Why Don't People Like Classical Music Anymore?

[ignaceii]

Sorry, the answer is simple.
1. The standard repertoire is repeated over and over again, including whole cycles of symphonies, sonatas, by young and old. You would expect the older generation to explore unknown grounds.
2. The lack of  nerve to performe unkwown composers. Like Henselts pianoconcerto, it's like Scnumanns.
Still, even Argerich keeps hammering her Schuman  in the audience. I, melomane for 40 years can't stand it anymore.
3. And af is it was not enough they let Langs and Wangs In, hoping that with circus tricks they can turn things over.
What a laugh, Langs butchering Liszts 2nd raphsody says it all.
He gives masterclasses but should be following them, gazing in the audience in stead of listening. Schiff sat kn the audience during his masterclass.
He never competed in the Leedz,  but they make him ambassador.

Geniuses like Bozhanov, do you know Ovchinnikov Leeds winner 7 places before Berezovsky, well you missed the russian school at his perfection.

If artists don't stop playing monkeys and repeating themselves all the time it is finisned, for me at least.
Read Piano International, CPE Bach, Henselt and Dussek covered. Ever heard them in concert, me  neither.

Angelich , latest recital, 3  beethovens, again and  moussorgsky, you know. GOD
Andsnes, Beethoven cycle, HELP !!!!!!

[boomtralala]

It's true, it is the best music but music's golden era is long gone - today people watch movies, tv shows and play games on their iPhone, that's why we have great games and tv shows such as GOT and True detective while music is mainly hype, just like the advertising and fashion fields - music is just another element of the user experience (just like graphic design)

And also in my humble opinion (not a musician) when the music we exposed to in our day to day life is getting dumber, and people are getting used to short concepts that consist of samples and half sentences - they don't even possess the proper cultural "toolkit" to process "classical" music.

[ignaceii]

Ok, now you are talking about this generation.
The absurdity of it all is that Lang can perhaps push youngsters to go and play, as he presents himself as a popstar, Lang for the girls, Wang for the boys. But you are right there is no culture anymore to go through the music step by step.
Giltburg even won the Queen Elisabeth, having already a career. That motivation to learn is gone.
Chinese don't compete at those levels, they sell, and as Gidon Kremer said, I think he sold is soul for the shear cheap success.

But the drama is, that while going like I've described in my reply earlier on, they will also loose the faithful audience of people who still have the culture, may it be the last generation.
Apart from H. Shelley, P. Lane, S. Hough, luckily no concert pianist is interested in playing great concerts by numerous others in the past.
Trifonov repertoire, asked for, will contain the same old stuff. Are they so stupid, who is waiting for that. Yes, they need to be launched... the whole 20th century contained the all known repertoire of ever the same composers.

I think it's time takes the pen and kill all of past and current pianists because of their laziness to honour the other great ones. I heard Henselts concerto, sell it for a Schumann and they won't notice.

Why competitions ? Don't need it anymore. Yutube, and all the other media will get you a new star. No more hard labour in the Queen Elisabeth chapel as Giltburg described.
Leeds honours Lang, that was the thoughest one to take.

All great pianists go in excile, Volodos, Ovchinikov, Ugorsky,...  some persist.

I wrote Andsnes myself that it's a shame to go on tour with only Beethoven sonatas, like Barenboim. Is that it ?

Sorry, i stop here, enough is enough. Just one tip :

Sound not so good, and clearly somewhat overplayed by the orchestra, but what playing.
His transcendental etudes are simply the best ever recorded. As someone said, I heard him ones, didn't know him (Leeds winner before Berezovsky), but will never forget his name.

[pianoman1800]

I think a good way to make people a step further into classical music is to do more of the so faller "light music"- a music genre that stands between classical music and jazz/popular music. This kind of music is often "relaxing", and has the phrases of classical music but the chords from jazz/popular music.

