Hacker News Reader

> Maybe millennials are repelled by classical music not for coherent reasons but by a vague sense of mistrust, nourished for decades by movies and media.

Growing up where I grew up, Country music had a terrible reputation for no other reason than my friends hated it. Their friends hated it. Everyone I was surrounded by hated it... therefore, I hated it. If everyone I knew thought it sucked, it must suck.

A few years back, I decided that it was time to stop with this nonsense and started exploring Country music on my own, figuring out what I liked and appreciated, figuring out what I wasn't really that fond of. I discovered that there was a ton of country music I really like. I discovered a whole genre of music I'd written off just because my peers had written it off.

Unfortunately we suffer many cultural biases like this that until we wake up one morning and realize that we have our own brains and are entitled to our own opinions instead of those of everyone around us, continue to propagate.

If millennials are repelled by classical music, given my own experience, it's likely through no other reason than their friends, friends friends and friends friends friends have decided that classical music sucks.

It probably has nothing to do with distrust bred from movies and media, it most likely has more to do with the fact that classical music isn't easily accessible, it's not popular, they can't relate to it like they can to pop music which not only tells a story they can identify with, but it's popular with all their friends and thus gives them a vehicle for social acceptance.

I grew up with classical music - and there's still a lot I haven't heard precisely because it is so inaccessible. I will agree that it's high effort... I would say that the reward often isn't comparable to the effort required to listen to it.

Are millennials “repelled” by classical music? Is there any evidence for this claim that couldn’t be explained by just not having the money to buy tickets? As a millennial, I don’t know any of my peers who have negative options of classical music. At most, they’re indifferent.

Villains having classical soundtracks around them is a trope that goes back to shitty ‘80s action movies too, so this is hardly a millennial thing.

Classical, like old radio recordings, seems incomplete to the modern ear. We are used to a full range of sound only rarely expressed by conventional insturments and recording. Thats why you hear many old standards now set to dubstep and techno, for example 'fly me to the moon'.

The music is still valid, but the production, or lack thereof, 'dates' the music.

What? This is quite a jumble of assumptions. Sampling in most hip-hop is to create something new. Electronic pieces like those made by Wendy Carlos, William Orbit, Ulrich Schnauss, etc, actually sound like modern interpretations. It's nothing to do with what is lacking or otherwise in older pieces of music. If anything classical music is gaining popularity among certain listeners, although I'm not sure if that's due to an ageing listener or modern composers, film and TV scores, etc. Personally, there is very little in modern music that I haven't heard before (I quite like avant garde music for this reason), so I deliberately listen to older pieces of music to hear something new, whether that is jazz, classical music, etc.

Agreed, this discussion always comes with absurd assumptions.

Classical music will never be the most popular music, just like classic literature will never be on the best sellers list every year. That doesn't mean it isn't popular.

I ultimately became a lover of classical music for a similar reason. Most music today is so generic and bland - you can hear every song before you've finished listening to it.

There was a relevant and entertaining stand-up bit about this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JdxkVQy7QLM

This might partly be why people love the music they heard as teens first. I hear a lot of stuff now that just seems like riffs on stuff I’ve heard before. I don’t have the nostalgia of first being exposed to it in my formative years to carry me through.

I wouldn't go as far as to say they are repelled by classical music. I'm sure there are pockets of many that embrace it and love it. I think on the whole though, we tend to embrace what we're familiar with. A lack of familiarity and accessibility would tend to push people along the path of least resistance. If it's too much effort with not enough pay off, people tend not to do it.

There's a strong country & western strain running through "indie" music, and a ton of influence and presence in what pop music nerds consider the canon of 20th and 21st century popular music and popular genres. Ask your local Millennial vinyl-head wearing skinny jeans and expensive workboots what they think of country and you might get more nuance and appreciation than you expect.

Stereotypical pop-country that's largely novelty tracks, corny relationship songs, and trucks & dogs, and that're the bread & butter of most country radio stations, though, not so much. Most surf-rockers aren't thought of too fondly, either, outside a very narrow scene—they're not all the Beach Boys.

