Some really interesting comments on my book. I am currently revising it--so this feedback is REALLY helpful. Thank you all! Pleased read my reply to Anna's first comment.
Hello Julian, thank you for your blog, and the signpost to your book, which I have just read. It's an interesting read. However, I must disagree with your analysis of musical culture, and in particular your dismissal of high culture as 'mostly effete snobbery'. You may not like classical music, but to imply that it is worthless is shockingly narrow and uninformed, and reveals a lack of insight about the relative cultural impact of different forms of music.
From a technical perspective, popular music is incredibly limited and repetitive in comparison to classical music, with the same few chords, the same monotonous rhythms and the same few instruments used over and over again. You have focused on Jethro Tull, and it is true that they are less repetitive than most, but they are also hardly typical of popular music, so if you are going to appeal to the overall superiority of popular music we must look at that genre as a whole.
In general, popular music is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator within the human psyche. With the lyrics being at best over-simplifying, and at worst driven by self-pity, rage, sex, violence and general hedonism, complex realities are reduced to soundbites, and the focus is on pandering to human excesses and weaknesses. The repetition of rhythm and motif has a powerful hypnotic effect that drives the negative message of the lyrics home. In the last few decades, popular music has played an important role in bestialising and coarsening society, as people have wanted increasingly shocking and sexualised music in order to titillate their jaded palates. It is amazing to me that you have cited Keith Richards in a positive way, given his rampant drug use. His brand of hedonism has ruined countless lives all over the world; we simply cannot cope with the impact of having such people as role models.
The development of people's intellectual capacities is primarily fostered by exposure to more complex and challenging ideas and stimuli. With respect to music, classical music embodies more sophisticated patterns that require greater concentration over longer periods of time in order to discern themes and resolutions. Popular music, on the other hand, is formulaic and simplistic for the most part. It may soothe or stimulate, but it is never going to edify. At a time when culture is increasingly dumbed-down, and people are becoming noticeably less intelligent, this is a major concern.
The notion that Shakespeare is some kind of analogue to popular music is plain nonsense. Shakespeare was a classically educated scholar whose plays and sonnets reveal his deep knowledge of the high culture of his day - the history of the known world, the Greek and Roman classics, contemporary literature, and the Bible. He was a virtuoso writer who displayed great creativity and variety in his works - far more than any popular musician. He was also strongly focused on complex patterns of behaviour, and moral issues, and gave his characters great emotional depth and sophistication. How can any of this ever be said of popular music?
Of course it would be wrong to claim that listening to classical music can guarantee mental and intellectual health, and in any case not all classical music is equally helpful in its effect, but experiment after experiment has demonstrated the power of classical music to evince positive responses from humans and animals, whilst popular music has negative or at best neutral effects. In a time when people are increasingly subject to dangerous and negative influences, we should be all the more careful that we only listen to music that can help us become the best version of ourselves.
Popular music is juvenile - and I disagree with you that being called juvenile could ever be said to be positive. You are confusing being juvenile with the capacity to play, but they are not the same. To use Huizinga's definition, playing is the ability to enter into an alternative world that has been consciously created with its own rules and norms, purely for its own sake. Being juvenile means having childish patterns of thinking and behaviour, to the detriment of the person and those around them. Playing implies a lack of limits to possibilities, but being juvenile means that the person is unable to free themselves from the limitations of immaturity. The latter is not a condition of the former, and it is a mistake to confuse the two.
I didn't think I dismissed "high culture" and especially classical music. If I seemed to, that's a mistake on my part, and I should revise that in the edited version. For the record, I studied classic and have certificates from the Royal Conservatory of Music. And i have studied both musicology and aesthetics. As for Shakespeare, no one knows if he was, as you say, "a classically educated scholar". We know little about his background -- even his identity. Perhaps you are confusing him with Ben Jonson? My Fulbright to Harvard was awarded partly on the basis of a long thesis which, among other things, asked why social definitions of "High Culture" are not so much "wrong" as retrogressive. What we regard as "high culture" today was once radical, if not subversive ...."low". That applies to Shakespeare, of course, and many artists and composers. As for "juvenility" I think you have to reread the parts of the book on "neoteny" (extended juvenescence). But thank you for the comments, which are interesting and well -expressed and intelligent
I think that saying that high culture is 'mostly effete snobbery' is actually damning, let alone dismissive! To use the word 'snobbery' means that you believe that the people concerned take no genuine pleasure in listening to the music, but only value it as a means of displaying their own superiority. That is what snobbery means. 'Effete' reinforces that same insulting message. If this is not what you meant, then clearly it would be beneficial if you remove it.
With regard to Shakespeare, we have a fairly good idea that he attended Stratford Grammar School. All English grammar schools in the sixteenth century - without exception - used Latin as the language of instruction, sometimes supplemented by Greek. Boys were expected to read Aesop, Helvicus, Castelio, Terence, Cicero, Ovid, Livy, Justin, Florus, Virgil, Cato, Caesar, Horace, Persius, Lucan, Plautus, Martial, Juvenal and Seneca - all in the original Latin. This was what we now mean when we refer to a 'classical education'. We may not have evidence in the form of a concrete record that Shakespeare attended a particular school, but we know that he must have had an education of this kind, because he certainly had an education, and this kind of education was the only one available. We can also tell that he had a classical education because his writings are scattered with references to classical authors and their works. He is also clearly well acquainted with the rhetorical and grammatical techniques that these writings were intended to impart. So yes, we can certainly say that Shakespeare was classically educated, as the evidence is there in his plays. No uneducated person could possibly have written them.
As for his work being considered 'low', that is completely factually incorrect. Shakespeare himself came in for criticism for being a social upstart, because of his humble beginnings, but this was a reflection of the social hierarchies of the era - humble people were not supposed to be successful playwrights. Shakespeare himself became an establishment figure - a playwright to two monarchs, a propagandist for the dynastic line, and a wealthy man who could afford to build his own theatre. The idea that he was some kind of radical subversive is pure nonsense - some of his most important and successful plays were explicitly written to curry favour with Elizabeth I by legitimising the Tudor line. He actually wrote a play at her request as she wanted more Falstaff ('The Merry Wives of Windsor'). That's a rather conservative cause for a radical playwright! Yes, his plays were often bawdy, but that was normal for the era - not at all subversive.
