Music Chat: Are The Classics Really "Immortal?"

[@stevemcclue5759]

"Collecting is fun!" - that's not what my wife says when she looks at the groaning shelves of CDs...

[@bigg2988]

OK, fair, she is not sharing your collecting preferences. I would bet she has her own, but maybe they are more... practical. :)) Not preaching, but loving someone includes putting up with their small weaknesses and foibles. To think that you could be collecting, er, motorcycles...!

[@carlob95]

Music should be fun and move you. Collecting music is fun but listening to it is more fun. Cheers from Canada!

[@Sheffield6688]

Great video Dave! To me it's like a classical music variation of Shatner's SNL "Get a life!" sketch to convention Trekkies back in the mid 1980's. All of us could tend to use a reality check from time to time. 😁

[@bigg2988]

...Just not too much, for it would take the fun away! Dry practicality presents us with "socially acceptable" options for a good life, but it is frankly nice to build a niche to immerse oneself in apart from the routine.

[@clarkebustard8672]

This talk may make it easier for older listeners to downsize their collections as they "de-stuff" on the way to living in smaller spaces. At the same time, downloads make it possible to acquire a gazillion versions of standards or faves that take up no physical space. I wear six pairs of shoes (five, really - the sixth worn only in extreme winter weather), one pair of slippers and one pair of flip-flops for pool and post-shower. I'll know I've taken Dave's comments to heart when I've cut down to 8 or fewer Beethoven Ninths.

[@szymonpiotrdabrowski2822]

*classical music military industrial complex* killed me. 😂

[@philippecassagne3192]

I agree : Classics are not immortal. But what is remarkable is that, sometimes, they die and can revive again : see Bach, Vivaldi, Zelenka ...

[@vdtv]

My route in collecting is very un-average, I think. I want my collection to be broad, not deep. If I were to have three Beethoven fifths, and I wanted to hear Beethoven's fifth (rare occurrence, actually), then I do not want to be faced with yet another choice. I want to grab Beethoven's fifth. To be precise: that Beethoven's fifth I enjoyed the most. I am open to new versions. If I hear something that I have in my collection but appreciated more in a new (to me) recording, then I'll happily exchange it. In some extreme cases, where two approaches are different enough, I may consider having two in my collection, but normally that only happens because of couplings. I'd much rather have, say, a lot of John Field or Franz Ries (his piano sonatas are realyy, really good stuff in the Naxos series) then 17 cycles of Beethoven symphonies of which I am only ever going to put on two, three tops. I look at it as collecting music rather than performances. It works for me, but I'm clearly in a minority. What ir really helps with, is keeping the size of the collection in check. I'd still like one of them nifty overflow rooms, though...

[@-yeme-]

I don't think that's at all uncommon. In fact I think that's how most people would approach a music collection, especially those who are primarily interested in the listening experience rather than the collecting aspect itself, or in music as an academic or analytical exercise. I'm certainly the same, I have no interesting acquiring many different versions of the same thing, on the contrary, I want lots and lots of different things. Its one of the perpetual frustrations of classical music that there are innumerable versions of everything, the vast majority of which have no reason to exist. They're just an obstacle to my enjoyment of music, things that have to be navigated around. In all fields of music we find works of genius rising above a sea of mediocrity, and the classical landscape adds another meta-layer of that same phenomenon with its endless repetition, doing all it can to hide its gems on a beach of commonplace pebbles. Am I open to new versions? Ehhhh, kind of. But also, not really. If I have a performance of a work that I truly love, I'm rarely inclined to even bother listening to yet another version of it these days. Honestly, what's the point? That time is better spent listening to something entirely new, that might open a door I never knew existed.

[@LyleFrancisDelp]

No piece of music is immortal per se. However, as long as the listening public wants to hear certain works, they will continue to live in the musical universe. Long before the recording industrial military complex told us what we should and should not like, people were hearing the symphonies of Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, and Brahms in the concert hall. They were NOT hearing the symphonies of Spohr. The reason is obvious….some music is simply better and more memorable than other. Does this make some music immortal? Well…is anything ever immortal? No. But some music is simply better and we still want to hear it.

[@ThreadBomb]

You seem to be saying that, whenever music goes unplayed, that is proof that that music is bad.

