Classical Music Is Not Dead!

[RABid]

[video:youtube]

[re Pete]

It's amazing the resources at hand for musicians or whoever. Imagine if you wanted to go to these concerts and what it would cost you. As good though as the productions are, nothing beats live.

 

 

[Outkaster]

[video:youtube]

 

 

Incredible. Looks like a model D. The strength required to play that is incredible and then to memorize it also.

[GRollins]

While I know that it's not likely to happen, I think classical music would be a more healthy segment of the musical market if there was new music being written that didn't sound like trash can lids being beaten together. The classical concerts I've been to have largely trended towards the "classics," by which I mean established pieces that have stood the test of time...Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, et. al. Okay, that's good. I adore Tchaikovsky, for instance. But...how many times do I want to hear Tchaikovsky's 4th in a row? My ears ache for new music in that same vein. Will that happen? Not bloody likely. Instead, I get new compositions that are atonal and do not develop musical themes in the manner that the older music did. We get a theme--let's call it a riff--that gets presented, then it's discarded, only to be replaced by another riff that's also discarded, then another, then another, then another... No thematic development. No theme and variations. Just the musical equivalent of a child with ADHD who has no ability to concentrate.

 

Don't tell me it's "the style" of this era. That's a trivial observation. I already realize that. But if concert halls want to fill seats, they're going to need new material that works for the audience. It's not the function of an orchestra to write music--they're there to play it. There have been cases where pieces have been commissioned for orchestras, but that's not the usual flow. Composers write and offer their music for public performance.

 

But the vast preponderance of new orchestral music sounds...well...nasty. Am I just being a curmudgeon? Maybe. Maybe not. Note that the public are staying away from music halls in droves,so maybe it's not just me. The audience trends older and older and then they die off, leaving empty seats.

 

Meanwhile, popular music (let's ignore Covid for the moment) is very successful. Why? Because bands release an new album, say, once a year, and the people who like that band's music have something new to go listen to that's in the same vein as the band's previous music.

 

Where's the equivalent in classical music?

 

Film music. Every year or two, John Williams would "have a new album come out" in the form of a movie soundtrack and there was at least the potential for a "tour" of the major musical halls that would draw crowds. And yet...the most that happened was that you'd go to a concert, say, a year--maybe two--after the movie came out and they'd play maybe 10 minutes of music from a given film, then go back to the golden oldies. The lush romantic scores work. People love that music. Still. Today. The style is there, but many composers are ignoring it. Instead, they hew to the harsh sounds and people clap half-heartedly at the end and wipe their brows, saying, "Whew! Glad that's over." The music is never heard again after its premiere. Why? Because it wasn't worthy.

 

There's a disconnect somewhere. On the one hand we have concert goers who consistently support a certain style of music. There are at least some composers who are willing and able to provide music that will scratch that itch. But it's not making it into live performances in more than minimal amounts, and late at that. I would suggest that if film music is the only current expression of the "right" sort of music, then perhaps classical orchestras should be ready to upend their published schedules as soon as a movie's music proves popular. "Yes, we had Brahms and Schumann and Berlioz on our concert schedule for March 18th, but instead we're going to play a suite of Howard Shore's work from the new movie." Strike while the iron's hot, dammit! People saw the movie last week. They loved the score. Give it to them NOW. Right the fuck NOW! While it's still in their minds and hearts. Don't wait to schedule it into the middle or latter part of next season's performances. Hit it NOW. I mean, really. How stupid can people be? There's a market. Meet the market today.

 

Yes, you'd get ticket cancellations. Upon learning that seat J12 is open, put it up on your website IMMEDIATELY so that the starry-eyed woman who cried as the hero and heroine finally kissed at the end of the movie can buy that seat ASAP. She wants to hear that music badly. Give it to her, live. Let her feel the swell without compression and without the limitations of the theater sound system. Tug those heartstrings! Let the guy who thrilled to the brass crescendo as the X-wing fighter pilot blew the hell out of the enemy flagship against impossible odds have his adrenaline fix! Change the damned market model! Get the hot music into the concert halls and the people will show up.

