Whatever Happened to Classical Music?

[goldentone]

I don't know when it started, or when the process began, but sometime last century, the first third perhaps, the output of classical music compositions just died.  Classical music itself has evolved, of course, from Bach to Charles Ives, and I know there are *some* composers left (e.g. Philip Glass) but what happened?  We gather here to discuss piano, but it's as if our love for music is ensconced in a time capsule and we're always looking back to an age where this music flourished.  Is there a reason?  Am I just unaware of masterpieces composed since the 1940s?  Perhaps American culture coming into its own in the 20th century eroded the desire for classical music, exporting rock to the world, and capturing the cultural demand for it.

I would love to see a resurgence of classical music.  I am interested in your thoughts.     

[pies]

a

[mcgillcomposer]

Modern/contemporary classical has been as vibrant (if not more) as common practice classical music. 

Perhaps, but in an ever shrinking sphere that is more and more exclusive to the musical 'elite'. I wonder how many everyday Joes have heard of even the best-known modern composers: Ligeti, Stockhausen, etc.

[indutrial]

I would love to see a resurgence of classical music.  I am interested in your thoughts.      

Classical music has indeed lost relevance to the broader public but it has easily been more productive in it's own realm during the twentieth century than it ever had been before. Saying that the output of compositions dried up in the early 1900s couldn't be more wrong. This forum is not a good gauge of 'classical music' as a whole because it's mostly comprised of badly-educated monochromatic pianist losers who don't know sh*t about modern music history and overinflate the importance of music written before 1900.

You shouldn't hold your breath waiting for the public to accept classical music again any longer than you should hold your breath waiting for the public to stop eating McDonalds or driving SUVs. Sad as it is to say, classical music is an elitist field and will only reach out to the public in base ways, like if Evanescence were to do a goth version of 'Ave Maria' or some sh*t.

[indutrial]

Perhaps, but in an ever shrinking sphere that is more and more exclusive to the musical 'elite'. I wonder how many everyday Joes have heard of even the best-known modern composers: Ligeti, Stockhausen, etc.

I've never been convinced of the idea that the arts are really that 'exclusive', since no heavy financial or social boundaries really prevent people from accessing media these days, especially since the internet arrived. I just think that rock and pop music are the musical analogues to consumerism and that mass appeal leads most people to perceive that as the only music that matters. Art has never been able to mean more to the public than entertainment. Whenever an artist manages to get through to the wider public, it usually involves a thorough compromise that totally diminishes the art by "selling out." Since a lot of the best classical composers of the 20th century stand out by being true to themselves and the musicians they write for, the best classical pieces go further and further underground.

The same thing has happened with every art form, especially literature. These days, Danielle Steele and Dean Koontz sell millions of books while superbly talented writers are stuck contributing to college journals that reach a much smaller audience. That's just our planet's way. It doesn't matter how lame everything is, as long as we can still buy it.

[daniloperusina]

Let's not think that Beethoven was ever pop music, or that he sold his music in quantities anywhere near that. With the advent of recordings there was suddenly a new way to make money on music. And when popmusic sold in the tens of millions it stole away all media attention, so people don't hear about what goes on in our little arty corner of the 'industry'. Before our modern consumer culture, it used to be the 'best' that captured attention, in the crafts and in the arts. Now you are judged by how much you sell. That's how good you are. But it's not all that black and white, and this quite popular site is one proof of that!

[bob3.1415926]

I think there will never be a resurgence in baroque/classical/romantic era music. The problem here is that creativity and originality go hand in hand.

Anyone who is a creative musical genius on a par with the greats, born today, will surely want to do something new and exciting. That's the problem with creativity, it won't be happy to rehash old work. Anyone who does write baroque/classical/romantic style music, will just be a not so good version of Bach/Mozart/Beethoven, etc. They're massive shadows to live in, and there's been hundreds of genius composers writing music in these eras. There isn't avenues left for a new composer to create a distinctive 'sound' without trying something new.

During the romantic era, there wasn't anyone writing great baroque music. I think people with the real talent will always try to be original, so music will continue to change.

[counterpoint]

What happened to classical music?

It is alive even after hundreds of years and people want to hear and perform it!

What will happen to the new music of our days?

I don't know.

[bob3.1415926]

Good point, although many of the great composers weren't recognised as such until years after their death, and had no public success in their own time. (Schubert is a great example)

Who can say who'll be remembered, and who won't? I'm not brave enough to hazard a guess.

[thalbergmad]

I wonder how many everyday Joes have heard of even the best-known modern composers: Ligeti, Stockhausen, etc.

Probably none, which would also equate to how many would listen to them again after an initial introduction.

[ahinton]

Probably none, which would also equate to how many would listen to them again after an initial introduction.

But how do you suppose that this might end up? and where do you suppose it may go? Into a situation that "classical music" will eventually be forgotten altogether or that it will increasingly have to come to be seen as museum-piece art because its representative composers's works get to be farther and farther away in time from the era of those still listening to their work? What do you think about that, then?

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I have no idea how it will end up.

People are still listening to the music of Bach 300 years after it was written. I cannot imagine that the likes of Finissy will be.

Thal

[ahinton]

I have no idea how it will end up.

People are still listening to the music of Bach 300 years after it was written. I cannot imagine that the likes of Finissy will be.

Thal

What you imagine - like the way you don't spell Finnissy - is up to you, of course - and people do indeed listen to the music of God (sorry, Bach - another accidental mistyping of mine) three centuries after it was composed, but what I was seeking to ask you was how you'd feel if some cut-off point in the history of Western "classical music" were somehow to impose itself so that future generations could only listen to music from ever farther back in history. Can you imagine, for example, how people would connect to listening to the late works of Brahms as the last examples of Western "classical music", for example, at a point when those works will be, say, 600 years old?

Anyway, Finnissy is just one of tens of thousands of composers working today...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Anyway, Finnissy is just one of tens of thousands of composers working today...

I wish him a happy retirement.

Thal

[pies]

a

[thalberg]

I don't know when it started, or when the process began, but sometime last century, the first third perhaps, the output of classical music compositions just died.  Classical music itself has evolved, of course, from Bach to Charles Ives, and I know there are *some* composers left (e.g. Philip Glass) but what happened?  We gather here to discuss piano, but it's as if our love for music is ensconced in a time capsule and we're always looking back to an age where this music flourished.  Is there a reason?  Am I just unaware of masterpieces composed since the 1940s?  Perhaps American culture coming into its own in the 20th century eroded the desire for classical music, exporting rock to the world, and capturing the cultural demand for it.

