A millennial's rant on classical music

[Frank Dernie]

Of particular hilarity is when some people, apparently with an entire broom closet up their ass, will refer to anything modern as "popular" whether it's a waning century old genre or an incredibly niche modern sub-sub-genre.

I do this. It is too complex to list all the sub-genres, particularly those I don't know well.
I consider it exactly equivalent to referring to "classical" when meaning everything from plainchant, Baroque, Classical (really 1750 to 1820), Romantic and modern.

 

[Soniclife]

Well, got about half way through that before the machine-gun-fire pace of gross oversimplifications and utterly unsubstantiated generalizations became too much to bear.

It didn't get any better.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

Anyway, "Beethoven sucks at music" is a click-bait title that I fell for. Should've known better.

That, the subtitle and the format deterred me.

 

[q3cpma]

And no, classical music per se will probably never be widely popular.

By definition, classical (as in class) music can't be popular. I find that music surviving hundreds of years and being almost universally appreciated is more impressive than mere popularity, anyway.

I guess that in hundred more years, stuff like jazz will mostly be forgotten while some parts of classical music won't; of course, that's supposing that civilisation survives uninterrupted during all this time.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

You see it all the time in audiophile and gear forums. One person lists their test tracks and another person complains about them because they don't include A) a full symphony orchestra B) some kind of minimally produced chamber music or C) some kind of minimally produced "audiophile" recording from a more modern genre like jazz or singer/songwriter and then go on to say that you can't properly evaluate audio gear without their preferred genre of music.

OK. I do that and I'll tell you why: I don't know what "other" types of music are supposed to sound like and, so, I cannot judge how well it is being reproduced. You are entitled to insert any genre of music for the word "other."

 

[MRC01]

... Popular music, on the other hand, relies more on explicit sexual and romantic themes, plus raw energy and driving rhythm, and in some cases catchy tunes (which is an art in itself--go try it sometime). ...

That's what I describe as emotional appeal, yet lacking intellectual appeal.

... my favorite pop-rock selection is the instrumental riff from the Doors' Light My Fire. It combines many of the attributes of the classical form with the pure drive and sexuality of rock (or however you would characterize that particular piece).

Yah, to me that solo has always sounded like a jazzy swinging version of something from late Baroque / early classical.

 

[Feanor]

You see it all the time in audiophile and gear forums. One person lists their test tracks and another person complains about them because they don't include A) a full symphony orchestra B) some kind of minimally produced chamber music or C) some kind of minimally produced "audiophile" recording from a more modern genre like jazz or singer/songwriter and then go on to say that you can't properly evaluate audio gear without their preferred genre of music.
...

I'm glad to see that you have at least defined music categories generically, i.e. specifically orchestral, small-ensemble, and minimally produced whatever, rather than Classical per se. One might also include "minimally produced" vocal or large-scale choral music. (I always include both of the latter when I'm evaluating my system set-up.)

I would need to be explained to me why "heavily produced" -- i.e. non-acoustic -- music is useful to determine sound quality. In particular, what do you learn about resolution or transparency from such music -- except sometimes coincidentally.

Well Ok, if you only listen to "popular" / "modern" music, then fine: evaluate your set-up accordingly but don't rag people who feel they can better evaluate with a wide range of acoustic music.

(BTW, plenty of Classical music is still being written & produced today -- and plenty more Classical-type music is being written. Been to a movie lately?

 

[q3cpma]

That's what I describe as emotional appeal, yet lacking intellectual appeal.

I'd say base emotional appeal, I'm sure most would agree that Romantic music's essence is emotions.

 

[Fluffy]

Hmm, I get the feeling all the people who claimed to watch the video didn't actually listen to what's being said, because he directly refutes some of the opinions written here. Especially about the musics supposed transcendence being proved by the fact it survived for hundreds of years. I'm waiting for someone to directly address the arguments that were made there. And you can spare me the comments about how his delivery annoys you and that's why you watched only half way through…

 

[Frank Dernie]

to say that you can't properly evaluate audio gear without their preferred genre of music.

