Why Don't People Like Classical Music Anymore?

[pianoman1800]

In the 19th and 20th century's classical music was extremely popular. Nowadays people seems to have forgotten classical music completely. Why? Classical music is by far the best music that can make you relax, remove stress and be happy. Scientists has an evidence that small children that listen to classical music perform better in school later. And of course, even adults can get more intelligent by listening to classical music. The English conductor Sir Thomas Beecham once said that if everyone would start the morning with 15 minutes Mozart earth would be a much more beautiful place to live one. And I think his comment is pretty accurate! Since I started to listen to classical music I have been performing much better in school than I ever had dreamt of before
   The most common excuse why people don't like classical music is because they think it is boring. It is indeed fantastic music! And they don't have to listen to long suites and operas. A Chopin prelude is only one minute long and it is so beautiful! Listen to more classical music and be smarter, more stress less and a better person!

Some short lovely classical music:
JS Bach: 2nd movement from Keyboard Concerto no. 5
JS Bach: Aria from the Goldberg Variations
Chopin: No 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 15, 23, 24 from Preludes op 28
Chopin: Études op 25 no 1, op 25 no 9
Chopin Nocturnes op 9, op 27 no 1 and his 20th nocturne op. posthumous

[pianoman1800]

Copy and share this message on different websites so more people can discover the beauty of classical music!

[outin]

People do still like classical music, but there's much more to choose from and many people simply prefer other genres. Classical music doesn't often go well with our busy lifestyle.

And if you study history a bit more, a huge part of the population never heard any Mozart back then either...

[kakeithewolf]

People do still like classical music, but there's much more to choose from and many people simply prefer other genres. Classical music doesn't often go well with our busy lifestyle.

And if you study history a bit more, a huge part of the population never heard any Mozart back then either...

Can't say they're missing much there.

[outin]

Can't say they're missing much there.

Well, of course, but some members might not agree...

[kakeithewolf]

Well, of course, but some members might not agree...

I believe they call those "groupies".

[pianoman1800]

Can't say they're missing much there.

But Don't you think that classical music actually fits BETTER with our Bush lifestyle? Just imagnine, one hard day at work very tired, you just want to relax. Is not classical music the ideal here?Like a therapy for free!

[pianoman1800]

People do still like classical music, but there's much more to choose from and many people simply prefer other genres. Classical music doesn't often go well with our busy lifestyle.

And if you study history a bit more, a huge part of the population never heard any Mozart back then either...

Oh, pardon me, I actually meant to quote outin's first post, the one i have quoted now.

[kakeithewolf]

But Don't you think that classical music actually fits BETTER with our Bush lifestyle? Just imagnine, one hard day at work very tired, you just want to relax. Is not classical music the ideal here?Like a therapy for free!

Hell if I know. I'm more of a Baroque and Romantic guy.

[outin]

But Don't you think that classical music actually fits BETTER with our Bush lifestyle? Just imagnine, one hard day at work very tired, you just want to relax. Is not classical music the ideal here?Like a therapy for free!

Many works are quite long compared to pop songs and such and do not have short catchy melodies, so if you can only pay attention to what you are listening for a few minutes every now and then, you won't really get much out of it.

BTW. In case you didn't know, ordinary people are busy after work too either with housework and children (women) or watching sports on TV and drinking beer (men)  

Some classical is relaxing, but much of it makes me more excited (or sometimes even annoyed) than relaxed

[outin]

Hell if I know. I'm more of a Baroque and Romantic guy.

Obviously he meant classical in the broader sense (Bach and Chopin).

Classical era stuff is what made me avoid most classical music for so many years...Now I have learned what to avoid...

[coda_colossale]

It is also so with other intellectual activities.
At least %75 percent of the population can't
Name one book by
Camus
One painting by
El Greco
One movie by
Eisenstein (Except Battleship Potemkin)
One poem by
Yesenin
One song by
King Crimson (not classical, but still obscure to the majority)

People are stupid.

[outin]

It is also so with other intellectual activities.
At least %75 percent of the population can't
Name one book by
Camus
One painting by
El Greco
One movie by
Eisenstein (Except Battleship Potemkin)

So in fact they actually can?

One poem by
Yesenin
One song by
King Crimson (not classical, but still obscure to the majority)

People are stupid.

And you're such a snob  

I bet I could name quite a few artists/writers/bands (maybe even a poet if I really strech it) you have never even heard of, does that mean you are stupid?