This makes some assumptions about the country you grew up in. I don't know too many people in the UK where I grew up that could give me any nuanced discussion about country music like they could almost any other genre.

Ha! Good point. Sorry, when I think of anyone having any opinion on country and the topic coming up in conversation my mind went straight to the US, but of course it's huge all over the place so that was dumb.

I do agree that knee-jerk dislike of country may be rooted in ignorance—but as far as social influence, I'd class that as being good at determining which bad music people like (I like plenty, and it's mostly for those reasons) or dislike, and the country on the radio in the US is, for the most part, firmly of the "you'll only like it if it's part of your scene" sort, so people with a blanket "I don't like country" opinion have very likely only been exposed to the equivalent of its Tenacious D or, at best, Styx (to expose some of my own sub-par likes). It's not their fault they assumed the genre was putting its best foot forward.

And hey, Elton John made Tumbleweed Connection, so there's that. :-)

>This is ridiculous for a million reasons. It's simple, and I say this as someone who has studied classical music for many years (including conducting): classical music isn't that much fun, compared to so many other options today. The kind of people who like classical music are the kind of people who enjoy watching documentaries or reading Shakespeare. It's high-effort, high-reward for a particular kind of person.

And yet, working and middle class folk, far less affluent and educated than today's consumers, used to be very much able to enjoy classic music, including singing opera arias for fun, in Europe at least.

Why take it that "classical music is not fun", and not the inverse, but equal reading "the modern music consuming public is crude".

>Why take it that "classical music is not fun", and not the inverse, but equal reading "the modern music consuming public is crude".

Like it or not, society sees classical music as up-tight.

"Leading scientist ejected by audience after 'trying to crowd surf' at classical music concert" [0]

>Before the performance, Mr Morris invited the audience to bring their drinks into the standing area in front of the stage and instructed them: "Clap or whoop when you like, and no shushing other people."

When I think of fun shows I've been to, I don't exactly remember any with audience reminders that showing enjoyment was permitted.

[0] https://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/leading-scienti...

>Like it or not, society sees classical music as up-tight.

I don't dispute that (I of course dispute that they're correct in thinking that, but not that they think that).

That classical music is inherently "not fun" is what I responded too -- and my argument is in the past classical music was very much appreciated by all kinds of middle class and working people in Europe.

>When I think of fun shows I've been to, I don't exactly remember any with audience reminders that showing enjoyment was permitted.

Another problem is that enjoying art == having some kind of crash fun, like teenagers at spring break.

I don't think I follow. Is your perspective that the extent to which it's possible to experience fun and/or enjoyment of art is not - at all - constrained by having to politely sit still?

Yes, my perspective is people can sit still and still (sic) enjoy art.

Sitting still and enjoying art is orthogonal.

Some might not like sitting still, but that doesn't make sitting still incompatible or constraining the enjoyment of art in abstracto -- just for them.

>Some might not like sitting still, but that doesn't make sitting still incompatible or constraining the enjoyment of art in abstracto

I read this claim as physical expression of emotion is entirely voluntary and consciously constraining physical response does not change the experience. And for the people who it does, it's a matter of socialization not human nature.

This type of perspective - even if true (I disagree but will not discuss here any further) - is why classical music is up-tight.

Tons of non-classical folk musics, people have listened to for millennia in total observance (from ragas to folk chinese music, all the way to ancient greek lute and flute scores), are not tied to "physical expression of emotion", and plain folk people listened (and listen) to them just fine.

The idea that one must jump, dance, and prance around as of paramount importance is more tied with teenagers setting the agenda of "popular music" since the 50s or so, than some inherent human need.

I might even go further: not only is it not constrained, there are certain kinds of fun that one can only have while politely sitting still.

Of course, I'm biased, because I'm one of those people who likes attending classical performances. But its for the same reason that I don't want 3 televisions blaring while I'm eating a fancy meal.