As an English person, I'm not likely to confuse Shakespeare with Ben Jonson - one has been fantastically successful and is a household name across the world, and the other is only known to the cognoscenti.
It is all too easy to throw around words like 'radical', 'subversive', 'retrogressive', but a word salad does not amount to an argument. These words are clearly intended to convey watertight connotations, but that is not at all the case, particularly as they can only be interpreted in a relative sense. If one analyses the overall thrust of your argument, you seem to be implying that any music that offends existing sensibilities and takes trends in a different direction is automatically good, but that is the stance of a rebellious child. It is not a considered verdict on the intrinsic merits of any piece of music. It also pays no heed whatsoever to the impact of the music on the audience, and I note that you have not addressed my arguments on this front at all. Finally, if we are going to take your argument seriously, that would mean that every instance of a particular genre of popular music that is not foundational would also be damned, as the vast majority of popular music is derivative of what came before it, rather than genuinely original.
Personally, I'm not interested in what the current anti-classical vogue is at elite institutions - having been to one myself (Cambridge), I can only watch with horror as they succumb to wokedom and accompanying declining standards, I know that they are busy destroying the desire for excellence that created them in the first place. If I had children, I would strongly advise them not to go to university at all, as they have become toxic institutions that are doing their very best to dismantle everything good about Western culture. Nowadays, if I ever see anything that has come out of an 'elite' institution that makes any sense, I'm amazed.
Anna I found your comment interesting. I'm surprised the replies to your essay are positive. I expected you to get vituperative fusillades! That says something about this site (which is new to me - I got here via Larry Johnson.
I would disagree with you on one small account: I would append the adjective "recent" to your use of the phrase "popular music". While not in any sense "classical" [sensu lato], certain kinds of popular music of the last century were uplifting and edifying. I still get warm feelings when I listen to 'White Christmas'. I thought it the most beautiful song when I was a boy. And now some six decades later it may still be so.
Like many of my generation of the 1960s, I listened to that era's popular music - rock and roll. I entered my teen and young 20s years from a background in playing French Horn in school. The first piece I played in UIL competition was from the Magic Flute. So I learned classical music early on. I took a detour from all that for a number of years. But about 1974 I found myself tired of rock and roll, etc. and began to listen to classical again.
I found there was much in that genre that I hadn't listened to as a boy: e.g. the French impressionists, Ravel especially, but also Debussy and Satie. I felt a new freedom, in a sense, in that I could literally listen to anything regardless of what my peers might think of me! So, early influences in childhood are lasting influences.
I will say this: the "rock and roll" of my generation - the Beatles, Crosby, Stills and Nash, Procol Harum, Dylan, the Moody Blues, et al. were a helluva lot better than the crap that is being listened to today by this current generation of young folks. And, I imagine it is this kind of "popular music" that you had in mind, for indeed, "hip hop" is ridiculous and more - downright sinister and degrading.
Now here in my 7th decade I find myself still exploring the limitless treasure trove of concert music (I prefer that to "classical" since there was a Classical Period of serious music). Currently I am back in the Classical and Baroque eras of Handel (especially), Mozart of course, Locatelli, Vivaldi, and *some* Bach. But I certainly did (and still do) listen to the Romantics (ah Chopin!). But I grow prolix. Coincidentally in general I find Beethoven less interesting and believe the 9th ought to be shelved for about 50 years.
I hope your read my reply to the first commenter. As I mentioned, I studied music, including
classical composition and history. And I played Beethhoven and Chopin and Rachmaninoff . I have also studied Middle Eastern and Asian music. IMO, there is really no "High" or Low" Culture -- just culture. Black people did not listen to Beethoven in the 20s. How could they? From that we got modern jazz, the blues, rock and roll. Today, we have fusions of classical and rock - as with NIghtwish. Let us keep in mind that Stravinsky's Rite of Spring caused a riot. Great art is "original' -- meaning it is different in significant ways from all others. That is what defines creativity. "Standards" of "high culture" are stuff we are taught in high school and college, and constantly overturned when someone does something new. One needs to keep an open mind -- and more -- an open ear -- and open heart-- and open eyes. I am 76. And I still feel the need to play. Anna is wrong about juvenility. "Maturity" is something you are taught. by our society to force conformity. The concept does not exist in the hunting and gathering societies that have dominated most of humanity's existence. People sing and dance and play until they die, with few distinction of age.
No Julian - 'maturity' is not something that people are taught to enforce conformity. It is a necessary acquisition in order to ensure a happy life, and by extension a healthy and functioning society. A mature person is someone who can make an accurate and sober assessment of situations and act in such a way as to ensure the wellbeing of all, as much as that is possible. Immature people are impulsive, selfish and irresponsible, and do tremendous harm to others and themselves. They rely on other (more mature) people to accommodate them in their mistakes. Any culture that lauds immaturity will not survive in the long run, and will breed misery in the short run.
You are making a category mistake in conflating 'maturity' with 'conformity' - they are not at all the same. Indeed, a mature decision may involve doing something that disrupts situations, if that is called for. An immature person lacks the ability to make a considered choice, as their judgement is too poor to understand the consequences of their actions. If someone is unable to understand the full ramifications of what they are doing, the fact that their actions could be construed as non-conformist is no badge of honour.
You are quite wrong about hunting and gathering societies, which nearly always have strict rituals which delineate the transition from child to adult. These are designed to test whether the individual has the maturity to take on adult responsibility within the community. I myself had a student from Nigeria, who told me that in her tribe, young men were not allowed to consider having a wife unless they went through a ritual of being whipped continually by a group of elders. It was a test of their endurance and courage to submit to this, without which they were considered to be too irresponsible to deserve a wife. She considered this to be perfectly acceptable, and I respect the logic. I am the first to concede that the plural of anecdote is not data, but as a general principle societies that live close to nature must depend heavily on internal harmony in order to ensure their survival, leaving little room for disruptive influences within them. This is the complete opposite to your argument.
An interesting thread given the location in a "political" setting. I'm not even sure what the original post was! LOL. Since Anna will probably see this, I answer her here but it will apply to Julian as well.