 

I daresay that if my model proves successful, more composers would write music that actually sounded good. The supply would increase. Things might even get to the point where composers start composing for concert halls instead of movies.

 

...And if you don't mind, yes, I'd like to hear Tchaikovsky's "Little Russian" once again after Howard Shore's latest music...after all, Led Zeppelin would always play Stairway To Heaven after they played the new stuff, right?

 

Grey

[Docbop]

Want classical to be more popular then bring back music education along with all the arts in the schools. It helps teach creativity, responsibility, and teamwork that helps in whatever path they take in life. Don't limit it to just classical teach all genres of music. They need to understand the classical composers were the people pushing the boundaries for their time so young people can learn to think freely and creativity to push the boundaries of their time.

[GRollins]

My feeling is that if you have to be "educated" to like something, it's not got enough appeal on its own. I'm not saying that music education is a bad thing...far from it...but people don't have to be "educated" to like rock. It succeeds on its own merits. Likewise, people don't have to be told to like movie soundtracks--the music reaches them viscerally and they want more of it simply because it speaks to them on an emotional level.

 

Grey

[marino]

I'm not a big fan of Rachmaninoff or that particular concert, but this performance is gorgeous. The recording is excellent too. Thank you!

 

To me, much of today's disaffection for classical music is a matter of exposition. I remember that in the 70s, classical music was played on national tv quite often; also concerts were everywhere, and it wasn't all Beethoven and Chopin. Bartok, Prokoviev, Debussy were programmed very often, and some avant-garde stuff like Berio or Ligeti was sometimes mixed with more traditional music. I found that very healthy. I remember even going to the main reharsal for Stockhausen's "Hymnen" as a teenage student, with a school program!

 

I first got interested in jazz and electronic music because they were on the radio, together with pop/rock and the latest top 40 - although not in the same amount, of course - so anybody could be exposed to different genres and decide for himself what to like and dislike. And the most outside music styles were often presented by competent journalists.

 

Today there's absoulutely nothing like that. Yes, on the internet everybody can find everything, but without a minimum of direction or context, the easiest path is to go with the lowest common denominator. So without a guide or a pre-existent motivation, the casual listener is submergerged by an avalanche of worthless banalities, from which it's difficult to unravel, and to keep a receptive brain for more complex material.

[GovernorSilver]

NPR's Deceptive Cadence series covers both dead composers like Beethoven and Rachimanoff, as well as living ones like John Luther Adams, Thomas Ades, and Sarak Kirkland Snyder.

 

https://www.npr.org/blogs/deceptivecadence/

[Docbop]

My feeling is that if you have to be "educated" to like something, it's not got enough appeal on its own. I'm not saying that music education is a bad thing...far from it...but people don't have to be "educated" to like rock. It succeeds on its own merits. Likewise, people don't have to be told to like movie soundtracks--the music reaches them viscerally and they want more of it simply because it speaks to them on an emotional level.

 

Grey

 

I would say it's exposure to than being educated to like something.

 

Life is full of things we weren't aware of till someone parent, teacher, friend, or just seeing/hearing about something and became interested. I read a lot of biographies and interviews with Jazz musicians and most say they were exposed to lots of music as a kid and that was part of them developing interest in music and seeking out more knowledge on music. Without exposure to many genres of music in school kids today are mainly being programmed by music industry market machine. When historian study past societies one of the main things they looks at is the arts of the period, because the arts reflex the world and how people viewed the world thru music, art, and literature. What will the music of the last hundred years say about us to scholars of the future. Scary thought.

[stoken6]

Thomas Ades

Was at school with me. Uncanny musical talent.

 

Cheers, Mike.

[Tusker]

"Today there's absoulutely nothing like that. Yes, on the internet everybody can find everything, but without a minimum of direction or context, the easiest path is to go with the lowest common denominator. So without a guide or a pre-existent motivation, the casual listener is submergerged by an avalanche of worthless banalities, from which it's difficult to unravel, and to keep a receptive brain for more complex material."

 

 

 

I have been enjoying "Inside the Score"s podcast called Discovering Classical Music. It's ten episodes with each one discussing a well known piece. It's not meant to be a definitive analysis.

