By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Why the world lost the pleasure of classic music?

patapon on 18 April 2010
tarheel91 said:
patapon said:
pastro243 said:
patapon said:
pastro243 said:
Because you need a brain to listen to it, a normal guy would find it "boring" since they cant apreciatte the complexity and prefer simple tunes with simple beats that are easy to dance.

What, leaving the brain comment outside, what I wrote is completly true.

Alright, brain comment aside... I don't think liking/disliking classical music has anything to do with appreciation. It simply comes down to liking what you hear. That's what's important.

I enjoy all genres of music. On my ipod I have rap, metal, blues, classical, jazz, etc. No discrimination here. Hell, I even have a Madonna tune on my ipod (I'm not gay... I'M NOT!!!) Also, I'm a musician whose been playing music ever since I was a child. Not once has intricacy of a musical piece made me enjoy a tune. Impressed? Perhaps... but enjoyed more because of complexity? Don't see how that makes sense from a practical standpoint. People listen to music because they like what they hear...

Have you ever thought that perhaps people don't like classical music because they don't like conventional instruments? Or that perhaps the sound just doesn't flow with them? I don't think we need to regard these people as simpletons for not liking what we like. That's just... snobbish...

And not true.

Brain comment aside, he's right.  It's the same reason most people find literature boring and will only read popular fiction.  They can't appreciate what's going on.  If you've never been educated about prose, how are you going to be able to appreciate it?  Sophisticated art in general is one of those things where, the more effort you put into it the more you appreciate it.  The problem is that most people don't pay attention in English class and are never have the intricacies of music explained to them.  The only parts of music/writing that they're able to appreciate are the parts they're able to understand intuitively or teach themselves.  That limits them to quite a narrow selection (in thise case, pop music or fiction) of art.

As a musician, I'm much more focused on the ends rather than the means. I.E. the sound created. But as I said, musical pieces can be impressive. Enjoyed because of it? Personally, I'm not really like that, but I suppose I can see where others are coming from. So valid point.

The main issue with his comment that he IS wrong about though, is that people who don't like classical music are simpletons who like simply music that you can dance to. This was what was said... "they cant apreciatte the complexity and prefer simple tunes with simple beats that are easy to dance." We can both agree that this is incorrect, yes?

I mean, there's plenty of complex, beautiful music that fits into other genre of music! And I'm sure many people like these pieces without liking classical music...

 



Around the Network
patapon on 18 April 2010
pastro243 said:

Ok, I agree you can dislike it, what I meant is that most poeple that dont know about music/ have ear to sing/ play instruments/ havent listened to a wide variety of music(which are the mayority of people) dont get classical music because, even if its easy listening, its hard to apreciate it, meaning they would rather listen to the jonas brothers and enjoy the simpleness of the songs, in everyway.

When you get exposed to more complicated music you can see how simple the other one is, and you get bored with very shitty guitars, shitty vocal ranges, shitty drums, shitty message, etc... unless its on purpose.

Most people say metal is just noise for example, and you as a mussician should know its a lot more than that, and I admit it even if metal is not my genre of choice. Some say classical music/Queen/Led Zeppelin is old guy stuff, and shit like that, which is a valid point but doesnt have to do with the music and shows ignorance in the subject.

What my first post refered to is that most people are limited to Lady Gaga as the best they have listened, Jonas Brothers as rock, etc... and these people who dont have a clue about music(not saying they are stupid generally) cant appreciatte classical music.

Okay, that makes much more sense. Thanks for the clarification.

You can disregard my post above this one.



NKAJ on 19 April 2010
Kasz216 said:
Maybe it's because I come a consumer psychology background... but I blame it on the lack of words and mere exposure effect.

Mere exposure effect is basically a trend that shows, the more you hear something, the more you are going to like it... even if you had a negative opinion of it in the first place.

That's why, often times you hear an annoying pop song and a couple of weeks later you actually find yourself singing along and catch yourself thinking "Wait... I hate this song!"

It's a lot easier for people to hold songs and music in their heads with words, thus making the mere exposure effect stick stronger and people to build up a liking towards it even when before they didn't like it or were just "Neutral."

Another advantage is the ability to find the song... I mean think about it... if you want to know what that song you heard on the radio was, either because you missed the DJ's announcement or just forgot what it was... once again, all you need is the words. You can just type the words on the internet, or tell your friends.