At a certain level, distractions take away from the enjoyment of the thing you're concentrating or enjoying.

I don't think there's anything uptight in this: I could say the same thing about people turning on the stadium lights during a mosh-pit/rave.

Its as simple as some human experiential dimensions exclude other human dimensions: we can't, biologically for the most part, experience or investigate the full extent of all our senses at the same time.

> When I think of fun shows I've been to, I don't exactly remember any with audience reminders that showing enjoyment was permitted.

That's because you've learned how to act and what is acceptable in those circumstances.

Would you expect someone from 1850 to just appear at an EDM club and know what exactly is happening?

It's true that the music-consuming public is less sophisticated nowadays--for boring reasons, unfortunately. Before recorded music became dominant, if you wanted to hear it, you had know to play it (or talk someone else into playing it for you). More people knew how to play music well. Now it's unnecessary to learn to play, and even those people who do play take it less seriously. So the public has largely lost the kind of sophistication you learn from actual performance.

I am an (early) millennial and I find some classical music (not all) a lot of fun.

I think an important factor is... the hardware. The modern way most people listen to music (often with crappy speakers, or with headphones and lots of background noise) is not great to enjoy classical music.

When I was a child and I lived with my parents, they had a great hi-fi system and I loved listening to classical music in it. Then, I grew up and my habits changed. I would listen to music in my PC instead of with my parents, or in my MP3 player on the street or the bus. I all but stopped listening to classical music, I didn't enjoy it much any longer, I preferred music with less dynamic range and more "punch", which endures that kind of conditions better.

Fast forward to 2 or 3 years ago, I buy a relatively good Bluetooth speaker, which gives good sound (for a Bluetooth speaker). Suddenly, I begin enjoying some classical music again. I listen to like 20% classical music, 80% other genres.

And a few months ago, being 36 years old, finally I do something I had wished for a long time: I get hold of my own hi-fi system, perhaps not as good as my parent's, but quite good. Now that I can listen to music with high dynamic range and not suffering from distortion in the strong parts, I enjoy classical music a lot again, and now my listening is like 70% classical music, 30% others...

tl;dr: cheap headphones, iPods, listening to music on the bus, etc. kills classical music.

> reading Shakespeare

This is pretty funny considering the connotation of Shakespeare's works at the time.

Something similar with video games in more recent times. Playing NES games has a slightly high-brow -- or at least higher-status -- connotation, compared to when the games were new. Now they're retro, which means playing them or similar games is more serious or something. Whereas back in their heyday, they were seen as almost entirely the domain of nerdy little boys, a silly thing for silly children.

I wonder if it's less the perception of the art form that changing, than the people in position to voice high brow opinions rotating.

My parents still think of NES games as silly blocks on the silly TV. But their generation progressively gives up on writing articles in magazines or curating expositions in museums, whereas people now in their 40s who loved and still love NES games are now in charge.

> This is pretty funny considering the connotation of Shakespeare's works at the time.

if my memory from music history class serves, this may be even more apt of a comparison than you realize. iirc what we call "classical music" was a reaction to the highly complex baroque style that preceded it, and the contemporary "old guard" looked down on it for it's simplicity and deviation from the older rules of harmony.

NES games are the classical music of gaming. Sure, some people enjoy them, but I would bet that the vast majority would rather play 2019 AAA titles.

It's not a perfect comparison, because arguably "NES" is now more of a style than a genre. For example, Shovel Knight is a NES-styled game, but its genre is action-platformer.

And "2019 AAA game" is neither a genre nor a style, so the comparison you're making here is even weirder.

I dunno...I have kind of the opposite feeling about them. I enjoy playing nes games more often these days because I find them easier to get into. I turn it on press start and within about 10-30 seconds i'm playing a game. With AAA games replace the seconds with minutes.

Which oddly, is more like classical music to me. Modern music tends to be around 3 minutes, there's no long intros or different sections. It's just press play, bam music. With classical music, it's broken into movements, with long introductions, or interludes with single instruments or some such a thing.