I would love to see a resurgence of classical music.  I am interested in your thoughts.     

Well, we're always separated from the great things going on in our own time.  Future generations will look back with awe on many of the things musicians are doing today.  Which musicians?  In which countries?  Only time will reveal that.

What would people have said during Mozart's time?  They may have wondered if there were any geniuses around......meanwhile, Mozart just couldn't seem to find a job.  It's the same way now--we just don't have a lot of perspective yet.

But you can rest assured a much greater quantity of music is being written now than back then, and there are many more styles. 

I think what would cheer you up is to  really investigate some of the many modern composers and find some that you like.  Where do you find them?  Universities.  There's even a section in the music history textbook entitled "The University as Patron" that talks about how Universities are now providing a living for composers now that the nobility is gone and the church no longer supports composers.

[ahinton]

I wish him a happy retirement.

Thal

Then I fear that your wish, however kind in intent, will not likely be granted, for he is an extremely prolific composer who, on the strength of the sheer amount of work he has already accomplished, look set to be writing much more music over the next however many years he has left (he is now aged 61); retirement therefore seems a most improbable option...

Best,

Alistair

[indutrial]

But you can rest assured a much greater quantity of music is being written now than back then, and there are many more styles. 

Indeed. Like Thalberg pointed out, most musicians out there receive roughly the same regard as Mozart did in his own time. Even Bach, though consistently employed, was probably not as widely known as we'd like to think. His renown probably developed a lot more momentum post facto.

In the past hundred years, there have definitely been quite a few classical-ish composers, guys who solidly follow the examples of composers from the 1700s-1800s, in terms of profundity and outlook. It's tough to see, because 1.) the music world is oversaturated; 2.) the public doesn't care so the money is always tight; 3.) music students on average do not care enough and are not taught to properly appreciate music and its history; and 4.) aesthetically, those who do care in the music world have become increasingly fragmented and bipartisan between avant-gardism and conservatism. Unfortunately, many musicians get lost in the mix of that critical onslaught and loads of great composers who published things less than 50 years ago have almost nothing in print.

I'm pretty convinced that the slow and tedious death of the publishing firms and the negligence of most copyright holders and libraries are only going to make this situation more grave. I've pontificated before about how some publishing firms are essentially holding music hostage for prices that even libraries can't justify. As an active student of 20th century music, I'll be the first to say that it's probably the most difficult and costly era of music to study and attain materials for.

The publishers' reaction to their own impending obsolescence puts the ball roughly into the court of anyone who can somehow wrest control over the copyrights. It's really a shame that more lesser-known composers don't have something like Alastair's Sorabji Archive. A lot of composers' manuscript collections are buried away in library off-site warehouses, growing mildew and detiorating while Cage's and Glass's overpriced scores are popping up all over the shelves and CDsheetmusic is tiredly revolutionizing ways in which to resell public domain pieces from 200 years ago.  I recently bitched out a music librarian for having two copies of Cage's 4'33 from CF Peters (which I'm sure cost more than $10 a piece) while there were zero copies of Bartok's 4th and 5th string quartets available.

[mcgillcomposer]

I recently bitched out a music librarian for having two copies of Cage's 4'33 from CF Peters (which I'm sure cost more than $10 a piece) while there were zero copies of Bartok's 4th and 5th string quartets available.

That is really sad, especially since Cage, in terms of sheer talent and craft, is not even comparable to Bartók.

[indutrial]

That is really sad, especially since Cage, in terms of sheer talent and craft, is not even comparable to Bartók.

It's not even a question of talent or craft, but a matter of ink vs. dollars. Cage's scores are printed on enormous paper (some pages of which house 2-3 notes total and lots of empty staves) and cost a f**king ton. All six string quartets of Bartok's under one cover is about $50. I'm sure they'll get even more affordable when Universal Edition gets their talons out of Bartok's corpse and Dover can reprint them. Cage's scores must be a cash cow for C.F. Peters. Glancing at their web store, they actually sell t-shirts of the 4'33 score.  If you ask me, that's one step further into pretension for psuedo-intellectual brats who've gotten tired of wearing their Che shirts at the coffee house.

Getting back to my point, nobody should buy that f**king score because you can pretty buy a package of 500 of them for $4 at any Staples store. Strangely enough, the pack of copying paper will likely yield more artistic value over time.

[ihatepop]

I would love to see a resurgence of classical music.  I am interested in your thoughts.      

The styles of music have changed. They have evolved, and quite drastically. No one imagined we would one day be listening to music created by electricity, and vulgar words included in lyrics of a song.

'Classical' Music (if thats how you define it) is unlikely to make a comeback. Not everybody cares anymore. Of course, there is the occasional 'Baroque' revival etc., but the impact caused by them are nonequivalent to new, 'hipper' songs that appear every single day.

It's sad to see the 'old oldies' slowly vanish.

ihatepop

[indutrial]

'Classical' Music (if thats how you define it) is unlikely to make a comeback. Not everybody cares anymore. Of course, there is the occasional 'Baroque' revival etc., but the impact caused by them are nonequivalent to new, 'hipper' songs that appear every single day.

Though they don't get much reputation in the recording world, there are composers like David Loeb (b. 1939) who takes a very classical approach to composing contemporary repertoire. Loeb's written hundreds of works for solo instruments and chamber settings. Like Hovhaness, Loeb draws heavily off folk musics from all over the world (including tons of material and methods from Asia). This is not to say that anything he's done evinces a throw-back to the harmonies and counterpoints of the 1700s, but the approach to composition is very similar to the instrumental output of guys like Bach.

There are plenty of great composers who you barely hear about who take a similarly industrious approach to their music, including composers like Leo Kraft, Michael Cunningham, Jan Van Dijk, Nancy Van de Vate. I feel like composers of this sort are an increasingly dying breed, but it's hard to tell because there aren't many publishing houses that make it easy to find out what the hell younger composers are even doing these days. From what I've seen, the composing world seems to be oversaturated with 20-30 year old "geniuses" out there who are overly drunk on avant-garde ideas and seem content to produce nothing but esoteric b.s. that few will ever hear.

