This will teach me to read The Guardian

[David D]

First of all Hello everybody. Thank you for letting me join. I decided to stop 'lurking' and contribute to your excellent forum (Although you may not thank me after you read this)

I came across this article yesterday and it really annoyed me. I was going to comment on the thread itself but it has now been closed so I thought I'd share it with you so you can all feel the pain as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/aug/08/piano-minimalism-classical-spotify-chill-playlists-nils-frahm

This is what I was going to put down as a comment:

“I don't understand why this writer is so 'chippy' about classical music. Given Melnyk, Beving and the others she mentions are attracting so many listeners on Spotify who cares if what they do is called classical music or not. And why should they care how they are classified either. Surely it's a bit snobbish on these artist's part to want the 'respectability' the classical label allegedly gives them. As someone who loves classical music I have no objection to people enjoying whatever they please. And I don't even know who this so-called classical music establishment is to which the writer refers. Since Deutsche Grammophon (DG) has Joep Beving on it's books he's scarcely being ostracised (at least not by the classical labels).

If any music is being sidelined today it is classical music. What with swinging Arts Council (ICE) cuts, classical music (apart from the odd Prom) being increasingly kept off terrestrial TV it is scarcely a dominant influence in the culture.

I agree with the other comments on here concerning the writer's obsession with numbers of listeners. It's almost as if she has little confidence in the music's inherent value. Personally I would never dismiss anything simply because it is popular but neither do I feel obliged to automatically like it either. You don't have to be a snob (classical or otherwise) to believe that quantity does not necessarily equate to quality.”

I'm sure there were plenty of other things I could have said but I lost patience pretty quickly.

[Hitch]

A reminder that The Guardian's Culture section is divided into Film/Music/TV&Radio/Books/Art&Design/Stage/Games/Classical. Apparently, Classical isn't Music.

[oliver sudden]

The current top ‘Guardian pick’ comment:

I find it harmonically bland and lacking in variety. One piece is bearable but a whole evening of it is like a screwdriver through the brain.

That wasn’t your second draft was it?

[Pulcinella]

Welcome, David.

You'll find that a fair few of us here read The Guardian (or at least quote from it).
You can almost hear the accompanying crunch of muesli every morning!

Looking forward to reading your contributions, now you've taken the courage to be not just a lurker.

[Ein Heldenleben]

First of all Hello everybody. Thank you for letting me join. I decided to stop 'lurking' and contribute to your excellent forum (Although you may not thank me after you read this)

I came across this article yesterday and it really annoyed me. I was going to comment on the thread itself but it has now been closed so I thought I'd share it with you so you can all feel the pain as well.

https://www.theguardian.com/music/article/2024/aug/08/piano-minimalism-classical-spotify-chill-playlists-nils-frahm

This is what I was going to put down as a comment:

“I don't understand why this writer is so 'chippy' about classical music. Given Melnyk, Beving and the others she mentions are attracting so many listeners on Spotify who cares if what they do is called classical music or not. And why should they care how they are classified either. Surely it's a bit snobbish on these artist's part to want the 'respectability' the classical label allegedly gives them. As someone who loves classical music I have no objection to people enjoying whatever they please. And I don't even know who this so-called classical music establishment is to which the writer refers. Since Deutsche Grammophon (DG) has Joep Beving on it's books he's scarcely being ostracised (at least not by the classical labels).

If any music is being sidelined today it is classical music. What with swinging Arts Council (ICE) cuts, classical music (apart from the odd Prom) being increasingly kept off terrestrial TV it is scarcely a dominant influence in the culture.

I agree with the other comments on here concerning the writer's obsession with numbers of listeners. It's almost as if she has little confidence in the music's inherent value. Personally I would never dismiss anything simply because it is popular but neither do I feel obliged to automatically like it either. You don't have to be a snob (classical or otherwise) to believe that quantity does not necessarily equate to quality.”

I'm sure there were plenty of other things I could have said but I lost patience pretty quickly.

Welcome David .
I took one look at the headline and decided not to read it as

1. the music involved is not worth my time
2.I guessed it that it would really annoy me.

Thanks for proving me right .

On a positive note I heard a real pianist playing the second movement of Beethoven Op 90 on Radio 3 yesterday . A piece I play often.
They played it rather better - turned out to be Igor Levit.

Op 90 will be played by amateurs and virtuosi when the 4 chord arpeggio merchants are long forgotten.

[oddoneout]

Welcome David, and I hope you find your move from lurker to participant enjoyable.
I saw the article and did consider responding, but in the end didn't - too many issues to address I felt. From what I remember the performers themselves aren't that fussed about whether the "classical" world rates them or not - they make their music and let listeners make up their own minds about its value. My view is that it is evidently bringing pleasure to millions and that to me is one of the purposes of music - in all its forms. I think it's pointless to argue about whether it is "worth" listening to, not least because it doesn't preclude or prevent listening to(perhaps performing) and being equally passionate about "classical" music, and also because it then strays into the difficult and potentially unpleasant territory of being dismissive or scornful about a person's music choices. Having been exposed to, and instinctively disliking, that from a very early age I don't like to see it in action.

[Retune]

Welcome to the forum!

I agree with the other comments on here concerning the writer's obsession with numbers of listeners. It's almost as if she has little confidence in the music's inherent value. Personally I would never dismiss anything simply because it is popular but neither do I feel obliged to automatically like it either. You don't have to be a snob (classical or otherwise) to believe that quantity does not necessarily equate to quality.”

