Classical music: What does it represent?

[serge urtizberea]

I think we're revealing more personal details than one would normally do, but it's all for the sake of emphatically pursuing your point.<P>This thread is starting to take a more sociological turn, and that's a good thing because the nature of hornplayer's question was sociological. Here's what my take on the situation is:<P>Popular music (collectively everything not classical or jazz) can often find itself blamed for defining the people who listen to it. Fourteen-yr. old girls who religiously listen to Britney's two albums are likely more inclined to fuss over their appearance and fret over their love lives (or lack of one...). Britney's music embodies or represents a sort of closed world of boys and girls and the (mis)adventures they have while they fantasize about N'Sync and lose their virginity. Those who listen to Eminem or Dr. Dre are more likely to be hotshot teens who drink their weekends away while putting hydraulics in their Honda Civics. Each performer, whether it's Jennifer Lopez or Celine Dion or Nelly, has a certain clientele that they depend on for their livelihood. But I think it's gravely wrong to blame a person's death or a spouse's beating solely on the music the attacker was listening to or the movies they recently saw. Listening to Eminem rap about abusing his wife and his kid will not make the person listening to him do the same. A certain level of credit must be given to the listener to know that what he hears is not necessarily instruction. Eminem never tells anyone to do what his songs are about. He's just rapping about an isolated incident-- a story (involving himself in this case).<P>After tragedies like Columbine (or Taber, Alberta, here in Canada), it is easy to want to pin blame quickly and effortlessly on someone, something. For Columbine, first the instigating teens' parents were blamed, then the guy who sold them the weapons, then the music and movies that the teens were absorbing. Hardly was it acknowledged (it seems) that perhaps the teens did this horrific act entirely on their own volition. "Unsanitary" media were automatically trotted out to be blamed. Clinton said he'd look into what role the entertainment media played in the tragedy. Soon it became a call to restrict the freedom of expression for the sake of public safety. Here in Ontario, a teenager was recently put in jail for writing a story about an incident to the one in Columbine. The teen never made any directs threats on anyone's life, but his story was assumed be the same as that. The police acted on the idea that Columbine made the kid want to do the same; not that the incident there could make a compelling story. In other words, many people on this continent think that children are incapable of thinking on their own; that children repeat precisely what they see. That may be part of the case, but it is nowhere near the entire case. <P>Music is the most fundamental art for most people, I believe. Teenagers today don't care about impressionistic painting, or literary fiction, or postmodern architecture. They care about their music. Popular music is the easiest art form to deal with. No books. No reading. No thinking, usually. Pop the cd in the Discman or the entertainment unit or the car and bang, there it is. You can sing along to it, you can play along with it if you know guitar, you can start a party with it or make the car trip more bearable or set the right mood for your boy/girlfriend. Music is always replenishing itself, so there's never any chance of boredom. Pop music is the McDonald's of human creativity.<P>That is not to say that it is any less valuable or artistic than classical music because in it's own right, it is the most evolved form of expression. P.m. is not written to influence the world; it's written in RESPONSE to the world. If the world is a bad place to live, then it will be (and is) reflected in the music that is popular with the greatest number of people. I see great truth and great value in some of today's pop music. <P>But I don't see nearly as much truth or value in it as I do in classical music because c.m. was created purposefully to be a high art. In the nineteenth cent., composers didn't write to express their horror at the state of the world or their chagrin to see their lover leave you for someone else. They wrote to express the fundamental feelings and virtues of human existence the way the poets and painters and sculpters and playwrights did. Back then, that was normal. It was expected because 19th century society was unaware of the sort of diversionary entertainment that would await their descendants.<P>I have to admit right here that I need to cultivate an image with my classical music the same way one's gr. 9 sister needs to cultivate her image with all of the latest boybands. My image is one of style, and it actually prevents me from acquiring certain recordings! I am trying to create a collection of music that represents only the nineteenth century of music (so anything Mozart or before is usu. persona non grata) and Bach (who I deeply admire). But anything I collect from that era usually must be a new recording from a personally-defined "proper" label: Sony ("premiere" releases; not anything on their Essential Classics, Vivarte, or Masterworks series- ugh.), Philips (anything not a Duo release or put out before late 1998 because their art direction was very poor before that time), DG (from anywhere beyond 1997/1998 when their art direction also improved dramatically on most releases), or occasionally Telarc and Decca. In other words, the album must look good if I'm going to consider buying it. That must make me sound extremely vain, but when I think about it, it's not vain at all. There are so many recordings out there, how does one make a choice? My ear isn't trained well enough yet to detect the subtleties between a '62 Karajan symphony and a '96 Abbado one. I am usually very satisfied with the artists the big labels sign on because I tend to associate a generous and well-spent art and photography direction budget with quality. I could simply buy a Naxos album, but I gag when I see its cheap and subrate art direction. As a designer, my brain forces me to consider these things, and while I end up deprived of most of the great c.m. recorded legacy available, I never actually feel that way.<P>In any case, what I have now is a very personalized and comprehensive set of cd's, all of them chosen according to strict criteria. I have done my reseach on the net, and there are another 3 dozen titles out there that will likely satisfy my designer's eye, so I am in no risk of missing out on works that I enjoy. I tell you all of this because I think I'm trying to say that from a sociological/psychological viewpoint, I use my choice of c.m. as a presentable image of myself. I hope if people ever look over my cd's, they'll say to me that I have very good taste. They won't care about the music inside, but they'll notice the package.<P>I am intrigued enough to ask if anyone ever felt the same way as I do, or if anyone thinks I'm completely insane to buy music as I do. Feel free to tell me; all feedback helps me one way or the other.<BR>