[mcgillcomposer]

It's not even a question of talent or craft, but a matter of ink vs. dollars. Cage's scores are printed on enormous paper (some pages of which house 2-3 notes total and lots of empty staves) and cost a f**king ton. All six string quartets of Bartok's under one cover is about $50. I'm sure they'll get even more affordable when Universal Edition gets their talons out of Bartok's corpse and Dover can reprint them. Cage's scores must be a cash cow for C.F. Peters. Glancing at their web store, they actually sell t-shirts of the 4'33 score.  If you ask me, that's one step further into pretension for psuedo-intellectual brats who've gotten tired of wearing their Che shirts at the coffee house.

Getting back to my point, nobody should buy that f**king score because you can pretty buy a package of 500 of them for $4 at any Staples store. Strangely enough, the pack of copying paper will likely yield more artistic value over time.

Haha - I understand that your original point was a question of ink versus dollars. I was just adding that, as a composer, I can learn a lot more from a Bartók string quartet than pretty much anything Cage wrote. The only thing I like about him is his incredibly homosexual sounding voice; it amuses me.

[mcgillcomposer]

This is a sonata for clarinet and piano by Canadian composer Michel Edward. I think this may fall into the category of 'classical' music that the creater of this thread is after. The forms refer more to the Baroque, and the method of composition reflects a solidity of craft characteristic of the great composers of the European tradition.

https://dosblanc.ca/music/clarinet_sonata/clarinet_sonata_2.mp3

The outer movements are also available on his website @ https://dosblanc.ca/music

[soliloquy]

...and I know there are *some* composers left (e.g. Philip Glass) but what happened?  ... Am I just unaware of masterpieces composed since the 1940s?    

uhhhhhh

[mcgillcomposer]

uhhhhhh

oyyyyyy

[danny elfboy]

I don't know when it started, or when the process began, but sometime last century, the first third perhaps, the output of classical music compositions just died.  Classical music itself has evolved, of course, from Bach to Charles Ives, and I know there are *some* composers left (e.g. Philip Glass) but what happened?  We gather here to discuss piano, but it's as if our love for music is ensconced in a time capsule and we're always looking back to an age where this music flourished.  Is there a reason?  Am I just unaware of masterpieces composed since the 1940s?  Perhaps American culture coming into its own in the 20th century eroded the desire for classical music, exporting rock to the world, and capturing the cultural demand for it.

I would love to see a resurgence of classical music.  I am interested in your thoughts.      

First of all consider that the term "classical music" means nothing.
Music is music and the difference between the music created in a garage by a band and created in an accademy by a composer is just contextual.

So maybe you're talking about melodic music or instrumental melodic music or form-music (sonata, rondo, fantasia, concerto ...) or tone poem or symphonic incidental music.

That being said it's very flawed and simplistic to claim that people listen to varied genre of music because they're ignorant and stupid and that if they were smart they would listen accademic music. In fact it's very flawed to claim that accademic music is in any way a better or higher music.

No serious musicologist underestimates the huge important of popular music in the 900.
The evolution of our society and its political aspects is way more tied to popular music than to anything accademists have produced. There are big tomes in dozen of volumes just to analyze the importance of black music, of dancing music of the 40's, of country and the social ballads of the war time.

Another important aspect of music is that music has always and will always be an aggregative and social mean. Music exists as a way to tie people together and even for example the tradition of christian music is based on creating aggregation in like-minded religious people.

Add to that that music doesn't really evolve.
The difference in genres and styles is not like the difference between latin and italian, where italian is the evolution of an oudated latin, but more like the difference between animation and comics where the creation of animation stands on its own as "one of many" artistic means and not as an evolution of comics making them absolete and old.
The famous philosopher Carl Popper has written many treatises about the flaws in our understanding of time. What he stated is that in sociality and its products (like music, art, morality, laws, politics) there's no evolutionary straight line going from less evolved to more evolved but a circumstantial spectrum of contexts existing on their own and cycling.
That's is: history doesn't follow any kind of evolution.
In music this is even more straightforward since we're not dealing with standards changing and making old stardards absolete, but we're dealing with "tools" to communicate with this emotional and unintellectual mean called music.

So music doesn't proceed by stilistic novelty but by social contexts and individual creativity.
So you have a composer who has a predisposition for expressing emotions and ideas through the musical mean, which looks in this "box of tolls"and with those create what he/she feels creating which is clearly likely to be subconciously influenced by the social context in which he/she lives.

No honest composer composes with the goal of "creating new musical standards" or "advancing the theories of harmony". Those are nothing but collateral consequences which the compose himself/herself doesn't deal with and they're are not NECESSARY at all to create beautiful music that impact the lives of many people. No, a composer goal is to release his/her creative tension by "speaking through music".

So from this you can see that the kind of music you're talking about depends more on the social and cultural context and not on the theorical timeline. Because the truth is that the work of the theorist is not what makes music just like the knife is not what makes the dish.
Music resides somewhere else in the intention, spirit and emotive and creative core of the musician, the means of music (notes, parallel seventh, harmony, rests, poliphony, minimalism, chords, progressions, modulation ...) are nothing but cold impersonal timeless tools.

Talking about the social context you need to analyze the 900 well to understand what happened to music. Consider the depression years, where whatever person picking up veggies from an orchard had a task way more important that whatever accademist and when accademism was the prerogative of the wealthy, you can see how created a fracture between the ivory tower world of accademies and the real world of people.

Since the places of aggregation changed (from the theater, halls, cameras to the squares, fairs, dancing hall and political stands) the music that could be performed in those setting changed too. The living conditions changed and people were less likely to live in houses with pianos. The renting and flats economy changed more portable instruments became the norm for the cultural music of the 50's. Then came the black music, a strong life affirming music created by a group of discriminated people who nonetheless used music as a way to transmit hope rather than a way to ruminate about the negative aspect of the world.
People also were slowly breaking free from a tradition of norms and etiquettes whose only meaning was creating power division and were trying to get in touch again with a more instinctive side of their being. So all the dancing, rioting and simple music found a very good fertile terrain for this.

There's way more to this but you have to realize that not much changed.
Music (and popular music too) has been dealing with the social and cultural context in the same way that Debussy or Beethoven did. Many composers would be dealing with popular music if they were alive, because they knew that what matters is what YOU have to say, not what way you use to say it. Those composers chose the way according to the context they lived in, often looking for the most prolific one which is what they would nowadays.

