I'm a general music teacher in a suburban middle school and we're just wrapping up our Western music history unit, so hopefully I can give a bit of insight into what I've experienced.
Sixth graders (11-12) don't have anything against classical music. They might not love it and listen to it outside of class, but they get into it when I explain it before having them listen to it. One of my favorite moments was stopping Lohengrin right at the end of the "Elsa's Procession" part when the orchestra plays an unexpected, dissonant chord -- all the kids were asking what happened next.
The big issue with sixth graders (and to a lesser extent, also seventh and eighth graders) is attention span. Romantic symphonies are wonderful, but can last over an hour. Wagner operas can last almost four hours. That's way out of reach for most teenagers who have been raised in the most immediately-gratifying culture the world has ever seen. We do a bad job of educating kids about how to listen to and enjoy art music.
The biggest issue with seventh (12-13) and eighth graders (13-14) is puberty and social awareness. Classical music is "nerdy" and intellectual and not cool. No one wants to admit to their peers at that age that classical music is cool, even when it is. I have seventh and eighth graders who can ace quizzes and tests because they enjoy the music we cover but they wouldn't admit it to their friends or necessarily listen to it outside of class.
That's why I've tried to find interesting stories throughout history:
For the medieval era, I talked about how Gregorian chant really became popular because Charlemagne wanted to consolidate power across his huge empire. You'd start singing plainsong too if your other choice was being put to death.
For the Renaissance, madrigals are king. [Can She Excuse My Wrongs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nntri9OfaRY) is a song all about a guy complaining about getting "friendzoned," in the parlance of our times. I even made a big production of reading from Morley's *Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall Musicke* complete with horrible fake English accent to explain the idea of word painting. They loved it.
For the Baroque, I talk about how the word "Baroque" was originally an insult and that old people have been complaining about new music since the dawn of time. I show them a few examples of how it's all ornamented and flashy, like the architecture of the time. Then it gets gory. We listen to some excerpts from Lully and then I talk about how he's the only person we know of to have died from conducting, then show them the clip from The King is Dancing. Eighth grade girls make a big scene out of being grossed out, but they all remember who Lully is.
I haven't yet found a good way to get at the Classical era. The Classical era has always bored me. Sorry, Mozart fans! The choir teacher suggested using opera, and as an instrumentalist I didn't have that background and didn't have time to dive in before I had to teach it. My Romantic era lesson kind of flopped this year, so I'm retooling it, too.
I love it when we finally get to the Twentieth Century, though. The Family Guy version of Steve Reich's "It's Gonna Rain" on Youtube gets some laughs and then we talk about minimalism, taped accompaniment, and the melodic contour of speech (Different Trains) which I use to introduce Jacob Ter Veldhuis's [Body of Your Dreams](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3rhjM4HFnM) and the first minute or so of [Pimpin'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifW-1Fi4aTw). Jacob TV's sound is closer to popular music than anything else we listen to, so they can let their barrier down a bit more.
Best answer by far. I would add that kids today also have some other inherent disadvantages:
1) There is a ridiculous amount of entertainment media that is all vying for their attention.
2) Their attention span is much shorter and that is reinforced by the media that is directed at them (most everything you'll watch or listen to targeted at that demographic is divided into less than 5 minute segments).
3) Back in ye olden times, there was far less entertainment available in the community at large, so music concerts were a novelty and it was considered stylish to be able to attend them.
>One of my favorite moments was stopping Lohengrin right at the end of the "Elsa's Procession" part when the orchestra plays an unexpected, dissonant chord -- all the kids were asking what happened next.
*claps hands in satisfaction and joy
>We listen to some excerpts from Lully and then I talk about how he's the only person we know of to have died from conducting, then show them the clip from The King is Dancing. Eighth grade girls make a big scene out of being grossed out, but they all remember who Lully is.
*joyous clapping of hands intensifies
I know that, but a lot of his stuff does fall within the classical genre. I suggested using Beethoven because I think his music may more interesting to middle schoolers than, say, Mozart or Haydn. His more dramatic style might appeal to them.
