Serious Music, Seriously

[Carl Berry]

It's long puzzled me why serious music isn't enjoyed by most of the teeming millions. I heard that it's because the beat is often not constant & pervasive. A failed attempt was tried to add a heavy beat called "Hooked on Classics", unaccepted by classical buffs or thoes that require a steady "rock" beat. Is this the reason, or does it just overload the brain cells of most listeners? Try it, you'll like it!

------------------
Zymurgist

[Revtim]

So only classical music is "serious?" That's pretty pretentious.

[Nickrz]

Did someone open a can of worms in here?

[Undead Dude]

or does it just overload the brain cells of most listeners -- Carl Berry
Not! :)

A heavy metal band would give the brain cells a bit more stimulus.

I think the reason that classical music is not "pop", is because you need to make an active choice to intently listen to classical music to fully appreciate it. A lot of people aren't prepared to commit the attention it requires to really get it.

[Carl Berry]

OOPS, I lit another fuse! !! SORRY!

[Satan]

I am very serious about a lot of music, thank you very much. All I know is that I met a classical violinist from our locak state symphone and invited him to see Joe Satriani, a guitar virtuoso.

His reaponse? Running out after maybe two songs complaining about the colume, though commenting he "liked the way he threw his guitar around."

I mean, I'm sure these feelings are not indicative of every classical musician/fan, but it's what a kiddie would say...

Seriously though, The Three Tenors sold a decent amount, and symphony orchestras, operas and what have you have their own niches that, while smaller than the Tupac's and Britney Spears' of the world, is still far larger than some niches that I particularly enjoy and find very serious... say The Velvet Underground or Slayer.

------------------
Brian O'Neill
CMC International Records
rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html (http://rockuniverse.com/cmc/cmc.html)

ICQ 35294890
AIM Scrabble1
Yahoo Messenger Brian_ONeill

[Carl Berry]

OOPS, I lit another fuse!!!!! SORRY! It'll show up on another forum, no doubt! It seems I hit a raw nerve! I'd just like to know, that's all. Peace to rock fans far & wide!

[B. G. Kimball]

I think you have to actually burn calories to appriciate the classical music experience. Thats why lazy people like me rock. Rock does the thinking for you, so to speak. Listening to classical music is supposed to improve ones ability to learn. This year students in some of our more troubled elementry schools here in town will be greeted with classical music in the morning. I guess some music really does calm the savage beast.

[mangeorge]

"His reaponse? Running out after maybe two songs complaining about the colume,"
---Satan
----------------------------------
Have you ever experienced the "colume" :) at a symphony concert?
I don't think most people go to symphonies to hear the music as much as to be exclusive.
Witness the dress codes etc.
Peace,
mangeorge

[Carl Berry]

I hope not to light another fuse! When I was a youth , (lo, these many years ago) much of popular music was classical music adapted to current tastes. With the advent of R&R, Pop music took a giant leap backward (IMHO), Appealing to the more primitive in us. I noticed that there were classicial music grads in our nmidst, I pointed my question to them, who may be as bewildered as I am. To say that one must "listen" to classsical, is nonsense! Much is very "backroundable" & has a heavy beat. Sorry if I offend anyone!

------------------
Zymurgist

[MrKnowItAll]

I think there are two things that hurt classical music in today's world.

1. Classical music pieces tend to be very long. A person who isn't used to listening to it is less able to maintain interest over the course of even a single movement. Also, life is much faster paced today, and people rarely have time to sit and listen to a full composition. (Though they still have time to watch an inane episode of "ER". Go figure.)

2. The growth of the recording industry has taken the emphasis from the composition and given it to the performer. This can be demonstrated by the fact that most people know who performs their favorite songs, but only a handful can tell you who wrote it.

To elaborate on point 2: If you hear Beethoven's 9th Symphony performed by the Chicago Symphony, it will sound pretty much the same as if it were performed by the London Philharmonic. The differences will be subtle. However, popular music performers tend to be very distinctive. You could hear a dozen groups do "Louie Louie" (as I have) and every one of them will be different.