I didn't read the article quite that way. The provocative headline is probably by some copy editor. Flora Willson usually writes about music in the standard repertoire, and when it's a concert I've heard I tend to agree with her reviews more often than not. I think she's just commenting on the curious contradiction that this stuff (the latest in a long line of 'diluted' forms of classical music) is both wildly popular with a segment of the general public, and barely visible to the mainstream classical audience. I imagine she is not personally ecstatic about music where 'there is not a huge amount else on the list of musical ingredients' other than 'arpeggios ... and lots of sustaining pedal' or 'sounds like the cheerful progeny of US minimalist Steve Reich and an arcade game'. While record companies will buy anything that will sell and label it as 'classical' if it helps, this subgenre is rarely reviewed positively (if at all) by classical music critics (a couple of the linked Einaudi reviews are wonderfully savage). Perhaps the explanation is the one she implies at the end - with music this free of substance, there is really nothing to review.

[french frank]

Well, clearly someone isn't 'shunning' such music; otherwise where do people hear it in the first place before they choose to listen to it on Spotify? Or is there a Meta-type algorithm controlling millions of bots which beam their enticing message into hearts and homes? "If you like this, you'll definitely like THIS - and it's on Spotify here."

I'm not really surprised that ambient, chill, minimalist music is popular: it sounds very New Age, mindfulness/MBS, slooooow radio. Nils Frahm has been played a number of times on R3, not surprisingly on programmes like Tearjerker, Unclassified, Night Tracks and Ultimate Calm. [Not that I've heard it]

[Serial_Apologist]

Music as an escape from, not a reflection on or, even engagement with the realities of its time, as far as I am concerned, writes itself out of history.

[teamsaint]

Music as an escape from, not a reflection on or, even engagement with the realities of its time, as far as I am concerned, writes itself out of history.

What about, for example , Disco ( prom 2 was it ?)
I realise that some of the better stuff could, obliquely at least, be argued to be “a reflection on or, even engagement with the realities of its time,” but that wouldn’t really be central to its purpose,yet it certainly hasn’t written itself out of history. It is essentially functional and escapist music , but has some legacy , both musical and social.

[Hitch]

Music as an escape from, not a reflection on or, even engagement with the realities of its time, as far as I am concerned, writes itself out of history.

The Guardian's categorising of Classical as a separate topic does something similar. This subtle "othering" of Classical from Music parts the history of the subject from current artistic endeavour, something that none of the other categories do. Art, literature and drama stretch into the past yet none of them are similarly divided. The corralling of classical music seeps into journalistic attitudes, which is why I mention it with regard to the original article.

[Serial_Apologist]

What about, for example , Disco ( prom 2 was it ?)
I realise that some of the better stuff could, obliquely at least, be argued to be “a reflection on or, even engagement with the realities of its time,” but that wouldn’t really be central to its purpose,yet it certainly hasn’t written itself out of history. It is essentially functional and escapist music , but has some legacy , both musical and social.

Disco was (is?) engaged with its time, a step on from existing musics heralding the further steps into the genres of Techno, Ambient and Hip Hop which are sometimes abdications from reality (especially when it came to the Dance music money-making craze of the late 80s/early 90s) but equally often self-critiqueing and engaged. Leaving aside Einaudi, once a student of Berio, and to me just a cynic who should know better, from the article one senses that some of the other names (none of whom I have encountered) make this kind of music for auto-therapeutic reasons, like those featured on The PIano, the TV programme giving prominence to self-taught otherwise anonymous amateurs performing on public concourse pianos. Wouldn't one say that the music business industry condescendingly picks up those purveying musical vacuity to a public weaned on product, sells them something lulling with little content to engage with and makes money out of them? The emphasis must be on avoiding anything that risks engaging the critical faculties.

[Retune]

The Guardian's categorising of Classical as a separate topic does something similar. This subtle "othering" of Classical from Music parts the history of the subject from current artistic endeavour, something that none of the other categories do. Art, literature and drama stretch into the past yet none of them are similarly divided. The corralling of classical music seeps into journalistic attitudes, which is why I mention it with regard to the original article.

I wouldn't read too much into that, except that they regard Classical as important. 'Football' is a top level category on the front page (which saves its fans from the tedious business of having to click on 'Sport' first) and in the website's directory hierarchy, just like 'Science'. And you can go straight to 'Ukraine' without clicking on 'World'.

[Hitch]

I wouldn't read too much into that, except that they regard Classical as important. 'Football' is a top level category on the front page (which saves its fans from the tedious business of having to click on 'Sport' first) and in the website's directory hierarchy, just like 'Science'. And you can go straight to 'Ukraine' without clicking on 'World'.

True, but football and Ukraine (Putin notwithstanding) are not in the process of being sidelined and marginalised.

[smittims]

Hello, David D, and welcome. I agree with what you say but I wasn't annoyed by the article. It's an argument about categorisation rather than music. Saying that this undemanding easy-listening music gets more audiences than 'classical' is irrelevant. So does Taylor Swift. That doesn't make either of them intelectually-stimulating enough to be interesting to a thinking person. Trying to set them up as a rival to the main stream of classical music is a journalistic attempt to get attention by stirring up controversy. Take a deep breath , get on with your own life and good luck to you.

What is annoying,of course, is when people like Sam Jackson and this year's Proms planner replace classical music with pop and crossover and call it 'classical' . That's called 'dumbing down' and we have every right to protest about it because it reverses what Radio 3 is supposed to be about. .