Camus - French Philosophy - not that interesting
El Greco - Renaissance art - not interesting at all
Poetry - Sucks
King Crimson - Progressive - not really that interesting

But I'll watch The Strike with you

[mjames]

It is also so with other intellectual activities.
At least %75 percent of the population can't
Name one book by
Camus
One painting by
El Greco
One movie by
Eisenstein (Except Battleship Potemkin)
One poem by
Yesenin
One song by
King Crimson (not classical, but still obscure to the majority)

People are stupid.

Lol, "Intellectual Activities"
You are such a *** snob it's not even funny. Different people like different things, learn how to cope with that fact you bigot. Oh and making up statistics on the spot doesn't make you look smart.

[matt_16]

I think it's likely that it's partially because classical is music is like an acquired taste. Often with long pieces it might take listening to it right through 5 times or more if its really long, before you can really enjoy it and understand it.

With popular music these days its generally one repeating melody as such, or something similar, and you'll probably be able to enjoy it the first time that you listen to it. I assume that it's extremely likely that if someone listens to a famous classical piece five times or more, and just starts listening to classical music even more, that they will eventually start enjoying it.

This happens with me a lot as well, the first time I listen to a piece that is supposedly good, it's hard to get my head around it, until I've listened to it a few times. After that it sounds like some of the best music.

So I guess that it could be likely that someone might listen to a classical piece once, decide that  they don't like it that much, maybe try listening to another piece, then decide that they just don't like classical music. I think that if people are exposed to the music, and listen to pieces several times this would make classical music a lot more popular.

[kakeithewolf]

It is also so with other intellectual activities.
At least %75 percent of the population can't
Name one book by
Camus
One painting by
El Greco
One movie by
Eisenstein (Except Battleship Potemkin)
One poem by
Yesenin
One song by
King Crimson (not classical, but still obscure to the majority)

People are stupid.

I'm someone with an IQ of around 140. I can't have a decent conversation with pretty much anyone due to the massive IQ gap there usually is. I'm well read and I appreciate culture both old and new. Yet I don't even know who King Crimson, Yesenin, Eisenstein, or Camus are. I barely recognize the name El Greco.

I'm also a haughty, condescending, pretentious snob. Even with that being said, you're a snob that puts me to shame. Which is sad, as my life credo is "99.99% of all people ever born are complete and absolute morons.".

[coda_colossale]

While it's true I'm a snob, I'm not into most of the activities I've listed, merely music and literature, and there are people, with the majority being in this forum, whose knowledge I envy in both areas.
The activities in the list are stuff that people with certain affinities or a minimum level of intellect can enjoy. Prokofiev's music isn't meant for hip-hoppers.
Also trust me, Shostakovich isn't more well known than anyone listed there, but everyone in the forum has surely heard of him. Also the %25 of the people are not the ones (And I tried to describe intelligentsia) who can name all, but just one, and I wrote an optimistic number, believe it or not, for the sake of modesty

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[kakeithewolf]

Was it?  It took decades before the public realized that Bach and Schubert were among the greatest composers. Bach wasn't mainstream until Mendelssohn conducted the St. Matthew's Passion in 1829 - that's almost 80 years after his death. Schubert's piano Sonatas were very little known until they were resurrected by Artur Schnabel. Alkan's music was ignored until recently.  

Maybe culture was more conducive to the production of good classical music. But who knows. Maybe the best classical music that's being written today just won't be appreciated for 100 years...

People don't like classical music because they have different preferences and different levels of prior exposure and understanding.  Listening to classical music tends to require concentration. Some people either aren't used to this, or don't find it worthwhile to concentrate.  Also, appreciation is aided by understanding (including a general musical education and understanding of the historical context in which the works were written).  

Don't forget the best example: Canon in D. It was composed around 1694, and it didn't gain popularity until around the 1960s.

[thomasmgill]

Mind you, most of the underclasses back in the 17th-19th centuries did not listen to any music at all. It was not available in recorded form, so unless you were wealthy enough to travel to concert venues and pay for tickets, or had a live-in musician, you rarely heard any music.

[thomasmgill]

I'm someone with an IQ of around 140. I can't have a decent conversation with pretty much anyone due to the massive IQ gap there usually is. I'm well read and I appreciate culture both old and new. Yet I don't even know who King Crimson, Yesenin, Eisenstein, or Camus are. I barely recognize the name El Greco.

I'm also a haughty, condescending, pretentious snob. Even with that being said, you're a snob that puts me to shame. Which is sad, as my life credo is "99.99% of all people ever born are complete and absolute morons.".

Then by definition, you're a 'complete and absolute moron', too. At your IQ level, you are smarter than roughly 99.8% of the population.

