i don't see why classical music is seen as elitist

[Tash]

really i don't. i think it is perfectly accessible to anybody who wants to listen and make an effort to move out of what is shoved down their throat via entertainment. money is not an issue- you don't have to play an instrument to appeciate it, hell, you don't even have to pay to listen to it- use your radio! which either way, you still are paying the same for learning an instrument focusing on jazz or pop, or going to a pop concert. i don't understand!

we were having this discussion in music ed today, one girl mentioned that she got the impression through her life that this was so, and i was like HOW do you get that impression? like you're a freakin music student to begin with, she's more a jazz/pop singer, but even so, as a musician, isn't it just something out of interest that you would explore the history of music, see what's happened before the 20th century?

can anyone give me a convincing point that would suggest classical is elitist??

[jas]

I don't see why, either, but classical music is totally alien to a lot of people now. In 2002 Classic FM did a survey, and apparently only 35% of kids aged 6-14 could name a single composer, but 96% could name a classical performer, which I find quite surprising. Some thought Leonardo da Vinci was a classical performer and 7% of kids couldn't recognise a violin.

The only impression I've ever had of elitism is when it comes to conservatories and places like that. But I suppose its the same with any specialist institution... And musical education in schools (at least in the UK) isn't great, as you can probably tell from that survey. But then neither is English. We don't get taught grammar!!

i think it is perfectly accessible to anybody who wants to listen and make an effort to move out of what is shoved down their throat via entertainment.

I agree. That's probably a big part of the problem, that people actually have to pay attention and put a bit of effort in to listen. And also, since it's old, some even ancient, I suppose people view it as stuffy and humourless.

Also, classical music seems to have been kind of split in two now. There's the "popular" classical musicians, like Bryn Terfel and Katherine Jenkins and groups like Il @£*%! Divo and whoever else (well, Il Divo aren't actually classical, I believe they're categoried under "Sh*t"), and there's the more serious ones who only people in the classical music world have actually heard of. You get things like Classic FM's music for driving, for studying, for babies, for dinner parties, etc. and it's all just cheesy compilation CDs without a single complete work in them. They're selling better than the "genuine" stuff. And they're selling like pop music, too. They have a short shelf life, which is normally not how classical music goes at all. God, I hate Il Divo. The shorter their shelf life is, the better.

Rant over.

Jas

[prometheus]

Classical music has always been something for the rich.

really i don't. i think it is perfectly accessible to anybody who wants to listen and make an effort

Well, Persian music is perfectly accessable for you. So it indian music, or chinese music.

It is not about the music. It is solely something sociological. I mean, I once went to a classical performance. And at the pause me and my friend heard someone say "I have a subscription in New York...blabla."

Apperently this person could fly over the Atlantic just to see a classical performance every once in a while.
Why don't you just try to have a poll under those that go to classical concerts and see what their age and income is. Well, you can see people's age.

It is not about the music. It is just about sociology. Apperantly our society is structured in such a way that classical music is something for the elite. It is used by the elite to show that they are the elite.

[henrah]

I think it's to do with the complexities of the music, and the varying emotions, that means it isn't accessible to everyone. And once one person hears a classical piece they don't like, they're quick to judge all over pieces from the same genre. Yet I'm sure that if they listened to enough music, they would find a piece that could connect with them on an emotional or intellectual level, or simply just a melody that they find particularly catchy.

Pop music always has a catchy melody, and I'd be hard pressed to find a pop song that the majority don't like. Obviously the songs way down low in the chart are unliked by the majority, probably due to other reasons on top of an uncatchy melody.

Classical music has always been something of a middle/upper class leisure, and I think it will be many years until that breaks. Norms are always so hard to break free of, and so are stereotypes, but they do eventually.

It'll just be a matter of time until middle/upper class totty's are listening to Coldplay and chavs/townies in the ghetto's of Britains suburbans are listening to Mozart.
Henrah

[prometheus]

Classical music has its 'pop music' too. It is not about simplicity. Classical music is not written for musicians but for the general upper class, and in the romantic age the middle class too.

[steveie986]

There's plenty of classical music that were intended as "pop" pieces in its day. Needless to say, all the great composers wrote "pop" pieces, from Beethoven's "Rage Over the Lost Penny" to Bach's Coffee Cantata to that Rachmaninov prelude to pretty much all of Chopin. "Pop" isn't necessarily bad, it just means popular and immediately accessible (which I think Chopin is).

[ted]

I don't see why either Tash, but it is seen that way by a good many of its proponents, no doubt about it. How many times have you heard the works of Morton, Waller and Joplin programmed among those of Beethoven and Chopin by touring "classical" pianists ? Another example: A few years ago I auditioned to perform in a local "serious" music society. I'm no concert artist but my technique was at least as good as any of the others. When I auditioned I played some ragtime and swing. The judges looked like bulldogs chewing on wasps. The next week I received a letter saying I would be considered for another audition if I played some classical. I told them where to stick it (politely). Sure, I could've played Chopin studies or similar, but there's a principle at stake here.