[lateromantic]

The standard repertoire is repeated over and over again, including whole cycles of symphonies, sonatas, by young and old.

While your complaint may be legitimate, most people haven't heard all of the standard repertoire even once, much less enough to become familiar with it.  Therefore all that repetition cannot explain their disinterest in classical music, in my opinion.

I think the real answer has more to do with the diminution in most people's attention spans--something that's merely being accelerated by their addiction to electronic gadgetry.  Not only are they unable to maintain interest through the time span of a typical classical piece or movement, but even maintaining focus through a long melody or a complex harmonic progression becomes problematic.

I think it's significant to look at cases where passages from classical music that have been incorporated into popular music.  You'll hear long phrase structures truncated, the harmony simplified (removing adventurous techniques like tritone progressions), and even the meter simplified to simple binary signatures (4/4, 2/4, etc.).

[pianoman53]

People, read a book or two about the history of classical music!
The classical music was supposed to die already because of Monteverdi.
And because of Beethoven,
And because of the piano recital,
And because of money,
And because of the Gramophone,
And because of the CD,
And because of Internet,
....
....
....
In interviews with Rachmaninov, and De Pachmann and other people from this so called Golden era, the say "The golden era is long gone! Our generation have stopped to listen to classical music, and are more interested in Trivial things. These days, the audience is filled with people with grey hair".
In the period between the Barock era and Classical era, the music was also supposed to be lost.
Music was nothing but background music for rich people. So 300 years ago, music was already dead.

The death of classical is the most overrated and trite subject there has ever been. Leave this agonizing self-pity elsewhere. The classical music is just as popular as it ever was, and it wont die because of Internet, or because of Pop music, or because of "This new generation". It will die just as music as it did 400 years ago.

[kevin69]

I think part of the answer is found by looking at the history of dance music.

The waltz, mazurka and other dance forms used to be very popular styles in classical music that were also enjoyed as pure dance music. Nowadays a classical performance where the audience dances rather than sits and listens is very rare.

Similarly, jazz reached its peak of popularity when it was mainly a dance music in the early 20th century and then lost popularity when it changed to become more of a musicians music than a dance form.

Now the most popular forms of music today are primarily dance music, or derived from it.

So perhaps the question to ask is not "why don't people like classical music any more?" but "why isn't dancing part of the classical music scene any more?".

[kakeithewolf]

I remember elsewhere that someone asked me why no one seems to like Classical music. And I remember responding that it was only an illusion; that young people were seeking to enter the field more and more. And such is true, but a problem lies not in the matter of performance but rather in composition.

When you see any given performer these days, the vast majority of what is played is the recognized music of the greats of the past four hundred or so years. And whilst that is a good thing, it would be an even better thing if they gave an equal distribution of chance to both the greats of times past and the greats of now.

Classical music, from the Medieval Era to the latest parts of Romanticism and the early Contemporary Era, always carried in the tradition that when one generation of greats passed, another would take its place. But after a certain time, it seemed that our society started to change too drastically and too significantly to allow the next generation of greats.

Even considering that, you have to realize that the youth does contain many who wish to keep alive the arts, and those youth will be the future audiences, performers, and composers that will keep the torch of Classical music burning bright. In the end, time will tell what is to be, but looking at what there is now, there is still some hope left for a bright future in Classical music.

Perhaps I'm just rambling on, or perhaps I have a point here and there. What I've said is only my opinion, rendered from my own limited and fallible perspective, and whether or not it holds true, I've yet to see.

[teenagepiano]

Classical music is a music taste, it is pure intellectual ignorance and snobbery to claim that people who don't listen to classical music and stupid.

I listen to many genres of music, including classical music, but I will confess that there aren't many pieces over 15 minutes that I can pay attention to in one sitting.  I don't have the patience to listen to pieces that last hours, and I doubt most people have.

