What is Classical Music??

[bernhard]

Bernhard, I have tremendous respect for your knowledge, but your analogies are the biggest load of elitist crap and snobissism, and I am greatly offended by them.

Holy molly! What hath offended thou, commoner?

What do you have to say for the period in which Classical was by far the predominent music, when, somewhere during the 18th century, even peasants abandoned their folk songs to see Operas in the poorer theaters?

Er… Classical (or Erudite so as not to confuse the style with the historical period) was never predominant in terms of the general population. Just like today, the general population hops about at the sound of pop, while erudite music, just like fine wines, remains an acquired taste that needs education and culture to be properly appreciated. In past periods, folk music, not erudite music was the preference of the peasants and burghers alike.

By the way, I would not consider Opera to be erudite music, but the pop music of the time, that ignorant bourgeois would like to flatter themselves to be superior music so that they can bask in the illusion that they have good taste

So did they all have superior taste than the majority of the population today? Maybe that explains why Mozart's contemporaries bathed once a year, peed out the windows and had rotten teeth.

In every generation there is a small – some would say insignificant – fraction of the general population that can appreciate the highest forms of art (and I include here science). Usually they are the practitioners of the art. Patrons would like to be part of that group, but often they lack the necessary level of being. Beethoven´s music for instance could only be composed because he happened to be lucky enough to find himself surrounded by a group of very rich patrons who fancied themselves as appreciators of “difficult music”. Beethoven, of course saw through them, but he also accepted their monetary support. So, to answer your question, the taste of the general population in times past was probably as dismal as the taste of the population in more modern times. What this has to do with bathing once a year, peeing out of windows, or rotten teeth, eludes me – since a large proportion of the current human population also has rotten teeth, does not bath very often, and if they don´t pee out of windows they do pee on the kitchen sink if they come from the pub drunk enough.

I listen to classical because I enjoy the music as much as some other young teen may enjoy Linkin Park (which I hate, but is none of their business). I don't listen to classical so I can be bunched with others who contemptuously beleive they trenscend a higher level of humanity because they can appreciate Beethoven or Rachmaninov. And you know what, that ends up happening an aweful lot because of people who say things like what you just said.

“Enjoying” Rachmaninoff or Beethoven has little to do with appreciating their music. Self entertainment is the most superficial level, and most of the music of Beethoven and Rachmaninoff was not composed to be “enjoyed”. Both composers abhorred easy sentimentality, and rejected many of the pieces that “enjoyers” still to this day go gaga over them (e.g. the prelude in C# minor, which Rach despised).

There is far more to music then the emotional shallowness of easy entertainment. For instance, music is a language (or to put it in a more intriguing way – language is a music), and true appreciation starts with the recognition that languages exist so that we can model the world of sensations to ourselves, and then so that we can communicate our models of reality with  others.

Talking about “enjoyment” in this scenario is to debase music. Surely there is a whole universe of music whose only purpose is to be enjoyed. So, go ahead and enjoy it. But do not think for a moment that all music can be reduced to it. There are some few (very few) and precious works  - which we prize exactly for that reason – that complete transcend enjoyment and entertainment to speak to us of unfathomable things. Things that cannot be put into words, but that can be communicated through that very special music.

Sorry if I'm being harsh,

You are not being harsh. You are just missing the point.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[mephisto]

Holy molly! What hath offended thou, commoner?

Er… Classical (or Erudite so as not to confuse the style with the historical period) was never predominant in terms of the general population. Just like today, the general population hops about at the sound of pop, while erudite music, just like fine wines, remains an acquired taste that needs education and culture to be properly appreciated. In past periods, folk music, not erudite music was the preference of the peasants and burghers alike.

By the way, I would not consider Opera to be erudite music, but the pop music of the time, that ignorant bourgeois would like to flatter themselves to be superior music so that they can bask in the illusion that they have good taste

In every generation there is a small – some would say insignificant – fraction of the general population that can appreciate the highest forms of art (and I include here science). Usually they are the practitioners of the art. Patrons would like to be part of that group, but often they lack the necessary level of being. Beethoven´s music for instance could only be composed because he happened to be lucky enough to find himself surrounded by a group of very rich patrons who fancied themselves as appreciators of “difficult music”. Beethoven, of course saw through them, but he also accepted their monetary support. So, to answer your question, the taste of the general population in times past was probably as dismal as the taste of the population in more modern times. What this has to do with bathing once a year, peeing out of windows, or rotten teeth, eludes me – since a large proportion of the current human population also has rotten teeth, does not bath very often, and if they don´t pee out of windows they do pee on the kitchen sink if they come from the pub drunk enough.

“Enjoying” Rachmaninoff or Beethoven has little to do with appreciating their music. Self entertainment is the most superficial level, and most of the music of Beethoven and Rachmaninoff was not composed to be “enjoyed”. Both composers abhorred easy sentimentality, and rejected many of the pieces that “enjoyers” still to this day go gaga over them (e.g. the prelude in C# minor, which Rach despised).

There is far more to music then the emotional shallowness of easy entertainment. For instance, music is a language (or to put it in a more intriguing way – language is a music), and true appreciation starts with the recognition that languages exist so that we can model the world of sensations to ourselves, and then so that we can communicate our models of reality with  others.

Talking about “enjoyment” in this scenario is to debase music. Surely there is a whole universe of music whose only purpose is to be enjoyed. So, go ahead and enjoy it. But do not think for a moment that all music can be reduced to it. There are some few (very few) and precious works  - which we prize exactly for that reason – that complete transcend enjoyment and entertainment to speak to us of unfathomable things. Things that cannot be put into words, but that can be communicated through that very special music.

You are not being harsh. You are just missing the point.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

Legendary post.

[sergei r]

As are every one of bernhard's posts....