Platonic perfection, masterpiece, the ultimate, and genius as you can get. For me. Prove I'm wrong.

Fourth Assertion: One of those vast, sweeping statements that are best left sitting there. I'll just say all of us can immediately think of a host of contemporary counterexamples that embrace Human and humane qualities and values.

Nowadays everyone's musical needs are not only met, but are met to overflowing. You want Classical?, you got Classical. Plus you have genres you never either knew or know existed, brought to you in many different ways, 24/7. The main complaint, really, that some people have is that not nearly enough other people are listening to and liking what I listen to and like. But we are in a Brave New World now where every artistic yearning can be satisfied, and every pot is filled.
 
G
#48 · (Edited)
GENERALLY SPEAKING,
Love of Classical music, of the past, is equal to a rejection of the present age and its music. This seems obvious to me.
Love of Classical music is a search for Platonic perfection, of "masterpieces" of the past, which are timeless.
[...]

Don't you think there's a grain of truth in this?
No. I'm listening to it in my present...how could it be otherwise? It's also not all I listen to.

In fact, it could be a rescuing from the past that which is worth carrying forward into the future.
 
#49 ·
Yes this is true, at least a rejection of the music of the present. I have never met anyone who genuinely loved classical music (people who would listen to it every day even if there were noone around to ever share it with or talk about it with, not social or casual listeners, or intellectual posers), who listened to modern day pop music in equal amounts to classical.
 
#50 ·
So, for you, there is classical music which is from the past and pop music which is "the music of the present"? I listen to a huge amount of music - I can't live without it! - what I listen to has as much music from the last 100 years as from the 200 years before that. I listen to modern and contemporary "classical" music (much of it from the last 50 years), to jazz (mostly from after 1950) and, sometimes, to a fair amount of (broadly) "popular music" (mostly in the form of rock, reggae and African music). I may not listen to very much (commercial) pop music but I certainly do listen to lots of music that was made during my lifetime. I find that the more music I know the better I am equipped to explore the new.
 
#53 ·
I think there are certainly some grains of truth in what you say BUT on one thing I would dare say the exact opposite, namely "Love of Classical music is an embrace of Inhuman qualities, in contrast to the "human" present, in which it seems the Inhuman qualities are disparaged and undervalued.

There's too much humanity these times my friend.
 
#54 · (Edited)
Nope, not for me. IMO, music is not a zero sum game, i.e., loving classical music does not translate into a rejection of other genres. I love classical music, if that is the correct word, but I am not looking for any of the things you mention. I am certainly not looking for "masterpieces" or works of genius.
 
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