Is classical music elitist?

Question

As a music teacher I'm interested to know what people's experiences of classical music, as performers or listeners, have been.

Answer 1

I think young people have far less exposure to classical music than I did growing up. I went to public school, and we were exposed to Bach, Beethoven, Mozart, Bizet and Wagner on a regular basis. We learned about and sang classical pieces. We were expected to listen to opera and understand the stories. We were even taken to hear opera performances at the Met in NY. (I grew up in NJ.) Our teachers did not feel they had to cater to popular musical tastes. They taught the classics, because they knew these were the foundation on which today's music was based. We also learned about Gershwin and Bernstein. We learned about jazz and blues. There was nothing elitist about any of this. Kids will always resist classical music, just as they resist learning about history, because they don't yet understand how understanding the past opens the window to the future. Unfortunately, music education is constantly being sacrificed to budget cuts in too many school systems. Kids need to understand that classical music was the popular music of its time, just like Shakespeare was the popular theater. These forms of entertainment were for the people, not just for old rich folks dressed in gowns and tuxes. Despite the obstacles, I hope that music teachers like you strive to open young minds to the classics.

Answer 2

For me, the question is more, should classical music be elitist? While the word "elitist" currently has a negative connotation in some circles, I believe any form of music should be elitist, or "elected," chosen with thought.

Should classical music be for everyone? That notion has, in my opinion, brought about the current decline in the appreciation of classical music by society.

I have a discussion group where we examine this question. If you like, I have written articles on the subject, and am willing to share them.

Answer 3

I'm not elitist at all, and I love classical music. When I tell people that my favorite music is from the Classical era (that's with a capital C--1750-1825, in other words), I know they have assumptions about me that are not true. Classical music is just music without words. People today write classical music. If Mozart, Bach, and the like lived today, they would probably write music for movies and video games. Conversely, if the melody we know as the theme from Super Mario Bros. had been written by a classical composer, we would elevate it the way we elevate all classical music.

Answer 4

Many People think classical music is just for one elite or one goup of selected people. I have to say, we can see through the history, the majorirty of the composers were poor with a low social level.

But why the aristocrats at that time loved so much that music, music from poor composers and low social level? The Answer is Simple: Musicians including composers were considered simply servants. Just a few composers were treated respectfully like Rossini, Haydn, Handel just a short list.

Beethoven was one of the firsts composers who did not accept being treated as a servant, you can read his Biography.

So, we can say classical music was created principally to entertaint the high class elites in Europe.

Today we can see people from all elites and social levels enjoy classical music. But we always think classical music is just for aristocrats and high social level people or simply snobs.

My experience as a performer is:

Unfortunally many people go to attend recitals or concerts and they really don't know anything about the music, the Orchestra or the musicians are performing. What that means? Are they there just to socialize or make people see how cultural they are?

But there is a few people too who really enjoy this music and they really know about the composer , the music histrory etc.

You will find people who enjoy but they don't know even what that hell is the music the performers are playing and you will find people who knows about it.

So, in conclusion Tow elites: Elite of the people with some knowleddge and Ignorant people. Finally every body there enjoy it!

Answer 5

Here is my account of classic and the new classic music;
# I can only study biochemistry if it is on( mostly Beethoven symphonies,J.Strauss or a local current sudanese one(Hafiz).
# for physiology any classical will do,
#for anatomy no music is needed,
# for Pathology Wagnar and Dovark,etc,etc,etc
Sometimes when the sound of music suddenly stops for whatever reason I would be throwen aback as if I were attacked by some loud noise.Yet the noise is a negative on:the sound just stopped.A negative after effect as it is called in physiology.

Answer 6

I don't think classical music is elitist but classical music connoisseurs have elitist attitudes demeaning people's love for popular music, like Daniel Barenboim during the 2006 Reith Lectures. (I'm sorry I cannot give you the exact passage)

It would be great if music teachers could show us how to appreciate music from pop music, then we would know how to apply that knowledge to classical music and enjoy it even more.

Answer 7

I posed a similar question in college to my fellow composition majors and our professor (Dr. Nick Rissman--dubbed the "quiet genius" by Eric Whitacre) about the potential elitism and underlying competitive drive among the composing world. When pertaining to the perceived elitism of Classical music and why people see it as "superior" to pop music, Dr. Rissman said that, in essence, people have flocked to classical music because it's much more a social event.

He said that with all the performers in the large ensemble, as well as the conductor, composer(s), and the great audience to show up to the concert (not to mention all extraneous staff), it is an experience that fosters a great deal of social interaction.

