A millennial's rant on classical music

[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…

I could read the incoherent, would-be post-modern diatribe via the captioning on the screen so I didn't have to listen to the awful time-compressed vocal delivery. Burnt up a quarter hour reading his bullshit. There were any number of angles this person could have gone to talk about the canon, to talk about the history of the "Concert Hall" and all that, but the actual purpose of the video is to advertise an on-line learning course on how to produce music on a computer. You want revisionist history of Classical music, try Joseph Horowitz.

In point of fact, no one told me to listen to Beethoven when I turned 15. It happened to be his 200th birthday. I began to listen to his music, chills ran up and down my spine. I've never had such a strong visceral reaction to any music before this. I went after it like an addict for crack, wound up with God knows how many recordings of the Symphonies, Chamber Music, Concerti and Piano Sonatas, was emotionally and intellectually drawn to the music without being told to by anybody. This during one of the most prolonged periods of development of music of all sorts throughout the world, thanks to recordings making musics accessible that previously were known only to limited audiences. It wasn't as if some music instructor told me to stop listening to James Brown or Led Zeppelin, it wasn't as if I lacked alternate options. The fact that I am drawn to the music of Beethoven has nothing to do with the topics the author of the rant decided to put on display.

It is clear that the ax this person has been grinding has very little to do with music. I didn't learn anything I didn't already know, didn't think the author had anything useful or interesting to say. It was clear that music wasn't the point. I'm not even sure there was a point. The constant mindless scribbling on the music paper in the visual field struck me as nothing more than a stupid distraction, which could be said of the whole enterprise. I got zero indication that the author even cares for music.

 

[maverickronin]

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…

I just watched it again. He never address the actual content of the music. All he does is provide an overview of other social factors which lead to the informal canonization of the German(ic) Trinity. It does not logically follow from the presence of other factors contributing to their fame that their music is bad. He flat out admits it near the end.

About the only positive takeaway you could have from this video is that there are also other excellent composers from those periods who have been been overlooked for cultural and political reasons. I'm not enough or a classical fan or history buff to even recognize most of the other names he lists, but there are certainly some out there because the same is always true for every art in every time.

It was clear that music wasn't the point. I'm not even sure there was a point.

It's pure clickbait. The title is confrontational and the video itself is about a completely separate topic.

The constant mindless scribbling on the music paper in the visual field struck me as nothing more than a stupid distraction, which could be said of the whole enterprise.

I actually liked the style. It's better than a bunch of powerpoint slides or just talking into the camera.

I got zero indication that the author even cares for music.

I can at least tell he's a gamer from the references and sketches.

 

[Robin L]

About the only positive takeaway you could have from this video is that there are also other excellent composers from those periods who have been been overlooked for cultural and political reasons. I'm not enough or a classical fan or history buff to even recognize most of the other names he lists, but there are certainly some out there because the same is always true for every art in every time.

One of my gigs as a recording engineer of "Classical" music was for The Women's Philharmonic, so I heard the Piano Concerto of Clara Schumann during its recording session at Skywalker Ranch. A lot of people are interested in the potential diversity of "classical music", of making new "classical music". Beethoven manages to be a continuing inspiration to those wrestling with musical composition, those who can see the avant-garde aspects of his music.

 

[billybuck]

I'm somewhat in the same camp as the OP, but something that improved my ear for classical was realizing the importance of form. Seat a non-American at a hotly contested World Series finale when they're not aware of the rules or the context (or put an American at a championship cricket game) and you'll likely see plenty of yawns and checking of watches. Without some knowledge of form and context, it's just some guys running around hitting a ball, with precious few moments of entertainment when the ball sails a bit further, or a guy slides a few feet on his ass. Like a classical concert, but with beer.

For music of our own era, form is understood. No one needs to teach us verse/chorus/bridge or the AABA patterns of blues because they're ingrained in our culture the same way sonata form was in the 1800's. We innately sense the innovation and creativity when someone dares to push boundaries and eliminates choruses, phrases across the bar, or does an odd number of bar lengths in a verse. We don't even need to know what bar lengths are, we just hear that something's new and different.

I had a discussion with my wife on this not long ago in which she took the opinion that great art is always great art--a great painting or melody or witty turn of phrase should just reach across the ages and immediately grab you by the shorties. I couldn't disagree more. Art doesn't only require context--it IS context.

 

[Vasr]

I had a discussion with my wife on this not long ago in which she took the opinion that great art is always great art--a great painting or melody or witty turn of phrase should just reach across the ages and immediately grab you by the shorties. I couldn't disagree more. Art doesn't only require context--it IS context.

Does your wife have a sister?

