Classical Music: Why don't you listen?

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
It's funny how kind of lop-sided this thread is-so many people responding that they do love it and listen to it, but as I said in the OP, few people ever buy it.

I thought I already answered that question quite well... People continue to listen to the same classical music that they enjoy for decades. I could go out right now, spend $200 on CD's, and have enough classical music to last me until CD's have gone the way of vinyl records. Heck, as long as I could move it from one form to another, for 3 or 4 hundred, I'd pretty much have enough classical music to listen to every day of my life without getting bored of it. Pop music, rap, etc. on the other hand, most of the music that people buy today, they're not going to listen to at all in 5 years. How many backstreet boys CD's were purchased over the years? How many people do you think are listening to the backstreet boys at this very moment? I'll bet it's far fewer than the number of people listening to Bach. Or Beethoven, or...

Maybe that's one thing the RIAA got correct: produce CD's that have one or two good songs and the rest is crap... that way people get bored of those same two songs after a while and go out and buy some more crappy CD's. Classical music on the other hand, most people are quite satisfied to listen to both sides all the way through. Even on car CD players, some of the people I know who listen to classical music, simply recycle through both sides of the same CD over and over and over, listening to no more than 2 or 3 CD's over the period of a month.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
<---- Around $10,000 worth of classical music collection.

Holy Crap! Don't you know that Walmart has a bin of classical CD's for $2.99 each?
AND, a lot of classical music *is* legally downloadable (for free).

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
It's funny how kind of lop-sided this thread is-so many people responding that they do love it and listen to it, but as I said in the OP, few people ever buy it.

I thought I already answered that question quite well... People continue to listen to the same classical music that they enjoy for decades. I could go out right now, spend $200 on CD's, and have enough classical music to last me until CD's have gone the way of vinyl records. Heck, as long as I could move it from one form to another, for 3 or 4 hundred, I'd pretty much have enough classical music to listen to every day of my life without getting bored of it. Pop music, rap, etc. on the other hand, most of the music that people buy today, they're not going to listen to at all in 5 years. How many backstreet boys CD's were purchased over the years? How many people do you think are listening to the backstreet boys at this very moment? I'll bet it's far fewer than the number of people listening to Bach. Or Beethoven, or...

Maybe that's one thing the RIAA got correct: produce CD's that have one or two good songs and the rest is crap... that way people get bored of those same two songs after a while and go out and buy some more crappy CD's. Classical music on the other hand, most people are quite satisfied to listen to both sides all the way through. Even on car CD players, some of the people I know who listen to classical music, simply recycle through both sides of the same CD over and over and over, listening to no more than 2 or 3 CD's over the period of a month.

I like what you're saying, but I don't think that's the problem. The numbers are low enough (again, 3% of the industry) that I think it's a sign that most people don't buy any classical music, ever. People who are more "into it" (like myself) will also not hesitate to buy multiple recordings of the same piece, as they will be completely different.

 

[johnjohn320]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
<---- Around $10,000 worth of classical music collection.

Holy Crap! Don't you know that Walmart has a bin of classical CD's for $2.99 each?
AND, a lot of classical music *is* legally downloadable (for free).

Are you sure about that? The sheet music is public domain after 75 years or something like that, but the recordings aren't...

Oh, and the $2.00 CDs can be good sometimes, if you get lucky, but often low price = not as good.

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: BlancoNino
<---- Around $10,000 worth of classical music collection.

Holy Crap! Don't you know that Walmart has a bin of classical CD's for $2.99 each?
AND, a lot of classical music *is* legally downloadable (for free).

Are you sure about that? The sheet music is public domain after 75 years or something like that, but the recordings aren't...

Oh, and the $2.00 CDs can be good sometimes, if you get lucky, but often low price = not as good.

Yeah, im sticking with telarc and reference recordings. I have some RCA ones that have so many blips and pops (cds are physically in perfect shape)

 

[BlancoNino]

I have never seen any RCA, Mercury, Essential Classics, Chesky, or Columbia analog recordings of the great American Orchestras in their prime during the 1950's and 1960's in a $2.00 bin at Wal-Mart, nor have I EVER seen a good recording of classical music that anyone has downloaded.

 

[BoberFett]

I was raised with a classical music background, and I can enjoy it. I played the violin for a number of years. I have quite a few classical CDs, various composers by various orchestras. The old standbys are good, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach. Truthfully I'd rather listen to Vivaldi or Wagner, their style is more my taste.

HOWEVER...