So, with that astute observation in mind, I don't think that it is the fault of newer genres of music as to why some people prefer Classical music--it is more the presentation of these new genres, which often embrace newer technologies (radio, digital processing, etc.), requiring less and less involvement of people to fulfill the requirements of relaying the musical message to an audience. As Milton Babbitt (whose music I despise) discussed, there is a rising sense of individualism being reflected in new music...and I don't think that's the fault of music so much as the fault of our increasing technology and population leading to specialization and individuality.

So is Classical music elitist? There are certainly going to be snobs who listen to Classical music and think that they are somehow superior to people listening to "lesser" genres...but the truth is that there are such idiots everywhere and in every field. Get a bunch of apples large enough and you'll inevitably wind up with some rotten ones in the bunch. But that doesn't necessarily mean that the old addage of "one bad apple spoils the bunch" has to be true--not as long as we can rise above our prejudices and preconceived notions of what is to truly look at not only the big picture, but to see each individual element for what it is. Not all instrumental or unpopular music is good just because it is unpopular or instrumental, just as not all popular or lyrical music is bad just because it's popular or lyrical (I personally think Josh Groban and My Chemical Romance are quite excellent popular artists).

Answer 8

no. I'm a classical performer but i find that programme notes at most concerts rarely help the uninitiated and target people who already know anyway. I make my own notes and translations and talk to my audiences to make it more accessible. I think we should target 30 to 40 year olds rather than children and I think football is more elitist..look at ticket costs compared to concerts.I also teach music appreciation for beginners and would love to take my workshop into prisons as i think the music would help some offenders.

Answer 9

YES! Classical music always has been elitist, to some degree. This is not to say that a little sophistication once in a while is a bad thing!

The music of the Baroque (Bach and Telemann) and Classical (Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven) was sponsored by the church or by royalty. Through the 18th century those were the only two places where anyone with musical training resided. Most music was written to please the tastes of an elite patron. All art music of the time (even opera) was written to be sophisticated, erudite, and tasteful. Mozart, of course, was more interested in taking his art in the direction that his own internal muse wanted, and he was the first composer to try to make a living apart from the court or church. (He was barely successful while he supplemented his income by teaching piano, but when he got sick, his savings dried up.)

In the 19th century, musicians like Liszt and Paganini followed Mozart's lead, depending on their crowd-pleasing abilities to generate the income that they needed to continue writing music. The goal changed, from pleasing the tastes of a king or writing music appropriate for worship and liturgy, to personal expression, virtuosity, and achieving a kind of romantic ecstasy. Even then, the music was written for the concert-going public in the big cities of Europe, not the peasants of the country, inner-city poor, or even weathly land-owners who weren't near one of the art centers of Europe. Thus elitism continued to be a controlling factor in the music.

Finally in the mid 20th century, while philharmonic societies perpetuated the 19th-century classical music tradition fostered by the fashionable city-dwelling high society, avant garde composers gained sponsorship through a different patron: the research university. By passing off extremely complex music as scientific aesthetic research, composers such as Babbitt and Wuorinen took musical snobbery to the extreme, where the only people who could thoroughly understand their music were those with a score and a slide rule. Through their revolution, however, we achieved the current state of affairs where academia is nearly as content to sponsor composers who wish to please the masses as those who write in a more complicated esoteric style. These composers are still living in a sheltered elitist environment, however.

There has always been a popular music tradition alongside this elite artistic music tradition. Sometimes they successfully intermingled, such as in Renaissance masses with a popular tune hidden in an inner voice (e.g. Missa L'homme Armé), John Gay's the Beggar's Opera, George Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue, the extraordinarily popular Sousa Band, and in other jazz and popular styles of the 20th century. Even now, there is a sense among the masses that classical music is too hoity-toity and not worth the high price of tickets (despite the reality that classical music concerts are rarely more expensive than rock concerts!). Since when has a little snobbery been a bad thing? Imagine what progressive rock would sound like if there had been no avant-garde movement in 20th-century classical music! As long as there is a market (however small) for a certain kind of music, then it is not too elite.

Answer 10

I don't think it's elitist. Sure, some people who listen to classical music like to act that they are all hoity-toity ("I understand classical music, you don't", etc.). But I think most people can appreciate even a little bit of classical music, especially because it spans across so many different sub-genres so there's a little something for everyone.

Answer 11

I love classical music especially bach and vivaldi. When I was a broke student one of my best friends was a music student and I used to go to all her concerts and then we all went down the pub afterwards. So no, not at all elitist.