But seriously, this is more of a left brain vs right brain thing. People differ on how they perceive within a spectrum between those two extremes. Some need to analyze more, some need to feel more whether it is music, cuisine, art in the way they perceive it and gain enjoyment from. So both are correct in that context. Just fall in different parts of the spectrum. It is part of being human. But part of being human is also having a sense of superiority in one's identity.

Eventually music is a form of communication and an appeal to your senses. Whether it does so by your cerebral recognition of the form or playing your emotions like a violin with no clue as to why, it has achieved its purpose and so is good. All this discussion of which is greater or more complex or whatever is just insane and wholly artificial.

 

[Dennis Murphy]

Does your wife have a sister?

But seriously, this is more of a left brain vs right brain thing. People differ on how they perceive within a spectrum between those two extremes. Some need to analyze more, some need to feel more whether it is music, cuisine, art in the way they perceive it and gain enjoyment from. So both are correct in that context. Just fall in different parts of the spectrum. It is part of being human. But part of being human is also having a sense of superiority in one's identity.

Eventually music is a form of communication and an appeal to your senses. Whether it does so by your cerebral recognition of the form or playing your emotions like a violin with no clue as to why, it has achieved its purpose and so is good. All this discussion of which is greater or more complex or whatever is just insane and wholly artificial.

I think that's right. I'm convinced that the reason most (nearly all) music appreciation course fail is because they spend so much time on form, and in a way that lends itself to true-false, multiple choice questions on a mid-term exam. You can spend at least one class lecturing on the minuet form, and if you're a musician you better know the form or else you're likely to miss a repeat, or repeat when you shouldn't. But that form didn't develop because it was amusing for the audience to listen for the first repeat, or the second, or know that the trio section was going to end with a return to the first A-B section without repeats. It evolved because that particular combination of repetition and contrast was pleasing to the brain. I don't listen to the great minuet in Mozart's 40th symphony mentally following the formal structure like a road map. Mozart didn't intend that. He wanted me to enjoy the results of that form.

 

[preload]

Fluffy, you are a special and unique individual and nobody can tell you what you should or should not listen to. You did an amazing job summarizing your feelings about classical music and you were so brave to share that in a forum where lots of people adore classical music. The fact that you're here and made the effort of logging on and making an account is incredible. You do you.

 

[maverickronin]

A few things I missed from when this thread was proceeding at light speed.

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.

You don't really get to escape the Circle of Confusion or the limitations of stereo just because all the instruments are acoustic. You're still just comparing audio reproduction systems to each other. One just needs to be familiar enough with a particular genre or track to use it effectively for evaluation.

evaluate your set-up accordingly but don't rag people who feel they can better evaluate with a wide range of acoustic music.

I'm not. I ragging on people who rag on other people for not using test tracks they approve of. (Like for example )

My point is that everyone should use test tracks based on their own preferences and familiarity. I don't have very much classical-style music in my library, but what little there is I have from movie and game soundtracks. (As you allude to below.) Even if there is some that I absolutely love I'm not really familiar enough with classical genres to use any of it in evaluation.

To pull an example out the recently posted video, asking me to evaluate a set of transducers with a Bach fugue is like asking you to evaluate them with death metal.

(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?

Yes. It has a lot lower barrier to entry because it doesn't have the same subculture built up around it. The soundtrack for the original Star Wars is probably in my personal top 10 albums.

I do this. It is too complex to list all the sub-genres, particularly those I don't know well.

I definitely get this part, but...

I consider it exactly equivalent to referring to "classical" when meaning everything from plainchant, Baroque, Classical (really 1750 to 1820), Romantic and modern.

Even though you probably don't mean it this way, contrasting "popular" to "classical" sounds like you're looking down your nose at the unwashed masses and reinforces the "high" vs "low" art divide.

Not that I'm going to change common usage in a single forum post but classical and modern seem like better terms to me. They describe the origins of their respective families of genres and both have positive connotations.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Even though you probably don't mean it this way, contrasting "popular" to "classical" sounds like you're looking down your nose at the unwashed masses and reinforces the "high" vs "low" are divide.

I give up!

 

[Bart]

I've always wanted to hear new and exciting things. To be overwhelmed by the musically unexpected - it's one of the most pleasurable things in life.

This attitude can and will lead to many different places in the musical world and history.

In contact with other music lovers I feel mostly drawn to the curious ones rather than to those with all the exact same tastes - never met one like that anyways. There will always be common ground.

 

[paddycrow]

With age, I have become less inclined to apologize or otherwise justify the music I listen to. I have also become more open minded about exploring things I previously would have dismissed.