I don't listen to it very often for a couple reasons. One is because it requires more attention than modern music. To really enjoy it, you need to be more focused on it than you would, say, the latest Green Day album and because of that it's better suited to performance than casual listening. The other is the lack of vocals. When I'm doing the dishes and put on some music, it's going to be something that I can sing along to, and if the wife isn't watching maybe even throw in some air guitar just for good measure. Modern music is fun and comes in enjoyable bite sized little pieces. Classical music vs modern is like a 7 course meal at a 5 star restaurant vs McDonalds. Sure, the fancy meal is better, but which one happens more often?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I was raised with a classical music background, and I can enjoy it. I played the violin for a number of years. I have quite a few classical CDs, various composers by various orchestras. The old standbys are good, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach. Truthfully I'd rather listen to Vivaldi or Wagner, their style is more my taste.

Their styles couldn't be any more different

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
You have to be more specific-I don't know your tastes. I'd be happy to steer you in a certain direction (I already provided the Naxos link above for a start) if you can give me an idea of what you like.

As others have said, it is difficult to say what we like. We either (a) don't know or (b) don't know the name even if we do know what we like. Classical is difficult that way. It is as if I brought you to a restaurant with ethnic food that you've never had before, and the first thing they ask is "what do you like?" Well, if you have no idea what the dishes are, what the spices they use taste like, or even what is commonly considered good, how can you possibly answer that question? The only real answer is to say rough generalizations that aren't easilly applicable to the topic at hand.

[*]I personally like music with lots of emotion. I like to feel what the performer is feeling as he/she performs it. A love song sung by someone who was never in love just doesn't ever sound right. Same goes for a pain song by someone who was never in pain. Great music has emotion and is performed by someone who can express his/her personal emotions through the music.

[*]In classical music, I like simplicity. Something so simple, that anyone thinks they can play it. But only true prodigies can play it well with the emotion I mention above. Pachebell's Cannon (in D? is that the common one) or Fur Elise are examples I guess. Most people who play piano learned that early on, but very few people can ever play it to sound good. Of course, I'd be interested in the renditions that are played well.

[*]I guess this goes along with the simplicity, but I don't like something that is too busy. I do a lot of ballroom dancing, and it includes many classical waltzes. These can be quite good, but they tend to be too busy for my tastes.

[*]I like strong background beats. Listen to Nirvana's Come as You Are, that background is by far the best ever written for any song. I guess the link could almost be considered NSFW for the Nirvana naked baby cover.

So, is there any classical music with a simple, catchy melody based on a strong unforgetable background and played with a lot of emotion?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: BoberFett
I was raised with a classical music background, and I can enjoy it. I played the violin for a number of years. I have quite a few classical CDs, various composers by various orchestras. The old standbys are good, Beethoven, Mozart, Bach. Truthfully I'd rather listen to Vivaldi or Wagner, their style is more my taste.

Their styles couldn't be any more different

Depends on my mood. Sometimes I feel more like plodding along to Wagner, other times I want a more upbeat Vivaldi.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
You have to be more specific-I don't know your tastes. I'd be happy to steer you in a certain direction (I already provided the Naxos link above for a start) if you can give me an idea of what you like.

As others have said, it is difficult to say what we like. We either (a) don't know or (b) don't know the name even if we do know what we like. Classical is difficult that way. It is as if I brought you to a restaurant with ethnic food that you've never had before, and the first thing they ask is "what do you like?" Well, if you have no idea what the dishes are, what the spices they use taste like, or even what is commonly considered good, how can you possibly answer that question? The only real answer is to say rough generalizations that aren't easilly applicable to the topic at hand.

[*]I personally like music with lots of emotion. I like to feel what the performer is feeling as he/she performs it. A love song sung by someone who was never in love just doesn't ever sound right. Same goes for a pain song by someone who was never in pain. Great music has emotion and is performed by someone who can express his/her personal emotions through the music.

I agree, and I see this a lot in classical performances.

[*]In classical music, I like simplicity. Something so simple, that anyone thinks they can play it. But only true prodigies can play it well with the emotion I mention above. Pachebell's Cannon (in D? is that the common one) or Fur Elise are examples I guess. Most people who play piano learned that early on, but very few people can ever play it to sound good. Of course, I'd be interested in the renditions that are played well.

You call it simplicity, but I call it quiet dignity (not sure why I think of it that way) and to me Mozart is the epitome of this expression. Some of the movements in his piano concertos have literally only one note on the piano played at a time with only a little support from the orchestra (e.g. Piano Concerto 23 2nd movement; Piano Concerto 22 2nd movement). Mozart didn't write music to impress through technical demonstration. He can take the simplest passage and convey much more than the notes through emotion. I honestly don't know of many other composers that have accomplished this.