I'll re-cap myself on "rock"... I thought I had successfully stated my exclusion of the likes of "those that came after" those brief golden years of Love, Peace and Peyote: e.g. Black Sabbath (shudder), KISS, King Crimson and even to an extent Pink Floyd. My rock phase crystalized almost immediately into The Beatles, Procol Harum and Crosby, Stills and Nash. All very moderate people, for the most part. Never the Stones. I mean, Stills was in love with Judy Collins, and she was hardly "rock", and Nash with Joni (ditto).
Julian I was aware of the claim that many of the people who lived in The Canyon in L.A. were children of military types - but I didn't see that as overly influencing them; in fact the opposite - cf. Stills' 'For What It's Worth'. Anyway, the whole rock scene morphed around 1974-ish. My beloved Procol Harum was running out of steam, The Beatles' Abbey Road was long in the past, and C.S. & N. were getting pretty weak, and that's when I returned to my real roots in classical.
Since I was still near enough to my high school days (1962-66) in Band I had a lot of catching up to do in the classical sphere. And as I said previously, I felt liberated from Hippiedom and able to chart my own course as a young adult. I had pretty much turned off my druggie days and switched to alcohol (but that's ANOTHER story!).
Now, recently I read (and can't remember where dammit!) that classical music sort of lost its way post-WW 2, if not before. I can listen to some Bartok, almost all of Stravinsky, a bit of Shostakovich, but no Nielson or Barber (other than the Adagio), Schoenberg, et al. In other words after the French Impressionists I couldn't really find much to listen to from the 20th century (and they barely into it). A good example is Aaron Copeland. He began all "avant-garde" with his "modern", atonal stuff; but then came to his senses (and probably pocket book) and began writing music people could enjoy listening to.
I have often wondered what future generations will make of the music of the 20th century? All that atonal stuff. And that is, in a sense, reflected in the same era in the architecture and Art itself. Frankly I think it's crap. Art should be about Beauty, first and foremost, and if it is not, then it isn't Art.
I mentioned my "band days" in high school and just lately I have been re-visiting some of that music by listening to Frederick Fennell's work, esp. with the Eastman Winds. I bought a CD of his famous William Byrd Suite and was transported back to 1963. So I also got his recording of Wagner, esp. Lohengrin's 'Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral' (we French Horn players LOVED it b/c we could really let it rip! LOL). But then I just this month bought a Fennell/Dallas Winds CD called 'Pomp and Pipes' without looking really at the composers on it. I stuck it into my car stereo yesterday and today and with the exception of the first piece, 'Praise the Lord with Drums and Cymbals' by Sigfried Karg-Elert, the rest of it is unlistenable (stuff by Alfred Reed, Eugene Gigout, Arthur Wills, Marcel Dupre and even Percy Grainger ('The Power of Rome and the Christian Heart'). I had no idea that dear Fennell was so enamoured of "modern music". But obviously he was.
So that's a long-winded way of replying to you Julian and you too Anna.
Hello FGB3, thanks for your generous comment. I also came here via Larry Johnson's blog - I suspect that we aren't alone. I agree that there is a huge variety in the quality of popular music. I'm rather fond of the vocal jazz standards of the 1930s and 40s - the kind that made Ella Fitzgerald and Judy Garland famous. Songwriters then truly understood the art of writing a classic song - strong melodies, and witty lyrics that vividly portrayed joy or pathos. However, I'm not as sanguine about rock 'n' roll as you are no doubt inclined to be, given your personal connection to that era. Yes, the music was certainly superior to that of more recent times, but there were other elements that made the musicians a negative influence. It was with the launch of rock 'n' roll that the moral rot began to set in, with writers and musicians determined to push cultural boundaries, and undermine ethical norms, and this only escalated throughout the 60s. There are persistent rumours about many of the most important musical icons of the time, with regard to their connections to military intelligence and possible mind control programmes, and role in promoting degrading lifestyles. The musicians themselves were sometimes dabbling in things of a very ugly nature, such as satanism, and often without trying too hard to hide it. Rock musicians in particular adopted all manner of satanic symbols and gestures as part of their branding, and even those with pretensions to a social conscience tended to make depressing and demoralising music that only served to increase the sense of powerlessness in the audience (thinking of Floyd here). There is more than one way to have a negative influence, and popular music has embodied every possible way in the last decades. I'm not such a purist as all that, and certainly don't believe in banning things, but on the other hand if we stopped glorifying popular music, and pretending that it is anything other than inferior, it would go a long to encouraging people to be even a little more catholic in their tastes. As for why I haven't been getting death threats or brickbats for my stuffy, old-fashioned opinions, I think many of us are getting to the point where we can no longer deny that our culture is in serious trouble.
Any sensible person would be looking to the cultural trappings of our age for some explanation - it would be lunacy not to, given the absolute ubiquity and hypnotic power of pop and rock in shaping young people's opinions and expectations.
Dec. 15, 2020—Two hundred and fifty years ago, on December 16, 1770, the world welcomed the birth of the man I call the “Composer of Freedom,” Ludwig van Beethoven. Let us celebrate Beethoven today for his historical and ongoing contributions to liberating mankind from tyranny and ugliness, including in our own republic.
Although Beethoven was born a German, and lived most of his adult life in Vienna, Austria, there is a sense in which he was the quintessential American in spirit. The composer was well known for his revolutionary sympathies, writ large in his stirring composition on the subject of the Dutch Count of Egmont, who died fighting against Spanish oppression in the 16th century, and his opera Fidelio. The latter deals with the liberation of a political prisoner by his wife, and bears striking similarity to the story of the Marquis de Lafayette, who suffered imprisonment by the Austrian empire, and was ultimately freed by the efforts of his wife and the American government.
Ludwig van Beethoven
Listening to political prisoner Florestan’s famous aria, or the prisoners’ chorus which precedes it, would convey to anyone a clear idea of Beethoven’s commitment to freedom.
However, to Beethoven, as to other Classical artists and many of the American Founding Fathers, freedom was not just the idea of liberation from political oppression. It also involved liberation of the individual’s creative powers, a commitment to the brotherhood of all mankind, and the determination of uplift mankind to a life worthy of a species infused with a spark of the divine.
To experience this passion of Beethoven’s, one need only listen to his setting of Friedrich Schiller’s master-poem The Ode to Joy, the Ninth or “Choral” Symphony, which continues to be at the apex of popularity among Classical music listeners in the United States.
