Is it OK to NOT like classical music?

I can't say I am a classical fan. But I do like Emerson, Lake and Palmer's Pictures at an Exhibition by Mussorgsky. Of course, never hearing the original.

 

I believe he's misinterpreting something I said a few days ago--that sales of classical music composed before 1950 has been on a steady decline, where the audience for 'new music' has been on a slight increase. this is all true, but what I didn't point out is that the sales of the more traditional music still far outweighs the sale of new music, despite being on the decline. I think the confusion came from there.

I have no idea what 'ultra avant-garde' is, but I can answer your first question: mostly urban males under 45.

100% of my experience in this field demonstrates this not to be the case. the 'younger generation' is the overwhelming majority of the audience for new music.

I could not possibly disagree more, again based on my firsthand experience working in this field and being intimately familiar with the machinations of the classical music industry. but it's very well established that our mutual views on contemporary music listening technology and its role are quite exclusive indeed...

 

I don't particularly like Classical music, but I respect it. It takes a certain level of talent (intelligence?)
to construct it, and a high level of technical ability to perform it.

 

Not to be confused with that first of blues-composers: Muddy Debussy.

 

It's OK, you can feel free not to like classical music. It's good that the Forum provides a welcoming, affirming place for you as you struggle to come to terms with your feelings about it.

I feel the same way about novels. Now, for a long time I was self-conscious about it. I thought, maybe I'm not as smart as other people, or, just as bad, maybe people will think I'm dumb for saying that. Today, though, I just put it out there. I don't like old novels and new novels. I don't like Russian novels or French novels. I don't like fin-de-siecle Viennese novels, or antebellum American novels. I don't like Henry James or Herman Melville or Martin Amis. I've never read Philip Roth or Henry Fielding. But from what I hear, to read 'em is to not like 'em.

I watch these PBS series adapting novels and I think, I'd never read this damn thing! And that's fine-- because if I did, I wouldn't like them. It's a lot of work, and I'm not going to give up TV time to read something I'm not going to like. People may tell me different-- I don't listen. Life is too short.

 

Oh come on, I think you know what I meant, but basically music that is as extreme and as eseoteric as it gets, like total serialism, music that uses elements of aleatoricism, collage, electronic etc. And while there has been something of a return to more tonal music without being watered down (like much minimalism, which isn't my cup of tea at all) to my knowledge much, if not all of it, was created after the 1940s.

You are twisting or misinterpreting my words here, I am not solely talking about the younger generation within classical music aficionados, but among any person who has listened to and at least likes a fair bit of classical music, whether a casual or deeply knowledgeable fan. It's the 18th and 19th century (with a bit of 20th century thrown in) repertoire that the majority are likely to gravitate to, younger listeners included. Did you see my sentence at the end of the same paragraph you quoted from regarding Classic FM? The demographic for that is predominantly younger generation, and that's what the presenters cater for, for better or for worse. As a pianist, I've often encountered not so well informed people who basically call any 20th century music "modern", like when I performed a Debussy piece from 1904 for a recital.

What's there to "disagree" with? My statement is based on fact not opinion. And though unlike you I may not have worked full time in the classical music industry, I do have over 25 years of accumulated classical knowledge and training under my belt, having read and listened to enough about what goes on in the classical music world, and encountered enough professional musicians, to make me feel I know what I'm talking about.

 

I can accept all but the highlighted sentence which is nonsense. (Right now I am reading Dickens for fun.)

As for classical music, I agree with SBurke. All music can be expressive and powerful. Every once in a while, as I hear a particularly beautiful passage from Mozart or Brahms or Schubert, I actually am sad for those who cannot appreciate this the way I do. But they are equally welcome to feel sorry for me with respect to music I do not appreciate.

 

When I read threads like this, I'm reminded yet again of the profound truth in the apparently simple-minded statement, of uncertain provenance, that there are only two kinds of music, good music and bad music.

 

@ both drasil and Tangledupinblue -- not to stir the pot here, but I would love to hear more metrics on this. Unlike both of you, I have basically zero experience on the genre in terms of sales history and format preferences.