 

 

I thought I knew and liked these tunes, but this has rekindled my appreciation for them. Music is the best.

[pinkfloydcramer]

Love it! Eric Carmen "All By Myself"!

 

I had a couple years of music in college but wasn't that exposed to Rachmaninoff. Had to learn Prelude in G Minor- not my favorite piece of his- for my one and only recital in front of the student body. Maybe it was my one and only recital because I lost my place and had to start over, but that wasn't Rach's fault. . I really like Russian composers in general, black Russians and white Russians too. Favorite piece from those days was Katchaturian's Toccata, partially because it was slightly easier to play. I intend at some point to post a clip of Vera Wang playing the cadenza from Prokofiev's Piano Concerto #2. I know it is considered one of the technically hardest passages to perform but I'm not distracted by that, I just think it's a transfixing piece of music. I can't wait to give it the Floyd Cramer treatment.

 

I learned about it, and other things, from Classic FM. Love that site- any other Classic FM followers here?

 

I could add some thoughts RE whether classical music is dead but that can wait until I get tired of enjoying the music.

[Outkaster]

I am playing Sonatina's and a Sonata right now. It's not that I love it, in fact some of these just aren't really good pieces but I need to become a better player so that's why I practice. If you tell that to a piano teacher they look at like you have three heads. The fact is just because it's classical doesn't mean it's all good. . Classical music is in it's own world and the conservatory's and university's make it so. We have one of the best musical schools here in the World. I work at a different part of the University but they might as well be a separate company. With all the kids there they don't do anything for the music scene as much as they'd like you to think they do. Classical music isn't the music of the streets and fewer kids are exposed to it especially in low SES populations.

[RABid]

In the 60's and 70's exposure came from cartoons. When I started learning classical in piano lessons it was mostly songs that I remembered from Saturday morning cartoons.

 

The thing I really like in this video is that some passages are very simple and delicate, parts that I could easily play. And some passages make you go "Wow! She has it going on!"

[Sospiri]

The subject raised by the OP doesn't need a thread. To even attempt to discuss it in depth requires a whole damned forum! Everyone goes through an enormous number of mental moods, continually, and there are times when most musicians will want to listen to the different types of music that they have encountered in their lives so far. The non-musician is different and somewhat more limited in the stuff he wants to listen to.

 

Some of us have played avant-garde jazz, and with at least one fine musician, it can be an enjoyable and challenging experience. But to the average person it's like putting a galvanised iron bucket on thrir head and hiiting it with a lump hammer - when the Hell is it going to stop???!!! Many non-muesicians come to the same conclusion with classical music, modern jazz, and probably bottom of the list, opera. Some people just cannot stand opera or choral music, even though by and large they can at least tolerate the more conventional and popular classical music. I listen to the lot with the possible exception of vocal pop music, simply because it generally bores me silly - there's not enough there to hold my interest for more than two or three minutes, but I certainly don't decry those who wish to or even get deeply involved in it, anymore that I expect those same persons to enjoy a Bach invention, a Puccini opera or an Edwardian operetta.

 

So, classical music is far from dead, though its development over the last 60 or 70 years has been largely falling on deaf ears outside music colleges. And to a certain extent I blame those very people in music colleges for producing a lot of unmemorable, tuneless rubbish that doesn't attempt to engage with the audience be they musicians or not. Rant over.

[ProfD]

Classical music is alive and well. It has been feeding people all over the world for centuries now.

 

While it is no longer "Pop" music, many folks have built careers in academia and performance on Classical Music.

[Outkaster]

Yes that's true but I'd argue it's an insular group of people.

[ProfD]

Yes that's true but I'd argue it's an insular group of people.

 

That can be said about every genre and style of music. Some seem more accessible than others. Then, there's the matter of interest in it.

 

I don't like okra. No amount of exposure or education is going to change it.

[area51recording]

Classical music.....dead? Nope, not even close....

[Docbop]

The problem with classical is the listener forget the composers were pushing the boundaries of music of their time. The composers were really creative people of their day, but the listener tend to look down on music from the later eras. The don't realize Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and down the line if were alive today they would be pushing boundaries of harmony, instruments, recording, and so on. Bach and crew would be say get your head out of that old stuff and check out what I'm doing now.

