Welcome to Librarium Online!
Join our community of 80,000+ members and take part in the number one resource for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K discussion!
Registering gives you full access to take part in discussions, upload pictures, contact other members and search everything!
Anyone who's been reading the most recent art thread will have seen that Mantis and myself had a small discussion about music.
So instead of taking that thread off topic i thought a new one would be in order. My main motive for starting this thread is the following quoteDo people really think that classical music is elitist? I use the term "classical" broadly here, but i also refer to baroque, rennaissance etcOriginally Posted by The_Giant_Mantis
I don't think it is elitist at all, and its popularity will once again be brought to light by the numbers attending this years BBC proms.
Good thread Stonehambey.
I didn't like classical music for along time (not many teens do.) I got into it through film scores, because that way you have a "built-in" emotional context (I challenge anyone to say that the score to Gladiator wasn't moving in itself.) I began to appreciate classical music alot more after that. But what I tend to do is imagine to the music, which is soemthing I don't do with other music. Maybe this is a result of the movie scores, and I am simply scoring my daydreams. But it does move me, i'm not sure how to describe it. Do any of you guys get physical tingles, almost like an adrelanline rush, when you listen to a great song? I do, and I get them a great deal more when listening to classical music. Maybe i'm just weird :ninja:!
But I don't think that it's elite, you just have to make more of an effort with it perhaps.
Engaging Topic! Kudos!
I don't think music, in and of itself can be 'elitist'. Only people who try to use their taste in music to bring others down are elitist.
Music is music, the aural expression of the human soul. The style and instruments used to create it are almost immaterial in their potential to affect others emotionally. Most important is composition and performance. Classical, jazz, electronic, Finnish-female-fronted-opera-metal, it's all music.
To wit, I get a 'rush' as Will J describes it from listening to both Gustav Mahler's 'Trauermarsch' and Cradle of Filth's cover of 'Bestial Lust'. These are, to be entirely fair, though, entirely different rushes in their nature and effect.
For the performers here, I would ask if you concur when I say that playing different pieces gave you different vibes as well. (I play b-flat Clarinet, classical, martial, prog-jazz.)
Last edited by Quick; July 14th, 2006 at 00:24.
WHFB: Dwarfs || WH40k: Imperial Fists, Necrons || WM/H: Trollbloods || BFG: Necrons
My wife writes classical music, so I'm a bit biased when I say that it isn't, or shouldn't be elitist. Classical music, about which I admittingly know next to nothing, requires a great deal of fore-knowledge to fully appreciate.
I'm a reader and have done both my degrees in literature. I wouldn't expect just anyone to pick up Jorge Luis Borges and get a big kick out of his work like I do. Borges is a reader's writer, just as many abstract painters appeal most to people with a deep understanding of art and who can see what is going on with color, form, texture, and the like.
Here's a question: Why are the high arts perceived as elitist? The person who answers that without himself or herself sounding elitist gets the LO rhetoric award. :rolleyes:
I don't know when I started to really appreciate classical music but for a few years now I wouldn't mind at all listing to any of the great forefathers. The melody is very relaxing and soothes your mind very well. Also I would rather listen to classical to most rap songs and such as I find them pointless and won't stand the test of time at all.
Is it me or does any other necron player get annoyed when they see people saying "Necrons eat souls". How is that even possible as souls are part of the warp and necrons want nothing to do with it? Eh probaly me just me being picky.
Tyranid Hivemind Member
I find that the term classic music encompasses a wide scope of music, and that it really depends on what one views as classical music. By "elitist", The_Great_Mantis may have been referring to the small numbers of serious people that truly love to study, in addition to listening, the quirks and nuances of music composed in the earlier periods, rather than modern classical music, which has evolved to appeal to modern audiences instead of 17th century audiences.
As the mindset of humans evolve, so will the general tastes of humans evolve. For example, the skin that many celebrities show nowadays would have certainly been frowned upon three hundred years ago; it is also in this fashion that music has also changed.
Myself, the only music that I listen to with regularity is classical music, but that is only due to the fact that I and my siblings play musical instruments.
Very good pointOriginally Posted by Schmeag
To be exact classical music is music written between 1750 and 1830.
The other periods which one may group under classical are Renaissance, Baroque and Romantic
Modern and contemporary post i guess are fair game as well. But be careful with the latter as it includes everything upto present day.It takes years to become a virtuoso at a given instrument/art. Hours of practice, dedication etc. So only a few who really love what they do have the drive to go on and achieve this. Hence i think that others might envy them a bit. Does that sound elitist?Originally Posted by DavidVC04
Here is a video of Andres Segovia, considered one of the greatest ever guitar players. Now whether you enjoy classical guitar or not i doubt there are many who don't habour even a tiny amount of envy at being able to play like that.
Music for the above piece can be found here
You answered your own question in your previous paragraph:Originally Posted by DavidVC04So I suggest you give yourself the award.Originally Posted by DavidVC04
The greatest appreciation -- whether we're talking about visual art, music, theatre, dance, literature, food, sports -- can only come from a deep understanding of the subject matter. And understanding can only come with a great investment of time, study, observation, effort. The more effort and study required to understand deeper aspects of the subject matter at hand, the fewer people there will be who will have the means -- financial, intellectual, instinctual, inborn talent -- to achieve that level of appreciation. I think it's inevitable that some people will feel looked-down upon by those who have that understanding. And the situation is exacerbated by stereotypical know-it-alls who appreciate showing off their kewl skillz/thoughtz as a means of raising themselves above their "pretender" peers. Think of the Simpsons character The Comic Book Guy.
And a personal example: I played soccer for years and I'm also a coach, so there are many things I see in the game that my non-soccer-aficionado-friends don't see. Especially since, here in the US, there is so little quality soccer on display to even experience. And so they think the game is rather boring compared to games they are more familiar with. (Like, say, American football or baseball, which they have watched and discussed since early in their childhood, and may even have played for several years.)
ninjabackhand: point and click, again, really? even after i give you an military term "shock tactic" you still call it point and click.
RIP Warhammer 40,000: 21 Sep 1998 - 24 May 2014
Agreed, and more often than not these peoplpe aren't half as good as they think they are. There is a time and a place for showing off, the concert stage. Where people actually pay to see you.Originally Posted by number6
A deep understanding isn't all of it. What I'm getting at is the arts are in large part socially stratfied. The affluent have always been patrons of the arts. The middle and upper class are much more likely to expose their children to the arts and learning in general. Where I live, children from low socio-economic status groups enter the schools about a year and half behind their peers. Their learning is stunted for their entire lives. Those people are extraordinarily unlikely to "get" the arts, to care for the arts, to pursue the arts. True, that's not always the case, but more often than not it is.