 

[ahofer]

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…

Hmm, I get the feeling some critics of music in the classical tradition have cherry-picked and swallowed one viewpoint whole without engaging with the enormous amount of literature explaining why musicians in the classical tradition feel Beethoven is one of the greats. Perhaps one should engage with the literature-

https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Li...sical+biography&qid=1597592882&s=books&sr=1-3

https://www.amazon.com/Grove-Dictio...ictionary+grove&qid=1597593068&s=books&sr=1-1

https://www.amazon.com/Rob-Kapilows...rds=rob+kapilow&qid=1597593093&s=books&sr=1-4

and a few dozen other readings, before engaging in any further discussion.

Which is just a snarky way of saying I don't accept homework assignments. Re-state his alleged refutation of why the simple endurance of Beethoven is not a point in his legacy's favor, and I'd be happy to address it. In my abbreviated listening he brought it up, but only in a begs-the-question fallacy I'd summarize as "it endures because (the wrong) people make it endure". Well, yes, the people who focus on the field often decide the Greats. Neither here nor there.

 

[Fluffy]

I'm amazed how many apologists here can't bother to listen to a 15-minute talk and follow its arguments, not even only to refute them. I thought the many experts here won't have any issues pointing out the problems in his analysis without resorting to ad hominem or outright dismissing his right to even make a claim.

I found the transcript to that video if someone prefers to read it:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17cgUdS29Z5jjoMFMgn1BM2X8oonUym6S56vBjIjMEnI/edit

I don't see why I need to re-iterate his points, I think he made them very clear to anyone who bothered to pay attention. And I'm not looking to prove that he is right, I just wanted to hear a second opinion on what he said, as long as it addresses the core issues he talked about.

And to all boomers reading – yes, of course this title is a clickbait, a very self aware one. Having your title be a clickbait does not automatically invalidate the content.

 

[Robin L]

Hmm, I get the feeling some critics of music in the classical tradition have cherry-picked and swallowed one viewpoint whole without engaging with the enormous amount of literature explaining why musicians in the classical tradition feel Beethoven is one of the greats.

The person responsible for "Beethoven sucks at music" never has anything to say about music qua music. Music is secondary throughout the rant.

Perhaps one should engage with the literature-

https://www.amazon.com/Beethoven-Li...sical+biography&qid=1597592882&s=books&sr=1-3
https://www.amazon.com/Grove-Dictio...ictionary+grove&qid=1597593068&s=books&sr=1-1
https://www.amazon.com/Rob-Kapilows...rds=rob+kapilow&qid=1597593093&s=books&sr=1-4

Also worth reading:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004H4WIPU/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
A history of Western music from the Baroque through Beethoven that as a side effect examines the connection between the Baroque and the weird baubles from Beethoven's "Late Period", and:

https://www.amazon.com/Classical-Music-America-Joseph-Horowitz/dp/0393330559
Which offers up a much clearer picture of the ways "Classical Music" became, in part, a museum of German antiquities, while noting some of the composers mentioned in the video, and a lot more that weren't.

Which is just a snarky way of saying I don't accept homework assignments. Re-state his alleged refutation of why the simple endurance of Beethoven is not a point in his legacy's favor, and I'd be happy to address it. In my abbreviated listening he brought it up, but only in a begs-the-question fallacy I'd summarize as "it endures because (the wrong) people make it endure". Well, yes, the people who focus on the field often decide the Greats. Neither here nor there.

More to the point, the musicians that influenced Beethoven [the composer studied "old music" when he could no longer hear music] and all those musicians that Beethoven influenced are never even brought up in the video. I can make a much better argument that the Beatles were terrible musicians. And I wouldn't be the only one to say that, just ask Quincy Jones. I know that the Germanic skew of "Classical" music comes in part due to the efforts of German Nationalists. But extending that sort of argument into any aspect of popular culture or "high culture" will yield similar results.

This is what is known as addressing the core issues of what he wrote, which happens to be an advertisement for some sort of online instruction, not a serious discussion of the musical merits of a particular musician.

In other words, clickbait.

 

[billybuck]

I think that's right. I'm convinced that the reason most (nearly all) music appreciation course fail is because they spend so much time on form, and in a way that lends itself to true-false, multiple choice questions on a mid-term exam. You can spend at least one class lecturing on the minuet form, and if you're a musician you better know the form or else you're likely to miss a repeat, or repeat when you shouldn't. But that form didn't develop because it was amusing for the audience to listen for the first repeat, or the second, or know that the trio section was going to end with a return to the first A-B section without repeats. It evolved because that particular combination of repetition and contrast was pleasing to the brain. I don't listen to the great minuet in Mozart's 40th symphony mentally following the formal structure like a road map. Mozart didn't intend that. He wanted me to enjoy the results of that form.