 

Study the past, but play in the present.

[EscapeRocks]

My feeling is that if you have to be "educated" to like something, it's not got enough appeal on its own. I'm not saying that music education is a bad thing...far from it...but people don't have to be "educated" to like rock. It succeeds on its own merits. Likewise, people don't have to be told to like movie soundtracks--the music reaches them viscerally and they want more of it simply because it speaks to them on an emotional level.

 

Grey

 

This is a very valid point IMHO. One of my very extreme pet peeves is when I tell someone I'm not really into a certain genre of music, and they simply say, "well you obviously are not educated," as if I'm some sort of troglodyte, and without even knowing my musical background. (I am educated, theory, classic, jazz, etc... yet I prefer to plat rock)

I also think this piggy-backs with y thought that I can totally appreciate and acknowledge someone's musical talent, yet not care for the music they play.

 

Heck, there's composers, bands, and performers in the genres of music a really like, that leave me cold.

 

This is all totally subjective. For me, music is an extremely personal thing. What grabs me or moves me is all on me, yet no reflection on "you".

[RABid]

The problem with classical is the listener forget the composers were pushing the boundaries of music of their time. The composers were really creative people of their day, but the listener tend to look down on music from the later eras. The don't realize Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and down the line if were alive today they would be pushing boundaries of harmony, instruments, recording, and so on. Bach and crew would be say get your head out of that old stuff and check out what I'm doing now.

 

Study the past, but play in the present.

 

While much of Bach's music may seem old and mechanical, his use of accidentals is still far above what you hear from modern composers and something much worth studying.

[Docbop]

 

While much of Bach's music may seem old and mechanical, his use of accidentals is still far above what you hear from modern composers and something much worth studying.

 

 

To repeat myself... Study the past and play in the present.

[Spider76]

people don't have to be "educated" to like rock.

 

Correct. For people who grew up in the late 20th century in the Western world. Which is a pretty narrow demographic, although we tend to think it's the only one, simply because we belong to it.

A 20-years old will probably have only some vague idea of rock, and tell you instead that you dont have to be "educated" to like K-Pop or Armin Van Buren.

 

Personally, although I'm mostly a pop-rock player I'd never say classical is dead. And I speak of the "classic" classical, not the contemporary one. I mean, there's so much of it that a lifetime isn't nearly enough to appreciate it all, how could it be "dead"?

I don't think a genre is dead just because it's old. As long as there's something to be enjoyed and learned from it, it will always be alive. And if it's good, why reinvent the wheel?

Why should we feel the need to find the " new" Beethoven (or the new Beatles, or Armstrong, etc)when we have the real one?

[GovernorSilver]

Classical music is alive and well. It has been feeding people all over the world for centuries now.

 

While it is no longer "Pop" music, many folks have built careers in academia and performance on Classical Music.

 

Agreed.

 

There are many places where classical music - both contemporary and dead composers classical - is presented to the public for free. If classical music were truly "insular", it would not be so accessible to the public.

 

People not taking advantage of those concert opportunities because of their own insularity is a different matter.

[Doc Tonewheel]

The problem with classical is the listener forget the composers were pushing the boundaries of music of their time. The composers were really creative people of their day, but the listener tend to look down on music from the later eras. The don't realize Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and down the line if were alive today they would be pushing boundaries of harmony, instruments, recording, and so on. Bach and crew would be say get your head out of that old stuff and check out what I'm doing now.

 

Study the past, but play in the present.

 

While much of Bach's music may seem old and mechanical, his use of accidentals is still far above what you hear from modern composers and something much worth studying.

 

Absolutely! HIs music is simple and incredibly complex at the same time. I am learning the WTC Prelude and Fugue in C minor and his use of accidentals creates a beautiful amount of tension and excitement throughout the fugue.I also really don't like the Schirmer publications as they add all these performance notations that Bach never wrote in his music (I much prefer the Henle Verlag editions). This lets the performer iimpart his own interpretation on the music. Bach was a famous for his improvisation. He rarely added any tempo notations which gives the player the freedom to play it how they feel it. As you said, he really did push the boundaries for his time (e.g., use of the thumb).

