Over here, I made some disparaging remarks about classical music, that were (reasonably) disputed.
Since the subject of classical music was tangential (at best) to that thread, I thought I’d start a new one to discuss the phenomenon of classical music.
As I stated in the earlier thread, I regard classical music as a sort of Muzak. It has (for me) virtually no content. It doodles around not unpleasantly in the background, but it doesn’t do anything for me. I have difficulty finding connection to a piece of music which didn’t even rate its own name from the composer - just a number and a type designation.
In that other thread, I was informed that a great many pieces of classical music reflect the times and the mindset of the composer. It seemed to me, then, that the only way I would be able to comprehend such music would be to study the composer’s background and the historical setting. The composer and I, after all, do live in considerably different times.
Yosemitebabe informs me then that she, and a great number of people, enjoy classical music without studying the history of it. It simply “speaks” to them in some way, and that study isn’t necessary for enjoyment.
Yosemitebabe also explains that she grew up with that type of music, and had favorites by the time she was ten years old. That doesn’t surprise me, really. My children (ages 4 1/2 years and 2 years) have definite likes and dislikes about music. Most of those likes I can, however, track to their roots. My daughter tends to like rock and roll and hard rock (much like I do.) I can see where her favorites come from, even though she herself probably can’t. Almost invariably, the songs she likes most are the ones that I like enough to sing along with (caution: do not ask me to do this in your presence) or that cause me to pick up one of the kids and dance around the living room.
I also understand where my own likes come from. Until the age of twenty, I liked country music and rock and roll. I wouldn’t touch hard rock with a stick. A young woman I met back then introduced me to AC/DC with a strip tease number. That got me interested in the music, and I began to listen to more of it and learned that these guys (and others like them) were expressing things that I myself felt. Before that, I listened to country and rock and roll because my parents did. I liked a lot of what I heard, but it wasn’t like I went and consciously decided to try country music. It was there, I listened for lack of anything else, and developed a liking for certain pieces.
The thing is, when a group expressions something, the main part of it for me came in the form of the lyrics rather than in the music. I actually listen to what is being sung, not just the music. It has always been that way - I like to know what the composer was trying to say. The music plays more of a supporting role - it definitely isn’t enough by itself.
Classical music lacks lyrics entirely, and the musical cues for different feelings are not the same ones used today. If a modern composer wants to imply war or battle (like one example mentioned in the other thread,) then he has very different options today. For the life of me, I don’t know how you get an orchestra to imply a battle. A modern composer can include sound clips of explosions or gunfire (or simulations,) and possibly use a synthesizer to actually play them as music or rhythm. Classical music lacks this possibility and must use stylized representation. I don’t know the stylizations - and even if I know them for one composer, how sure can I be that it would mean the same thing coming from a composer a hundred years later or half a continent away?
One of my favorites is “Hoodlum Thunder” from Zodiac Mindwarp and the Love Reaction. This song expresses dislike for American policies around the time of the first Gulf War, and also dislike of some other musicians who supported the war. The lyrics make the song, and the music supports it. The thing is, though, if some one listens to it in a hundred years, they probably won’t get it unless they are very conversant with the history of the times. The line “here comes Whitney with her Steely Dan, pimping emotions for Uncle Sam” won’t mean a thing if you don’t know that Whitney Houston brought out a remake of a song in support of the war effort. Time will have rendered that particular song (Hoodlum Thunder) irrelevant to listeners in that time. The music is the same, but the meaning is lost.
In much the same way, I feel that classical music, however much it may have been a breakthrough in its time, is pretty much irrelevant today. The enviroment in which it was created is gone, and understanding comes only for those who have studied the times and know the background. Others listen to it today, and like it, but for what I would term the wrong reasons:
People grow up listening to it, and form associations with it that reflect their own experiences (how they were exposed to the music) rather than an understanding of the music.
Why do people like classical music, and is it still relevant today?