It should be no surprise, then, that Beethoven has also been credited with “democratizing” musical performance in Europe, by making his concerts open to the public, rather than just in the salons of the aristocracy. Indeed, his wide popularity in Vienna is credited to his 1795 performance of his Second Piano Concerto, which was held as a benefit concert for the Vienna Composers Society, which was established for the support of musicians’ widows and orphans. We could use more of that same kind of “democratizing” of Classical music today.
Beethoven in America
A more-than-400 page book[1] has been written about the rich history of Beethoven’s influence in America. The earliest reported performance of his works was in Charleston, South Carolina in 1805; it featured his Second Symphony. His popularity grew rapidly over the subsequent decades in locations as diverse as Philadelphia, Boston, and Lexington, Kentucky, along with that of composers such as Handel, Haydn, Bach, and Mozart.
A chorus sings Beethoven’s Ode to Joy.
The first Beethoven Society was established in Portland, Maine (my hometown) in 1819. Such societies were largely devoted to concertizing with Beethoven’s choral works, as choral societies were then very popular in the United States. According to today’s Beethoven Society of America, the most popular work was Beethoven’s oratorio, Christ on the Mount of Olives, which deals with the story of Christ’s hours in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to his arrest.
If you have never listened to this work, I urge you to do so.
I have a personal connection to this oratorio, which I listen to every year during Easter week. It just so happened that my college chorus, of which I was a member, had the honor of performing the work under the direction of the Philadelphia Orchestra’s Eugene Ormandy. I unfortunately don’t recall the exact year—but it was sometime between 1962 and 1964. I can’t find it online. My Bryn Mawr women’s chorus combined with the men’s choir from Princeton University for the performance, which featured professional soloists. It was an unforgettable, glorious experience.
Beethoven’s Mount of Olives oratorio was written and first performed in Vienna in 1803, at a point when the composer was trying to come to terms with the fact that he was going deaf, and determined that he would continue to dedicate his life to his art. “Oh God, you look down on my inmost soul, and know that it is filled with love of mankind and the desire to do good,” he writes in the document known as the Heiligenstadt testament which otherwise reflects his struggle against despair.
One cannot but hear the same passion in Beethoven’s writing of Christ’s duet with the angel in the Mount of Olives, where He becomes reconciled to sacrifice Himself for the love of mankind.
The Power of Beauty
In the midst of the dangerous, roiling turmoil that currently pervades our political and social life here in the United States, we need the power of beautiful music more than ever. Classical music has the ability to convey beauty and truth in a way that no political speech or tract can possibly do.
The celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall, celebrated with Beethoven’s Ode to Joy.
Beethoven believed that “Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. Music is the electrical soil in which the spirit lives, thinks and invents.”
The idea that Classical music lifts the mind to the realm of true beauty and freedom hardly seems popular in the United States today. But if this post can encourage its readers to experience at least one of the Beethoven masterpieces I have mentioned, it will have accomplished some good.
[1] The one most cited is Beethoven in America by music historian Michael Broyles, Professor of Music at Florida State University and former Distinguished Professor of Music and Professor of American History at Pennsylvania State University. It was released in 2011
"Ludwig van Beethoven was often mistaken for a vagrant. With wads of yellow cotton stuffed in his ears, he stomped around 1820s Vienna, flailing his arms, mumbling as he scribbled on scraps of paper. Residents would frequently alert the police. Once, he was tossed in jail when cops refused to believe he was the city’s most famous composer. “You’re a tramp!” they argued. “Beethoven doesn’t look like this" https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/65005/beethoven-worlds-first-rock-star
Nancy Spannaus wrote that article. I don't know that anyone could have said it better. She is a true warrior for freedom. That is most likely why she was able to write such a moving piece.
Thank you for taking the time to write your wonderful reply. I completely agree. Beethoven is my favourite composer, and I believe that he is unique amongst his peers in his ability to evince joy, sadness, awe, humility and gratitude. I believe this power to conjure such powerful and important emotions enables us to connect with God, or however we understand our higher power. The 9th Symphony is obviously marvellous, although for me the final piano sonatas and string quartets are particularly sublime. I can listen to them over and over again and still find new subtleties to appreciate.
Anna - one of the best comments I've ever read - the last paragraph says it all.
Everything about our government, religion, politics and culture is juvenile - thanks to DaGeneration called DaBoomers. Their music reflects their lack of seeing the big picture - in fact, it almost defines them totally - just like DaBellCurve.
Don't get me started.....and again, Anna....you said it all. Thank you!
Thanks for the kind comment, Crush (great riff on the original!!). It's a topic that means a great deal to me, and I'm actually researching a book on how we are collectively becoming less intelligence, because our poor understanding of what intelligence is has led to tremendous complacency. It will be an antidote to the notion that intelligence can be relied upon to keep magically appearing, as a constant in human society. Please do 'get started'! I would appreciate hearing your thoughts...
Actually, I got 'started' in 2015 - if you click on my name a couple times, it will lead to my website and from there to DaLimbraw Library - all my thoughts are there.
Mental Floss article was poorly written, biased, and had no foot notes. I only subscribed to your newsletter for Ukrainian news. I can tell by your being taken with this article there is not anything else on your plate I would be interested in. Your academic credentials don't impress me either. From and old construction engineer in North Texas.
Sorry that you disagree. If it makes any difference, I don't think that academic credentials make any difference either. Which is why academics are wrong as often as they are right. My point was for Anna. I am a musician. Have studied music, including composition. And I have read Shakespeare, as well as the classics. I love Beethoven, his symphonies of course, but also his Sonatas which I played. But I also love a lot of other kinds of music. Oh...and I respect construction engineers ... a LOT... having worked as an construction engineer's assistant in Canada's far north after leaving home at 17. So don't get the idea I am an effete intellectual wtih disdain for "ordinary" people-- quite the opposite. I liked your quote: “Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. Music is the electrical soil in which the spirit lives, thinks and invents.” BTW, I gave up Harvard to SE Asia as a stringer during the Vietnam War.
Some really interesting comments on my book. I am currently revising it--so this feedback is REALLY helpful. Thank you all! Pleased read my reply to Anna's first comment.