[serge urtizberea]

(disregard)<p>[This message has been edited by serge urtizberea (edited 02-03-2001).]

[serge urtizberea]

(disregard this, too. I'm still figuring out this editing feature.)<p>[This message has been edited by serge urtizberea (edited 02-03-2001).]

[~Leslie]

Sigh,......... out of a cloud comes a semi-silver lining. Everyone, especially Hornplayer, who hails from my native Long Island, I am sorry I lost it with you. <P>I keep searching and searching for someone who shares my ideals in music, and frequently keep coming up with the half the equation.<BR>Yes, I am an elitist, very much so. <P>I didn't mean to spark a sociology statement in here, but I have seen other threads in music sites go this way, so it should come as no surprise. <P>The fact that Stravinsky's Le Sacre caused such a reaction is a remarkable parallel, because here is a composer who could see into the future, but had to go it alone, almost branded and villified. He got in everyone's face with dissonance, violence, and mayhem, and his music triggered an immediate impact on a 1913 audience. <P>When I attended high school, my companions embraced a complete desire to understand music as a whole. We tutored each other in music theory, tried to transcribe the virtuosity of Wes Montgomery and Andres Segovia , jammed the blues in garage bands, and looked forward to learning and performing pieces like Leonard Bernstein's Chichester Psalms in the choir. In other words, we loved a great deal of it, but were quick to dismiss the pretentious, the neanderthal, and vacuous commercialism. <P>Most of the ppl in this forum know that I am not too happy with the current state of popular music, because it is not based on creativity or innovative art, it is based on sales, profit margins, and accessibility to the masses, thus making it a corporate business.<P>This is the reason I am drawn to complex music. Stravinsky and Beethoven, make you think,...........<BR>they are not background musak, something you hear when you've been put on hold on the telephone, or standing in an elevator. <P>Then again I guess, neither is Miles Davis.~<P>

[shostakovich]

Hi Serge. You got a lot out of your system. I appreciate your sense of perspective on the pop scene. If music written after 1950 disappeared, it would not be a great loss to ME, but that's just me. There are a few trinkets, pop and film that I would miss. I still follow what flows from classical, and it's vacuous. Some years ago Gorecki's 3rd symphony won a lot of praise and an award. I hear 5 minutes of not much, spread interminably over 50 min. Yikes!! It is akin to a type of music called minimalism, which, at least for a while, was a meeting point between pop and what passes for classical. <P>Minimalism stems from Terry Riley's In C, consisting of the C major chord held, with the instrumental artists coming in and out as they wish. My recording goes for almost 45 min. I don't listen to it much. It's good,in small doses, for putting one to sleep or rage. An overdose could produce catatonia. But minimalism has grown since In C. It's 2 best practitioners are Phillip Glass and John Adams, and maybe Michael Torke will be a third. They are the ones I recommend for anyone who wants to look into it. Short Ride on a Fast Machine, and The Chairman Dances (both by Adams), would be good introductions. In general, the most successful minimalism is background to opera or film. No extended minimalist work can yet stand on its own. However, it's the style I have most hope for in leading to a new "classical" era, when the composers are willing to write what will push their followers into more challenge. Unfortunately, I won't live long enough to witness it. Maybe some of you will. I wish you all luck on that.<P>Returning to Serge's awareness of the curent scene, I enjoyed most the paragraph ending with "Pop music is the McDonalds of human creativity". The letter went on to say that pop isn't less valuable or artistic than classical. I don't dispute "valuable", but "artistic" is another thing. I was happy to read later on that Serge, in his heart of hearts, does consider classical the more artistic. <P>Serge, I'm also impressed with the care you give to selecting CDs. Cover design does play a part, as the industry well knows. I agree that the Naxos discs lack imaginative color, but I do like them for the choices of old master paintings. And when someone pores over my collection, I hope they see a person who doesn't have much truck with ART OR MUSIC after 1950 (Wyeth and Rockwell are among the exceptions). Is design your profession, Serge? As for Abbado vs. Karajan, there are reviewers that can rank performances according to their likes. When you find one or more you condider reliable in your own mind, he/she/they can save you a lot of time and effort. I think Fanfare Magazine is still around. One of its music editors turned me onto it in my major collecting days.<P>I was also happy to see the choice of 19th C and Bach as preferred listening. My own preferred area is that 19th C. It's where the orchestra becomes king of sounds. That century has so much in it that it may be a LONG time before you feel the need to go forward or backward in time. Shos<P><BR>It was good to see you, Leslie, posting again. You seem to be a unique spirit in the way you write, choose music to play, and to enjoy. I wonder how many instruments you play, including voice. I think you gave us that information before. Your taste seems eclectic, and the people you perform with likely share that taste. Unfortunately, I don't play an instrument, so I miss an entire perspective. But looking at the "glass half full", I had freedom of selection in listening not directed by anything or anyone. 'Nuff said.<BR>Shos