It's a bit of a dubious comment to say that people get smarter by virtue of listening to classical music; the causality isn't clear in my mind. What if people who are smarter/come from those backgrounds are more likely to search out older or different music and are exposed to classical music that way? It doesn't make those who didn't have that background less intelligent.

I think that every year there is always brilliant music being made. It might not be classical, but it is still great.

[m1469]

I don't think I can truly speak to its relationship with people over the ages, but rather mainly what I observe in present day:

Because people do not know how to relate to it, and it does not actually relate to people.

- Huge/growing divisions in socioeconomic classes.
  
Perhaps a young man I met about 10 or so years ago during a piano camp in which I participated summed it up perfectly, without even knowing what he was doing:  "Classical Piano/Music is a rich man's game."  He was a privileged 15 or 16 yr. old, living at home (naturally), supported in all ways by his folks with not a want in the world regarding his (musical) endeavors.  He was happily the upper crust, feeling perfectly at home within it, having zero concern for what he was saying and the company he might be in while saying it.  

Perhaps his tune has changed somewhat this many years later (or maybe not?), but even from my own perspective, of somebody who loves Classical Music and wants to see it connecting with people in this world, why would I ever spend $20+ to sit for 2+ hours on a beloved Friday or Saturday evening to listen to somebody with that attitude play?  What enlightenment on the world (or even unique entertainment) should I expect to gain from that experience, that would make supporting that attitude a good idea for me?  Let alone people who do not already love Classical Music.

From my perspective on the world of Classical Music, it is impossible to gain a full education, full opportunity to develop, without being privileged.  And while we are talking about not just people wanting to study, but rather strictly listeners and appreciators, too, how is Classical Music supposed to speak to the hearts of the whole of humankind while coming from the hearts of those who do not know how to relate to or care for the whole of humankind?

I realize there is more to it than that, and that not all individuals involved in Classical Music are having an easy time of it, and perhaps did not come from what is considered privilege.  But, from what I observe even in those I have loved the most, once a person is in the business, it's very easy and logical to think and especially to act only from the perspective of being in and wanting to stay in.  At some point, it is easier and more logical to play to or think mainly of connecting with and appealing to those individuals who are already in, vs. to the people who are not - the latter of which is the vast majority of the people in the world.

PS - I honestly invite being persuaded that I am absolutely wrong on any or every point (I would actually like to be proven wrong, in this case), and/or to be given the opportunity for a convincingly more complete or pertinent perspective.

[ted]

As I have said in similar previous discussions, in this country at least, there has been a noticeable increase in popularity, and certainly in knowledge of, classical music. I cannot discern any particular correlation with wealth either way. In fact, those immersed in the field of popular music seem much better off, in general, than those trying to make a living from classical music.

On the personal level, my parents had little money and even less interest in classical music. When I was a little boy they made gentle fun of my constantly listening to the one classical radio station. Later, I worked on the waterfront for three years to buy my own piano, although strictly speaking this, in retrospect, quite reckless musical drive was much broader than classical music. I also totally rejected the idea of being any sort of music professional.   

But entirely separate from monetary considerations, it seems to me that the sounds of much classical music must still speak to anybody at all with heart and mind acute enough to hear what it has to say. I cannot muster a decent argument against your assertion, m1469, I just feel that there is a whole lot more to it than material circumstance and we'll leave it at that.

[m1469]

Well, I agree that it is possible for Classical Music to have appeal to anybody on Earth, regardless of economic circumstances - even if "uneducated."  Who do you suppose would more likely have access to everything needed for development in the field, and who do you suppose would be the directed audience for either of these people?





Who is going to have money to drop on live performances?  Who is even going to have live performances to go to?

I realize these examples seem extreme and that there is a middle ground, but at what point do you think the middle ground is enough towards the wealthy end to alter what kinds of educational opportunities a person will have?  And, at what point will enough middle ground be achieved between these extremes to cause either side to care about what the other has to "say" -through art or music or words- about life?