Even amongst people smarter than you, you consider 95% of them 'complete and absolute morons'.

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[kakeithewolf]

Then by definition, you're a 'complete and absolute moron', too. At your IQ level, you are smarter than roughly 99.8% of the population.

Even amongst people smarter than you, you consider 95% of them 'complete and absolute morons'.

Your logic is only partially sound. Whilst your argument relies on only currently relevant statistics, the population as according to what is likely only a countrywide study, mine is based on the entire trajectory of human thought and reasoning surveyed as a whole, which is the entirety of all people born in all places since the first birth of a human occurred.

You also don't seem to grasp how insignificant 99.99% is in that case. The scope of what that affects is 9999 out of every 10000 people, leaving one person unaffected per 10000. Taking only the current population (not counting the 3 or 4 deaths by natural cause every second, or extreme cases of omitted population due to disasters or genocide), you have 7.2 billion, which amounts to 720000 unaffected persons, which, equally distributed among countries, is 3750 unaffected cases per country.

Most notable unaffected cases fall in the period of around 1850 to present, which is the span of the significant growth portion of the J-curve of population growth all species experience. However, drawing an upper bound of 300 generations averaging 20-30 years for the entirety of human growth, you then have to consider that the amount of births over that near six millenia gap from human genesis to the start of the significant build of the exponential function of approximately y = e^x would likely surpass the sample size for 1850-present, making the previous era better in terms of raw statistics, but poorer in terms of evidentiary corroboration of theory.

Overall, considering all the factors, you likely are looking at around 1.5-2 billion unaffected cases, which seems more than fair, considering vast historical ignorance to the majority of what is now known, logically unsound perpetuated tradition and ritual, emotional bias in lieu of logical reasoning, pursuit of logically unsound philosophies and scientific theories (theories being the operative word), incorrect postulations and claims adhered to by uneducated public, current and historical fallibility and inefficacy of the majority of education (if even present), among many other things.

Even further is the inefficacy of both IQ and EQ as means of explaining intellect. A good example would be me, who, despite numerous tests, hasn't had results that testers have deemed appropriate representation of the actual IQ I happen to possess. I only use the number because it is a manner in which I can relate to neurotypicals in a quantifiable manner. It also doesn't help that standard deviations are used as a "one size fits all" answer, as such would imply every 241th person or so would have an IQ of 140. And, considering how people's brains are addled heavily by the hypothalamus and a average of a rather sad excuse for a frontal lobe, I sincerely doubt that is the case. Standard deviation also employs the Ludic fallacy, in which non-regulated random occurrences are wrongfully thought to be invariably consistent with a statistic.

Anything you'd like to add?

 

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[kakeithewolf]

What data are you using? It sounds really interesting. You're saying you have IQ data that can some way be informative for the "the entire trajectory of human thought"? Wow I didn't know they collected reliable data IQ for hundreds of years - a representative sample for the whole world, no less. Oh wait, you don't have that? OK, so you're building some measure from some other data? What might that be, oh brilliant social scientist? And then when you computed this measure of IQ for this representative sample you computed the 99.8 quantile from its empirical distribution? Do you know what a quantile is? Do you know what a distribution is? Do you know what 'empirical' is?

Ahh, or maybe you're just making crap up. Turns out that some people out there can call you on BS.

As you seemed to tune out, IQ data is largely meaningless, as is EQ data, as both employ the Ludic fallacy and both are measured subjectively by fallible human systems. Let's not even bother with your employing of a blatant hasty generalization in your original post.

As well, you seemed to glance past the part where I explained what the current and historical causes of humanity's mental inefficacy. Many things define objective stupidity, even in relative terms, though one can't forget we are dealing with the abstract conceptualization of a credo, not a law.

If "quantile", "distribution", and "empirical" are the best of the best in terms of the verbosity your vocabulary is capable of, you're of a lower echelon than that of a high school dropout. Quantiles are points of regular interval in the CDF of a variable, a distribution is a (fallibly, often) presented set arrangement of given values of the aforementioned variable to display an observed or theoretical frequency of their occurrence (theoretical in this case, due to the implausibility of proving true a system that employs multiple logical fallacies and few or no merits), and empirical is the fallible and unreliable construction of claim verification based on observation and experience (both subjective) rather than logic (which is objective).