Think about the difference between living in a world without radios versus a world with radios, think about the difference between living in a world where the social struggles between the very rich that can listen to music and the very poor who hardly have enough bread to keep their children alive versus a world were even the lower classes can afford lps, cds, tapes, think about the difference between a living in a world were citizens still lack the right to influence the politics versus a world were politicians are like social workers hired by every citizens, think about the difference between a world were not many can afford the teather versus a world were tickects for concerts are affordable, think about the difference between a world which has been free from the huge social rioting of black people emancipation, women emancipation, students emancipation, anti-war rebellion and a world after all of this has happed, this about the difference between a world where music can'tbe easily recorded and distributed versus a world where everyone can listen to the same piece over and over, think about a world where the teather is the most comfortable way to play live music and where outdoor performance were rare and and hard to organize versus a word were the portability of music has increased massively ...

... and so on. We have also to realize that many things we have been doing in classical time doesn't depend on will but on necessity. For example certain writing forms were created to accomodate the lack of mass printing of nowadays. If Mozart were alive nowadays he would have used radios, midi, synths, music-notation software, concerts and what not.

The bottom line is that we're accumulated tools that we can use to better express through music what we feel and have to say. We have also developed means of distribution that allows someone in Finland to easily get the CDs of a small group of local singers of Tanzania.

Now it's just time to stop focusing on form, theory, harmony, musical evolution that doesn't exist by its very nature and just make music in the most total freedom we have ever had knowing that it's easy nowadays to reach the people that would appreciate what we have the say with our music and that all music with an honest creative intention behind it needs to be respected and that there's no objective criteria for what is better or worse for what is more worthy to be listened and what not. We need way less pretentious accademism and technicalism nowadays (a moment in time in which we're turning into predictable robots and alienating ourselves from other people and genuine humna contacts) and way more genuine human humble creative crafts which can genuinely make people laugh, cry, think and doubt ... even if just for a night.

[webern78]

The same thing that happened to western civilization has a whole: decadence.

This is the future of classical music:

Just get used to it (or kill yourself, works the same). 

[lostinidlewonder]

Also note that Classical music is really only a small period of the worlds musical history. I would feel bad if it lasted forever, music has to progress and change.

[indutrial]

In response to your painfully long speeches, I would rather listen to people talk about theory, harmony, counterpoint, or anything academic rather than read any more pages of your sulky, overdramatic dollops of anti-intellectual pap. If every musician adopted your point of view, very little would be interesting about music. There's always a push and pull between the intellectual side of music and the natural and inexplicable side you call freedom.

I understand the value of total freedom, but there are always limits. I've met free-improv musicians who rely way too heavily on following their feelings and after a while it seems like a bit of a self-indulgent cop-out. The best example I can think of is John Zorn, whose saxophone improvs are very hit or miss. Sometimes, I feel like he's just treading water by repeatedly assailing the listener with the squawks and squeaks. In a way, the total subtraction of intellecuality can turn into a worse form of cerebral limitation.

Besides, a lot of the anti-intellectual pissers and moaners I've dealt with are bitter musicians who can't live with the fact that they can't immediately understand everything they encounter. I've worked with assholes who decide that it's easier to hate on composers like Wuorinen, Carter or Finnissy because their pieces can't be studied or listened to with the same ease (and comfort level) as a Bach prelude or a jazz standard. I'm not accusing you or anyone here of that, but I will say that it's starting to reek heavily of the same b.s. around here.

[dnephi]

Please don't swear.  It only detracts from your image and your argument.

[retrouvailles]

Please don't swear.  It only detracts from your image and your argument.

That is just one's personal interpretation. I believe that swearing enhances the intensity and seriousness of one's argument and doesn't necessarily detract from one's image.

[houseofblackleaves]

This is the huge misconception that so many people have of what classical music is.

Nowadays, artists are always looking for ways to create, evolve, and ultimately embrace new art within it's respective forms.  Visual art is always being reeled out on film, drawn, painted, and printed, distributed, appreciated.  The same goes for writing.  New books, novels, magazines, and other forms of writing are allowed to evolve and prosper because people aren't afraid to embrace these new things.

This cannot be said about classical music.  It however, can be said for the mainstream.

Why is it that people are so afraid to embrace new classical music?

In the present, there are many things that contribute to this misconceived idea that society has about "classical music."  Even from within circles of alleged enthusiasts, performers, and even composers.  First, is that "music" in the mainstream is a different art from music that is considered "classical."  It really is.  There really are two kinds of music in the world now.  The reason is because the core concept of mainstream music and the philosophy behind it is completely different.  Ever since the birth of this kind of music, "classical-inclined" people have  spent too much time refusing to accept it as such and therefore neglecting their own art form.

Another thing that contributes to the problem is Europe.

When people ask you what kind of music you play, and you answer classical, people will say, "Oh, that fancy, relaxing, pleasant intellectual stuff."  And that really is the conception that some people have.

I wouldn't call say, Scarbo, a relaxing, pleasant piece of music.  Let alone most of Rzewski, Xenakis, Finessy, Sorabji, Vine etc.

A while ago, I was sitting at my desk at school looking through a few books of Kurtag's Jatekok.  A friend of mine (not musically inclined) came up to me and asked what it was I was looking at.  I explained what it was and what Kurtags concept for composing Jatekok was, that the big scribbly circles meant clusters, what clusters were etc.  He then told me "Cool.  That's a really neat idea."  He used the term "experimental music."  He than stated that it was like breathing new life into a stale art form.  I asked him what he meant, and he explained how classical music is seen as boring by the eyes of society now because people simply found the practice to be boring.

So many people who fall under the category of "classical musicians" aren't nurturing classical music.  People are simply neglecting the practice of embracing what is being composed now, and performing/recording it so it gets recognition.  Classical music isn't Rachmaninov, Brahms, Liszt, Chopin, and certainly not Beethoven, Mozart or Bach anymore.  Acknowledging only these composers and these styles of music is like an artist only acknowledging Victorian style portraits, or a writer only allowing himself to embrace Shakespeare.

It is people like this, who are ultimately contributing to the decay of the practice of classical music.  Yes, it is difficult for such an art form to stay strong in todays society and stand the test of time.  But what do people do to keep it alive?

Oh, I'll play a recital of some selections from Bach's WTC or his french overture, then maybe a fantasy by Mozart or a sonata or variations by Haydn or Beethoven.  Then I think I'll play the Chopin F-minor Fantasie, maybe a taste of Rachmaninov, then close with Islamey, Pictures at an Exhibition, Gaspard etc romantic warhorse.  Then next week, I'm thinking of performing Tchaikovsky's second or Prokofiev's third concerto, along with one of Ravel's or Greig or Schumann.

People are so caught up in the practice of worshiping this kind of music.  It is completely just, and there is definite plausible reasoning for people to really appreciate this music, fine.  But then what does focusing on these things help the evolution of our art form?  Let alone make a comeback!  We're depriving classical music of what keeps art alive - interest.

