Classical Music Forum banner
181 - 200 of 229 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,304 Posts
I know TwoSetViolin well from their videos, but I've never seen them in concert. I suspect they do have a significant young audience. My daughter played in several youth symphonies, and some are indeed quite good.
Well then, you've answered your own question. So long as our education system includes instruction in the classics -- music, art, literature, poetry and theater -- they will always have a place in our culture. Occasionally, a classic work, or something based on one, will rise to mass popularity. But most often that will be the exception. It would be silly to expect anything more, without a major investment in better education. Unfortunately, in the USA currently we are moving in the opposite direction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
Most young people just aren't the market for art music. Nothing that rewards careful attention is.

But at some point they are too old to go clubbing, some of them discover that the pop hits of their youth do not reward attention, some of them want to explore the world's cultural heritage, and some of them want to enjoy something classy, and then their white heads join the others.

I don't know that people will always be listening to Bach and Beethoven as much as we do now, but about 5% of the population (skewing older) will always be interested in something more complex and layered than what the other 95% is content with.

I think most people generally aren't into art music.

I've always wondered if going after the purported zero-attention-span "casual" young listener is a bit misguided rather than going after what you might call the "art-school-kid" type. Not that you have to, or should, do one or the other, but it's always going to be hard to get someone with no interest in art to listen to anything, versus someone who is already interested in music as art.

anyway this is just saying that the JACK Quartet should play Xenakis as an opener for like, Merzbow or some other noise artist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,333 Posts
I think most people generally aren't into art music.

I've always wondered if going after the purported zero-attention-span "casual" young listener is a bit misguided rather than going after what you might call the "art-school-kid" type. Not that you have to, or should, do one or the other, but it's always going to be hard to get someone with no interest in art to listen to anything, versus someone who is already interested in music as art.

anyway this is just saying that the JACK Quartet should play Xenakis as an opener for like, Merzbow or some other noise artist
Why did I occasionally listen to only a few pieces of CM for several years before I really started delving in five years ago?

A: My short child attention span hindered me. However, my interest in works like Tchaikovsky 6 and the Mozart Horn Concertos laid the groundwork for me delving into CM later and not a popular genre.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
I'm not sure that's true, but if it is, so what? The point of the article is to outline how young people are accessing, or could access classical music via a broad definition of the term which doesn't exclude the traditional canon, but exemplifies a wider range of musics.
They are of course free to listen to the music they wish to, but if the article was using a different definition of classical music than what the discussion in the thread was about, then this is surely an important thing to point out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,200 Posts
There's a few contemporary composers who are taken seriously enough at TC (e.g. like Philip Glass, Michael Nyman, Steve Reich).
Yes, sorry. I shouldn't have been so absolute. Reich would be considered classical music by most, my issue was more with most of the other artists.


Also quite a few of the most famous composers - e.g. Mozart, Haydn, Schubert, Rachmaninov, Ravel, etc.


The main takeaway from the article is that many young people will listen to classical - or various offshoots of it - on their ipods. I think it might be a trend away from the stigma associated with classical among young people. In any case, the classical industry is taking heed of this sort of data to attract young people, with change in repertoire to accept what was previously thought as too lowbrow (e.g. orchestras performing film, video game and television music, opera companies putting on productions of musicals).
We may have different takeaways, but my takeaway was that young people will listen to some crossover artists that play pop-song sized segments of instrumental music.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
I think people are confusing "young" with "general audience" here. There's a reason bargain record bins across the country are filled with Arthur Fiedler, and it wasn't because the "youth" were buying his records in droves.
 

·
Registered
Sibelius, Beethoven, Satie, Debussy
Joined
·
1,701 Posts
They are of course free to listen to the music they wish to, but if the article was using a different definition of classical music than what the discussion in the thread was about, then this is surely an important thing to point out.
Well rather obviously, you don't make "classical music" more appealing to young people by making the term so broad as to include the pop they already find appealing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,333 Posts
They are of course free to listen to the music they wish to, but if the article was using a different definition of classical music than what the discussion in the thread was about, then this is surely an important thing to point out.
The definition of CM in this thread is pretty much the works of canonical composers from ~1700-~1950, perhaps without Modernist composers at all. When we talk about CM cultural heritage in this thread, most of us don't care about minor composers like Ferdinand Ries or JC Bach, or non-canonical modern/contemporary composers like Xenakis or even Williams.

Posters mainly care about the later Dvorak String Quartets, the Mendelssohn symphonies, the Mozart Piano Concertos-- stuff like that. The classics.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
5,088 Posts
The American Guild of Organists and its chapters are doing what we can to introduce young people to the organ. Our local chapter has an annual event called Pedal, Pipes & Pizza, where we invite any student to attend and get a glimpse of what the organ is all about, also a chance to play the instrument and receive some one on one instruction with one of the areas leading professional organists.

Those events usually take 2 to 3 hours depending on how many students have signed up to attend.

Other chapters across the US have similar events. AGO national has POE - Pipe Organ Encounter events, too.

The national AGO organization is offering one year free membership to the guild for any youth age 30 and under. That offer is good through June 30, 2022. Our local chapter is doing that one better and includes anyone of any age to receive one year free membership as well.