[Carl Berry]

I remember that THe Swedish Rhaphody was #1 on the charts along with the 18th variation by Paganini. Were the kids smarter then? NO! My point is that the popular music today is not our choice, but that of the recording industry & the media. Youth are easily steered, affecting their choices in life. It's been my observation, That the youth today are missing too much in life due to instilled prejudices from the media. Enjoy rock! but not to the exclusion of other music!..........'see ya later, Carl

[MrKnowItAll]

Gee, Carl. That sounds a little paranoid.

Look at it this way. Suppose the media is in on some conspiracy to deprive the masses of great art against their will. How long would it be before some media genius says, "Hey! If I give the people great music, they'll listen/watch my station and forget about all the others!"?

Like much else in life, there isn't any great conspiracy. We are the authors of our own doom.

[k0myers]

I listen to classical music, jazz, and 60's to 90's rock, and appreciate works from all of those genres. There is a huge variety of classical music out there, from operatic things to Vivaldi to Stravinski to Bach to Liszt. There's not much it all has in common, really. There are some really cool but very short classical pieces, under 30 seconds in length, and there are some very long, many-hour symphonic things that you need an entire evening to take in.

But I think there are a few things that hurt classical music as a "popular" format these days. One is that generally speaking, rock is more "instantly gratifying". There's a very clear thumping beat, there are almost no dynamics (it is all compressed to one volume level in the mastering process), and it tends to be short and musically very simple.

Of course anything you say about a genre of music is by nature a generalization. But in contrast, much classical music has an enourmous dynamic range (not so good for playing over the radio), large variations in tempo, themes that unfold over a longer period of time (not so good for today's 60 second attention span), and often classical pieces spend much more time before the final "resolution" of the tension that's produced by straying from the song's resolution key. Also, it has very soft, sedate passages which are meant to be heard in contrast to loud, furious ones, but who these days will sit through 15 minutes of soft, slow music? It takes more effort to appreciate the whole of a large work, than to appreciate a small standalone rock song that's never more than 5 or 10 seconds from resolving to a base chord.

Also generally speaking, it requires much more musical talent to play classical music than rock. For instance, I am an amateur pianist (about 19 years experience), and while there are certainly talented rock pianists out there, a very large fraction of rock piano is just pounding out repeated chords. By contrast, many of the works of Liszt, Chopin, and others are enourmously harder to play, so this tends to limit the interest among novice musicians. Almost anybody can learn to bang out a rendition of Stairway to Heaven, but only a handful of people in the world can really play some of Chopin's harder piano compositions.

All told, I think classical music, just very generally speaking, is less accessable than rock, and thus cannot be as popular. I don't see that as either good or bad; it just is. I surely spend more time listening to rock than to classical - i guess perhaps a 4 to 1 ratio. But probably my top 5 favorite works (in all genres combined) are all classical pieces. (Many of my least favorite works are also classical pieces).

k0myers

[Babar714]

Satriani is a genius.

[Satan]

As I said, classical music is far less exclusive than a lot of influential artists in the past such as The Velvet Underground, Captain Beefheart, Pere Ubu, The Ramones and Graham Parsons. And it also has more fans than current (and older) faves of mine such as Sonic Youth and Motorhead.

And I'll bet you that more people own something by Pavarotti and/or The Three Tenors than own something by Frank Zappa, a rock icon if there ever was one...

As such, classical music is NOT ignored as much as critical influential (read: serious) rock music.

In fact I was told by classical music buffs that unlike pop music, where marginal talents generally outsell more critically acclaimed artists, in Classical music, the most poipular players (i.e. the ones who you will see on Letterman and The Today Show) are usually the most talented.

That's an interesting point Satan. Does classical music have the equivalent of the Dave Clark Five, the Bee Gees, or Brittany Spears? Composers who were immensely popular in their own era, but who later generations didn't listen to? If Beethoven and Mozart are the Beatles and Pink Floyd of classical music, who is the Bay City Rollers?

[MrKnowItAll]

Salieri comes to mind.

[Gilligan]

Also J.S.Bach's sons - C.P.E., J.C., etc. (but not P.D.Q.)

The good points you all have made here could also be applied to art forms other than music - painting, literature, etc.

[k0myers]

The way I see it is that individual classical songs may be more "accessible" than individual rock songs, but that the genre as a whole is not. It's clearly not hard to find individual exceptions.

Also, some classical themes are very famous, the sort of things almost everyone has heard even if they can't recall the composer. But I think that's sort of an orthogonal concept.