[GRollins]

There seems to be some confusion about what I meant regarding education and music that people gravitate towards naturally.

 

To me, education and exposure are not necessarily the same thing. Yes, education involves exposure...after all, it would be difficult to talk about Bach's music without listening to it or playing it or at least reading the sheet music. At that point you've been exposed to Bach's music. However, education is more than mere exposure. There will be lessons about the structure of the music, what the composer meant for the music to convey to the listener, or at a bare minimum some biographical material about the composer. Then you were tested. Then came the mid-terms, then the final exam. Ugh. To my way of thinking, that's a recipe for turning someone against music.

 

Exposure can take many forms. As RABid pointed out, there used to be a lot of classical music in cartoons. I know I absorbed a lot of classical music that way. I had no idea what the name of the piece was or who composed it, but the music itself was there and I was left to decide for myself whether I liked it in a low-pressure environment. Some I liked. Some I didn't. But the seeds were sown and allowed to grow naturally. Rock, for me, was pretty much the same sort of thing. There was one rock station in town and there were stations that played a lot of other styles. My mother liked Glen Campbell and the soundtracks from musicals like South Pacific and The King and I. By definition, I was exposed to Glen Campbell, etc. I didn't much like it. It was easy to sing along with, so I learned the words and would try to mimic his delivery, but I didn't care for it. It was better than no music at all, but not by much. But the rock station was another matter entirely. There were bands I didn't like (even though I was "exposed" to them) and bands I took to immediately, as though there was something in my DNA that primed me for their music. No one droned on about the meaning of the music or the lives of the boys in the band or the reasons for the chord changes. It either worked for me or it didn't. Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young worked. The Turtles didn't. The Yardbirds were a near miss. The Stones didn't work. Cream was another near miss. Santana worked, and how! On and on and on. And no, there was very little to no peer pressure involved. No one I knew was as into music as I was. Not even remotely, faintly, a tiny bit. If anything, it was the other way around. I was pestering others to try to get them to see what I saw in the music I liked. Not one single person in my circle of acquaintances had the slightest interest in learning to play an instrument. It wasn't until my family moved to another town that I found people who were as passionate about music as I was, but by then my course was already set.

 

And it wasn't due to "education." That came later when I chose to delve more deeply into the music that I loved. It was my choice; something that came from within. It was not imposed from without. To me, that's a large part of the distinction: Does the impulse come from within or without?

 

Grey

[Outkaster]

Yes that's true but I'd argue it's an insular group of people.

 

That can be said about every genre and style of music. Some seem more accessible than others. Then, there's the matter of interest in it.

 

I don't like okra. No amount of exposure or education is going to change it.

 

 

Again but it's a small amount of people and it isn't the music of the streets anymore. I think a lot of institutions foster that also.

[Tusker]

Yes, classical music is not dead. It's alive in the concert hall, but it's also alive in all it's descendants and relatives. It lives in every form of music which uses triadic harmony or ever will. It's alive when people sing the Star Spangled Banner, or when a happy couple walks down a wedding aisle to the sound of Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream. It was alive when John Coltrane rendered his seminal version of "Favorite Things," and it's alive in Kendrick's Humble. It will likely adorn the most important moments of our great grandchildren's lives and be a soundtrack to the games they will play and the movies they will see. True, it arose during a brief period of European empires and it was devised for kings, but it has outlasted the empires and the kings. Why? Because symmetry is beautiful to the human spirit and symmetrical structure once discovered, becomes a foundation for imagination and exploration.

[GovernorSilver]

Yes, classical music is not dead. It's alive in the concert hall, but it's also alive in all it's descendants and relatives. It lives in every form of music which uses triadic harmony or ever will. It's alive when people sing the Star Spangled Banner, or when a happy couple walks down a wedding aisle to the sound of Mendelssohn's Midsummer Night's Dream.

 

Also in FREE concerts in parks, public squares, churches, museums that don't charge admission (FREE), etc.

 

We played In C by Terry Riley in a public plaza several years ago, for free.