Hello Julian, thank you for your blog, and the signpost to your book, which I have just read. It's an interesting read. However, I must disagree with your analysis of musical culture, and in particular your dismissal of high culture as 'mostly effete snobbery'. You may not like classical music, but to imply that it is worthless is shockingly narrow and uninformed, and reveals a lack of insight about the relative cultural impact of different forms of music.
From a technical perspective, popular music is incredibly limited and repetitive in comparison to classical music, with the same few chords, the same monotonous rhythms and the same few instruments used over and over again. You have focused on Jethro Tull, and it is true that they are less repetitive than most, but they are also hardly typical of popular music, so if you are going to appeal to the overall superiority of popular music we must look at that genre as a whole.
In general, popular music is designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator within the human psyche. With the lyrics being at best over-simplifying, and at worst driven by self-pity, rage, sex, violence and general hedonism, complex realities are reduced to soundbites, and the focus is on pandering to human excesses and weaknesses. The repetition of rhythm and motif has a powerful hypnotic effect that drives the negative message of the lyrics home. In the last few decades, popular music has played an important role in bestialising and coarsening society, as people have wanted increasingly shocking and sexualised music in order to titillate their jaded palates. It is amazing to me that you have cited Keith Richards in a positive way, given his rampant drug use. His brand of hedonism has ruined countless lives all over the world; we simply cannot cope with the impact of having such people as role models.
The development of people's intellectual capacities is primarily fostered by exposure to more complex and challenging ideas and stimuli. With respect to music, classical music embodies more sophisticated patterns that require greater concentration over longer periods of time in order to discern themes and resolutions. Popular music, on the other hand, is formulaic and simplistic for the most part. It may soothe or stimulate, but it is never going to edify. At a time when culture is increasingly dumbed-down, and people are becoming noticeably less intelligent, this is a major concern.
The notion that Shakespeare is some kind of analogue to popular music is plain nonsense. Shakespeare was a classically educated scholar whose plays and sonnets reveal his deep knowledge of the high culture of his day - the history of the known world, the Greek and Roman classics, contemporary literature, and the Bible. He was a virtuoso writer who displayed great creativity and variety in his works - far more than any popular musician. He was also strongly focused on complex patterns of behaviour, and moral issues, and gave his characters great emotional depth and sophistication. How can any of this ever be said of popular music?
Of course it would be wrong to claim that listening to classical music can guarantee mental and intellectual health, and in any case not all classical music is equally helpful in its effect, but experiment after experiment has demonstrated the power of classical music to evince positive responses from humans and animals, whilst popular music has negative or at best neutral effects. In a time when people are increasingly subject to dangerous and negative influences, we should be all the more careful that we only listen to music that can help us become the best version of ourselves.
Popular music is juvenile - and I disagree with you that being called juvenile could ever be said to be positive. You are confusing being juvenile with the capacity to play, but they are not the same. To use Huizinga's definition, playing is the ability to enter into an alternative world that has been consciously created with its own rules and norms, purely for its own sake. Being juvenile means having childish patterns of thinking and behaviour, to the detriment of the person and those around them. Playing implies a lack of limits to possibilities, but being juvenile means that the person is unable to free themselves from the limitations of immaturity. The latter is not a condition of the former, and it is a mistake to confuse the two.
I didn't think I dismissed "high culture" and especially classical music. If I seemed to, that's a mistake on my part, and I should revise that in the edited version. For the record, I studied classic and have certificates from the Royal Conservatory of Music. And i have studied both musicology and aesthetics. As for Shakespeare, no one knows if he was, as you say, "a classically educated scholar". We know little about his background -- even his identity. Perhaps you are confusing him with Ben Jonson? My Fulbright to Harvard was awarded partly on the basis of a long thesis which, among other things, asked why social definitions of "High Culture" are not so much "wrong" as retrogressive. What we regard as "high culture" today was once radical, if not subversive ...."low". That applies to Shakespeare, of course, and many artists and composers. As for "juvenility" I think you have to reread the parts of the book on "neoteny" (extended juvenescence). But thank you for the comments, which are interesting and well -expressed and intelligent
I think that saying that high culture is 'mostly effete snobbery' is actually damning, let alone dismissive! To use the word 'snobbery' means that you believe that the people concerned take no genuine pleasure in listening to the music, but only value it as a means of displaying their own superiority. That is what snobbery means. 'Effete' reinforces that same insulting message. If this is not what you meant, then clearly it would be beneficial if you remove it.
With regard to Shakespeare, we have a fairly good idea that he attended Stratford Grammar School. All English grammar schools in the sixteenth century - without exception - used Latin as the language of instruction, sometimes supplemented by Greek. Boys were expected to read Aesop, Helvicus, Castelio, Terence, Cicero, Ovid, Livy, Justin, Florus, Virgil, Cato, Caesar, Horace, Persius, Lucan, Plautus, Martial, Juvenal and Seneca - all in the original Latin. This was what we now mean when we refer to a 'classical education'. We may not have evidence in the form of a concrete record that Shakespeare attended a particular school, but we know that he must have had an education of this kind, because he certainly had an education, and this kind of education was the only one available. We can also tell that he had a classical education because his writings are scattered with references to classical authors and their works. He is also clearly well acquainted with the rhetorical and grammatical techniques that these writings were intended to impart. So yes, we can certainly say that Shakespeare was classically educated, as the evidence is there in his plays. No uneducated person could possibly have written them.
As for his work being considered 'low', that is completely factually incorrect. Shakespeare himself came in for criticism for being a social upstart, because of his humble beginnings, but this was a reflection of the social hierarchies of the era - humble people were not supposed to be successful playwrights. Shakespeare himself became an establishment figure - a playwright to two monarchs, a propagandist for the dynastic line, and a wealthy man who could afford to build his own theatre. The idea that he was some kind of radical subversive is pure nonsense - some of his most important and successful plays were explicitly written to curry favour with Elizabeth I by legitimising the Tudor line. He actually wrote a play at her request as she wanted more Falstaff ('The Merry Wives of Windsor'). That's a rather conservative cause for a radical playwright! Yes, his plays were often bawdy, but that was normal for the era - not at all subversive.
As an English person, I'm not likely to confuse Shakespeare with Ben Jonson - one has been fantastically successful and is a household name across the world, and the other is only known to the cognoscenti.