It depends what you are trying to evaluate, and surely buying something which sounds good on the sort of music one listens to makes sense?
For me accurate instrumental timbre is very important so I play recordings of instruments I know the sound of.
OTOH I play rock music very loud so I need to know if the kit will do that without falling over. I have no idea what the timbre of any electric instrument is, so couldn't judge with that music even though I love it and have for over 50 years.

 

[Robin L]

PS: the classical period of classical music mostly bores me to death, and baroque is just a bit better

A: The "Classical" period of music is most curious to me as Beethoven, at times a most avant-garde composer [relative to his time], is grouped with Mozart and Haydn, composers who for the most part lived up to the concept of the "Classical" era. Beethoven is mostly "Romantic" in character, even early on, in the very first Piano Sonata.

B: The Baroque era is filled with nooks and crannies. Judging Baroque music from the playlists of "Classical" radio stations cuts out about 90% of the repertoire.

Of course, if you basically aren't turned on by old music now, you probably never will be. Just like I probably won't be owning the collected musical works of Cardi B in the near future, or any kind of future at all.

 

[Frank Dernie]

my favorite pop-rock selection is the instrumental riff from the Doors' Light My Fire

I am now listening to my old Doors records

 

[Robin L]

Hmm, I get the feeling all the people who claimed to watch the video didn't actually listen to what's being said, because he directly refutes some of the opinions written here. Especially about the musics supposed transcendence being proved by the fact it survived for hundreds of years. I'm waiting for someone to directly address the arguments that were made there. And you can spare me the comments about how his delivery annoys you and that's why you watched only half way through…

Anyone who can abide the vocal delivery on that video has no ear for music. I gave it 15 seconds. Sounds like a species of digital time compression.

 

[q3cpma]

A: The "Classical" period of music is most curious to me as Beethoven, at times a most avant-garde composer [relative to his time], is grouped with Mozart and Haydn, composers who for the most part lived up to the concept of the "Classical" era. Beethoven is mostly "Romantic" in character, even early on, in the very first Piano Sonata.

Strangely, I don't completely dislike Haydn's symphonies.

B: The Baroque era is filled with nooks and crannies. Judging Baroque music from the playlists of "Classical" radio stations cuts out about 90% of th repertoire.

Come on, I don't listen to radio. But it's how baroque and classical "kind of" severed the relation between music and emotions that just doesn't seem to get anywhere with me. And, as a musician and music enthusiast, I can certainly enjoy the genius of Bach's compositions, but I'd say that he's the only one who managed to replace meaning with technique, so good he was.

Of course, if you basically aren't turned on by old music now, you probably never will be. Just like I probably won't be owning the collected musical works of Cardi B in the near future, or any kind of future at all.

I enjoy a lot the compositors I listed, but one of the problems is that you can't really enjoy big orchestral work like Strauss' (my favourite) in an appartement =). I have been self-conditioned (really, I have a physical reaction) to worry about disturbing the neigbourhood when the peaks hit.

 

[A.West]

I hold the quite reviled position (these days) that aesthetics (i.e. objective beauty) and taste aren't the same, and recognize that music reached its peak during the Romantic era with people like Strauss, Beethoven, Wagner, Rimsky-Korsakov, Dukas followed by the more experimental Stravinsky, Debussy or Ravel. But that peak was just the result of a civilisational/cultural peak and the zeitgeist it captured simply isn't anymore. I'm of the opinion that the current European zeitgeist is made of despair and hatred, so extreme metal is the Romantic music of today; quite the "coincidence" too that this genre is almost exclusively European.
Not here to discuss the ideological/political parts, just trying to (maybe) help some people understand their relation with classical music; I know it's a dick move to claim something with some off-topic roots while saying "no need for more off-topic discussion", but please indulge me.

PS: the classical period of classical music mostly bores me to death, and baroque is just a bit better

I agree with you on the Romantic era, except I favor Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Chopin and Liszt over your guys. It's my favorite music to have on my headphones while reading/writing/working, because I know it well enough for it to not interrupt my thinking. I used to pay more direct attention to the music when I was young three decades ago. I am somewhat gratified that 30-40 years ago music snobs (favoring modernism) denigrated Rachmaninoff, and now his music, which remained popular with audiences, is increasingly in favor with musicians and critics. I find that more complex music like Rachmnaninoff's later works, require time and repeated listening to sink in, much like some Prog Rock I listen to. The first time I listened to Etudes Tableaux I found them difficult to follow or like, similar to my first listen to King Crimson's "Lizard" album.