[serge urtizberea]

I appreciate the considered note you wrote, Shos. I'm glad to know that there is someone who doesn't think my method of choosing music isn't "wrong". I'm not a designer as of yet, but I am in school to become a landscape architect (hopefully, at least-- it's HARD work). I've had an eye for the design of things (magazines to buildings to clothes to cars) for as long as I can remember. I choose my composers similarly, too.<P>I wonder if I'm alientating Leslie a little. I always had the impression that we were very similar in musical tastes if not musical "stylings". When I say that pop music can be of some value to our world today, I don't mean that too deeply. The world of pop, with its ever-expanding roster of wannabe stars and one-hit wonders, offers once in a while a decent, "good", song. <P>It cannot be challenged that c.m. is a more artful way of expression than p.m. It is a slim stratum of the population who bother to get acquainted with art; that's likely where c.m. earns its elitist image.

[JasonK]

Can't we all just get along?<P>When pretentions are stripped away, humming along to pop or admiring jazz is not a crime. If you don't like it, change the channel. But let people be free to express themselves. Viva the arts and self expression. May not like it, but blanket remarks condeming forms or genres sounds a little provincial and far from an open mind. Remember, the folks wielding the scythe for cutting funding programs for the arts will gladly take out concert band as they will a jazz band program. It cuts a wide swath. SO UNITE.....

[JasonK]

ohh yeah, silence Clare<P>Good to be the king.<p>[This message has been edited by JasonK (edited 02-01-2001).]

[hornplayer]

Everyone is getting along just fine, JasonK, and no one is infringing on another's rights to listen to what they please. That would be very stupid. Were just having a discussion.

[JasonK]

Sorry guy, guess I was thrown off by all the blanket statements of different music being "trash", "degrading", and "elitist" comments colored my read..hhhmmmm. Thing is, I have been a student and fan of music for over 25 years, and there is something I learn about or discover almost everyday that amazes me about different music....will never claim to be an authority on it all.

[hornplayer]

Hardy har har...you must be talking about me, for I have used many of those words...you were very quick to notice my blanket statements, yet you failed to notice the other statements entirely...statements like "most", "some", "other times", "some not all", "most not all", and most importantly IN MY OPINION. I feel (correct me if Im wrong here) that even if you feel my opinion is closed-minded I can make it nonetheless. However, Ive stated my case and said my views. Ive justified my views, and my views also happened to state that I like much (but not all) popular music...in MY OPINION, I think my "blanket" statements have been more specific than you have made them seem.<P>To ~Leslie: I think I understand what your post is saying, and Im sorry. What direction should this board have taken? Anyway, wouldnt it be so much more satisfying for you if you were to take someone (like me) who may not share your views of music and show them what you like about it? Win them over to your way of thinking, by exposure? I am open to suggestions you may have about any type or era of music. Contrary to popular belief, I try to keep an open mind.<P>To Serge: Censorship...uggghhh...nasty. There are times when I feel the media is to blame, and there are times that I feel it is not. Music, specifically, falls into this category. There are times when I feel music has influenced a crime, and there are times (probably much more often than not) when it does not. I feel that it is dependent on the person. And censorship is probably not a good idea. When I mentioned Columbine, I was reffering to the kids and the kinds of people they were. This is not the place for a more in depth discussion, however, so I will end my comments here.<P>By the way serge, since it doesnt appear that your double post will go away, just edit one of them down to one line.<p>[This message has been edited by hornplayer (edited 02-02-2001).]