[*]I guess this goes along with the simplicity, but I don't like something that is too busy. I do a lot of ballroom dancing, and it includes many classical waltzes. These can be quite good, but they tend to be too busy for my tastes.

I think you need to define both simplicity and busy. What's that mean exactly? Too many notes (to borrow from Amadeus)? Too dynamic? Too many competing instruments?

[*]I like strong background beats. Listen to Nirvana's Come as You Are, that background is by far the best ever written for any song. I guess the link could almost be considered NSFW for the Nirvana naked baby cover.

So, is there any classical music with a simple, catchy melody based on a strong unforgetable background and played with a lot of emotion?

How it's played depends on the performer. You'll have to find one that you appreciate the most. My favorite violinist is Gil Shaham. Itzhak Perlman is my next favorite, but more for his raw technical ability. My favorite pianist is Murray Perahia for Mozart and Radu Lupu for Beethoven. My favorite female soprano is Emma Kirkby. I feel all of these talents represent the height of interpretation and expression. That's just my opinion though.

 

[fatpat268]

To be honest, I really don't know why I dislike classical music as a whole. It just doesn't interest me. I do think that alot of it has to do with a combination of all the things the OP mentioned in his first post. A lot of classical music is boring because it's slow to reach its climax, and classical just doesn't make me want to "move." I think the main reason why I listen to music is to listen for entertainment. I primarily listen to classic rock, and the songs just get me to tap my feet and bob my head...classical music just doesn't do that for me.

There are some interesting pieces of classical music, which I do enjoy listening to, but there's so little that I personally like, I don't listen to it very often. And even then, when I do listed to it, it just seems like simple background music... music that you don't really pay attention too. I dunno, it's a little hard to explain what I mean. I don't have anything against classical music, it just simply doesn't interest me, but I do find it that a lot of people who prefer classical music over other music do believe they're superior to others in music taste, which isn't necessarily true. You can't measure music taste with other people because it is all a matter of opinion. That's probably another turn off for most people... the community who listen to it.

The obligatory disclaimer:
I'm in no way trying to stereotype (or offend) anyone here, I'm just stating my observation and views.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Descartes
You call it simplicity, but I call it quiet dignity (not sure why I think of it that way) and to me Mozart is the epitome of this expression.

I'll look more into Mozart.

I think you need to define both simplicity and busy. What's that mean exactly? Too many notes (to borrow from Amadeus)? Too dynamic? Too many competing instruments?

I guess busy could be either too many notes or too many competing instruments. I don't know much classical music, but I think the minute waltz comes to mind. The goal there appears to be to jam as many notes as humanly possible into the shortest amount of time. There are certainly good parts to the minute waltz, but it just gives me an overall jarring impression.

The biggest trouble when you are too busy is that there often isn't just one melody or one background rhythm to follow. You end up just passively listening to the whole thing. And what happens when you are just passively listening? Yep, you've got elevator music.

 

[axnff]

One of the many problems I have with classical music is the effort to find it. Sure, you can go out and get a good Telarc, et. al. recording, but that doesn't mean you'll actually like the conductor's/orchestra's actual rendition. Take Rimsky-Korsakov's "Scheherezade" (among other spellings). Search for the three most common spellings on Amazon and you'll find 339 different recordings. I've listened to excerpts of over 50 of these and can tell from the first 30 seconds of each of the four movements that I won't like the recording. I know that recordings exist that sound great to me, but "shopping" for this one recording will likely take tens of hours, not a particularly pleasant experience.

Of course, the "elitists" will insist that those different recordings all bring something new and wonderful to the piece. Personally, I only listen to music that pleases me for whatever reason: it's catchy, emotional, musical, edgy, different, moody, or whatever I feel like listening to at that particular point in time. I specifically do not take pleasure in listening to the variations in pace that Herbert von Karajan brought to his 1803 analog recording with the Portsmouth Imperial Orchestra versus the 1997 digital recording with the Rapid City Chamber Orchestra.

So, for me, I guess it all boils down to finding something you like. Not only is it hard to find which pieces by which composers you like, but then you actually have to sort through the different recordings, too. Of course, a composer can have material you love and material that makes you go "meh". And the performers (whether orchestras or soloists) have their own agendas in what they would choose to do, so I can't just say "oh, look, another performance by XXXX, I think I'll pick this up". And then you look at how much impact the conductor can have, as well as the interplay between conducter and orchestra, and so on and so forth.