Third example: I was asked to contribute a couple of my pieces to a local concert. I asked when I would be on. I was told not to worry as I would play in the first half while the "real" musicians , i.e. classical, would play in the second half.

Of course classical music is seen as elitist by all but a handful of classical musicians ! They mightn't explicitly say so, but old attitudes die hard. Curiously, the phenomenon is not reciprocal. Most jazz and popular musicians I know seem to genuinely like classical music.
 

[Tash]

firstly, il divo, yes i must agree i really do not like them at all! i can understand that those who don't have a clue about music won't listen to it, fair enough. but it's the musicians that get me. one top 10 australian idol girls had no idea what a double bass was called, and i personally find that plain ignorant. it's when people who i do music with at uni find classical music totally inaccessible that i find bizarre.

Classical music has always been something for the rich.

Well, Persian music is perfectly accessable for you. So it indian music, or chinese music.

It is not about the music. It is solely something sociological. I mean, I once went to a classical performance. And at the pause me and my friend heard someone say "I have a subscription in New York...blabla."

Apperently this person could fly over the Atlantic just to see a classical performance every once in a while.
Why don't you just try to have a poll under those that go to classical concerts and see what their age and income is. Well, you can see people's age.

It is not about the music. It is just about sociology. Apperantly our society is structured in such a way that classical music is something for the elite. It is used by the elite to show that they are the elite.

i agree with pretty much everything you've said- yes persian, chinese, indian music is right there for me and everyone else (hell i could even take an elective in indian music next session!), but no i don't understand it yet, but once i go and make an effort to listen to and understand it, it'll probably become a regular part of my listening (yes, i am like everyone else and sort of ignore different cultured musics, but at least i don't think they're totally out of my range to listen to because i'm not part of the culture)

mmm sociolgical, i was thinking about that the other week. that makes sense. i don't like the fact that the elite use classical music to show their elitism though, it's mean! however, even if they did only start going to concerts for this purpose, chances are they'll end up gaining some kind of genuine appreciation for it.

poll ok, i'll figure out how to organise it- but then again you can go see concerts pretty cheaply- a student going to a local orchestra, or an australia ensemble concert getting rush hour tickets can pay the same amount going to the movies. and then the aussie ensemble also has free concerts, so does the sydney con. so you can listen to some decent quality ensembles (top quality in terms of the aussie ensemble) for the smallest amount of money!

ted- i wouln't put jazz/swing/etc into a concert with beethoven because i don't classify them as the same genre of music. in my eyes there's classical, jazz, popular, cultural, and then a bunch of miscellaneous random things. however i wouldn't say that jazz is any less classy than classical, same with the others (except pop because of its entertainment and money over the actual music factor)

this gets so contradictory!

[ted]

Why on earth should genres not be mixed at concerts, Tash ?   What about new music which has no "genre" ? And what precisely, is "classy" music ? In particular, why should a concert pianist not play a Waller transcription alongside a Beethoven sonata and perhaps follow it with some improvisation ? I never understood this when I was young, and enlightenment has not come with age. As David Thomas Roberts says, the honky-tonk hatched spectres of ragtime still haunt us.

I agree with Prometheus though, it is a social habit, and one I think we'd all be better off without.

[emmdoubleew]

It's because of pompous idiots who look down upon those who listen to anything but classical, and there's way too many of them here.

[galonia]

yes persian, chinese, indian music is right there for me and everyone else (hell i could even take an elective in indian music next session!), but no i don't understand it yet, but once i go and make an effort to listen to and understand it, it'll probably become a regular part of my listening

I think this is the crux of the matter.  In a Western environment, we need to make an effort to understand, and therefore, appreciate and enjoy music from other cultures.  In the same way, if you do not understand how to appreciate classical music, how can you enjoy it?

When I used to teach, I realised that the vast majority of piano students will never become concert pianists.  I myself am never going to become a concert pianist.  Then why learn?  Because one day, they may never touch the piano ever again, but if they turn up to a concert, they will at least feel some enjoyment, and not as though this is all too much, might as well go to sleep in the dark concert hall.

Perhaps that's what was frustrating about music education in high school - we watched the Magic Flute and discussed opera, we played metallaphones and learnt our letternames, but we never discussed why on earth we should sit through these classes.  How is all this relevant to me in the modern world?  No-one told our music class at school that understanding and appreciating culture is part of developing into someone who can function properly within society.  I was lucky enough to have been learning piano and music from an early age, and my music education was not limited to the debacle which is music classes in a public school.