Your sarcasm doesn't impress me, your remedial knowledge of statistics doesn't impress me, your ability (or lack, thereof) to debate doesn't impress me, and your rather bland attempt at employing judgmental language doesn't impress me either. You neither intimidate nor surprise me. You, as most neurotypicals, fail to understand even the most basic principles of intellectual discourse, acting proud as a peacock under the illusion that your frontal cortex isn't just as malnourished and neglected as nearly everyone else's and that your hypothalamus functions as a largely beneficial part of your brain.

[vladimir_gouldowsky]

.

[kakeithewolf]

"Blah blah blah blah, I donno what I'm talking about".

So you don't have any actual data. So when you said you were smarter than 99.99% of humanity, you were just making an idiotic, evidence-free assertion? What a surprise!

I'm not quite sure if, for the most part, you are describing my argument, or your own introspectively. Data is largely meaningless, as are statistics, because any person who has the slightest knowledge of debating knows most statistics are either spun to promote one's argument, based on subjective observational interpretation, are largely meaningless or irrelevant, or completely fabricated. Which combination of those any given statistic is, I really don't care.

The good thing is, I don't need to debate this further, because your argument has had so many fallacies by now that it holds water about as well as a broken clay pot. Shame, as well. I'm not particular a fan of those who so vulgarly approach as fine an art as debate. Take your long macerated argument and sod off.

[michaeljames]

To get back to the original question of this thread:

Everyone has their own taste in music.  I, personally, cannot stand rap and most hip hop. In fact, there are very few artists today that I respect in the various popular genres. 

What troubles me most are piano teachers who do not utilize Classical (in the broadest term) repertoire in their lessons! I find it tragic and incompetent.  How can new students possibly develop great technique and the appreciation/love of the Masters without this exposure?

Tragic.  (IMHO)

[thalbergmad]

What troubles me most are piano teachers who do not utilize Classical (in the broadest term) repertoire in their lessons!

Teachers who include the theme tune to Eastenders in their lessons should be lined up against a wall and machine gunned.

Thal

[kevin69]

What troubles me most are piano teachers who do not utilize Classical (in the broadest term) repertoire in their lessons! I find it tragic and incompetent.  How can new students possibly develop great technique and the appreciation/love of the Masters without this exposure?

Well, it depends what the aim of the student is.
Personally, i'm not that much into classical music and prefer jazz.
I don't see how this will prevent me from improving my technique,
although i expect it will bias me towards some techniques and away from others.


 

[michaeljames]

Teachers who include the theme tune to Eastenders in their lessons should be lined up against a wall and machine gunned.

Thal

You crack me up consistently!

[outin]

Then by definition, you're a 'complete and absolute moron', too. At your IQ level, you are smarter than roughly 99.8% of the population.

Even amongst people smarter than you, you consider 95% of them 'complete and absolute morons'.

As a side note, a large proportion of adult population (aged 16-65) would not be able to understand you. There's variations in different countries on the percentage of adults reaching this level of proficiecy in numeracy: Can successfully complete tasks that require an understanding of mathematical information that may be less explicit, embedded in contexts that are not always familiar, and represented in more complex ways. ... can recognise and work with mathematical relationships, patterns, and proportions expressed in verbal or numerical form; and can interpret and perform basic analyses of data and statistics in texts, tables and graphs.

On average, 46.8% of adults score at this level or higher. More than 55% of adults in Japan (62.6%), Finland (57.9%), Sweden (56.6%) and the Netherlands (56.4%) score at this level or higher, while less than 35% of adults in Spain (28.5%), Italy (28.9%), and the United States (34.4%) do.

I can not even take the credit of making up these statistics, they come from the 2013 PIAAC study:
https://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/publications.htm

[mjames]

I'm stupid and proud.

[worov]

Classical music is by far the best music that can make you relax, remove stress and be happy.

LIsten to this :

Is this relaxing ?

[promusician]

plinking music, not for the faint-hearted

[jameskaufmann]

One factor that has not been mentioned is the soundscape.  Many people do not have access to reasonably quiet places, even in their own homes due to invasive noise, much of which is illegal and unnecessary.  A great deal of the music that feels the most meaningful and truthful to me requires an environment that highlights the nuances and silences within.  It requires an experience of the subtle colors of the performance.  I also have witnessed many instances where a person has come to appreciate something previously unappreciated due to exposure in a conducive environment.

Some of you may be familiar with an experiment where Joshua Bell played in a subway and was largely ignored.  Many interpreted this as a lack of appreciation by the general public.  I didn't see any mention of the unfavorable soundscape in the discussion of this experiment.  Yet it is impossible to experience much beyond the most superficial aspects of an artistic unamplified performance over the noise of a subway station.