It is all too easy to throw around words like 'radical', 'subversive', 'retrogressive', but a word salad does not amount to an argument. These words are clearly intended to convey watertight connotations, but that is not at all the case, particularly as they can only be interpreted in a relative sense. If one analyses the overall thrust of your argument, you seem to be implying that any music that offends existing sensibilities and takes trends in a different direction is automatically good, but that is the stance of a rebellious child. It is not a considered verdict on the intrinsic merits of any piece of music. It also pays no heed whatsoever to the impact of the music on the audience, and I note that you have not addressed my arguments on this front at all. Finally, if we are going to take your argument seriously, that would mean that every instance of a particular genre of popular music that is not foundational would also be damned, as the vast majority of popular music is derivative of what came before it, rather than genuinely original.
Personally, I'm not interested in what the current anti-classical vogue is at elite institutions - having been to one myself (Cambridge), I can only watch with horror as they succumb to wokedom and accompanying declining standards, I know that they are busy destroying the desire for excellence that created them in the first place. If I had children, I would strongly advise them not to go to university at all, as they have become toxic institutions that are doing their very best to dismantle everything good about Western culture. Nowadays, if I ever see anything that has come out of an 'elite' institution that makes any sense, I'm amazed.
Anna I found your comment interesting. I'm surprised the replies to your essay are positive. I expected you to get vituperative fusillades! That says something about this site (which is new to me - I got here via Larry Johnson.
I would disagree with you on one small account: I would append the adjective "recent" to your use of the phrase "popular music". While not in any sense "classical" [sensu lato], certain kinds of popular music of the last century were uplifting and edifying. I still get warm feelings when I listen to 'White Christmas'. I thought it the most beautiful song when I was a boy. And now some six decades later it may still be so.
Like many of my generation of the 1960s, I listened to that era's popular music - rock and roll. I entered my teen and young 20s years from a background in playing French Horn in school. The first piece I played in UIL competition was from the Magic Flute. So I learned classical music early on. I took a detour from all that for a number of years. But about 1974 I found myself tired of rock and roll, etc. and began to listen to classical again.
I found there was much in that genre that I hadn't listened to as a boy: e.g. the French impressionists, Ravel especially, but also Debussy and Satie. I felt a new freedom, in a sense, in that I could literally listen to anything regardless of what my peers might think of me! So, early influences in childhood are lasting influences.
I will say this: the "rock and roll" of my generation - the Beatles, Crosby, Stills and Nash, Procol Harum, Dylan, the Moody Blues, et al. were a helluva lot better than the crap that is being listened to today by this current generation of young folks. And, I imagine it is this kind of "popular music" that you had in mind, for indeed, "hip hop" is ridiculous and more - downright sinister and degrading.
Now here in my 7th decade I find myself still exploring the limitless treasure trove of concert music (I prefer that to "classical" since there was a Classical Period of serious music). Currently I am back in the Classical and Baroque eras of Handel (especially), Mozart of course, Locatelli, Vivaldi, and *some* Bach. But I certainly did (and still do) listen to the Romantics (ah Chopin!). But I grow prolix. Coincidentally in general I find Beethoven less interesting and believe the 9th ought to be shelved for about 50 years.
Thanks again for your post.
I hope your read my reply to the first commenter. As I mentioned, I studied music, including
classical composition and history. And I played Beethhoven and Chopin and Rachmaninoff . I have also studied Middle Eastern and Asian music. IMO, there is really no "High" or Low" Culture -- just culture. Black people did not listen to Beethoven in the 20s. How could they? From that we got modern jazz, the blues, rock and roll. Today, we have fusions of classical and rock - as with NIghtwish. Let us keep in mind that Stravinsky's Rite of Spring caused a riot. Great art is "original' -- meaning it is different in significant ways from all others. That is what defines creativity. "Standards" of "high culture" are stuff we are taught in high school and college, and constantly overturned when someone does something new. One needs to keep an open mind -- and more -- an open ear -- and open heart-- and open eyes. I am 76. And I still feel the need to play. Anna is wrong about juvenility. "Maturity" is something you are taught. by our society to force conformity. The concept does not exist in the hunting and gathering societies that have dominated most of humanity's existence. People sing and dance and play until they die, with few distinction of age.
No Julian - 'maturity' is not something that people are taught to enforce conformity. It is a necessary acquisition in order to ensure a happy life, and by extension a healthy and functioning society. A mature person is someone who can make an accurate and sober assessment of situations and act in such a way as to ensure the wellbeing of all, as much as that is possible. Immature people are impulsive, selfish and irresponsible, and do tremendous harm to others and themselves. They rely on other (more mature) people to accommodate them in their mistakes. Any culture that lauds immaturity will not survive in the long run, and will breed misery in the short run.
You are making a category mistake in conflating 'maturity' with 'conformity' - they are not at all the same. Indeed, a mature decision may involve doing something that disrupts situations, if that is called for. An immature person lacks the ability to make a considered choice, as their judgement is too poor to understand the consequences of their actions. If someone is unable to understand the full ramifications of what they are doing, the fact that their actions could be construed as non-conformist is no badge of honour.
You are quite wrong about hunting and gathering societies, which nearly always have strict rituals which delineate the transition from child to adult. These are designed to test whether the individual has the maturity to take on adult responsibility within the community. I myself had a student from Nigeria, who told me that in her tribe, young men were not allowed to consider having a wife unless they went through a ritual of being whipped continually by a group of elders. It was a test of their endurance and courage to submit to this, without which they were considered to be too irresponsible to deserve a wife. She considered this to be perfectly acceptable, and I respect the logic. I am the first to concede that the plural of anecdote is not data, but as a general principle societies that live close to nature must depend heavily on internal harmony in order to ensure their survival, leaving little room for disruptive influences within them. This is the complete opposite to your argument.
Brava Madam!
Thank you FGB3!
An interesting thread given the location in a "political" setting. I'm not even sure what the original post was! LOL. Since Anna will probably see this, I answer her here but it will apply to Julian as well.
I'll re-cap myself on "rock"... I thought I had successfully stated my exclusion of the likes of "those that came after" those brief golden years of Love, Peace and Peyote: e.g. Black Sabbath (shudder), KISS, King Crimson and even to an extent Pink Floyd. My rock phase crystalized almost immediately into The Beatles, Procol Harum and Crosby, Stills and Nash. All very moderate people, for the most part. Never the Stones. I mean, Stills was in love with Judy Collins, and she was hardly "rock", and Nash with Joni (ditto).