The first picture I grabbed is actually from Costa Rica, and I saw this with my own eyes.  I talked with people there, I sang an Opera there for the community.  There's a lot more to that, but I have to go for the moment!

[kevin69]

Who is going to have money to drop on live performances?  Who is even going to have live performances to go to?

Well, that seems like a wealthy persons approach: paying professional musicians to perform live.

I know almost nothing about costa rica so i won't comment on it, but in the uk access to music via the internet or public libraries is very cheap.

If you are referring to having the chance "to gain a full education, full opportunity to develop" then i'd agree that its a priviledge of the wealthy, but thats true in any field not just classical music. I doubt that many people in costa rica have access to top-level education in quantum mechanics any more than classical music.

[m1469]

In the first photo, who do you think their favorite was for the last Van Cliburn?  Who do you suppose they consider to be the pianist with the best technique?  Or the fastest, most bestest Op. 10, no. 1?  Should they care?  Does anybody care if they care?  At what point do we suppose a person starts caring about something like that?

[m1469]

I know almost nothing about costa rica so i won't comment on it, but in the uk access to music via the internet or public libraries is very cheap.

In Costa Rica, internet access is considered rare and quite privileged, and while I'm sure there are public libraries there, it is nothing like either you or I would be used to.  I have to run again!  Unfortunately, I've had a lot stewing for a long time so there's a millennium more to come.

[kevin69]

In Costa Rica, internet access is considered rare and quite privileged.  I have to run again!  Unfortunately, I've had a lot stewing for a long time so there's a millennium more to come.

Surely there are local musicians though?
But if a piece of music can't be performed by local musicians on commonly available instruments then that piece of music is unlikely to be popular, or have universal appeal

[kevin69]

In the first photo, who do you think their favorite was for the last Van Cliburn?  
Who do you suppose they consider to be the pianist with the best technique?  
Or the fastest, most bestest Op. 10, no. 1?  
Should they care?  
Does anybody care if they care?  
At what point do we suppose a person starts caring about something like that?

In answer to the final question: when they have too much spare time.

These seem like the sort of questions people ask to fill up idle hours on the internet.
I don't think they are very important musically.

[ted]

Who do you suppose would more likely have access to everything needed for development in the field, and who do you suppose would be the directed audience for either of these people?

I realize these examples seem extreme and that there is a middle ground, but at what point do you think the middle ground is enough towards the wealthy end to alter what kinds of educational opportunities a person will have?  And, at what point will enough middle ground be achieved between these extremes to cause either side to care about what the other has to "say" -through art or music or words- about life?

The first environment offers nothing for any sort of endeavour at all, never mind classical music, and the second far exceeds that which is necessary to enjoy classical music to the full. Completely aside from music, I find the contrast repulsive, of course, and both are light years away from anything I have experienced, coming from a very egalitarian background with little wealth disparity. Perhaps the original poster's title ought to define what sort of "people" are involved, which countries, else we shall all be talking about different things, making a difficult question next to impossible.   

[islandboi8o8]

Popular music of today (with words and lyrics) have a much more obvious message than that of classical music.  It's quite difficult to truly understand the meanings and emotions behind a classical piece than it would a popular song where the message is literally told to you.  But thats not to say classical music's message is any weaker, its actually a lot more profound - it's just harder to see.  This difference is the reason most can relate to and understand popular music while only a few can understand to the same extent what the message of a classical piece is.

The sad irony is that the message of classical music is so much more deep then that of popular music of today.  People openly wept in Shostakovich's 5th Symphony, but I have never heard of anyone crying because a Justin Beiber song was that moving.  And it's not just limited to him, although he is kinda the prince of A-holes, even modern artists who I have respect for just have not delivered a song which has moved me on any emotional level that many classical works have.  That's just my opinion on the matter though, I'm sure others won't agree.