I'm not suggesting that form is an end unto itself, or the thing to which we should be the most attentive when listening. To use my previous baseball analogy, form just lets us know when a new batter's coming up, when the inning's over, how many innings are left, etc. Back to music, this can take melodies that are otherwise just swirling through the air, coming at us fast and furious, and put them Into more bite-sized chunks that we humans seem to need. Just as harmony provides depth and context to monophonic melody, a little understanding of form can add depth and context to a whole piece, increase pathos, exhilaration, etc.

Take pop music for example--when we know the chorus is kicking in, we intuit there's something important happening and what could have been an inconsequential melody in another context suddenly takes on gravity, and we can be more moved by it than if it had been tossed off as part of a verse.

However, I definitely agree that an over-reliance on teaching form is a hindrance to music-appreciation education. It's just the easiest thing to teach, and to test on.

 

[Vasr]

Once can also teach how to feel/experience music rather than discern form.

The former is necessary to create a good musician and to a certain extent innate in musically inclined. Most great musicians in any genre have had very little training in form or awareness of it.

The latter is sufficient often to create an appreciative audience even if there are limitations on the ability to react purely emotionally.

Very few courses combine both effectively unless taught by well-accomplished musicians.

Same thing happens in wine appreciation vs wine-making.

 

[RayDunzl]

I try not to convince anyone I'm an expert on anything I know nothing about.

 

[ahofer]

Thanks for the transcript. It goes no further than what I had heard before, unfortunately.

the honest answer is that it probably has very little to do with musical quality at all, and much more to do with cultural circumstances. Beethoven was the big name in German music at the beginning of the 19th century, just as many of the trends that would eventually lead to the modern canon were kicking off. he was in the right place at the right time, and history rewarded him for it. that's it. Beethoven's music has stood the test of time because after a while, time just stopped testing it. so does Beethoven suck at music? nah, I don't think so, but more importantly, I think that question misses the point. it doesn't matter if his work is good in some abstract, objective sense. what matters is what his work means to you, and I think it's ok to admit if it means nothing.

It actually does matter if his work is good in some abstract sense to the practitioners of his art. That is, in fact, why he is considered a great composer. Yet I completely agree with the last sentence. There is no requirement to engage with Beethoven, just as there is no requirement that I engage with Serialists. But I don't try to re-order their pantheon for them, either.

"[H]e was in the right place at the right time". True of just about every hyper-achiever, but quite insufficient. He also wrote an almost incomprehensible amount of technically complex, innovative, and touching (to many) music ( I forgot to add the Piano Trios to the Symphonies, Piano Sonatas, and String Quartets). Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and John Malone were born smart and privileged at the right time, but they still had to DO what they did.

And the smear attempt with German nationalism is just silly. Hitler liked dogs, too.

Having read the transcript, I can see this is an attempt to look outside "the Canon". I'm in favor of that - I have a young friend who is recording the works of William Grant Still, and I just bought a recording of Clara Schumann's piano work. But like so many social justice-oriented takes, this essay seems to want to take down Beethoven and his tradition rather than build something else up. Which is not unlike the urge to denigrate an art form that you just don't enjoy. A human instinct, but a shabby one.

 

[ahofer]

Take pop music for example--when we know the chorus is kicking in, we intuit there's something important happening and what could have been an inconsequential melody in another context suddenly takes on gravity, and we can be more moved by it than if it had been tossed off as part of a verse.

I've always thought a good bridge could turn a monotonous riff-driven song into something stirring. I'm not alone. Some artists know this.

 

[Fluffy]

Thanks for the transcript. It goes no further than what I had heard before, unfortunately.



It actually does matter if his work is good in some abstract sense to the practitioners of his art. That is, in fact, why he is considered a great composer. Yet I completely agree with the last sentence. There is no requirement to engage with Beethoven, just as there is no requirement that I engage with Serialists. But I don't try to re-order their pantheon for them, either.

"[H]e was in the right place at the right time". True of just about every hyper-achiever, but quite insufficient. He also wrote an almost incomprehensible amount of technically complex, innovative, and touching (to many) music ( I forgot to add the Piano Trios to the Symphonies, Piano Sonatas, and String Quartets). Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and John Malone were born smart and privileged at the right time, but they still had to DO what they did.

And the smear attempt with German nationalism is just silly. Hitler liked dogs, too.

Having read the transcript, I can see this is an attempt to look outside "the Canon". I'm in favor of that - I have a young friend who is recording the works of William Grant Still, and I just bought a recording of Clara Schumann's piano work. But like so many social justice-oriented takes, this essay seems to want to take down Beethoven and his tradition rather than build something else up. Which is not unlike the urge to denigrate an art form that you just don't enjoy. A human instinct, but a shabby one.

Thanks for your thoughtful response, I appreciate it.