The unfortunate thing is that as we organists retire, there are fewer people willing or able to fill vacancies ... I leapt at the chance when I was 13, loved it, and have continued to ply at this professions for 61+ years. Still love doing this now as I did when I was 13.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,333 Posts
Is it? Is that what the Hutchinson book's definition is?
Hutchinson's book is almost irrelevant to the direction of this thread. Unless some of you actually purchased it? If Hutchinson contributed to this thread beyond the copy-pasted press release OP, we might be using his definition. From reading the descriptions of some of his books on Amazon, Hutchinson may go both Big Names and underrated non white male composers.

I am basing the definition on the apparently conservative tastes of some of the posters on this thread. The debate over whether CM promotes aristocratic and bouigese values confirms that many posters want children to get into the Baroque to Romantic Period classical canon, not just any music classified as CM.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,464 Posts
As a teacher, I've been doing this for years, introducing classical music heavily into my music lessons. However, there's little interest in classical pieces amongst children these days. The kids don't dislike it (far from it) but they seem to like the throwaway nature of autotuned pop pap more readily. It may be formulaic crud but it's what they seem to get hooked on and desire more readily. Obviously some will branch out and make their way to CM eventually but it's getting harder and harder to convince kids that CM is valid and not music for dinosaurs, these days.
I think there's understandable reasons for this. Perhaps every generation goes through this. What I mean is, the 40s pop standards gave way to early rock of the 50s, then later rock and the more artistic pop of the late 60s, then disco, then Grunge, then the pop pap which is quite difficult to figure out as to its youthful meanings.

So what's the trend that I see? In each transition, the younger generation doesn't want their music to sound old fashioned, old hat, corny. The kiss of death within peer groups or even imagined peer groups (aspirations). Also they seem to want music that is less and less obvious to follow and memorize and get tired of. 'Makes sense.

Who really knows (with so many years of variables and change and unsuspected innovations (tech)), but we can generalize.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Merl

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,464 Posts
The Gay 90s was replaced by Tin Pan Alley, jazz is co-opted in the roaring 20s and then the pop standards of the 30s and 40s. To me it looks like the same sequence and phenomenon, but it might just be that I'm looking for it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,945 Posts
I think there's understandable reasons for this. Perhaps every generation goes through this. What I mean is, the 40s pop standards gave way to early rock of the 50s, then later rock and the more artistic pop of the late 60s, then disco, then Grunge, then the pop pap which is quite difficult to figure out as to its youthful meanings.

So what's the trend that I see? In each transition, the younger generation doesn't want their music to sound old fashioned, old hat, corny. The kiss of death within peer groups or even imagined peer groups (aspirations). Also they seem to want music that is less and less obvious to follow and memorize and get tired of. 'Makes sense.

Who really knows (with so many years of variables and change and unsuspected innovations (tech)), but we can generalize.
This is true - to an extent.

My mom had (and played) albums that were decidedly "old fart" music, yet I'm still very fond of SOME of it, and still turn my nose up at some of it. Mom, not being a musician (nor was my dad), still had a rather diverse and eclectic collection of LPs.

There were Broadway cast albums (Gypsy, Oliver, etc.), soundtracks (I loved Around the World in 80 Days, but despised Picnic), 101 Strings (yuck!), Herb Alpert :love:, Frank Sinatra (yuck), Julie Christie, 1812 Overture.

My mom used to tell the story of a 5 year old me sitting in the sandbox belting out Ethel Merman.

The point is that these were normalized things in my childhood, the music from all different genres. It wasn't forced on me, but simply part of a "normal" household. Some I loved, some I didn't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,090 Posts
As with many things, it depends on why you listen and what you hope to get out of music.

Someone into clubbing doesn't want to listen to old music because music to them is part of an aesthetic that they want to keep up with the times, and to be fashionable.

Some art school kids, meanwhile, might not be interested because they want what's at the furthest cutting edge of the avant-garde, the stuff nobody is listening to.

Most people obviously fall between these categories, but you can't simply break it down into "kids aren't into old music because they're young".




By the way, I think pops classical in the 50s/60s, if anything, wasn't replaced by rock- it was the kind of stuff middle-aged, middle-class people listened to and was replaced by pop and adult-contemporary.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,464 Posts
This is true - to an extent.

My mom had (and played) albums that were decidedly "old fart" music, yet I'm still very fond of SOME of it, and still turn my nose up at some of it. Mom, not being a musician (nor was my dad), still had a rather diverse and eclectic collection of LPs.

There were Broadway cast albums (Gypsy, Oliver, etc.), soundtracks (I loved Around the World in 80 Days, but despised Picnic), 101 Strings (yuck!), Herb Alpert :love:, Frank Sinatra (yuck), Julie Christie, 1812 Overture.

My mom used to tell the story of a 5 year old me sitting in the sandbox belting out Ethel Merman.