So say that Synaphai or Winnesboro Cotton Mill Blues isn't classical music.  Okay, fine.  Now what?  You expect Rzewski to start composing like Schubert?  Or Corigliano like Vivaldi?

Nope.

And if you want to get all technical, the deterioration of traditional "classical" practice can be traced back to Brahms.  The majority of piano/etc music before that time was composed with some sort of connection to God or religious practice of some kind.  But it's when the composer assumed the position of God, the all knowing/seeing properer, bringing of musical perfection, that classical music lost it's grounding and consistency.  Scriabin is another example.

You can't blame the rest of the world for the deterioration of your art form when you, yourself are neglecting it.  What I don't understand is why people are taught not to like and appreciate "modern" music. 

Especially classical musicians.

As Corigliano put it;

"You must understand the importance of the past, but if you don't realize the importance of the present and the future, you don't nourish that — and our art form does not — then it's like a tree that grows no new shoots. Without new shoots the tree dies."

Bach and Palestrina didn't compose expecting their music to be heralded
throughout the centuries, they were just composing for the Sunday service.  There was a time where C.P.E. Bach and Haydn were considered daring and terribly experimental.  Liszt said that you weren't able to tell if Chopin was making mistakes or not when he was playing, or if the notes were simply random/improved.  Even as recent as this century, Prokofiev's second piano concerto was considered trash, people exclaimed that "the cat's on the roof make better music!"  Then, no one saw the beauty that is seen in the piece now.  And to think that who knows how many composers of this caliber (and possibly higher!) have been neglected, scores burned, or locked in a central library in god knows where?

Who knew about Alkan or Kapustin before Hamelin decided to perform their works?

As classical musicians, we should be able to really appreciate lots of the work that is being done right now in the world of what are music has become.  Now it's so difficult to get Schirmer to print a single new work.  And there are more young composers than ever in the world actively composing!  And like all things, most are bad, some are brilliant.  Why can't we give these works any attention, or even a single performance instead of banging our way through yet another performance of the Mephisto Waltz?  Now even within the educational curriculum in many top notch universities barely touch on what is being composed today in their so-called "Music Appreciation" classes.  And now experienced musicians sit there for hundreds of hours hearing the same lecture on the evolution of the sonata form through Scarlatti, Beethoven etc, but never touch on works composed in the sonata form within the last 50 years.  Yes, people may not like it at first.  People may not accept it, and they don't have to.   People who want to understand classical music must embrace it.  People who expect classical music to stay alive will have to accept it.  And to those who want to keep it alive, sure as hell must be an active part of it.

[general disarray]

I still haven't read here a satisfying definition of "classical" music. 

Perhaps it's like pornography:  you can't define it, but you surely know when you encounter it.  And, it's subjective, isn't it?  What's not pornographic to me, may be pornographic to a fundamentalist.

Basically, don't we regard music as "classical" when it rests on a foundation built by the art of skilled composers who lived before us -- and left music that endures because it is memorable?  Because this music is memorable (and probably beautiful), we wish to replicate it or elaborate upon it?  Doesn't this then give us a tradition?  One that is universally recognized as art?  Therefore, "classical?"

So, it would seem that the creation of "classical" music depends upon education.  Not only for the creators, but for the audience. 

It's this way for other art forms.  Take theater.  Television sit-coms are theater, certainly, but they don't rival Shakespeare or Ibsen or Mamet or Stoppard.  Yet, uneducated audiences find most "classical" theater boring.  Look at Broadway.  Disney rules.  Isn't this the result of inferior education?

In the United States, funding for arts education is at an all-time low.  Most public schools offer no courses in music or art appreciation.  The tradition is dying because it is not being passed on. 

"Classical" music is regarded by most middle-class citizens in Western countries as a completely alien thing.  Because of poor education, anti-intellectualism has replaced enlightenment and "classical" culture is derided as elitist.

Composers such as Schoenberg didn't help the cause.  The radical shift from a centuries-old harmonic vocabulary destroyed much of the audience.  Only universities and academics embraced the twelve-tone system.  The rank-and-file understandably had difficulty accepting music that no longer was melodious.  The further politicization of the twelve-tone system (symbolizing the rejection of fascism and Nazism) only gave it political correctness.  Composers, like Strauss, were considered "decadent."  The rest is history.  Tonal composers throughout the 1950s and 60s, like Samuel Barber found it impossible to win critical acceptance, even as audiences warmed to their works.  Eventually, the critics won.  Barber was silenced.

Because critics have won, because education has faltered, because pianos have been replaced by the passive experience of radios and stereophonic equipment, "classical" music seems as if it's a dying art.

But it isn't.

The times just suck. 

I still practice.  Don't you?

[indutrial]

Composers such as Schoenberg didn't help the cause.  The radical shift from a centuries-old harmonic vocabulary destroyed much of the audience.  Only universities and academics embraced the twelve-tone system.  The rank-and-file understandably had difficulty accepting music that no longer was melodious.

Yes, but was the cause you speak of really the point. Music's development in the 20th century strided at a pace no different than the rates of change that affected visual art and literature. You can't blame dodecaphonic composers for classical music's waning popularity any more than you can blame an experimental writer for literature's degeneration into popular fiction. The audience members are the one who abandoned the arts to listen to Elvis Presley and read Dan Brown. It is entirely the fault of society that entertainment is #1 because people are weak, hedonistic losers whose free will is shown to them every night on TV. It is not any composer's job to suck up to this weakness, which is why a composer like Philip Glass is so despiccable.

The general public's views on classical music have been meaningless as far as time can remember. Let's not forget that the premier of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring caused riots and fistfights among the Joe Publics who attended the premiere and that the composer himself was brought to tears at how horrible everyone behaved. Yet these days, everyone loves that piece because it's part of Disney's Fantasia. That might be one of the most recent classical works to grab a ton of public attention, and it was written before WWI.

[webern78]

Why is it that people are so afraid to embrace new classical music?

Because there is no such thing as 'new' classical music. Since it's inception, western art has always relied on the classical ideal, the ideal that all art must imitate nature. This ideal isn't merely an arbitrary aesthetic principle developed since the times of classical Greece, it's a reflection of certain universal ideas that define human expression in it's purest essence.