While in classical music... if you miss what the song is... you are SCREWED. Unless you are particularly good at humming in any case. Making it harder to tell what songs you like vs what songs you don't.


Is this a proven trend? Im only asking because i noticed this myself and htought that maybe im just unique...



"They will know heghan belongs to the helghast"

"England expects that everyman will do his duty"

"we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

 

Akvod on 19 April 2010
NKAJ said:
Kasz216 said:
Maybe it's because I come a consumer psychology background... but I blame it on the lack of words and mere exposure effect.

Mere exposure effect is basically a trend that shows, the more you hear something, the more you are going to like it... even if you had a negative opinion of it in the first place.

That's why, often times you hear an annoying pop song and a couple of weeks later you actually find yourself singing along and catch yourself thinking "Wait... I hate this song!"

It's a lot easier for people to hold songs and music in their heads with words, thus making the mere exposure effect stick stronger and people to build up a liking towards it even when before they didn't like it or were just "Neutral."

Another advantage is the ability to find the song... I mean think about it... if you want to know what that song you heard on the radio was, either because you missed the DJ's announcement or just forgot what it was... once again, all you need is the words. You can just type the words on the internet, or tell your friends.

While in classical music... if you miss what the song is... you are SCREWED. Unless you are particularly good at humming in any case. Making it harder to tell what songs you like vs what songs you don't.


Is this a proven trend? Im only asking because i noticed this myself and htought that maybe im just unique...

Although I realize that people like to backlash against something that has too much exposure.



alekth on 19 April 2010

It's the opposite for me. There is one mainstream song I hate with a passion, and that's Lou Bega's Mambo No.5. It's not even such a bad song, I just didn't like it much. And then during summer of whichever year that was it was blaring from everywhere, now I hate its guts.



Around the Network
invetedlotus123 on 19 April 2010
NKAJ said:
Kasz216 said:
Maybe it's because I come a consumer psychology background... but I blame it on the lack of words and mere exposure effect.

Mere exposure effect is basically a trend that shows, the more you hear something, the more you are going to like it... even if you had a negative opinion of it in the first place.

That's why, often times you hear an annoying pop song and a couple of weeks later you actually find yourself singing along and catch yourself thinking "Wait... I hate this song!"

It's a lot easier for people to hold songs and music in their heads with words, thus making the mere exposure effect stick stronger and people to build up a liking towards it even when before they didn't like it or were just "Neutral."

Another advantage is the ability to find the song... I mean think about it... if you want to know what that song you heard on the radio was, either because you missed the DJ's announcement or just forgot what it was... once again, all you need is the words. You can just type the words on the internet, or tell your friends.

While in classical music... if you miss what the song is... you are SCREWED. Unless you are particularly good at humming in any case. Making it harder to tell what songs you like vs what songs you don't.


Is this a proven trend? Im only asking because i noticed this myself and htought that maybe im just unique...

Phonographic industry use it all the time. Sure, to be a Celine or Mariah like career you need to be really good, but, it happens mainly for the music of the season, like Pussycat Dolls.



tarheel91 on 19 April 2010
patapon said:
tarheel91 said:
patapon said:
pastro243 said:
patapon said:
pastro243 said:
Because you need a brain to listen to it, a normal guy would find it "boring" since they cant apreciatte the complexity and prefer simple tunes with simple beats that are easy to dance.

What, leaving the brain comment outside, what I wrote is completly true.

Alright, brain comment aside... I don't think liking/disliking classical music has anything to do with appreciation. It simply comes down to liking what you hear. That's what's important.

I enjoy all genres of music. On my ipod I have rap, metal, blues, classical, jazz, etc. No discrimination here. Hell, I even have a Madonna tune on my ipod (I'm not gay... I'M NOT!!!) Also, I'm a musician whose been playing music ever since I was a child. Not once has intricacy of a musical piece made me enjoy a tune. Impressed? Perhaps... but enjoyed more because of complexity? Don't see how that makes sense from a practical standpoint. People listen to music because they like what they hear...

Have you ever thought that perhaps people don't like classical music because they don't like conventional instruments? Or that perhaps the sound just doesn't flow with them? I don't think we need to regard these people as simpletons for not liking what we like. That's just... snobbish...

And not true.

