"Classical Music" and other names for it

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

What isn't quite clear is why the independent sector still values it, given that so many of its products (in the present government for example) have little idea about or appreciation of it.

Nice point - but I'm not sure that "doing it as an Extra-Curricular 'Activity'" amounts to "valuing it".

The other factor that hasn't been mentioned is the packaging of the Classic Brits end of the repertoire, which, if someone had told me in my youth was what 'Classical muisc' was, I'd have run a mile from! Back then there was Mantovani, but nobody called him Classical.

- and this refutes scottyTipps' suggestion that "we all know what it means": for a substantial number of the general public, "Classical Music" is anything which uses an orchestra; arrangements of Simon & Garfunkel, Film Music, Songs from the Shows, "Moonlight & Roses": in the remaining large stores and supermarkets that sell CDs, the "Classical" section doesn't predominantly feature the sort of Music that "we all know" to be "Classical Music". What is at the Top of the "Classical" Charts at the moment? Alexander Armstrong! (Insert "pointless" comment[s] of your choice here) The remainder of the Chart is also interesting (if only to suggest that scotty's acquaintances aren't representative of the public at large):

http://www.classicfm.com/radio/shows/official-classic-fm-chart/24-january-2016/#GybIJAMuoISGAEGw.97

[MrGongGong]

I asked my two children now in their late twenties who didn't have music at their schools,

Erm, if your children were that age I don't think they could have been at a school that didn't have music.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Erm, if your children were that age I don't think they could have been at a school that didn't have music.

Unless they went to an Independent School that didn't have to follow the National Curriculum, perhaps?

[MrGongGong]

Clearly the classical-music-education part of those astronomical Eton school fees was a waste of money..

They don't seem to have been taught anything about history either
SO what exactly DID the money get spent on?

[P. G. Tipps]

They don't seem to have been taught anything about history either
SO what exactly DID the money get spent on?

Surely if it's Daddy's & Mummy's money, and not ours, that's really none of our business, Mr GG ...?

[jean]

...for a substantial number of the general public, "Classical Music" is anything which uses an orchestra; arrangements of Simon & Garfunkel, Film Music, Songs from the Shows, "Moonlight & Roses"...

This sort of (what used to be) Radio 2 repertoire was always popular, but wasn't labelled 'Classical'.

Even in my youth, as my interest grew in Early Music (whatever that is!) I felt Folk music would be a better introduction to 'Classical' than that stuff.

[jean]

Surely if it's Daddy's & Mummy's money, and not ours, that's really none of our business, Mr GG ...?

If we're electing them to govern us, their lack of historical awareness is very much our business, I should think.

[MrGongGong]

If we're electing them to govern us, their lack of historical awareness is very much our business, I should think.

And the lack of awareness of culture given they choose how to spend public money.

[Mary Chambers]

What is at the Top of the "Classical" Charts at the moment? Alexander Armstrong! (Insert "pointless" comment[s] of your choice here) The remainder of the Chart is also interesting (if only to suggest that scotty's acquaintances aren't representative of the public at large):

http://www.classicfm.com/radio/shows...AMuoISGAEGw.97

That chart is alarming! There is also a 'specialist classical chart' which is rather better.

(Alexander Armstrong was a Cambridge choral scholar, so he can't be entirely ignorant about singing.)

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

This sort of (what used to be) Radio 2 repertoire was always popular, but wasn't labelled 'Classical'.

Exactly - I thought the CFM Chart illustrated the point you made in the erlier post very neatly.

Even in my youth, as my interest grew in Early Music (whatever that is!) I felt Folk music would be a better introduction to 'Classical' than that stuff.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There is also a 'specialist classical chart' which is rather better.

Indeed - but the CFM chart illustrates that, whilst "we" (here, on the Radio 3 Forum - at any rate, most of us!) "know what 'Classical Music' is", there is a huge proportion of the wider public which "knows" it to be something very different.

(Alexander Armstrong was a Cambridge choral scholar, so he can't be entirely ignorant about singing.)

He has a not unpleasant (if rather anodyne) crooning voice, but I'm not sure that he'd've got his scholarship on the repertoire on his "Number One" album (which receives 323 5-star reviews on Amazon).

[teamsaint]

why do the more prestigious private schools value classical music?

you just need to look at what they are there for, which is to get their students into top universities, in the main.
And outside of music, they have the resource to give their students great experience which can play well in the application process, EG Stanf's Rugby tours, Drama training, whatever.

it isn't by chance that Oxbridge colleges have lots of excellent music performers, sports people etc.

and it isn't just the " Gene pool" at work, as I was told when on a visit ( not with my own children) to Bryanston.

[P. G. Tipps]

If we're electing them to govern us, their lack of historical awareness is very much our business, I should think.

In that case clearly 'we're' to blame and not 'them' ?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

why do the more prestigious private schools value classical music?

In what sense "value"? (As opposed to "pricing"?)

[Serial_Apologist]

If we're electing them to govern us, their lack of historical awareness is very much our business, I should think.

I think claiming the Tories lack historical awareness is being too kind. Anyway...