To me, songs can be too well known. I love classical music, but I am not likely to sit down and listen to Beethoven's 5th, since I've heard it used too many times in used car commercials and cheesy low budget advertising to ever really enjoy it. Rather an undeserved fate for a worthy piece of music, IMHO.

k0myers

[Pete]

Mr.Know, a Beethoven symphony can sound very different from one group to the next, if you're a good listener.

And you don't have to be a good listener to tell the difference between Jascha Heifetz and Joshua Bell playing a concerto, just as you don't have to be a good listener to tell the difference between Elvis's voice and Frank Sinatra's voice, if they were to sing the same song.

------------------
I don't know who first said "everyone's a critic," but I think it's a really stupid saying.

[Joe Burns]

I think the main downfall of classical music
(these days) is that there are no words.
I read a rock auto-bio that noted "don't be clever, get to the chorus."

That "hook" is what places the music into people's mind and allows retention. (and enjoyment)

Do you also think that there's something to the fact that classical music has been raised to a point where you must "dress up" to see a concert? It a formal deal rather than something you'd do for kick on the weekend.

Just an opinion...

[sunbear]

Carl: There's "popular music" and "classical", which must be "unpopular". I posted a comment in Yahoo under classical. A reply came two weeks later. And it was of no interest to me. Those folks have such varied tastes that nobody agrees much. You need to consume all music to get a discussion going.

[TheDude]

I sing in a choir that performs all types of classical music. That having been said, I like to listen to classical music fairly rarely. I find that it often fails to fit my mood, unlike some of the other more popular music that I listen to. I also find that I am sometimes unwilling to put in the effort of listening that is required for classical music.

I think there are several reasons classical music is not more popular. I think what people have been saying about the length of the pieces is valid. I also think that one needs to have a certain amount of experience listening to classical music before one can really appreciate it.

Finally, I take issue with your statement that only classical music is "serious". I listen to a very wide variety of music and every different kind has its own merits. To claim that only one kind of music is worthwhile to listen to betrays as much ignorance and closed-mindedness as the kid who says that classical music is boring.

TheDude

I, too, find fault with the premise that only classical music is serious. But after reviewing the message board for AOL "Best Song of the Century" & seeing it crammed with teeny-bop songs from the last 2 years, I can see where someone could get the idea that contemporary popular music is a wasteland...I mean Truly, Madly, Deeply is easy to listen to, but Song of the Century? I don't think so.

I highly recommend that a few adults (if any still use AOL) enter some well-thought-out choices to try to bring some balance... I wish I knew more songs from the first half of the century, but must admit that most of the likely candidates on my list would come from the 60's, 70's, & 80's...

------------------
Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html (http://members.aol.com/majormd/index.html)

[Carl Berry]

I chose the word "serious" instead of "classical" so as not to scare people. The latter word "freaks out" many!

[MrKnowItAll]

Pete:Mr.Know, a Beethoven symphony can sound very different from one group to the next, if you're a good listener.

I was speaking about the average music listener. As I said before, the differences will be subtle. If you're a good listener, a piece can be distinguished from one performance to the next, even if performed by the same artist.

[Doobieous]

Pretty much all that has been said is what i was going to say :). For me, i dont know enough about classical music to find songs that suit my taste. The local classical station here plays really somber "quiet" music. I like my music loud and exciting. I do like some classical but it's mostly the energetic pieces. For popular music i agree, it's the lyrics that make the song interesting for the average listener. That explains why a lot of people my age dont like Electronic music, much of it has no lyrics, so the song is just noise to them (they dont like classical for that reason also).

I on the other hand appreciate the talents of DJ's. For instance, Armand Van Helden, who is the best House music producer out there. I do like music with hard beats, so i gravitate towards music that has those beats (it takes talent to make use of a drum machine).

------------------
"Raw to the floor like reservoir dogs"
- A.V. Helden

[Nickrz]

75% of classical music is boring.
The 25% of classical music worth listening to is still an enormous amount of music.

[tomndebb]

I think you guys are missing the single most important aspect of the situation: bi-directional snobbishness.