For example, I had brought up SACD recently and I've always wondered just what percentages of new purchases of Western classical are vinyl vs redbook vd SACD. Or even downloads (high res or othewise). I'm going to guess that SACD from makes up a larger percentage for classical than possibly it would for pop/rock. But I just don't have the metrics on that.

 

Well, given that the great majority of new (newly-recorded) releases are from niche classical labels like Channel, Tudor, Pentatone, Challenge et al., SACD is well on its way to becoming a classical niche format. Even the pop/rock/jazz reissued in the format is pitched to an older, aging hipster crowd.

 

That's my story too

I discovered 'Pictures At An Exhibition' thanks to ELP. Then (many weeks later) the Ravel version, and finally, more than a year after, the original piano version by Mussorgsky

Yet ELP 'Pictures' remains as favourite

 

It's OK to like or not like any kind of music. You can't be someone you're not.

On the other hand, I would say that trying to inflate an inferiority complex vis a vis classical music by reducing the discussion to demographics or sales is a fraud. You can use all the self deception you want, but Western classical music and many other indigenous musics of the world for that matter are far older than rock and roll, blues, and jazz. And classical music continues to be taught, written, and performed whereas I often hear that some of those other musical forms are already played out, after less than one hundred years.

No one can predict what people will be listening to in 200 years, or whether there will be people to be listening. But the odds favor Bach over The Beatles, much as I love both.

 

I would say you're wrong, at least here in the U.S.. The market that keeps the CD alive are the country music fans, who are always several years behind the curve. In the 80s, it was the only market still buying 8-track tapes.

You didn't read all of the posts, right?

Could very well be...

 

I did read the whole thread before posting that. Your point being?

 

It's ok to like or not like anything you want, no need to ask.

 

If you had read all of the posts, you would have seen the one where I stated that I do like classical, thereby rendering your last paragraph wrong.

 

Well, I assumed from the outset that your question applied to anyone else who doesn't like classical, not yourself - was I right? I know from previous posts of yours that you like classical music.

 

Scott Walker. Seriously. And I'm not recommending it.

I had a further answer for Grant, but it was an edit to my post and took longer than 15 minutes to revise. Here's the deal—look at music as something other than recordings and performances. It's also actual writing, and some musicians are skilled enough to be able to write down their musical thoughts, some with more detail than others. Perotin? Not so many details. Mahler? Maybe too many. In any case, this is what Quincy Jones does and Duke Ellington/Billy Strayhorn did. Musical chops at the compositional level always includes study of past masters, just as a college level writing course does. For the people who compose, be it hip-hop, Jazz, or some pop confection, they all owe a lot to the earlier models of composition. As of now, Jazz is more about the past and appears to be more similar to classical music as regards demographics and cultural positioning—it's no longer young people's music. Of course, cultural circumstances shift over time. The cultural clout of classical music is diminished.

Grant—you should read Joseph Horowitz's "Understanding Toscanini". Hucksterism and cultural identity had everything to do with the push for bringing classical music to America. If you're suspicious of the reasons classical music appeared to have some sort of cultural hegemony, that its sense of "cultural distinction" are dues to issues of class and marketing to class, then you are sharing your opinion with Joseph Horowitz, among other cultural critics. However, some weirdos, such as myself, were open enough to the experience as to become proselytizers themselves.

In my view, listening to complex music in a concerted and concentrated way is good for the mind. But it's a discipline one has to knowingly adopt and stick to if one wants genuine value from the experience. Music isn't simply turning on the tap and letting the stuff wash over you. There is a rhetoric and a drama in much of the good stuff, one must fully engage if one expects to gain any value from the experience.

 

The interpretation by the conductor and orchestra is "supposed" to not vary too much from the score. For instance, if the score says moderato for a section, a conductor who plays it Allegro is really mis- interpreting the score. Dynamics and tempo are well established and have been for hundreds of years.
But I agree with you...things get weird when you have interpretations like Celibidache and late Bernstein. Sorry GeorgeP.

 

But, that's not how your response sounded in post #125:

 

As punishment for this lamentable post, I hereby sentence you to ten consecutive playings of Artur Schnabel's recording of the Hammerklavier sonata.

 

. . . using my worn RCA LP.

 

Even better!

 

That is a fate worse than death.