So much variability makes shopping so incredibly difficult, especially when "try before you buy" really doesn't exist in a practical form. I find that I only buy classical music when I've already heard the recording from someone else, and the recording is still in print (which seems to be a crap shoot). Of course, the fact that, for me, classical music is not appropriate as background music (except for maybe breakfast, reading the paper, other still and quiet activities with little conversation), and is more a focal point, so I don't really hear music much....

 

[mattjbak]

I listen to classical all the time, just not the junk put out today.

 

[shadow9d9]

Classical music features little to no improv... too stagnant for me.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Classical music features little to no improv... too stagnant for me.

So, you like Jazz and little else?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Classical music features little to no improv... too stagnant for me.

So, you like Jazz and little else?

Jazz? It is ok sometimes... I listen to:
Phish, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, Pink FLoyd... Their improv alone could last decades.. especially Phish... every show is different.. and hundreds of cds of their live music is available for free...

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Classical music features little to no improv... too stagnant for me.

So, you like Jazz and little else?

Jazz? It is ok sometimes... I listen to:
Phish, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, Pink FLoyd... Their improv alone could last decades.. especially Phish... every show is different.. and hundreds of cds of their live music is available for free...

I honestly didn't know that. Fair enough.

Improv simply isn't that important to me. I take more interest in the performer, the interpretation of the work, etc. It's similar to watching the same play by different groups, opera by different performers, and Shakespeare read by different people. The interest is in finding someone that achieves the highest level of expression in whatever art.

I have dozens of interpretations of all of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concertos, for example, and everytime I find a new one it's exciting as there's almost always a different interpretation.

Also, I've been to quite a number of performances where there was a great deal of improvisation. I went to a performance in Atlanta about 6 months ago with Robert Levin, and he improvised many aspects of Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto, including the cadenza. He also improvised an entire piece based on a few passages written by members of the audience.

Point is, most classical pianists can improvise. Even I can improvise on some pieces (I've written some variations for Mozart and Beethoven piano sonatas as well), but many focus on interpretation (which also includes the technical) as their primary form of expression.

Again, all IMO. I think we're just coming down to preference at this point.

 

[LeoDioxide]

Woo, go classical! Musical tastes are where it's at. I like some of the more modern classical music, found in video games. Yeah, good stuff there.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Classical music features little to no improv... too stagnant for me.

So, you like Jazz and little else?

Jazz? It is ok sometimes... I listen to:
Phish, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, Pink FLoyd... Their improv alone could last decades.. especially Phish... every show is different.. and hundreds of cds of their live music is available for free...

I honestly didn't know that. Fair enough.

Improv simply isn't that important to me. I take more interest in the performer, the interpretation of the work, etc. It's similar to watching the same play by different groups, opera by different performers, and Shakespeare read by different people. The interest is in finding someone that achieves the highest level of expression in whatever art.

I have dozens of interpretations of all of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concertos, for example, and everytime I find a new one it's exciting as there's almost always a different interpretation.

Also, I've been to quite a number of performances where there was a great deal of improvisation. I went to a performance in Atlanta about 6 months ago with Robert Levin, and he improvised many aspects of Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto, including the cadenza. He also improvised an entire piece based on a few passages written by members of the audience.

Point is, most classical pianists can improvise. Even I can improvise on some pieces (I've written some variations for Mozart and Beethoven piano sonatas as well), but many focus on interpretation (which also includes the technical) as their primary form of expression.

Again, all IMO. I think we're just coming down to preference at this point.

Eh, classical music just doesn't do it for me because it often isn't original works... from my example, Phish has well over 130 songs and they play out completely differently a majority of the time.. Each concert was its own completely different experience... same with Bela Fleck, albeit with a few less songs... different every time. and it is their own works...

 

[DainBramaged]

I have way more classical CD's than I do rock. That said, my music collection is much more heavily tilted toward rock music than classical. Those damn classical CD's are hard to find online.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Classical music features little to no improv... too stagnant for me.

So, you like Jazz and little else?

Jazz? It is ok sometimes... I listen to:
Phish, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, Pink FLoyd... Their improv alone could last decades.. especially Phish... every show is different.. and hundreds of cds of their live music is available for free...

I honestly didn't know that. Fair enough.

Improv simply isn't that important to me. I take more interest in the performer, the interpretation of the work, etc. It's similar to watching the same play by different groups, opera by different performers, and Shakespeare read by different people. The interest is in finding someone that achieves the highest level of expression in whatever art.

