Attend a symphony today, and the audience strongly skews toward whites with higher incomes and graduate education, prompting some observers to conclude that classical/orchestral music is for the “elite.”
But has this music ever enjoyed widespread, “top-to-bottom” popularity, on par with what rock or country or hip-hop do today? Or has it always claimed something of a niche following?
What was the reality in 1900, 1850 and 1750 America or Europe?
It’s never had significant lower-class appeal, but much of what we consider classical music was originally targeted at a middle-class audience. The old aristocratic elites listened to chamber music; the full symphony orchestra only became economical with the rise of a paying middle class audience in the 19th century.
If you want to stretch a point, movie music is usually orchestral music, and it has been popular with the masses. Some of this music has made it into the repertoire of at least pops orchestras.
“Popular” in the sense of people attending the symphony to hear classical (small “c”) compositions.
Opera in particular has, at times, had a far more widespread appeal than it does today. However, trying to compare to the followings of modern music isn’t easy, because there you’re talking about a culture which has grown up within modern mass communication. If there was no radio, no CDs, no internet, no television, how many people would go to a hip-hop show?
I’m not saying that this is the only reason for differences in appeal, not at all, but I’m just highlighting how difficult the apparently-simple comparison is.
My mom, from an impoverished post-war italian home, has memories of sitting on the grass to listen to opera with a basket of salami and crusty bread (surrounded by like people with like menus). I guess that’s a vote for yes.
At the height of his fame in the 19th C, Franz Liszt used to get mobbed and followed by groupies wherever he went, and used to play the then-equivalent of stadium gigs (several thousand spectators).
Even today, opera is immensely popular with soccer crowds in Italy - hence the widespread appeal of The Three Tenors.
Oh, and it’s worth remembering that the classical orchestral format originally grew out of the Italian (and other central European) folk tradition; at one point, apart from liturgical music, it was all the music there was, so it was very popular in that sense.
Opera used to be the standard “performance” entertainment in much of Europe, notably Italy. It was not for the cultural elite, but for the public generally. And it was performed in the vernacular: If La Scala staged Boris Godunov, they used an Italian translation of the libretto; if the Munchner Opferhaus did La Traviata, they used a German translation. It is only America (and to a smaller extent the U.K.) that turned opera into a preserve-the-original performance for the elite. If the plots generally seem like soap opera today, that’s because that was their function.
As for symphonic music, think of the Boston Pops concerts for starters. I’ve noticed that whenever a classical orchestra holds a free/minimal-cost public performance in an amphitheatre-type venue, there’s a massive turnout, and from many walks of life and socioeconomic ranges.
So going to a Queen concert in the the seventies wouldn’t count? 
In Spain when I go to a concert I go in jeans. El Liceo de Barcelona sells very cheap tickets for dress rehearsals, so it’s usually high school and college students or friends and family of the local performers (dancers, chorus). Those towns in my area that have enough Fiestas budgets for daily bullruns (as opposed to cowruns) make sure to include some orchestral music in the free concerts. That’s often open-air, with people drinking directly out of the bottles and eating sandwiches.
I find concerts in America to be terribly elitist by comparison.
Ever been to an outdoor classical concert? I’ve been to two in the past few years that were packed. Barely enough unoccupied room on the grass to pass by, let alone spread out a blanket and sit. And while both included numerous “lollipops” (orchestra jargon for short, peppy, highly recognizable works), these were not (nor were they advertised as being) “pops” concerts. No guest stars, no dance numbers, no movie or TV show themes, no singalongs.
And the steaming common herd applauded, begging for more.
If the notion of “classical” (a vague term if there ever was one) can be suspended for a moment, and the notion of “orchestral” (another vague term) stressed, I would submit that during the Big Band era many of the predominantly dance-oriented bands/orchestras would spend part of their programs playing some of what was mostly “listening” music. Even if the notion of “orchestra” is reserved for musical groups that include strings, some of the bands had a string section, especially for recordings, even if the strings didn’t make the touring group.
The line of demarcation between a “band” and an “orchestra” gets fuzzy when you consider the military bands of John Philip Sousa’s era. No strings, but a large ensemble of wind instruments would perform “serious” music along with the marches and martial fare. In any case, the bandstands and bandshells where these groups performed were open (more or less) to the public and fairly well attended by all.
As a side note, it was the fusion of brass bands and blues that led to what we call Jazz. There is a considerable subset of Jazz that can be regarded as “orchestral” and there’s even a subgenre called Third Stream where the music played is hard to pigeon-hole as being Jazz or Classical or whatever. Much the same as Fusion is the hybrid of Jazz and Rock.
As for the overall popularity of any music before the advent of recordings, it would be hard to make the case that the less-well-to-do would have access to the larger ensembles. Individual musicians on meager instruments would account for the majority of the musical exposure for most of the poorer folks. Small groups like jazz combos, string bands, rock groups, folk groups and so on, are the way that the majority of music fans get to hear their music.
So, it’s a reasonable statement to make that “orchestral” music is not for everybody. Never has been. Never will.
Nowadays “classical” music pretty much does mean “the classics.” There’s a good chance that none of the music played at the symphony concert you attended was less than a hundred years old. Gone are the days when people would flock to the concert hall to hear the latest works by Beethoven.
Longhorns.
I can think of plenty that’s less than one hundred years old. Sergei Prokofiev, Dmitri Shostakovich, Igor Stravinsky, George Gershwin, Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein, etc.
They might not be the latest, but there is a LOT of, well, relatively new classical music, as opposed to Beethoven and Bach.
Opera singer Jenny Lind was immensely popular in both Europe and the US in the mid-1850s with a repertoire that I believe consisted largely of classical selections. I don’t know, however, if someone from the poorer classes would have been able to afford a ticket.
There’s something really sad here.
We are blessed to live in an age when virtually any type of music that’s ever existed is available, literally at our fingertips. And that has never been true until the past few years. It’s as easy to download Brahms as it is to download the latest hip-hop. We are so amazingly lucky in that respect. What previous generations would have given for that kind of opportunity!. And yet classical just doesn’t sell. Even older non-classical doesn’t sell. There’s a definite prejudice involved here, and sadly, people don’t even know what they’re missing.
Yes, true enough. Still, it wouldn’t be unusual to go to a symphony concert and not hear anything that had been written within the last 100 years. And still, even the people you mentioned are no longer composing today (they’re decomposing). And though new “classical” music is being written even today, the masses aren’t particularly aware of it.
My point was essentially what one poster said in this old thread on What’s the current status of “classical” music?:
I’m going to respectfully disagree. The crowds at performance of the Water Music or Messiah were watching the Next Best Thing, performed with the latest cutting edge musical technologies (Glass Harmonica, anyone?), same as us.
Sure, they might possibly have turned up to hear some dude strum a lute or toot on a crumhorn, but they had let that style slide because they were, as we are, in love with innovation, and what was the most popular musical form at the time. Don’t get me wrong: the talent behind much of it is, of course, immense; but it isn’t necessarily prejudice that means “classical” music doesn’t get the mass attention you think it deserves. It’s just because it’s old.
Get with it, granddad!