I know that wasn't quite the point of the comparison, it was just an odd thought that came to mind.

> This is pretty funny considering the connotation of Shakespeare's works at the time.

Well that's because, of course, at the time Shakespeare was highly accessible! The language was everyone's native language, and the cultural references were current.

Today it's basically a foreign language that requires a lot more effort to comprehend at a reasonable level, and a ton of cultural allusions that aren't part of our background anymore.

At an 8 year old kid I was uncontrollably laughing at one Shakespearean play. Like modern movies targeting families you don’t need to understand everything to enjoy them. They are not meant to be read, and most people are just exposed to the boring crap.

Not to mention all the dirty puns that are completely lost in modern pronunciation.

I think there are two different things we call classical music. True classical music: timeless pieces like the ones from Beethoven, Bach and others. And what we call "musique savante" in French: serious music with complex patterns played by with virtuosity on the most refined instruments.

The idea is that the first one is enjoyed by most and appears in many forms in popular media. They are instantly recognizable hit songs "flight of the bumblebee" and "baby one more time" are not so different in that regard.

The second one is probably the one you are thinking about, and it embraces almost all of modern classical music. It is usually enjoyed only by connaisseurs.

Famous pieces like Vivaldi 4 seasons and others are both. They are classic timeless hits and also classical music in the sense it is serious business.

> Look, this isn't mysterious. Rich people are associated with evil in films, and their stereotypical "too-good" pursuits -- mansions, opera halls, tuxedos, and yes, classical music.

I don't think it's that simple. Rich people today are more modernists than classicists. They live in modern buildings and listen to any music. They work in modern office buildings.

Classicism is about man vs man. Man vs nature, man vs God. The fight between two men, is a classic conflict. Modernism does not celebrate the fight between men, it cannot without undermining its fight with the self, it's fight with the non-existence of God.

A fight between two men is classical in western literature, hence the classical themes when a fight on film breaks out.

This entire comment rests on confusing the meaning of the word "classical." A rich person who listens to modernist composers like Boulez or Webern is still listening to "classical" music, as most people use the term. Classical in this instance refers to a particular music tradition beginning in the renaissance, not to the Greco-Roman stuff you're trying to get at. It begins with the death of God, not ends with it.

It is a literary version of the word classical. I agree people have made classical music in the modern era and the categories are different in music to writing.

Just saying the train of thought when writing a conflict into a story is the classical approach is to have man vs nature, man vs man, man vs god. Modernist is man vs society, man vs self and man vs no god. Postmodernist would be man vs technology, man vs reality and man vs author.

So the choosing of a backing music to fit a written fight would be reminiscent of the classical thinking that celebrates man vs man fights.

Hans Zimmer would be the more modern composer that celebrates conquering the self in interstellar/inception, ect.

Odd, I always thought the opposite. Classical music is beloved by pretty much anyone, regardless of income. Going to a concert performance, maybe, skews richer, but just maybe. But I haven't met a single person who does not enjoy the tunes from the Magic Flute or doesn't bob along to the Blue Danube.

Yes, enjoying popular classical melodies it pretty much universal, if it's already playing.

But how many people actually pick the Magic Flute when they're in the mood to listen to music? It's just not that popular.

And when most seats at a classic music concert are ~$100 or more, with only a few rows in the ~$50 range, I'm 100% sure that skews rich. A night out for the family will be hundreds of dollars. It's not a $15 movie ticket.

Here's tonight at the New York Philharmonic:

https://nyphil.org/concerts-tickets/Tickets/pickyourown?Perf...

Point taken, I'd agree. But everything in NYC is expensive. And regardless, live performances even more so. Even Joe Schmoe is only going to see a Metallica concert once every year, it's a treat. But anecdotally, when the local orchestra here plays the showstoppers like Mozart's requiem or anything Tchaikovsky, everybody and their grandma seems to be there, not just the well to do.

Pop has become increasingly unaffordable. It's really not unusual to see headline acts charging well over $100 for seats, and multi-day festival prices are regularly $200 and up.

