3 ms·

I wonder if one reason classical music seems unapproachable is it's hard to pick out patterns in a lot of pieces. The one classical piece people regularly ask t

I wonder if one reason classical music seems unapproachable is it's hard to pick out patterns in a lot of pieces. The one classical piece people regularly ask to hear is a 20th century arrangement of Canon in D, and it's a single chord progression with new embellishments getting added to it. Compare that to something like Beethoven's 5th which feels more like a meandering story.

a4isms 4y ago
Classical itself has progressed, because the composers who grow up listening to it in any one generation get familiar with what has been done so far, and then inject novelty into it to satisfy their own tastes. Repeat every twenty years over centuries, and you find that the older pieces are the most approachable for most people, while the newer pieces are the least. But… If you listen to classical music and follow the historical progression along, you end up enjoying the newer stuff. Our tastes are elastic. If you don’t enjoy Beethoven today, you may find that by following the historical progression along, you may enjoy it next year.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
antognini 4y ago
There is a famous article written by the 20th century composer Milton Babbitt titled something to the effect of "Who cares if you listen?" He was unapologetic about writing music that was only comprehensible to other composers. He made the argument that we don't expect the layman to understand modern mathematics or physics. Why should we expect the layman to understand modern music either?
cousin_it 4y ago
I think folk music (with lots of repetition) was kind of always understood by more people than classical (with development and variety). But in the 20th century it got even more so, as the mass market for music led to folk/repetitive stuff getting a lot of commercial demand and evolving very fast. Personally, even though I've listened to many classical pieces, my musical ear is still firmly folk. It wants music that contains interesting repeated patterns, otherwise the enjoyment is incomplete.

a4isms 4y ago

Classical itself has progressed, because the composers who grow up listening to it in any one generation get familiar with what has been done so far, and then inject novelty into it to satisfy their own tastes. Repeat every twenty years over centuries, and you find that the older pieces are the most approachable for most people, while the newer pieces are the least. But… If you listen to classical music and follow the historical progression along, you end up enjoying the newer stuff. Our tastes are elastic. If you don’t enjoy Beethoven today, you may find that by following the historical progression along, you may enjoy it next year.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

antognini 4y ago

There is a famous article written by the 20th century composer Milton Babbitt titled something to the effect of "Who cares if you listen?" He was unapologetic about writing music that was only comprehensible to other composers. He made the argument that we don't expect the layman to understand modern mathematics or physics. Why should we expect the layman to understand modern music either?

cousin_it 4y ago

I think folk music (with lots of repetition) was kind of always understood by more people than classical (with development and variety). But in the 20th century it got even more so, as the mass market for music led to folk/repetitive stuff getting a lot of commercial demand and evolving very fast. Personally, even though I've listened to many classical pieces, my musical ear is still firmly folk. It wants music that contains interesting repeated patterns, otherwise the enjoyment is incomplete.