The primitivist creed that took hold of western philosophy beginning with the 19th century, with it's emphasis on 'individuality', 'creativity' and 'originality' is a step backward from the purity inherent in pursue for form and perfection. It places music directly in the realms of raw physical stimulation rather then it's rightful place as a manifestation of universal truth, as in all other forms of art.

Here's an article explaining in simple terms the principle of classical art:

https://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboard/shop/batewj/class.htm

Glenn Gould was once quoted saying that "the purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but rather the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity". I've never been too keen to Gould extravagant eccentricity but i think he hits the nail right on the head in this particular instance.

The true great composers of our tradition (as opposed to all the second rate hacks that have resurfaced in the name of 'diversity') have been those who came nearer to the classical ideal, regardless of idiom or style, which is why there is in truth very little difference in the artistic aims pursued by as diverse figures as Josquin Des Prez, Bach or Anton Webern.

Unfortunately, starting with the turn of the century (though the change begun to really take effect during the 60s) the classical ideal has been under constant attack by those who pushed futile exercises in intellectual masturbation, rampant relativism and the constant search for cheap 'excitement' over the search for perfection and the objective truth of artistic expression.

The result is a completely decadent art that can only survive by thriving on the lowest and basest craving for constant novelty and sensationalism. Charlatans rake attention by devolving the rules of construction through pointless exercises in semantics, and people now raised under the banner of permissiveness and immaturity are lured by such cheap antics with ease.

There is no such thing as classical music because modernism is constantly seeking to 'free' itself from the 'yoke' of tradition and lead a new 'revolution' towards the eventual dissolution of the very values and ideals that allowed 'classical' art to exist in the first place. It's not by chance that so many movements in contemporary arts share so many traits with groups like the dadaists, who's aims was the destruction of western art in the first place (you know, to pave way for a socialist utopia that never happen).

Barring a few exceptions, most of the major works of art produced by our civilization, whether we are talking about music, literature or any of the figurative arts have met their end around before WWI. We've been devolving both as a culture as well as a civilization ever since.

[danny elfboy]

In response to your painfully long speeches, I would rather listen to people talk about theory, harmony, counterpoint, or anything academic rather than read any more pages of your sulky, overdramatic dollops of anti-intellectual pap. If every musician adopted your point of view, very little would be interesting about music. There's always a push and pull between the intellectual side of music and the natural and inexplicable side you call freedom.

Why don't you create your own forum for mental masturbators and free us from your ugly presence? You're being hostile without a reason and attacking me for stating my opinions without being insulting or derogatory with anyone or any art form. You sound like a no-humane, presuntious, violent, discriminative, sad, confused, lonely little meaningless person. You have been insulting lot of people claiming that so much of what is written on this board is b.s (and no mistake, only what doesn't agree strictly with your own opinion is b.s.) You have no right to come here and insult everyone for having different standards from your creepy ones. You're a pathetic sad individual with a hideous ego. You should apologize with everyone, leave this forum for good and learn to look in the mirror and realize that probably you're way worse as a person and activist than the people you love to insult.

And by the way the people that don't agree with your ridicolous and simplistic views and platitudes will keep stating their opinion, whether you like it or not cause you're meaningless and no one gives a *** whether you agree or what pseudointellectual nonsense you have to share with the few people who are still interested in reading the posts of someone who loves himself and hates the rest of the world. You should stay a dozen of miles away not only from anything remotely musical but also from anything remotely human.

Other people have told you that you're a pathetic frustrated loser to which you responded that you don't care about this forum. So why don't stop posting your sh*t here and focus on your useless office work and while you're at it shut yourself in your office and stop bothering other sane human beings? 

And you have no intellect, your very aggressive and neurotic nature defies the existence of any sort of intellectual potential in you except from cut-and-paste stuff from Adorno's websites. So please stop talking about "intellectual sides" as if you knew what you're talking about.

[danny elfboy]

Yes, but was the cause you speak of really the point. Music's development in the 20th century strided at a pace no different than the rates of change that affected visual art and literature. You can't blame dodecaphonic composers for classical music's waning popularity any more than you can blame an experimental writer for literature's degeneration into popular fiction. The audience members are the one who abandoned the arts to listen to Elvis Presley and read Dan Brown. It is entirely the fault of society that entertainment is #1 because people are weak, hedonistic losers

How sick must be the mind of a person to claim everyone in society is weak and a loser except of course himself and his God nature?! You have serious issues and you sound like a dangerous psychotic individual. You have no *** right to judge what people find fulfilling and interesting and spew sh*t against everyone, daring to call huge groups of people jerks, empty-headed, dull, weak, losers, jerkers, insulting everyone's artistic efforts, people tastes and emotions you inhumane useless piece of sh*t!

[anodibu]

Why don't you create your own forum for mental masturbators and free us from your ugly presence? You're being hostile without a reason and attacking me for stating my opinions without being insulting or derogatory with anyone or any art form. You sound like a no-humane, presuntious, violent, discriminative, sad, confused, lonely little meaningless person. You have been insulting lot of people claiming that so much of what is written on this board is b.s (and no mistake, only what doesn't agree strictly with your own opinion is b.s.) You have no right to come here and insult everyone for having different standards from your creepy ones. You're a pathetic sad individual with a hideous ego. You should apologize with everyone, leave this forum for good and learn to look in the mirror and realize that probably you're way worse as a person and activist than the people you love to insult.

And by the way the people that don't agree with your ridicolous and simplistic views and platitudes will keep stating their opinion, whether you like it or not cause you're meaningless and no one gives a *** whether you agree or what pseudointellectual nonsense you have to share with the few people who are still interested in reading the posts of someone who loves himself and hates the rest of the world. You should stay a dozen of miles away not only from anything remotely musical but also from anything remotely human.

And you have no intellect, your very aggressive and neurotic nature defies the existence of any sort of intellectual potential in you except from cut-and-paste stuff from Adorno's websites. So please stop talking about "intellectual sides" as if you knew what you're talking about.

Aww danny elfboy's ego has been hurt...

[anodibu]

Barring a few exceptions, most of the major works of art produced by our civilization, whether we are talking about music, literature or any of the figurative arts have met their end around before WWI. We've been devolving both as a culture as well as a civilization ever since.

Thanks for the laugh!

[danny elfboy]

Aww danny elfboy's ego has been hurt...

I don't care about my ego, I care about all the people that are being indirectly insulted by this scum of a man. People that are better human beings than he is, even though they don't follow his standard (or maybe BECAUSE they don't follow his standards)

[general disarray]

Yes, but was the cause you speak of really the point. Music's development in the 20th century strided at a pace no different than the rates of change that affected visual art and literature. You can't blame dodecaphonic composers for classical music's waning popularity any more than you can blame an experimental writer for literature's degeneration into popular fiction. The audience members are the one who abandoned the arts to listen to Elvis Presley and read Dan Brown.

