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