[@LyleFrancisDelp]

@@ThreadBomb No. I’m saying that whenever music goes unplayed, that is proof that no one really cares to hear it. Most of the time, obscurity is well earned.

[@bigg2988]

@@LyleFrancisDelp Only partly agree - there is usually a detectable reason for some music slipping through the cracks in its time. However, the reason is not always that the music in question is not good. The first correction would be: it goes unplayed because those responsible for programming and/or performing do not care to PLAY it, not because the audience does not want to hear it. The audience just may not KNOW. An assortment of other reasons for temporal obscurity may include: - historical or personal biographical circumstances (some works get literally wiped out from performance practice - like the "entartete Musik" under the Nazis; some just are not published or performed in their time, and then get lost in the archives - some for good; think the "Unfinished" by Schubert, languishing in a drawer for 50 years); - the amount of works on offer (think all of Vivaldi's concertos, and everyone just sticks to "The Four Seasons" - are they truly the only good ones? No, but they are enough for most listeners to "check the box" of exposure to Vivaldi); - more than anything, the changing tastes and fashions (that lead to dismissal, or just lukewarm acceptance, of certain more unconventional composers in their time, while the 20th Century brought an opposite sort of aggravation - a dismissal of basically entire output of Late Romantic period by mechanical Modernists; only several, like R. Strauss, Rachmaninov or Sibelius escaped the purge - and that not for lack of trying! Look up the faction of Rene Leibowitz and their opinion of Sibelius' worth... Now, do only those mentioned deserve to survive from the whole school that wrote in traditional Late Romantic idiom?.. They probably were the best, how many were good enough? But time slipped, and only a small part have been reassessed). I guess the bottom line is, life is short, and it is safer for regular citizens (not enamored collectors!) to stick to known "commodities".

[@classicalperformances8777]

Comparing beethoven s 5th symphony to shoes..just saying.

[@earlofmar11]

Collecting is fun indeed, but also expensive, and it takes up a lot of space... I know as an inveterate collector, not only of classical CDs, but also books, guitars and photo cameras. Always out to get the next one that will be just that bit better, have that special sound or feature... By now I'm well aware that I won't live long enough to listen to all CDs in my collection, watch all series on DVD, read all the books I bought... And still a review can get me to buy yet another one. In a way this is completely irrational. But I derive satisfaction from it. Humans are strange beings ;)

[@lorenzocassani8169]

That’s the reason why I can get weeks without listening to any of Beethoven’s pieces , even if he his my favourite composer

[@steveschwartz8944]

Lots of things to think about. I have a lot of recordings, but very few duplicates. After all, as a student for roughly 20 years, I didn’t have the luxury of duplicate performances, since I wanted to hear as many different scores as possible. On the other hand, there were pieces of music, acknowledged masterpieces, that made very little impression, and it took a different recording or performance to open the score up to me. It wasn’t the recognition of tiny differences, but a major reinterpretation or reshaping of a work's architecture.

[@freddobbin9135]

What does this interesting topic say about being a music critic such as yourself?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

That we are essential to human survival.

[@gregorystanton6150]

I would agree, except that humans keep making more of themselves. There will always be new listeners and musicians to whom Beethoven's 5th is a new and wondrous thing. The classics will last as long as people are interested in them. That said, I've heard quite a lot and am jaded. As a result, I rarely buy more than one recording of a work unless the one I have seems deficient in some way, and rarely of a standard repertoire piece. I prefer to spend my money on recordings (and musicians) who go out on a limb and record something unusual or rare. I do this because I want them to keep making recordings of non-standard repertoire. I know Wranitzky or Kalliwoda or Zelenka will likely never catch up to Mozart, Beethoven or Bach recording-wise (and they really don't need to; no one does). I just want to hear great music, familiar or un.

[@robj7386]

Thought i had enough Brahms cycles downloaded, then comes another i find...Sanderling and here we go. Its fun though

[@stephenkeen2404]

I don't collect. Frankly, there aren't enough days in the year to listen to all the pieces I like, much less compare them. Thank heaven for reviewers--but, streaming has changed my habits for the worse. Used to be I'd listen to whatever I had in my collection, and occassionally upgrade that based on a rave review at Classics Today. But now I see new recordings, so I give them a shot. And I end up (like you suggested) listening for differences rather than enjoying the piece. I need to stop this.