I agree with you.  But anyone who studied composition formally in most universities beginning in the 1950s was compelled to abandon tonality for the dodecaphonic techniques.  Many of my teachers have told me about this pressure to conform in their student days.

And, incidentally, I don't think you mean to equate "tonal music" with "popular fiction." 

And I'm not disagreeing with you about the ignorance and laziness of audiences.  I'm simply stating that modern compositional techniques were demanded of composers in academia and elsewhere beginning in the late 1940s, leaving audiences, for the most part, baffled and alienated.  At the same time, music education began its gradual decline and audiences became even more clueless.     

It's also no secret that people like Boulez literally institutionalized this conformity to so-called "modernity" through the dispensing of grants to composers in France:  "Compose they way we want you to compose, and you'll be supported financially."  He is an enormously powerful musician who has had a huge effect on the destinies of many composers.  And none of his proteges that I know of employs conventional, tonal techniques.

So, at the highest levels, music that the masses could not understand was being promoted.

I'm not excusing the laziness of most humans to educate themselves about the new and unfamiliar.  Most humans run from the new.  That's why arts education is so important.  And that type of education does not exist anymore -- at least in America -- except in the most elite private schools.

And, finally, I don't blame poor Schoenberg for this politicized outcome.  Personally, I love his music.     

[general disarray]

Because there is no such thing as 'new' classical music. Since it's inception, western art has always relied on the classical ideal, the ideal that all art must imitate nature. This ideal isn't merely an arbitrary aesthetic principle developed since the times of classical Greece, it's a reflection of certain universal ideas that define human expression in it's purest essence.

The primitivist creed that took hold of western philosophy beginning with the 19th century, with it's emphasis on 'individuality', 'creativity' and 'originality' is a step backward from the purity inherent in pursue for form and perfection. It places music directly in the realms of raw physical stimulation rather then it's rightful place as a manifestation of universal truth, as in all other forms of art.

Glenn Gould was once quoted saying that "the purpose of art is not the release of a momentary ejection of adrenaline but rather the gradual, lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity". I've never been too keen to Gould extravagant eccentricity but i think he hits the nail right on the head in this particular instance.

The true great composers of our tradition (as opposed to all the second rate hacks that have resurfaced in the name of 'diversity') have been those who came nearer to the classical ideal, regardless of idiom or style, which is why there is in truth very little difference in the artistic aims pursued by as diverse figures as Josquin Des Prez, Bach or Anton Webern.

I think this discussion of the "classical ideal" is right on target.  And it's a fine point of reference to examine the meaning of the phrase "classical music."

Yes, 19th century Romanticism, with its emphasis on egotism and narcissism, initiated the move from the classical ideal.  But, the Romantic tonal palette has always been capable of expressing the classical.  Brahms proved that time and again. 

So, too, can 12-tone sytems and other advanced techniques evoke the classical ideal.

But an educated audience is lacking. 

That, to me, is the reason why "classical music" has fallen on sad times.

[danny elfboy]

But an educated audience is lacking. 

Whatever art that needs its audience to be "educated" in order to "understand" it has already failed. It's the work of the artist to use complex means in a way that the end result can be "felt" by everyone. To aspect the audience to be educated on the musical techniques, history, harmonical principles and what not in order to appreciate a piece of music is absolutely ridicolous and the opposite of what art stands for. Besides especially music which is not a literal language in which each sound rapresents an universal meaning but an emotional language in which each sound rapresents something different to each listener, can't be "understood".
There's nothing to understand and "understanding" is not what the audience requires, since music can be only felt. And even if an analysis of the score can be thrilling and eye-opening for a music theorist or performer, it is absolutely meaningless and irrelevant when you're a listener sitting in a teather hall and letting music speaks to you.

[general disarray]

Whatever art that needs its audience to be "educated" in order to "understand" it has already failed. It's the work of the artist to use complex means in a way that the end result can be "felt" by everyone.

Yes, of course, but "feeling" this end result is not always immediate.  How many listenings does it take to thoroughly appreciate a work such as "The Goldberg Variations" or the Prokofiev "War Sonatas"?  As a kid, I remember thinking they were only bangy keyboard disasters.  Multiple listenings and a little bit of study changed all of that for me. 

Popular music is designed to be immediately appealing.  That's its goal and a very commercial one it is.  I'm not devaluing it, just explaining its aims.  This is the kind of music most people listen to and they acquire a habit of impatience with anything that does not gratify them immediately.

"Classical" music has greater aims than instant gratification.  Its formal and harmonic elements are more complex.  The listener is asked to go on a journey that does not contain a couple of flat, monochromatic vistas.  Therefore, one outing is often not sufficient.  There is too much to "see" for just one outing.  Classical music demands repeated listenings and few casual music-lovers know this.  Therefore, their first and only hearings leaves them bored and baffled.

By education, then, I simply mean the modest goal of exposing this music to young people and explaining to them that what they are about to hear will require a little patience.  Repetition. The classical composer is asking audiences to give him or her a second and third chance.

This type of education is almost non-existent in America, at least.

We live in a culture of instant gratification.  Don't know the answer?  Google it.  Not so long ago, you had to visit a library.  We want it all NOW and, for the most part, get it.  That's not necessarily a virtue at all times. 

Just educate people to the fact that much beauty is not always evident on just one hearing.

[danny elfboy]

Yes, of course, but "feeling" this end result is not always immediate.  How many listenings does it take to thoroughly appreciate a work such as "The Goldberg Variations" or the Prokofiev "War Sonatas"?  As a kid, I remember thinking they were only bangy keyboard disasters.  Multiple listenings and a little bit of study changed all of that for me. 

Popular music is designed to be immediately appealing.  That's its goal and a very commercial one it is.

I can't agree with this, cause even accademic music needed to be immediately appealing since "dozens listenings" just were not  possible before the LP and radio was invented.
So in a way listening over and over to something and going from not-liking it to liking it is actually cheating, and indeed there are even studies that prove this point by demonstrating how the brain tends to like sounds that have become familiar through repeated listenings. Even better if you listen to something a couple of times, forget about it, and then listen it again as if new months or years later. The brain just loves the kind of ambiguous familiarity to the sounds yet experienced as if it was a new listening. The sound of a pneomatic drill is a unbereable noise, keep listening to it and it becomes even pleasant.