In the U.S., particularly, lo-o-o-o-o-ng before Rock and Roll (or even Pop), an attitude developed that symphonic music could only be enjoyed by the cultural elite. One reaction by hoi polloi was to dismiss symphonic (with its relatives opera and ballet) as stuffy. There are cartoons from the late nineteenth century ridiculing the idea that laborers could possibly "appreciate" what is often called "classical." If you watch old Fred Astaire movies on AMC, you will see that theme worked over again and again. As a result, people tended to listen to what they were "supposed" to listen to according to their social station. In the 1950's that sort of thing got a boost as radio stations began looking for "market segment." From then on, people would tend to only hear certain varieties of music. By the early seventies, this had stratisfied to the point where different stations only played specific sub-genres of an idiom. (In the mid-60's, your typical Rock and Roll station played Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Peter, Paul and Mary, Blues Magoos, Cream, Frank Sinatra, Nancy Sinatra, Tia Juana Brass, Dionne Warwick (don't remember the exact spelling of her name in those pre-numerology days), the Love Theme from Romeo and Juliet, and others--try getting that variety even from an oldies station, today.)

As kids grew up listening to a limited range of genres, they began to listen to only music they found comfortable--meaning they were used to it.

I notice that my kids (12 and 9) really get into the stuff that is on the currently popular Rock station that they hear their child-care workers play after school and summers. However, they also really get into a lot of the "Classic Rock" that I play on the car radio. In addition, they enjoy Celtic music, Symphonic Music, and show tunes which they hear at home from CDs or on the local Symphonic station. The sounds that they don't seem to enjoy are tunes from Cream, The Doors, Iron Butterfly, and a whole slew of late sixties stuff that I have only a few recordings of and that don't tend to get played on "Classic Rock."

In other words, everything they hear regularly, they have developed an ear for, while everything that is rarely heard they tend to reject.

I do not believe that there is any technical aspect that puts people off from any genre. I suspect that if you hear it enough, (provided you aren't nauseated by it and refuse to "get used" to it), you can appeciate most forms of music. In the last couple of years, I have gotten to where I can distinguish enjoyable from hated Zydeco tunes, where ten years ago I'd have run screaming into the night at the mention of Beau Soleil or any similar group.

------------------
Tom~

[sunbear]

The classical=symphonic assumtion is mostly correct. It's even harder to market small classical groups. Exceptions are travelling soloists(Marsalis..) and a few others: Modern mandolin quartet,the Baltimore Consort-who do sing, one string quartet that plays stuff like "Pieces of Africa", folk-classical type of groups. But it's difficult when the group has no singer to make an impression. Same with World Music groups who have a language barrier to deal with.

Baroque ensembles don't make a living playing live, they need to sell CDs worlwide to succeed.

[Ukulele Ike]

I appreciated Carl's use of "serious music" on the original post...no insult intended to serious musicians like Lou Reed or Duke Ellington or Mike Seeger. "Classical" always bugs the hell out of me, since it should be used to define a small subset of serious music (to oversimplify, the Haydn/Mozart/early Beethoven era)...how can you call J.S. Bach or Anton Webern or Edgard Varese a classical composer? What's "classical" about their styles? "Symphonic" doesn't work for me either; it leaves out the entire chamber music tradition and all those nice sonatas.

I use "serious" because it means "not pop," IOW the composer didn't give a rat's ass whether his piece would get radio play or the Leipzig Gewandhaus would slip it into a Sunday afternoon pops concert in 1804.

Maybe "art music" would be a better term?

What depresses me is the downfall of popular music. I enjoy classical (especially baroque), rock, show tunes, and pop music from the past 100 years or so. But "pop" music has taken a horrible downward spiral, beginning in the 1950s or so. Previously, composers like Cohan, Berlin, Gershwin, Porter, etc., wrote tunes for shows and movies that anyone could hum or sing; they became huge hits that we still know today. But the death of the B'way musical and the musical film put an end to that--now we only have Top 40 as our "pop music," and no one can hum that crap! So while Limp Biskit and Lenny Kravitz please the teeny-boppers, the rest of us are left with classical and the hummable oldies we can still find. I feel sorry for thiese kids who will have no worthwhile music to remember their youth by when they get old . . .

[tomndebb]

Ukelele Ike, I use symphonic because it is music that is played on instruments generally associated among hoi polloi with the symphony, not because I exclude other related works. I'm not married to the term: obviously, "show tunes" are usually played on the same instruments.