[@ThreadBomb]

Maybe try some music that is entirely new to you?

[@stephenkeen2404]

@@ThreadBomb You're making an inaccurate assumption.

[@harrycornelius373]

Great talk but from what I gather from your comments is that nothing is culturally significant or rather cultural significance is not significant. The reductio ad absurdum of the idea of greatness may be trying to chose the one work and one performance in all music - classical or otherwise - that should remain if the evil god destroyed all music / performances save one. And while I write this I can’t quite wholly jettison the idea of cultural significance and greatness - which are not the same thing. I wonder how you Dave would address the field of literature. Obviously the performance issue doesn’t come into novels but it might in theatre and poetry.

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

I wasn't talking about cultural "significance" per se, but rather culture permanence, or perhaps more aptly, believing the the former depends on the latter.

[@mr-wx3lv]

But David, how about your thoughts on the immortality of classical music as a medium?. I mean why does a piece of music 200 or 300 years ago speak to us today? How come music language "develops" over the centuries? Why (in my ears at least) do I struggle with a lot of twentieth century music in particular? Full of it's dissonances, atonality, polytunnelonality, or whatever? Why is Beethovens 5th going to be around as long as the earth survives? A piece written in 1808. We love it today. Is the musical language, itself immortal?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Ask me in 1000 years or so.

[@porridgeandprunes]

@@DavesClassicalGuide In 1000 years you will be in heaven and only able to listen to the very best religious music.

[@AlexMadorsky]

Music itself is immortal, no specific piece of music is. Nor any particular musician. If humanity is still a going concern in 500 years, it is entirely possible people will remember the name of Taylor Swift but not that of Ludwig Von Beethoven. That statement is anathema to us classical fans I know, but it is true nonetheless.

[@leestamm3187]

​@@AlexMadorsky To judge from music history in the past century, I doubt that any popular music personality will supplant Beethoven in the long run. Big name pop performers are relegated to obscurity rather quickly on a historical timeline.

[@AlexMadorsky]

@@leestamm3187 I respectfully disagree. All of these musics are recorded and streamed now, with sales and listenership easily comparable. Swift will be remembered for a good long while, as will the Beatles, Frank Sinatra, and more. As for Beethoven? Possible, but the trend lines aren’t looking good. In the States, among under 60s the listenership for classical music is vanishingly small. I assume things are nominally better in Europe and Japan, but I’d reckon not by much. Bottom line is classical music has lost market share for decades without any reason to believe that will change.

[@geertdecoster5301]

I'm not a collector but I like to be a member of a society that leaves the freedom for people to collect, but moreover to be the geniuses or just simple folk that they are. I read somewhere that Dmitri Shostakovich was a shackled genius. Lets not become a shackled human being on the altar of simple heroic materialism. There's plenty out that has and will continue to have reason to exist. I work in a public library where the so-called classics are removed to make room for the newest popular pulp novels so I know what's what. It's now pretty bad. In the end everthing moves in cycles and what once is good will be decent enough to remain that in one century from now. Personally, I think that we're at end of a cycle where there's no value but the now and most. What's the real difference between Picasso and Matisse then? Only one of them I'd entertain and he sounds more like Dave. Just have a look at it with a recent exhibtion at the Philadelphia Museum of Art in mind 🙂

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

The problem is that you're operating over much too short a time scale.

[@geertdecoster5301]

@@DavesClassicalGuide Yes, you're right. The library even needs that. But my point is that something like Flemish Polyphony is still important and there aren't too many recordings of it right now any more either. My own guess is that the full cycle is about one century long. Can't wait to get rid of modernism right now 🙂

[@VagueRANT100]

The VOICE of REASON

[@hortleberrycircusbround9678]

Of course they are eternal!!!!! That's until we meet Mozart in the flesh

[@jamesboswell9324]

So if all shoes are equally collectable and Roger Norrington is just offering us another style of shoe then...?

[@DavesClassicalGuide]

Wooden clogs.

[@jeffheller642]

Maybe I'm a little muddleheaded today. But if you're saying that it is hardly worth it to get too worked up about performance. That the work is the thing. Then I wholeheartedly agree. But if you're saying there's no aesthetic or cultural difference between, say, Mozart's piano concertos and shoes, then I say may time and repeated listening spare me from such sophistication.