Accademic music is designed for a lot of reasons. If you study the history of the post war accademic music you'll see that especially in italy and france there were lot of economical interests between the accademies and the record labels and lot of music in those period was created just for commercial values (even if it didn't work, but that was the intent)
Some accademic music is just dishonestly designed carefully to shock and other accademic music exists just as a showing off mean. Other accademic music could be defined propaganda music, since it is created as the byproduct of certain political and social ideologies. Of course there's also accademic/"classical" music that is designed for greater aims than instant gratification, but this is not a prerogative of accademic/"classical" music.

The same reasons including the last one are found on popular music. There's just no objective and universal concrete dermarcation between "classical" music and popular music, the difference is in the honesty and intention of the author and you can find dishonest "cheap" (so to speak) music in whatever genre, style, social class, and musical background, environment.

By education, then, I simply mean the modest goal of exposing this music to young people and explaining to them that what they are about to hear will require a little patience.  Repetition. The classical composer is asking audiences to give him or her a second and third chance.

Actually no. "Classical" music has always been designed to be an emotion of the moment and the way people "consumed" classical music in their time and social context is not that different from the way we "consume" music nowadays. It was just a matter of the context.
Even modern composers like Bartok knew that the most important characteristic of music is catchiness, too bad snob accademic musician nowadays are disgusted by this word but it is just the truth and there's nothing bad about it, it's the very nature of sound and the way our brain and ear perceive it. (not saying anything about out "spirit" cause it's too subjective)

You could make an argument about "classical" music being designed to be listened carefully, peacefully with calm and not "on the go" but actually even lot of popular music is designed in that way and aimed at people who don't want to live the modern rat-race way of life.

Not to mention that if you look at the way lot of classical listeners listen to a classical performance, you can say that they're not difference from any casual consumer of "cheap" music. Their sterneness, stilness, impassivity, apathy ... you can say that lot of them are there just because of a status-quo matter or to show off their jackets and ties; they look like mummies who are listening to the music as if they were reading an algebra book rather than people being really transfixed with the beauty and meaning of the music. A night at the opera (so to speak) looks like the night of the living deads.

So I will keep saying that everything is relative.
Going to a good conservatory doesn't make you a good musician.
Being a musician doesn't make you someone who can really feel music.
Listening to classical music doesn't make a more insightful, meditative, calm person or more able to understand the beauty of art.
Being an accademic/"classical" composer doesn't make you someone who can better understand the depth of music or someone whose music is designed to speak to your soul.
Being a popular musician doesn't make you someone who has less musical depth and knowledge or whose music is just designed to make money or appeal superficially.
Being an accademic/"classical" composer doesn't mean you're not trying to superificially appeal a different kind of masses.
Being an accademic/"classical" composer doesn't mean that everything music is to you is power and money (within the accademic quarters)

In other words people will be people.
School doesn't make who you are, the music you listen doesn't make who you are, the label you choose to conform to doesn't make who you are, the kind of music you choose to compose doesn't make who you are, the way you "consume" music doesn't make who you are.

There's as much superficiality, shallowness, material interests, power games and lack of profound insight in "classical" music and its composers/followers as there's in popular music.

[rc]

A night at the opera (so to speak) looks like the night of the living deads.

Me and a friend got a kick out of making zombie noises during intermission...  I don't know or care if everyone was enjoying the music, but there sure were a lot of critically OLD people there (I think one guy next to me might have been totally deaf), and they walked so slowly up the steps we couldn't help but feel we were in a zombie flick   I swear some looked like they wanted to eat our brains.

Anyways I agree that there should be some basic accessibility for the common listener.  The best music doesn't just sound appealing on first listen but also on closer inspection is masterfully constructed in every way.

I wouldn't emphasize repeated listening so much as paying attention, the more attention paid in listening the more of the juicy goodness you catch.  But also understand that people aren't perfect and aren't always in a receptive state of mind.  I think performers could do more to help average people enjoy the music.  I believe that any great piece of music can be enjoyed on first listen by anyone (with a good performance, receptive state of mind, no distractions...)

[retrouvailles]

Where is Alistair Hinton when we need him? If there is one person in this thread who knows about the future of classical music, it's him. And besides, we could use another 100 page rant in here.

[general disarray]

Well. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on quite a few points, danny.

As for your "unavailability of repetition" notion before the advent of recording technology, you are wrong here.  The piano was the "stereo" of its day.  Most middle-class households had one.  Or two. And other members of the household routinely played other instruments.

During the 19th century, with the rise of the middle class, piano transcriptions of new works by composers were routinely prepared and published.  Liszt, Brahms, as you know, were great transcribers and the great orchestral and chamber works of the time were made available to music lovers in piano transcriptions.

Through these transcriptions, people could and did experience repeated listenings to gain a greater love of complex works, such as the Brahms' Piano Quintet, the Beethoven symphonies, etc., etc.

And it was a universal given in the mid to late 19th century that music education was indispensable to perform on instruments.  So repetition indeed was available before recording technology.

I think it is idealistic to assume that art should be instantly accessible and attractive if it is truly art. That no education is necessary and, if it should be, then the work in question is overly complex and cerebral and, therefore, not worthy of study.

I agree that immediately appealing music IS a virtue and should be a goal of a composer.  

And, as you say, everything is relative, therefore music's accessibility is relative to the listener.

What, to me, evens out that relativity of accessibility is education.  To be able to be moved by Beethoven Opus. 110 requires a little more insight than that required to get into club music.  Club music, for example, has rhythm as its main feature.  To listen to nothing but that kind of music for years would dull anyone to listening for counterpoint.  Education, then, opens a new door to the listener:  it says, rhythm is one among equals, but how about listening to rhythm combined with intermingling motivic lines for a new thrill?

And you seem to think I'm suggesting that the so-called classical music-lover is superior to the popular-music lover.  I am not saying that.  Lack of information or education doesn't make one person inferior to another.  It just deprives the one with the lack of a greater depth of appreciation.

[danny elfboy]

Anyways I agree that there should be some basic accessibility for the common listener.  The best music doesn't just sound appealing on first listen but also on closer inspection is masterfully constructed in every way.

I think this is a very good middle ground.
A writer once said that the best books are neither those that emotion you the first time and then you forget nor those that you need to read dozen of times to get something out of them. Instead the best books are those that are appealing and communicative at first reading but keep being interesting and unfolding on further reading without never getting old.