On the other hand, I reject "serious" because it fails both of the claims you have made for it: There is no legitimate way to claim that the body of John Lennon's work is "less serious" than that of (for example) the Strauss's. He worked in a medium that was more accessible (needing only a radio to hear, not the presence of a group of musicians), but he has produced work as sublime as either Strauss. He also produced ear candy and throw-away pieces; do you have proof (or even evidence) that every piece presented by the Strauss's was "serious"?

As to your comment that the composers of "serious" music simply created for art's sake without regard to the popularity of their efforts, it leads me to believe that you haven't read many biographies of those "serious" artists. For starters, try Arthur Sullivan and Piotr Tschaikovsky. Their letters and memoirs are filled with complaints that they had to write things for public consumption that they didn't enjoy. (And Tchaikovsky had a patron!)

The whole concept of patrons raises another issue. Most of the older composers worked hard to find a patron. As long as they didn't offend the patron, they could, indeed, write what they wanted, but they still had to produce enough music that the patron liked to stay in the patron's good graces.

I don't know about the term "art music." I am not in favor of anything that tries to make a genre look better or superior to another. (And yes, I accept that the majority of the symphonic/serious/art music that we hear is superior to the majority of the Rock, Country, and Hip-Hop that is currently played. However, that is simply Sturgeon's Law at work. We never hear the 90% of the symphonic/serious/art music that was crud and has been left behind. (Try listening to the works of Arthur Sullivan that he considered great and then compare them to his Savoy Operas that he thought were detracting from his goal of producing "art"--and that he wrote in order to finance his "art.")

------------------
Tom~

[Ukulele Ike]

Tom,
No, obviously I cannot provide proof that every string quartet or whatnot was created because the composer was providing the world with deathless music. And I agree with you about the patron thing...Haydn & Mozart were trying to please, although being quite creative within the perameters of what would make the boss happy.

Art for Art's Sake really originated during the Romantic Period...starving artist in the garret producing brilliant symphonies, paintings, poems, etc., with no regard for the man in the street.

Nonetheless, what Old Bach created for use in church, what Mozart wrote to make the Archbishop of Salzburg happy at parties, transcended the crapola that other composers may have been making at the same time for the same pecuniary reasons.

So, okay, "art music" isn't the best term either. But "symphonic," I'm sorry, still says "symphony" to me...a small part of the (ahem) serious canon. And if I see a piano, I'm just as likely to whomp out a dirty blues as play a transcription of Beethoven's Seventh.

Hey, should this thread be in the Debate Forum?

Frank Zappa said, "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture."

[Ukulele Ike]

Actually, he said "WRITING about music..."

------------------
Uke

[Carl Berry]

"Concert Music" was a term often used instead of "Classical" or "Serious" until the 60's, Then "concert" started to be used to discribe any performance in front of an audiance. Even stand up comedians had "concerts"! As a kid, it was called "Long Hair" then the Beatles appeared. Since then there is no general word for it. It appears that there is no word for it that is inoffenseive to everyone.

[k0myers]

I think it would be a good thing if one could attend the symphony in nothing more formal than one might wear to a movie theatre. Perhaps there could be formal and informal nights, so that people who enjoyed the formal dress could still do it, while making it easier for the rest of us.

k0myers

[sunbear]

I don't have a problem with the "classical" term. It's pretty neutral. The music stores sure don't know how to file the stuff WITHIN the classical section. If they don't have an artist or composer (which they also mix up)they have no idea where to file it. And most artists/ensembles don't have their own bin.
Complicated? Yes.

My earlier post referred to the Kronos quartet.

[SoxFan59]

One reaction by hoi polloi was to dismiss symphonic (with its relatives opera and ballet) as stuffy. There are cartoons from the late nineteenth century ridiculing the idea that laborers could possibly "appreciate" what is often called "classical." If you watch old Fred Astaire movies on AMC, you will see that theme worked over again and again.>>> Tomndebb

Fred Astaire works this theme over and over again?

Being an afficiendo of Astaire films, I can recall only one film of his that particularly focused on this theme ("Shall We Dance," when he played the American tap dancer masquerading as a Russian ballet star). Many of his films dealt with the hypocriticl foibles of the upper class, but rarely from the standpoint of "serious" v.popular music; the theatre v. wall street as a career perhaps, but I believe you mischaracterize Astaire's work.

