What are people who express a dislike for 'Classical Music' really expressing?

[opus10no2]

What do they think they are expressing?

A preference, matter of taste?

A musical inadequecy?

An ignorance?


If a person likes music alot, and claims to dislike 'Classical Music', I would take interest in making the claim they they simply do not like music enough.

[counterpoint]

Many people think, classical music is oldfashioned. Perhaps they have heard one or two CDs with "Best of Classics" which generally should be titled "Worst of Classics". Good classical music is hard to find. But in the times of youtube, the case gets better (hopefully).

[Etude]

Perhaps they have heard one or two CDs with "Best of Classics" which generally should be titled "Worst of Classics". Good classical music is hard to find. But in the times of youtube, the case gets better (hopefully).

Indeed, but the same could be said of those who express dislike for non-classical music.  It's unfortunate that with rare exception, only the most banal, uninteresting examples of it are given the most attention, but there's so much more to be found beyond the radio or MTV that is actually worthwhile.  There is plenty of good music to be found in most genres.

[thalbergmad]

They are expressing ignorance and inablility to listen to anything longer than 3 minutes.

Thal

[opus10no2]

The issue I wish to address is stylistic taste.

Classical music, as it has no solid definition, includes - theoretically - any style of music there is.

I think Jazz is excluded merely because much of it is improvised, but I would certainly include it in the spectrum.

When I think about it, all music which is composed, and has a form other than a formulaic pop song, can be called 'Classical Music'. Even if some may say it can't, it can fall into a category I'm trying to find a term for.

A.R.M - attention requiring music, H.I.M - High information music.

Anyway, I consider 'challenging' an important quality to qualify for this music.

The principal appreciation cannot be had without concentration.

The principal appreciation of popular and folk musics are the elements which are enjoyable even passively.

I'd find it hard to call someone a true fan of music if they have never solely devoted themselves to nothing but listening to music for an extended period of time.

[ted]

I don't particularly like strictly classical music, properly so called - Mozart, Beethoven, Haydn and company. It isn't a very fierce dislike though; it just goes in one ear and out the other. I am simply expressing the fact that its sounds do not stimulate or transport me any more. I don't think it is ignorance because in my youth I heard a great deal of it and even really enjoyed it at one stage. Neither am I affected by social and historical considerations or what people, especially musicians, say I ought to like. The only truthful and sincere reaction to any music, it seems to me is based purely on the personal effect of its sound and nothing else.

I suspect that I am are in a minority, however, and that most people who say they hate classical are either basing their opinion on considerations external to the sound itself or are simply in the entrenched habit of listening to nothing but other types of music.

Taking into accout the definitions proposed in the post of a couple of minutes ago, my feelings might be academic to the discussion anyway, as all the music I listen to and play is most decidedly  very A.R.M and H.I.M.

[opus10no2]

So for clarification.

I see the division between different types of music being defined, and made valid, by each of the different types of *listening* required for each.

And, regardless of basic style, I see the division of 'popular' and 'classical' as a division of listening intents and types.

I'm a big fan of 'progressive rock', and I hold this in similar regard and respect as modern 'classical music'.
Away from the extramusical factor of compositional method (and in the case of prog - often recorded improvisations which become composition), the differences are - by and large - just timbral aesthetic, focus on 'beat'(and percussion as driving force), and less rhythmic freedom(dynamic too in many cases).

You have one thing, and you forego another - you have a steady loud beat and you lose overall dynamic subtlety as well as the whole world of 'rubato', but of course - it doesn't matter because they gain as much as they lose, with their priorities.

Back to the point - these elements can surely make up a 'classical piece' if only it were termed as such....as it still falls under the same broad kind of listening 'classical' requires.

[opus10no2]

Taking into accout the definitions proposed in the post of a couple of minutes ago, my feelings might be academic to the discussion anyway, as all the music I listen to and play is most decidedly  very A.R.M and H.I.M.

One definition of 'classical music' many people hold onto is the concept of one person composing a piece by writing it down, then publishing it for performance in concert halls.

This is obviously a useless definition because it has ZERO influence on the final musical product.

It's perfectly concievable that the same sequence of notes could be produced by improvising, or whatever.

So I'd still include improvised music in the same category.

[zheer]

      Classical music is wide and vast that very few people can say that they honestly dis-like all that classical music has to offer. Personaly I've  noticed that everyone appreciates at least one classical composition.
   Those who express  a complet dis-like for classical music do so out of fear, the fear of the un-know, also many of these great composers and musicians are frightning sort of people. I personally do not appreciate (understand) jazz music, so it's not to difficult to understand why some may not like classical.