[~Leslie]

I think that a sociological direction is an acceptable avenue to take in any music site, particularly a classical forum. <P>We look back through history and we see outstanding art, literature, and music,<BR>and we see ourselves now:<P>A society that is technologically advanced, fast paced, with so much information and culture readily at our disposal. <P>So, has music and art degenerated? If so, why? If you think it hasn't degenerated, I'd like to also hear your point of view there as well. <P>Hornplayer, it is best for ppl to educate their ears, finding their own path through the evolution of music. Foisting my favorite music upon you by written word in this site, would not work. The music has to speak for itself. ~

[hornplayer]

Understood ~Leslie...I can assure you that I am indeed exploring many forms of music on my own, and the Music History class certainly isnt hurting me. You are probably right...Ill let you know when I love jazz as much as classical (no sarcasm) <P>As of this moment I am pondering your question. People have a habit of rushing answers.<P>

[serge urtizberea]

Rushed answers are a frequent thing; often a case of people trying to make themselves heard first! Lucky for me this topic is something I've been thinking about for awhile.<P>I find it hard to believe that music can itself influence an individual. That would have to based on the premise that a person cannot think independently or in context and that a person is completely suggestible. People's actions are defined often by a process called socialization; the integration of a person (usu. a child) into society by having that person learn the tricks of the people s/he integrates with. A child who spends his time hanging out with school bullies soon learns that overagressive power gets you things via intimidation and perverted "respect". A child who grows up seeing the women in her life being abused may well likely think all men are assh*les when she gets older. A teenager who frequents with the girls in her high school's clique will need to adopt the behavior of that clique if she wishes to remain part of it. In a world where multiculturalism and the melting pot are everywhere, the human species still falls into that trap of distinguish its members according to "groups". People need to feel connected to others, and you can only feel connected with those you relate to. I think one of the easy ways for people to connect--to relate-- is through a common music.<P>So if a serial rapist was found to be listening to Mahler before he struck, do you think people should automatically assume Mahler "made" him commit his deplorable crimes? Is not more reasonable to see if he was a "victim" of childhood abuses, or what not? I'm teetering dangerously into pop psychology, here, but I think the point is reasonable. Music should not be made a pariah, no matter how offensive it may be. Wagner was a self-loving, anti-semitic, untrustworthy man, yet his music is loved by many. If music is to be blamed for influencing bad behavior, can it reasonably expected that a man with poor virtues would invariably write "bad" music?<P>From my POV, it appears that pop music's deep appeal stems from the desire here in this part of the world to promote celebrity culture. People seem to want to look up or aspire to the "greatness" achieved by their favorite personalities, and they are often very forgiving of personalities like Robert Downey Jr. who can't lay off the crack, or Ol' Dirty Bastard, who- newsflash!- skipped bail again, or Puff Daddy, whose friend shot someone and took off with Puff in an SUV, or Kelsey Grammar who crashed his Porsche because he was tanked, or any number of celebrities who OD, DUI, assault, threaten, or kill people. This is the sort of rot that threatens the health of an otherwise decent pool of star people who act responsibly. We have a new show debuting in a week here in Canada-- Popstars-- which follows a la reality tv the fortunes of a new Spice Girls lite pop band. These ordinary girls were chosen by panelists from open audition to be on the show and they are going to granted a chance to make an album and get signed on with a label. Shows and opportunities like this give incentive to millions of people to achieve the same, and this helps maintain the popularity of the celebrity.<P>Unfortunately, once Bernstein died eleven years ago, we lost classical music's last true "celebrity". The people we now look up to-- Kennedy, Murray Perahia, Kurt Masur, Simon Rattle, Anne-Sophie Otter, A-S Mutter, Cecilia Bartoli, Yo-Yo Ma...- they are only stars to a very small portion of the population. They are not known celebrities in the wider world. Rolling Stone never interviews them. Letterman never invites them. Entertainment Tonight never charts them. Despite their immeasurable talents and glowing personalities, they are off the radar scope of the average person in that precious-to-advertisers 18-34 demographic, and therefore doomed to obscurity. If we are going to change classical music; bring its inherent value and artistry to the greater public; I think we need to develop a "pop" celebrity culture around it.<P>If the state of new music today is poor, it can only be because it must satisfy down to the lowest common denominator. If it tries any better than that, then people will start feeling stupid and will look elsewhere for diversion. Then all the money from advertisers will dry up and pop culture will die or take a new shape. In a funny way, advertisers lead our lives.