In fact classical consistently appeals to older listeners. The median age at most concerts will be the far side of 50.

For a certain kind of music lover, pop starts to sound boring and samey after a few decades. Classical scratches that itch.

Orchestras and opera companies regularly worry about this, but in fact the supply of new listeners tends to be fairly stable.

The biggest marketing change was the extra push given to classical from around the 1920s to the 1970s. There was huge state and network support for classical music, and a lot of effort went into bringing both live and radio performances to US audiences - partly for noble reasons, partly so agents and networks could make money by marketing the work of performers and conductors.

From the 1970s the nature of funding changed. Sponsorship became corporate, and then the corporates cut it because they got a better return from sport and straight advertising. So a lot of the old support disappeared in the late 80s and 90s. The orchestras and opera houses that survived are more or less stable now, but it's a smaller market niche than it used to be.

I just don't understand the comparison.

Classical music isn't "popular" just like classic literature. Pride and Prejudice won't be on the NYT Best Sellers anymore than a new Beethoven Piano Sonata recording would top the Billboard Top40.

I don't go to often to concerts but they do have a particualr audience in it.

'beloved' is probably not the best word for 'accepted / aware of it'?

Also they do play classic in some undergroundstations in munic to get rid of teenagers.

Eh, I love love love classical music and never read Shakespeare or watch documentaries. Classical music is wonderful and gets mistreated by movies.

> classical music isn't that much fun, compared to so many other options today

I think it's simpler than this; classical music is still pretty fun if you're into it.

People listen to music that they culturally relate to, and the experience of music is a way to express identity. Once, people lived in a time when the classics of classical music were being written and were a current thing. Listening to Chopin or Liszt was a way to express pride for your country, as well as to do what your friends were doing. Now that so much time has passed, classical music has just been crowded out by other music that expresses identity and culture. Classical music for most people is no longer a thing that your friends are doing, and it hasn't been for your parents, either.

My alternate theory about how classical music gained sinister connotations is that it's a cultural marker that expresses a cultural identity, but one that the audience members and their friends don't relate to. It's a convenient way to present the character as an outsider, and disregarding the societal implications for this, it's a convenient tactic for a writer who wants to paint a picture of a character as being sinister or untrustworthy. If you consider the alternatives, you'll see why classical music is an easy go-to in this situation; if you give the villain Coldplay as their theme music, it's going to risk making them feel more relatable.

John Williams did the soundtrack for so many action/sci-fi movies and used different kinds of classical themes to represent imperial stormtroopers, luke skywalker, etc.

So far as "rich villian" goes, i think it is best expressed in anime and kung fu movies, but you will see it in cowboy movies, crime movies, etc.

In this story the protagonist takes down not just one evil person (say Dirty Harry vs Scorpio) but an entire evil organization.

That organization inevitably has a social hierarchy that goes from bottom to top. The protagonist first beats up the poor bad guys and then beats up the foreman who is paid $2 an hour more for being a little more responsible. Only after beating up the poor criminals does the protagonist get to beat up the person at the top of the conspiracy.

"Lethal Weapon 3" is a great example, but "Sailor Moon" defeats a supernatural invasion that is organized like a military organization with enlisted monsters, lieutenants, generals and Queen Beryl at the top -- it demonstrates how the structure can fold and unfold like an accordion and fit any timebox.

Looks like a veiled millennial hit piece. I don't know anyone in my age group repelled by classical music! One of my favorite musicians does classical music and tours with a folk/country singer. Let's see them wedge that into a box.

>classical music isn't that much fun

Tons of classical is fun! The anvil chorus, the final section of Beethoven's 9th, whatever that really catchy portion of Carmen is! You (clearly) don't even need to be much of an expert to enjoy it.

I think the single biggest association is actually cartoons such as a Loony Tunes. “Kill da wabbit, kill da wabbit...” you know? The real point of this article seems to be more of an inkblot test of the author and little else.