Julian I was aware of the claim that many of the people who lived in The Canyon in L.A. were children of military types - but I didn't see that as overly influencing them; in fact the opposite - cf. Stills' 'For What It's Worth'. Anyway, the whole rock scene morphed around 1974-ish. My beloved Procol Harum was running out of steam, The Beatles' Abbey Road was long in the past, and C.S. & N. were getting pretty weak, and that's when I returned to my real roots in classical.
Since I was still near enough to my high school days (1962-66) in Band I had a lot of catching up to do in the classical sphere. And as I said previously, I felt liberated from Hippiedom and able to chart my own course as a young adult. I had pretty much turned off my druggie days and switched to alcohol (but that's ANOTHER story!).
Now, recently I read (and can't remember where dammit!) that classical music sort of lost its way post-WW 2, if not before. I can listen to some Bartok, almost all of Stravinsky, a bit of Shostakovich, but no Nielson or Barber (other than the Adagio), Schoenberg, et al. In other words after the French Impressionists I couldn't really find much to listen to from the 20th century (and they barely into it). A good example is Aaron Copeland. He began all "avant-garde" with his "modern", atonal stuff; but then came to his senses (and probably pocket book) and began writing music people could enjoy listening to.
I have often wondered what future generations will make of the music of the 20th century? All that atonal stuff. And that is, in a sense, reflected in the same era in the architecture and Art itself. Frankly I think it's crap. Art should be about Beauty, first and foremost, and if it is not, then it isn't Art.
I mentioned my "band days" in high school and just lately I have been re-visiting some of that music by listening to Frederick Fennell's work, esp. with the Eastman Winds. I bought a CD of his famous William Byrd Suite and was transported back to 1963. So I also got his recording of Wagner, esp. Lohengrin's 'Elsa's Procession to the Cathedral' (we French Horn players LOVED it b/c we could really let it rip! LOL). But then I just this month bought a Fennell/Dallas Winds CD called 'Pomp and Pipes' without looking really at the composers on it. I stuck it into my car stereo yesterday and today and with the exception of the first piece, 'Praise the Lord with Drums and Cymbals' by Sigfried Karg-Elert, the rest of it is unlistenable (stuff by Alfred Reed, Eugene Gigout, Arthur Wills, Marcel Dupre and even Percy Grainger ('The Power of Rome and the Christian Heart'). I had no idea that dear Fennell was so enamoured of "modern music". But obviously he was.
So that's a long-winded way of replying to you Julian and you too Anna.
Hello FGB3, thanks for your generous comment. I also came here via Larry Johnson's blog - I suspect that we aren't alone. I agree that there is a huge variety in the quality of popular music. I'm rather fond of the vocal jazz standards of the 1930s and 40s - the kind that made Ella Fitzgerald and Judy Garland famous. Songwriters then truly understood the art of writing a classic song - strong melodies, and witty lyrics that vividly portrayed joy or pathos. However, I'm not as sanguine about rock 'n' roll as you are no doubt inclined to be, given your personal connection to that era. Yes, the music was certainly superior to that of more recent times, but there were other elements that made the musicians a negative influence. It was with the launch of rock 'n' roll that the moral rot began to set in, with writers and musicians determined to push cultural boundaries, and undermine ethical norms, and this only escalated throughout the 60s. There are persistent rumours about many of the most important musical icons of the time, with regard to their connections to military intelligence and possible mind control programmes, and role in promoting degrading lifestyles. The musicians themselves were sometimes dabbling in things of a very ugly nature, such as satanism, and often without trying too hard to hide it. Rock musicians in particular adopted all manner of satanic symbols and gestures as part of their branding, and even those with pretensions to a social conscience tended to make depressing and demoralising music that only served to increase the sense of powerlessness in the audience (thinking of Floyd here). There is more than one way to have a negative influence, and popular music has embodied every possible way in the last decades. I'm not such a purist as all that, and certainly don't believe in banning things, but on the other hand if we stopped glorifying popular music, and pretending that it is anything other than inferior, it would go a long to encouraging people to be even a little more catholic in their tastes. As for why I haven't been getting death threats or brickbats for my stuffy, old-fashioned opinions, I think many of us are getting to the point where we can no longer deny that our culture is in serious trouble.
Any sensible person would be looking to the cultural trappings of our age for some explanation - it would be lunacy not to, given the absolute ubiquity and hypnotic power of pop and rock in shaping young people's opinions and expectations.
Celebrate Beethoven, the Composer of Freedom
Dec. 15, 2020—Two hundred and fifty years ago, on December 16, 1770, the world welcomed the birth of the man I call the “Composer of Freedom,” Ludwig van Beethoven. Let us celebrate Beethoven today for his historical and ongoing contributions to liberating mankind from tyranny and ugliness, including in our own republic.
Although Beethoven was born a German, and lived most of his adult life in Vienna, Austria, there is a sense in which he was the quintessential American in spirit. The composer was well known for his revolutionary sympathies, writ large in his stirring composition on the subject of the Dutch Count of Egmont, who died fighting against Spanish oppression in the 16th century, and his opera Fidelio. The latter deals with the liberation of a political prisoner by his wife, and bears striking similarity to the story of the Marquis de Lafayette, who suffered imprisonment by the Austrian empire, and was ultimately freed by the efforts of his wife and the American government.
Ludwig van Beethoven
Listening to political prisoner Florestan’s famous aria, or the prisoners’ chorus which precedes it, would convey to anyone a clear idea of Beethoven’s commitment to freedom.
However, to Beethoven, as to other Classical artists and many of the American Founding Fathers, freedom was not just the idea of liberation from political oppression. It also involved liberation of the individual’s creative powers, a commitment to the brotherhood of all mankind, and the determination of uplift mankind to a life worthy of a species infused with a spark of the divine.
To experience this passion of Beethoven’s, one need only listen to his setting of Friedrich Schiller’s master-poem The Ode to Joy, the Ninth or “Choral” Symphony, which continues to be at the apex of popularity among Classical music listeners in the United States.