The point is that these were normalized things in my childhood, the music from all different genres. It wasn't force on me, but simply part of a "normal" household. Some I loved, some I didn't.
What's not true?
How does it get forced on anyone? It's always on in the background?
Broadway is a separate category, I think, because there's so much song writing talent, with their ears searching for what's new and trendy.
I'm talking about teens of each generation being somehow predictably different from each prior generation.

I remember Sinatra singing so accurately. It sounded so accurate and yet so natural. I never went back to see whether he sang the strict note durations from the song sheets, but it might have been just a style that sounded so disciplined (his attitude was larger than life, as they say).
I like the theme from Picnic. A clever use of harmony.
Julie Christie singing 'Round Midnight. wow! Such control and emotion!
Mantovani was my father-in-law's favorite, for unwinding after work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,464 Posts
As with many things, it depends on why you listen and what you hope to get out of music.

Someone into clubbing doesn't want to listen to old music because music to them is part of an aesthetic that they want to keep up with the times, and to be fashionable.

Some art school kids, meanwhile, might not be interested because they want what's at the furthest cutting edge of the avant-garde, the stuff nobody is listening to.

Most people obviously fall between these categories, but you can't simply break it down into "kids aren't into old music because they're young".




By the way, I think pops classical in the 50s/60s, if anything, wasn't replaced by rock- it was the kind of stuff middle-aged, middle-class people listened to and was replaced by pop and adult-contemporary.
What I remember is, older folks buying their first good-sounding system and phonographs, and then buying a few albums to try out the sound. Some recent songs they knew before, fully orchestrated for the sound experience. And of course the sound effect records and the comedy routine albums.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,945 Posts
What's not true?
How does it get forced on anyone? It's always on in the background?
Broadway is a separate category, I think, because there's so much song writing talent, with their ears searching for what's new and trendy.
I'm talking about teens of each generation being somehow predictably different from each prior generation.

I remember Sinatra singing so accurately. It sounded so accurate and yet so natural. I never went back to see whether he sang the strict note durations from the song sheets, but it might have been just a style that sounded so disciplined (his attitude was larger than life, as they say).
I like the theme from Picnic. A clever use of harmony.
Julie Christie singing 'Round Midnight. wow! Such control and emotion!
Mantovani was my father-in-law's favorite, for unwinding after work.
Sinatra had style. I'll assume he learned that vocal accuracy because he started out singing in the Big Bands of Harry James and Tommy Dorsey, musical tyrannical micromanagers, where every note was planned in minute detail, including the vocalists. That laid-back thing was part of that accuracy . . . perfect phrasings, well-thought-out backbeating. Sinatra, by the time he signed as a solo artist had his artistry well-crafted.

Funny how I really didn't learn to appreciate until fairly recently what a great musicality he had, right up through the 60s. I still can't stand "My Way" though.

But the one I REALLY love was Bing Crosby. Now THERE was some extraordinary accuracy. You can hear that from his stuff from the 1920s right through the end of the Big Band era. An absolute monster of accuracy. Even his crooning after that was "perfect". He lost that musicality in the 1960s because he didn't really adapt well to the "new" music, nor the new technology used to record it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,202 Posts
Extracurricular music lessons offered at schools can be beneficial, but the idea that children should be required to learn to play instruments (or learn music theory) at a public institution is tyrannical. The amount of unnecessary things children are forced to do should be minimized.
You really shouldn't worry, then. Relax. Its not a matter of them being required to learn it, because most children in state schools don't get much of an opportunity to learn music in the first place.

Incidentally, by performance I didn't necessarily mean playing, but singing. Back in the 16th century, the composer William Byrd said that "since singing is so good a thing, I wish all men would learne to sing." Today, most children aren't even taught to sing and hold a note, and that's way before they might get to an instrument. I wonder, have we progressed that much since Byrd's time?

Yes, sorry. I shouldn't have been so absolute. Reich would be considered classical music by most, my issue was more with most of the other artists.
I don't have your concerns about the composers I mentioned, or others on those podcasts like John Adams, Eric Whitacre, John Williams, Ennio Morricone or Einaudi. One thing is that they all trained as classical composers.

I think that many young people aren't nearly as sectarian or self conscious about music as previous generations where. Basically, the categories we might argue about here matter little to them.

We may have different takeaways, but my takeaway was that young people will listen to some crossover artists that play pop-song sized segments of instrumental music.
They obviously do listen to those, among other things. I don't see that as a negative but as a positive, since its obviously being harnessed by the classical industry to generate income.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,945 Posts
You really shouldn't worry, then. Relax. Its not a matter of them being required to learn it, because most children in state schools don't get much of an opportunity to learn music in the first place.

Incidentally, by performance I didn't necessarily mean playing, but singing. Back in the 16th century, the composer William Byrd said that "since singing is so good a thing, I wish all men would learne to sing." Today, most children aren't even taught to sing and hold a note, and that's way before they might get to an instrument. I wonder, have we progressed that much since Byrd's time?
True.

For a few semesters I taught after school chorus classes an a local elementary school administered by the local Park District. Parents had to pony up a registration fee to the Parks, just as they would have to for a class in painting, folk dance, or other things.

It went well for a while but the parents were actually way more meddling than I would have expected, so I quit.
 
181 - 200 of 229 Posts
Top