------------------
SoxFan59
"Its fiction, but all the facts are true!"

[MrKnowItAll]

Ladies and gentlemen, might I present the term that is actually used by most performing musicians, "classical" or not.

It is "legitimate", or "legit" for short. Very few musicians take offense to their music being thought of as not "legit", because they are usually the ones who actually make money.

For instance, if a jazz trumpet player gets a job with a symphony, he is thought of as going "legit".

[TubaDiva]

No C&P.

Just an observation from someone that's worked both sides of the street -- played in orchestras and in jazz bands, on the street and in the hall -- it's all music, it's all good. And that should be the only criteria, but all too often it's not.

A lot of people feel disenfranchised when they think of symphonic works or opera or jazz, even -- somehow the idea got across to the average joe that they just weren't smart enough to get it, they couldn't possibly appreciate it without some education and somebody to tell em what they were listening to and why.

I also tend blame people like Stan Kenton, who liked to call jazz "America's classical music" at the same time he did his damndest to make it difficult for people to dance to and/or listen to.

The academics in our school systems also did their part; by perpetuating the myth that appreciation of music takes great study, they protect their own turf. If you could listen to it/play it for yourself without them telling you what's good and what's not, you might put them out of a job.

When I play for somebody, I understand that I'm educating as much as I am entertaining. That's part of my responsibility to the music, to make what I do meaningful and approachable to people that are listening to it, and it's true regardless of what section of the musical vineyard I'm hoeing over.

It also gives me an incredible charge when they DO get it . . . people can get very excited over what you bring them. . . sometimes life itself changes because of this sort of thing. (It's how I became a musician in the first place, a long time ago.)

I've been thrilled by a Duane Allman solo . . . a Mahler symphony . . . Hank Williams was every bit as cool as Bach. (Both had great talent.) Jimmy Buffett and Puccini have more in common than you realize.

I'll get off the soapbox now. Maybe I'll even go practice.

your humble TubaDiva
How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

[sunbear]

Carl: I used to read Grammophone. It isn't that easy to write about classical music and keep people interested. What did you want to discuss? The composers are a little easier to discuss. The books by David Barber are entertaining.

[sunbear]

This sure didn't go anywhere. Suppose we start a thread Whos is your favorite composer?We wouldn't restrict the music category. I presume we could restrict it to music that could be performed from notes. So no rap.

[Carl Berry]

In the 50's, record shops were 1/2 "classical" & 1/2 pop (which included Broadway & movie music) Since then, the classical section got smaller & smaller to the point that today it is relegated to an obscure corner or is non-existant! What happened?

[TubaDiva]

In the 50's, record shops were 1/2 "classical" & 1/2 pop (which included Broadway & movie music) Since then, the classical section got smaller & smaller to the point that today it is relegated to an obscure corner or is non-existant! What happened?

Some WAGS on my part, but I think symphonic music is not as popular for several reasons:

1. Little or no music education in the public schools. As schools have had less money, art and music teaches have been the first to go; as core curriculum has lengthened in such subjects as math and science, electives have been dropped.

2. Not everybody hears this music in their homes, either; not a lot of parents take their kids to the symphony or the opera.

3. The price of the average ticket for this type of event is often out of the reach for a lot of people, even if they knew about it and wanted to go. There's also a popular misconception that attending symphonic events means getting all dressed up and that makes it that much less of a "fun" thing to do. Why bother?

Since many people never hear any of this sort of thing (and often are bored spitless when they do), they're not likely to buy recordings.

In any event, too bad; they don't know what they're missing.

your humble TubaDiva

[Satan]

It's simple there is less classical percentage wise now in stores than in the '50s:

In the '50's, especially the early '50s, there were far less genres of music to put out!

Before rock, you had your crooners, aka pop performers. You had your "black music," as it was called then, encompassing blues and jazz. There was country/folk as well, though from what I understand, getting both country and "black music" in the same stores was something only in major cities. They didn't have Blockbusters then, after all...

Now, you've got a dozen distinct genres, and numerous sub-genres. I mean, I could name a half dozen or more bands I could term post-punk industrial-tinged grindy metal! Not that that constitutes a section in yer local disc emporium, but it shows how many different flavors exist out there these days.