If we believe in the appreciation that relies on and delights in nuance, and this includes music from Bach to Stravinsky to John Coltrane, we cannot ignore the noise factor.  I believe we need to advocate for a healthier soundscape.

[awesom_o]

I think many people like classical music but do not like the way that it is normally presented.

[coda_colossale]

I think many people like classical music but do not like the way that it is normally presented.

Fortunately the first piece of classical music I have listened to on purpose was a Chopin Etude, Op. 10 No. 12 if I recall correctly. I can name a lot that would keep my away from it forever.

[inverted]

This thread alone is a solid 60% (you can trust that statistic because it came out of my arse) of why people don't like it.

I'd hazard that today the world is more cultured and intelligent than it ever has been. Do you think Austrian peasants listened to Mozart? No they listened to folk tunes most likely, if they knew any musicians at all, and the music was most probably simple and danceable - sound familiar?

Music is a hobby and interest like any other, people don't call me an idiot for not being a mountain climbing addict or having a deep appreciation for wine so I won't call them stupid because they can't be bothered listening to hour-long symphonies and concertos.

[mjames]

Music is a hobby and interest like any other, people don't call me an idiot for not being a mountain climbing addict or having a deep appreciation for wine so I won't call them stupid because they can't be bothered listening to hour-long symphonies and concertos.

This.

[pianoman1800]

One factor that has not been mentioned is the soundscape.  Many people do not have access to reasonably quiet places, even in their own homes due to invasive noise, much of which is illegal and unnecessary.  A great deal of the music that feels the most meaningful and truthful to me requires an environment that highlights the nuances and silences within.  It requires an experience of the subtle colors of the performance.  I also have witnessed many instances where a person has come to appreciate something previously unappreciated due to exposure in a conducive environment.

Some of you may be familiar with an experiment where Joshua Bell played in a subway and was largely ignored.  Many interpreted this as a lack of appreciation by the general public.  I didn't see any mention of the unfavorable soundscape in the discussion of this experiment.  Yet it is impossible to experience much beyond the most superficial aspects of an artistic unamplified performance over the noise of a subway station.

If we believe in the appreciation that relies on and delights in nuance, and this includes music from Bach to Stravinsky to John Coltrane, we cannot ignore the noise factor.  I believe we need to advocate for a healthier soundscape.

Excatly, and that is what people need to understand to get the most out of classical music!

[g_s_223]

There has been in the UK even a political dimension to this issue. During the disastrous tenure of the Blair/Brown/Campbell malignancy, it was key part of the "message" that it was cool to be with popular musicians and that classical music was irrelevant and uncool. Every possible photo-op was taken to be seen with talentless non-entities from the pop world, and classical music starved. That their names are now utterly dishonoured justly pays them back for their contemptible and cynical abuse of their transient positions of power.

[cometear]

But Don't you think that classical music actually fits BETTER with our Bush lifestyle? Just imagnine, one hard day at work very tired, you just want to relax. Is not classical music the ideal here?Like a therapy for free!

True but still. I think classical is always stereotyped as "relaxing" which annoys me.

[cometear]

People are stupid.

I agree with that statement.

[pianoman1800]

I think a good way to go is to listen both to classical and popular music in different moods (popular music if you are on fire, classical when you are tired). As I am enjoying both genres of music, I can day that is a terrific way to be more internatets in classical music!

[lateromantic]

I think a good way to go is to listen both to classical and popular music in different moods (popular music if you are on fire, classical when you are tired). As I am enjoying both genres of music, I can day that is a terrific way to be more internatets in classical music!

You must have been listening to popular music while you wrote that last sentence, judging by the cognitive degradation that occurred toward the end of it.

[coda_colossale]

Yeah, Prokofiev and Shostakovich are so relaxing. Especially the Cadenza from the 2nd Piano Concerto of Prokofiev and Second movement of Shostakovich's 8th String quartet.

[cuberdrift]

It is sparsely marketed, is complicated, old, and for rich people.

[outin]

It is sparsely marketed, is complicated, old, and for rich people.

Actually classical music is much cheaper to buy for iTunes than any popular music...Not to mention all the free scores available if you play yourself.

[cuberdrift]

Actually classical music is much cheaper to buy for iTunes than any popular music...Not to mention all the free scores available if you play yourself.

True, but isn't it by nature a 'rich' music - for the upperclassmen - as already pointed out several times in this thread peasants probably didn't even know who Mozart or Chopin was.

Realize that classical music is far more accessible nowadays than in the past centuries. That means the majority of people actually never really liked 'classical' music.