I have dozens of interpretations of all of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concertos, for example, and everytime I find a new one it's exciting as there's almost always a different interpretation.

Also, I've been to quite a number of performances where there was a great deal of improvisation. I went to a performance in Atlanta about 6 months ago with Robert Levin, and he improvised many aspects of Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto, including the cadenza. He also improvised an entire piece based on a few passages written by members of the audience.

Point is, most classical pianists can improvise. Even I can improvise on some pieces (I've written some variations for Mozart and Beethoven piano sonatas as well), but many focus on interpretation (which also includes the technical) as their primary form of expression.

Again, all IMO. I think we're just coming down to preference at this point.

Eh, classical music just doesn't do it for me because it often isn't original works... from my example, Phish has well over 130 songs and they play out completely differently a majority of the time.. Each concert was its own completely different experience... same with Bela Fleck, albeit with a few less songs... different every time. and it is their own works...

Yes, but let's be honest and admit that there is a very, very big difference between performance of a Phish piece and a concerto or something from any composer. It's a lot easier to improvise on a song than it is a concerto with 15+ instruments, some of which are developing completely different themes in the same piece. There simply isn't any room to have a completely different experience as you'd have discord. This is precisely why in a cadenza you have the soloist improvise in orchestral silence. It's also partly to demonstrate the soloist's ability of course.

IMO, it's analogous to improvising Shakespearean poetry vs. Eminem'esque rhymes. In Shakespeare it's more about the depth of the language, the meaning of individual words and their interaction with each other; in Eminem'esque rhymes it's almost all about improve--the meaning of individual words are chosen phonetically rather than any deeper meaning. This isn't to say one is inherently better than the other; rather, that one is simply more complex and thus isn't as conducive to improv.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
I have way more classical CD's than I do rock. That said, my music collection is much more heavily tilted toward rock music than classical. Those damn classical CD's are hard to find online.

Seriously? Amazon and Amazon UK have just about every recording you could possibly ever need or want. I buy a lot of my Decca recordings (mainly older Academy of Ancient Music recordings with Hogwood) from Amazon UK.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Descartes

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Classical music features little to no improv... too stagnant for me.

So, you like Jazz and little else?

Jazz? It is ok sometimes... I listen to:
Phish, Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, Pink FLoyd... Their improv alone could last decades.. especially Phish... every show is different.. and hundreds of cds of their live music is available for free...

I honestly didn't know that. Fair enough.

Improv simply isn't that important to me. I take more interest in the performer, the interpretation of the work, etc. It's similar to watching the same play by different groups, opera by different performers, and Shakespeare read by different people. The interest is in finding someone that achieves the highest level of expression in whatever art.

I have dozens of interpretations of all of Rachmaninoff's Piano Concertos, for example, and everytime I find a new one it's exciting as there's almost always a different interpretation.

Also, I've been to quite a number of performances where there was a great deal of improvisation. I went to a performance in Atlanta about 6 months ago with Robert Levin, and he improvised many aspects of Mozart's 20th Piano Concerto, including the cadenza. He also improvised an entire piece based on a few passages written by members of the audience.

Point is, most classical pianists can improvise. Even I can improvise on some pieces (I've written some variations for Mozart and Beethoven piano sonatas as well), but many focus on interpretation (which also includes the technical) as their primary form of expression.

Again, all IMO. I think we're just coming down to preference at this point.

Eh, classical music just doesn't do it for me because it often isn't original works... from my example, Phish has well over 130 songs and they play out completely differently a majority of the time.. Each concert was its own completely different experience... same with Bela Fleck, albeit with a few less songs... different every time. and it is their own works...

Yes, but let's be honest and admit that there is a very, very big difference between performance of a Phish piece and a concerto or something from any composer. It's a lot easier to improvise on a song than it is a concerto with 15+ instruments, some of which are developing completely different themes in the same piece. There simply isn't any room to have a completely different experience as you'd have discord. This is precisely why in a cadenza you have the soloist improvise in orchestral silence. It's also partly to demonstrate the soloist's ability of course.

IMO, it's analogous to improvising Shakespearean poetry vs. Eminem'esque rhymes. This isn't to say one is inherently better than the other; rather, that one is simply more complex and thus isn't as conducive to improv.

Of course, which is why I prefer things like Phish : ). I am not saying classical should have improv.. it isn't practical.. but it is an aspect about classical that I don't particularly like.