Who Killed Classical Music?

[Quarky]

Next Tuesday, Jan 21 - 11.30am, on, note, Radio4

"Gabriel Prokofiev (grandson of Sergei Prokofiev) discusses how composers such as Schoenberg killed off 20th-century classical music for all but a limited elite", it says on the page in that inimitably objective, non-partisan way that is becoming the broadcaster's hallmark across all wavelengths these days. Ivan Hewett, Sandy Goehr, Tansy Davies "and others" being brought in as "experts". I think I can forsee how this discussion will invevitably go.

This must have made Sydney Grew's day:

http://www.for3.org/forums/showthread.php?9588-Modernism-the-correct-way-to-approach-it

Anyhow (chancing my arm), wasn't a lot of Bach's music (and early music) written with prime consideration on musical sounds and effects rather than melody?

[MrGongGong]

Why not wait and see what this is about ?
From what I know about mr Prokofiev I wouldn't expect it to be a "why serialism is a dead end and we should all get back to writing tunes" rant like mr Whitaker did on the BBC4 prog last year.

Marketing maybe ?

But
Why are "elites" fine for sport ?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

classical music is not dead but it sure smells funny .....

[ahinton]

What Richard said. Every single word of it!

[Honoured Guest]

But
Why are "elites" fine for sport ?

The blurb for this programme is referring to music for an "elite" audience, meaning music which only appeals to people highly educated or familiar in it. Usually, "elitism" in sport refers to the participants, not the audience. Discussions about the relative merits of mass participation and attendance at elite performance are common to sports and arts. But very little spectator sport appeals only to an elite audience. Some is perceived to do so, and dressage was a good example of that, but the Greenwich Olympics coverage exposed dressage to large audiences, live in the arena and on tv, and that exposure to top quality dressage proved sufficient to develop a much wider popular interest. However, the case against serialism and beyond is that such exposure generally alienates an uneducated audience, and so the music "progressed" until the audience consisted of few more than the composers and a few academics and performers.

[Richard Barrett]

Why not wait and see what this is about ?

Because the blurb itself is offensively inaccurate to begin with!

[Richard Barrett]

the music "progressed" until the audience consisted of few more than the composers and a few academics and performers.

Yet more dodgy generalisations and assumptions...

[MrGongGong]

Because the blurb itself is offensively inaccurate to begin with!

That's marketing for you

People seem to like a "story" and the narrative that somehow Serialism was a dreadful thing and ruined music is just that, a story.

[Serial_Apologist]

The blurb for this programme is referring to music for an "elite" audience, meaning music which only appeals to people highly educated or familiar in it.

This, blatantly, was not the case for myself. Like everything else worth pursuing and understanding, serialism and atonal music in general took some effort - in my case helped by the presence of both in film scores by Elizabeth Lutyens and Hans Werner Henze in the 60s and 70s, and the odd piece such as Wilfred Joseph's "Concerto a Dodice" that showed 12-tone music could even be fun. One then wanted to proselytise, since the composers weren't exactly getting many opportunities to do so, and found ordinary people just like oneself who wanted to know what this exciting music was and how it came about - a learning and teaching experience for which I was hardly describable as qualified. I bet MrGG and others could recount and recount similar.

The more familiarised one becomes, the less there seems to be of an impenetrable wall separating modernist musics from those which are more "conventional".

[Honoured Guest]

... serialism and atonal music in general took some effort - in my case helped by the presence of both in film scores ...

The more familiarised one becomes, the less there seems to be of an impenetrable wall separating modernist musics from those which are more "conventional".

I agree this music works well when combined with other media, including film. Also, when audiences experience live performance in the same space as the performers.

In your last sentence, you seem to take a step towards my original generalisation, that appreciation of this music demands a high level of education or familiarity.

[MrGongGong]

The more familiarised one becomes, the less there seems to be of an impenetrable wall separating modernist musics from those which are more "conventional".

Indeed

In my experience folks often don't regard 'modernist musics' as 'unconventional' anyway.

I read some blurb from a concert series recently that said something like
"music ranging from Webern to Beethoven" , with the assumption that we would think that these were somehow 'miles apart'

[Richard Barrett]

People seem to like a "story" and the narrative that somehow Serialism was a dreadful thing and ruined music is just that, a story.

Yes but if it gets repeated often enough, people start believing it.

And, pardon me for stating this obvious thing one more time, serialism is a method of composition, not a style. It isn't in principle possible to tell whether something is or isn't composed serially, as Xenakis and Ligeti already pointed out in the 1950s.

Another obvious thing: there is a difference between something that requires familiarity for its appreciation/understanding, and something that's élitist.

[MrGongGong]

Yes but if it gets repeated often enough, people start believing it.

And, pardon me for stating this obvious thing one more time, serialism is a method of composition, not a style. It isn't in principle possible to tell whether something is or isn't composed serially, as Xenakis and Ligeti already pointed out in the 1950s.

Another obvious thing: there is a difference between something that requires familiarity for its appreciation/understanding, and something that's élitist.

[Honoured Guest]

Interesting. So, what's your obvious definition of "élitist"?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

Elitism is the belief or attitude that some individuals, who form an elite—a select group of people with a certain ancestry, intrinsic quality or worth, higher intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes—are those whose influence or authority is greater than that of others; whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities, or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.[1]

Alternatively, the term elitism may be used to describe a situation in which power is concentrated in the hands of a limited number of people. Oppositions of elitism include anti-elitism, egalitarianism, populism and political theory of pluralism. Elite theory is the sociological or political science analysis of elite influence in society—elite theorists regard pluralism as a utopian ideal. Elitism also refers to situations in which an individual assumes special privileges and responsibilities in the hope that this arrangement will benefit humanity or themselves. Elitism is closely related to social class and what sociologists call social stratification. Members of the upper classes are sometimes known as the social elite. The term elitism is also sometimes used to denote situations in which a group of people claiming to possess high abilities or simply an in-group or cadre grant themselves extra privileges at the expense of others. This form of elitism may be described as discrimination.
wicki

it is the category mistake made by such as RW and Aunt apologists to accuse the first paragraph of the quotation of being the second