Brain comment aside, he's right.  It's the same reason most people find literature boring and will only read popular fiction.  They can't appreciate what's going on.  If you've never been educated about prose, how are you going to be able to appreciate it?  Sophisticated art in general is one of those things where, the more effort you put into it the more you appreciate it.  The problem is that most people don't pay attention in English class and are never have the intricacies of music explained to them.  The only parts of music/writing that they're able to appreciate are the parts they're able to understand intuitively or teach themselves.  That limits them to quite a narrow selection (in thise case, pop music or fiction) of art.

As a musician, I'm much more focused on the ends rather than the means. I.E. the sound created. But as I said, musical pieces can be impressive. Enjoyed because of it? Personally, I'm not really like that, but I suppose I can see where others are coming from. So valid point.

The main issue with his comment that he IS wrong about though, is that people who don't like classical music are simpletons who like simply music that you can dance to. This was what was said... "they cant apreciatte the complexity and prefer simple tunes with simple beats that are easy to dance." We can both agree that this is incorrect, yes?

I mean, there's plenty of complex, beautiful music that fits into other genre of music! And I'm sure many people like these pieces without liking classical music...

 

Well, I think there is a minority of people who simply won't be able to comprehend certain things necessary to appreciating most of classical music no matter how much you try to teach them.  Once you start getting beyond one standard deviation below 100 on the IQ curve, people really are dense.

I think the main difference between classical music and other, equally complex forms of music is that classical music is so dependent on the intricacies that it's hard to enjoy unless you can appreciate them.  However, take something like music by Chemical Brothers or Daft Punk.  Spend some time listening to them, and you'll really start to notice some very subtle and impressive stuff going on.  You start to understand why many critics are so in love with their work.  At the same time, their songs have great beats and feel that is immediately apparent and are great to listen to no matter what level of musical knowledge you have.

Classical music is different.  There's nothing but intricacies.  Unless you know what they are and how they work and how to listen to them, you won't really be able to make much sense of it and it will quickly become uninteresting.  For many people, it's like listening to an entirely different culture's music.  Traditional Korean music sounded incredibly chaotic and annoying the first time I listened to it.  However, as I began to learn about the values of the music and the techniques used to uphold them, I began to understand the music more and more.



ManusJustus on 19 April 2010

Some good Classical music:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zd_oIFy1mxM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQVeaIHWWck

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvxS_bJ0yOU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gV9gUeFHIw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1trE3ms3AGo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSw7CcAXPWk

Good music that I have a taste for:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV0wPBYDQ6Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhoXWUZI0Eg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-Raafdzxns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZTTsiJupo

 



Kasz216 on 19 April 2010
NKAJ said:
Kasz216 said:
Maybe it's because I come a consumer psychology background... but I blame it on the lack of words and mere exposure effect.

Mere exposure effect is basically a trend that shows, the more you hear something, the more you are going to like it... even if you had a negative opinion of it in the first place.

That's why, often times you hear an annoying pop song and a couple of weeks later you actually find yourself singing along and catch yourself thinking "Wait... I hate this song!"

It's a lot easier for people to hold songs and music in their heads with words, thus making the mere exposure effect stick stronger and people to build up a liking towards it even when before they didn't like it or were just "Neutral."

Another advantage is the ability to find the song... I mean think about it... if you want to know what that song you heard on the radio was, either because you missed the DJ's announcement or just forgot what it was... once again, all you need is the words. You can just type the words on the internet, or tell your friends.

While in classical music... if you miss what the song is... you are SCREWED. Unless you are particularly good at humming in any case. Making it harder to tell what songs you like vs what songs you don't.


Is this a proven trend? Im only asking because i noticed this myself and htought that maybe im just unique...

Oh yeah, it's one of the biggest principles of Consumer Psychology.  Their can be at tipping point where you hate something again as well but it's rare.



SeriousWB on 19 April 2010
MontanaHatchet said:
I was going to explain it, but I think Kasz covered it pretty well.

Lyrics give songs a message and a meaning, and they can evoke emotions that instruments alone can't. Vocal ranges can give a certain energy to a song that wouldn't be there otherwise. It has nothing to do with being stupid (more pretentious crap).

I completely disagree.   Also, the 'energy' from a vocal range would only missed if you're talking about a song that was composed with vocals and then had them removed, otherwise no.  I'd say the meaning or message provided by a song with lyrics is more 'accessible' in a shorter timeframe.