[inverted]

I still don't believe that classical music is less popular now than it ever has been. This whole discussion is completely vacuous if it is based on a false assertion - that this phenomenon of art music being marginalised by popular music is a distinctly modern one. Yes there is a lot more pop music nowadays, but in say 1930 before it was so pervasive, do you think people listened to Gershwin or Rachmaninoff or Stravinsky in the absence of a Bieber-type figure in music? No they probably just listened to nothing or simple folk music.

The massive surge of pop music that exists nowadays is not elbowing out classical music, it is simply filling a void consisting of those who in past years would simply have had no or little interest in music in any form. I'd wager (in the absence of any evidence to the contrary) that the portion of society who enjoy music as a serious interest is just as large if not greater than before, and that they enjoy classical music just as much as before.

So we are not discussing a change in music in society, we are simply whining about the natural state of affairs - classical music as a hobby requires a large investment of time, money and effort and so it can never be enjoyed by more than a small subset of society. This is the same with all the arts and all specialised hobbies. People are not any less intelligent or emotionally sincere than us because they listen to simpler music or no music at all. I eat simple food, and drink simple beers and wines, and hang simple images on my walls, watch simple movies, so I'm not going to base a superiority complex on the tenuous basis that I listen to complicated music.

[kasper477]

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.".

and yet you make comments on the internet

[kakeithewolf]

and yet you make comments on the internet

Yeah. Where the hell did I go wrong in my life.

[awesom_o]

Where the hell did I go wrong in my life.

Probably in thinking you can be a composer without having spent enough time developing the requisite musical knowledge on an actual instrument!

[mjames]

Probably in thinking you can be a composer without having spent enough time developing the requisite musical knowledge on an actual instrument!

Agreed. Oh and don't use illnesses as an excuse...if Chopin could do it, so can you.
Not to mention I have a chronic illness  and a pretty weak body but I still invest my time to play an instrument.

And Awesome, you should check this thread out. The second video really is something else!

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=54782.0

[awesom_o]

I already listened to the first one earlier today. Did you prefer the second one?

[mjames]

I like them both, but I really do love the second one. I don't know why, I just do!

[pianoman1800]

I think it is interesting to see what kind of music most people prefere in 50 years or so. What do you think?

[mysterium]

I think the key to this is time. We dont have much of that anymore. We stress and do not have time for patience - it is the rush that makes pop music more popular, not stupidity. It has to be easely consumed and not take to much time, this is part of the 21:th century lifestyle. Mabye classical music is needed now more than ever. We need to relax, take a break from life. It is a shame music is generally seen as something to always have in the background, that has to change if the complexety of classical music is to be allowed to have a place in our stressed out lives. Classical music needs the listener or performer to put a lot of time and effort into it. 

[eusebius12]

'Classical' music has never really been the most popular form of music for the man or woman on the street. In the 18th century though there was less of a sharp dichotomy between musical genres, so that one composer might write both 'highbrow' and 'lowbrow' music. Bach for example was hardly the most popular composer of his day, his work always has required more concentration than the superficial listener can endure. I have to say, having seen some of the hate filled drivel and vitriol in this forum, that Schumann is of that nature. Whereas Liszt was able to travel in both worlds.

Today, in a world wherein superficiality and junk information and corporatization have reached their apotheosis, how could we expect something as refined and developed as great music to have an overwhelmingly popular following? The drunk yobs would far rather listen to the latest excreted piece of 'R&B' swill than anything of real merit. They are more than willing to imbibe, coprophagically, anything the 'industry' disgorges. And I'm not excluding 'classical' music from this phenomenon entirely. By no means.

[justanamateur]

I think there are two main reasons:

-In an age where people are more concerned about Hello Kitty's not being a cat and 99% of all human sentiments are expressed in terms of likes and shares, it is unlikely that anyone would sit down and listen to the prelude and fugue.
-Most kids born after 1980 whose parents can afford music lessons are forced to take ABRSM exams. They associate classical music with stress and being forced to do things they aren't interested in doing.