[hornplayer]

Ah, Im back...I have been away and have been very busy. Today I went to see Phantom of the Opera in Manhattan, and It was great..Id say more, but Ill cut to the chase and Ill make this message brief, as most of what Id say Ive said before.<P>I think the quality (both artistic and not) music has degraded. With the exception of music that is very deviant (rape, murder, etc.), however, I would not say that music has gotten worse. To me, there is a difference, a very fine line.<P>I consider, as will many of the people here, classical music to be of the highest refinement, complexity, artistic quality, and to me, basic quality.<P>I have described two types of quality, and I feel that they are different but can be related. When I say artistic quality I mean the quality of the music as an art: its craftsmanship, if you will. When I refer to the other kind of quality, I mean a quality that is much harder to describe. To put it simply, it is the quality that is being described when someone might say, when referring to a song by the Beatles, "Thats good music." This, in my opinion (of course), is different from artistic quality.<P>Having said that, I will answer Leslies question again: I feel that the quality of music has degraded in the artistic sense, but very little in the "non-artistic" sense.<P>However, there are many exceptions. And Ill give you only the first one that comes to mind quickly:<P>Rap.<P>I hate rap, completely and utterly. This is one of the few examples of a genre where the artistic quality as well as the general quality has degraded. Its lucky that the definition of noise is worded the way it is, else I would barely call it music.<P>As for whether or not music affects people, I myself am not sure. For the longest time I only felt that people who were already mentally unstable would be affected by various kinds of entertainment (TV, movies, music, video games), and this is basically how I still stand. If someone did commit a horrible crime after listening to Mahler very often, or any other composer for that matter, and he was (somehow) affected by it, then yes, I would be willing to conclude that perhaps the music had something to do with it. Just because I love early music doesnt meant that it is exempt from my scrutiny. However, I feel that music affects someone only very little when compared to the effects that serge referred to.<P>I feel much more strongly that someone is very heavily influenced by childhood experiences and upbrining, which, I feel, will affect someone less and less, until they reach around 16, when only strong traumatic events will change what is rooted in someone. But here is the question that I will pose that has nothing to do with music: If we are the product of all of our experiences, then is the way we act within our control, and is the way our kids are brought up whithin our control? Is any of what happens within our control. I feel that it is not, and if anyone wants to email me I will gladly argue my case: bowlguycheese@beethoven.com.<P>Id better sign off for now, and everyone have a great morning, afternoon, or night, depending on where you are.

[~Leslie]

Hi Hornplayer, <BR>I couldn't help but notice the word cheese in your email. Go ahead fellow forum members, have a laugh on me. Cheese is the great parallel to music, where I come from. There was a time when good cheese was available to all throughout the world,and all the great musicians partook of it, and were influenced by it. and look what happened here in the states. Even the word itself has digressed. <BR>Some of the cheese we see in the stores isn't even made from dairy, and then there is that obnoxious cheese-whiz designed for long shelf life in a fall-out shelter.<P>Anyhoo, Hornplayer I have decided not to take this cheesy controversy lying down anymore, and intend to post some slices for you to try. Believe me, it won't be Puff Daddy or any other non-dairy product the recording industry is trying to foist upon us. <P>Maybe, I can even convince you that it's as good as Bleu cheese or Stilton. At this point, I'd for settle for Gouda or Monterey Jack. ~

[Clare]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JasonK:<BR><B>ohh yeah, silence Clare<BR>Good to be the king.<BR>[This message has been edited by JasonK (edited 02-01-2001).]</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Silly boy.<P>Good to be the Queen!

[hornplayer]

Hey, Ill freely admit Im a cheese poser. I dont have a clue when it comes to cheese history or anything else for that matter. All I know is two things: I have yet to try a cheese I didnt like (which, Ill admitt, isnt saying much, but Ive had a few), and I needed something else in my email name cause I needed a name quick and I was afraid that without I wouldnt get a name.<P>It seems like youve always had something against me. I could be wrong, but thats the way it seems to me at least. But I must say, have you gone mad ? Is the reference to Bleu and Stilton a reference to jazz? And I guess that youre saying you dont like Puff Daddy by saying hes "non-dairy," and I take it youll mount a grand attack against me when you post your slices, and hey thats great! Like I said the last time, Ill argue anything, just give me an email at my "cheesey" address (or post it here), bowlguycheese@beethoven.com. Maybe Ill even convince you to side with me on my predestination theory.

[shostakovich]

Hi Clare from Portsmouth. Have you silenced Peter?<BR>Shos

[~Leslie]

Calm down Mr. Hornplayer, I really am not after you. I mean that.~~