 

[Robin L]

Strangely, I don't completely dislike Haydn's symphonies.

Bully! Haydn was often deeper than his smooth surfaces suggested.

Come on, I don't listen to radio. But it's how baroque and classical "kind of" severed the relation between music and emotions that just doesn't seem to get anywhere with me. And, as a musician and music enthusiast, I can certainly enjoy the genius of Bach's compositions, but I'd say that he's the only one who managed to replace meaning with technique, so good he was.

Never heard that in Bach, or Marais, or Couperin [any of 'em], always heard deep wells of emotion in their work. And then there's the wonderful strangeness of Bieber, or the profundity of Ennemond Gaultier. John Dowland comes from early Baroque, one of the most emotive musicians in his fashion. Again, greater exposure to Baroque music reveals a lot of depth, not to mention the technical mastery of J.S. Bach.

I enjoy a lot the compositors I listed, but one of the problems is that you can't really enjoy big orchestral work like Strauss' (my favourite) in an appartement =). I have been self-conditioned (really, I have a physical reaction) to worry about disturbing the neigbourhood when the peaks hit.

That's why the muses created headphones.

 

[q3cpma]

I agree with you on the Romantic era, except I favor Rachmaninoff, Tchaikovsky, Chopin and Liszt over your guys. It's my favorite music to have on my headphones while reading/writing/working, because I know it well enough for it to not interrupt my thinking. I used to pay more direct attention to the music when I was young three decades ago. I am somewhat gratified that 30-40 years ago music snobs (favoring modernism) denigrated Rachmaninoff, and now his music, which remained popular with audiences, is increasingly in favor with musicians and critics. I find that more complex music like Rachmnaninoff's later works, require time and repeated listening to sink in, much like some Prog Rock I listen to. The first time I listened to Etudes Tableaux I found them difficult to follow or like, similar to my first listen to King Crimson's "Lizard" album.

Well, I certainly do enjoy Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsk's concertos, but these never gave me the emotional surge that Strauss' work does. I need to be a bit intellectually involved when I do listen to these, personally.

 

[maverickronin]

OK. I do that and I'll tell you why: I don't know what "other" types of music are supposed to sound like and, so, I cannot judge how well it is being reproduced. You are entitled to insert any genre of music for the word "other."

It depends what you are trying to evaluate, and surely buying something which sounds good on the sort of music one listens to makes sense?

No, that's exactly my point. Everyone should use test tracks that they like and are familiar with and not complain that other people use something for a genre they either don't like or aren't familiar with.

 

[q3cpma]

Never heard that in Bach, or Marais, or Couperin [any of 'em], always heard deep wells of emotion in their work. And then there's the wonderful strangeness of Bieber, or the profundity of Ennemond Gaultier. Again, greater exposure to Baroque music reveals a lot of depth, not to mention the technical mastery of J.S. Bach.

Of course, I did specify "kind of". You can't deny that technique had a very important part in baroque, though, and that the romantics were kind of reactionary to all of this, to the point where technique was almost slave to emotions in some of their works.

That's why the muses created headphones.

The problem is that I've always thought "if I use open headphones, why not just use speakers", but I may buy me some HD650/660 when money becomes more abundant.

 

[Robin L]

Of course, I did specify "kind of". You can't deny that technique had a very important part in baroque, though, and that the romantics were kind of reactionary to all of this, to the point where technique was almost slave to emotions in some of their works.

I think a facile overview of Baroque music leads one to the conclusion that it's all about the technique, when a deep dive reveals a music just as emotional as the romantic era, but pointing to different sorts of emotions. The same is true of the Classical era.

The problem is that I've always thought "if I use open headphones, why not just use speakers", but I may buy me some HD650/660 when money becomes more abundant.

When I was recording [almost entirely "Classical" music, meaning from pre-medieval to "wet ink"], my monitors were Stax Earspeakers, super-detailed sound. Not too many people liked that sound, it was just too much information. However, it got closer to standing next to the musicians than any loudspeakers I've heard.