It should be no surprise, then, that Beethoven has also been credited with “democratizing” musical performance in Europe, by making his concerts open to the public, rather than just in the salons of the aristocracy. Indeed, his wide popularity in Vienna is credited to his 1795 performance of his Second Piano Concerto, which was held as a benefit concert for the Vienna Composers Society, which was established for the support of musicians’ widows and orphans. We could use more of that same kind of “democratizing” of Classical music today.
Beethoven in America
A more-than-400 page book[1] has been written about the rich history of Beethoven’s influence in America. The earliest reported performance of his works was in Charleston, South Carolina in 1805; it featured his Second Symphony. His popularity grew rapidly over the subsequent decades in locations as diverse as Philadelphia, Boston, and Lexington, Kentucky, along with that of composers such as Handel, Haydn, Bach, and Mozart.
A chorus sings Beethoven’s Ode to Joy.
The first Beethoven Society was established in Portland, Maine (my hometown) in 1819. Such societies were largely devoted to concertizing with Beethoven’s choral works, as choral societies were then very popular in the United States. According to today’s Beethoven Society of America, the most popular work was Beethoven’s oratorio, Christ on the Mount of Olives, which deals with the story of Christ’s hours in the Garden of Gethsemane prior to his arrest.
If you have never listened to this work, I urge you to do so.
I have a personal connection to this oratorio, which I listen to every year during Easter week. It just so happened that my college chorus, of which I was a member, had the honor of performing the work under the direction of the Philadelphia Orchestra’s Eugene Ormandy. I unfortunately don’t recall the exact year—but it was sometime between 1962 and 1964. I can’t find it online. My Bryn Mawr women’s chorus combined with the men’s choir from Princeton University for the performance, which featured professional soloists. It was an unforgettable, glorious experience.
Beethoven’s Mount of Olives oratorio was written and first performed in Vienna in 1803, at a point when the composer was trying to come to terms with the fact that he was going deaf, and determined that he would continue to dedicate his life to his art. “Oh God, you look down on my inmost soul, and know that it is filled with love of mankind and the desire to do good,” he writes in the document known as the Heiligenstadt testament which otherwise reflects his struggle against despair.
One cannot but hear the same passion in Beethoven’s writing of Christ’s duet with the angel in the Mount of Olives, where He becomes reconciled to sacrifice Himself for the love of mankind.
The Power of Beauty
In the midst of the dangerous, roiling turmoil that currently pervades our political and social life here in the United States, we need the power of beautiful music more than ever. Classical music has the ability to convey beauty and truth in a way that no political speech or tract can possibly do.
The celebration of the fall of the Berlin Wall, celebrated with Beethoven’s Ode to Joy.
Beethoven believed that “Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. Music is the electrical soil in which the spirit lives, thinks and invents.”
The idea that Classical music lifts the mind to the realm of true beauty and freedom hardly seems popular in the United States today. But if this post can encourage its readers to experience at least one of the Beethoven masterpieces I have mentioned, it will have accomplished some good.
[1] The one most cited is Beethoven in America by music historian Michael Broyles, Professor of Music at Florida State University and former Distinguished Professor of Music and Professor of American History at Pennsylvania State University. It was released in 2011
"Ludwig van Beethoven was often mistaken for a vagrant. With wads of yellow cotton stuffed in his ears, he stomped around 1820s Vienna, flailing his arms, mumbling as he scribbled on scraps of paper. Residents would frequently alert the police. Once, he was tossed in jail when cops refused to believe he was the city’s most famous composer. “You’re a tramp!” they argued. “Beethoven doesn’t look like this" https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/65005/beethoven-worlds-first-rock-star
I've just read your comment out to my mother and sister and it made me cry!
Nancy Spannaus wrote that article. I don't know that anyone could have said it better. She is a true warrior for freedom. That is most likely why she was able to write such a moving piece.
I've just found her - thank you for the recommendation!
Thank you for taking the time to write your wonderful reply. I completely agree. Beethoven is my favourite composer, and I believe that he is unique amongst his peers in his ability to evince joy, sadness, awe, humility and gratitude. I believe this power to conjure such powerful and important emotions enables us to connect with God, or however we understand our higher power. The 9th Symphony is obviously marvellous, although for me the final piano sonatas and string quartets are particularly sublime. I can listen to them over and over again and still find new subtleties to appreciate.
Anna - one of the best comments I've ever read - the last paragraph says it all.
Everything about our government, religion, politics and culture is juvenile - thanks to DaGeneration called DaBoomers. Their music reflects their lack of seeing the big picture - in fact, it almost defines them totally - just like DaBellCurve.
Don't get me started.....and again, Anna....you said it all. Thank you!
Thanks for the kind comment, Crush (great riff on the original!!). It's a topic that means a great deal to me, and I'm actually researching a book on how we are collectively becoming less intelligence, because our poor understanding of what intelligence is has led to tremendous complacency. It will be an antidote to the notion that intelligence can be relied upon to keep magically appearing, as a constant in human society. Please do 'get started'! I would appreciate hearing your thoughts...
Actually, I got 'started' in 2015 - if you click on my name a couple times, it will lead to my website and from there to DaLimbraw Library - all my thoughts are there.
Warning - most folks won't like them!
Thank you all for this interesting discussion. Wonderful!
Thanks Crush - will have a look..!
Mental Floss article was poorly written, biased, and had no foot notes. I only subscribed to your newsletter for Ukrainian news. I can tell by your being taken with this article there is not anything else on your plate I would be interested in. Your academic credentials don't impress me either. From and old construction engineer in North Texas.
Sorry that you disagree. If it makes any difference, I don't think that academic credentials make any difference either. Which is why academics are wrong as often as they are right. My point was for Anna. I am a musician. Have studied music, including composition. And I have read Shakespeare, as well as the classics. I love Beethoven, his symphonies of course, but also his Sonatas which I played. But I also love a lot of other kinds of music. Oh...and I respect construction engineers ... a LOT... having worked as an construction engineer's assistant in Canada's far north after leaving home at 17. So don't get the idea I am an effete intellectual wtih disdain for "ordinary" people-- quite the opposite. I liked your quote: “Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy. Music is the electrical soil in which the spirit lives, thinks and invents.” BTW, I gave up Harvard to SE Asia as a stringer during the Vietnam War.
Thank you Julian! I will buy your book.