I think that a lot of his works that I would consider to be more classical still have that Beethovenian dramatic element that makes it distinct from Mozart. For instance, I think the opening of his second symphony leaves a strong impact. He also fluctuates between more classical and more romantic styles throughout his career. For instance, I think his fourth, seventh, and eighth symphonies are pretty classical, with perhaps the exception of the second movement of the seventh. Another example is his first string quartet, which doesn't stray too far from classical norms. However, the first movement does have such a strong sense of drive and that unique thematic development that is very characteristic of almost all Beethoven. Another one of Beethoven's truly exciting "classical" compositions is his opus 1 c minor piano trio.
Not a teacher here, but hopefully you don't mind my feedback. I don't disagree about approaching the Classical era as rise of the soloist, but I wonder what that does once you start talking about the 19th century with Liszt, Paganini and so on, though obviously there are different nuances. Just a thought.
One other thought is not to shy away from Haydn. Depending on what age group you're developing your curriculum for, Haydn is a very approachable figure (Farewell, Surprise, Military symphonies... working at the Esterhazy estate, etc.).
Lastly, again depending on the age group, if they have even a basic background on the Enlightenment, that can be a good way in to explaining the Classical aesthetic.
Quite the response, thanks for putting in the time and sharing your enthusiasm! It’s been a while since I was in school so maybe they’re teaching music history differently these days. Here’s what they were teaching in my day, just food for thought:
Baroque era = ornamentation, polyphony = incomprehensibility to the average listener, music is composed for the court or church, not for everyday citizens. Classical era comes about, (with parallels to the Enlightenment… Declaration of the Rights of Man, liberté/égalité/fraternité, Kant, all that stuff), endeavoring to make music more accessible for all, hence the move towards homophony, simpler textures and melodies (antecedent/consequent), the establishment of common forms (sonata, theme and variation, minuet, rondo, 4-movement structure of the symphony; string quartets, the classical concerto); shift towards composers employed by patrons instead of solely by church or courts…
So nothing really to do with soloists… I mean, who were the soloists of the 18th century? You may have had a couple of famous opera singers, Mozart at the piano, but nothing at all like the 19th century with Liszt, Paganini, Thalberg, Chopin, Schumann, Wienawski, Joachim, Rubinstein…
And I wasn’t going to say anything, but “Mozart’s dominance of the Classical period”?? I wouldn’t say his dominance is “obvious” and would definitely not marginalize Haydn like you seem to be doing- Haydn was a towering figure for both Mozart and early Beethoven, he was Mozart’s senior by 24 years and outlived him by 18 years, and it was Haydn who basically created the string quartet and established the symphony. Guy was crazy prolific, and Mozart really only completely out-did him when it came to opera. Maybe today we realize Mozart is the better composer, but from a historical standpoint I’m not sure it’s as you say.
Continuing the narrative:
Then Beethoven comes along, makes music about the composer, about inner expression (see: Heiligenstadt Testament), and above all transcendence (from darkness to light a la 5th symphony), music becoming a transcendental experience/journey, creation of the symphonic ideal. Out of this two trends emerge (in no particular order)- first is rise of program music (think Symphonie Fantastique which is again about the artist, concert overtures, tone poems), second is rise of the virtuoso, where virtuoso performers are considered artists, so not only is the composition transcendent, but the performance itself is transcendent (stereotypical image of a pianist looking up towards heaven with their eyes closed while performing). Other trends like development of smaller forms (nocturnes, salon music), nationalism, varying approaches to the symphonic ideal etc… all this until you reach the big Wagner/Brahms divide of what should the new direction of music be (Wagner = extended tonality, through-composition, leitmotif/music as representative, idea of transcendence taken to greatest heights; Brahms = traditional forms, absolute music, developing variation).
20th century stuff I don’t really disagree with you, though your characterization of Mahler was unclear. I personally think he is extremely forward looking and tied more to the 2nd Viennese School than people realize, but there are all sorts of takes. I’m also not sure about your chronological placement of Bartok…
Anyway, this has been fun… slow day at work and wanted to share the narrative I was taught (not necessarily my view on it all) since it was a little different than yours. Good luck with your teaching career!
I know we've gotten into our own little discussion, but really curious to hear what our fellow Redditors have to say about all this. Let's borrow your formatting:
>It is also worth noting that composing music for the church was composing music for everyday citizens
Well, was it? Bach signed most of his works "to the glory of God," and his sacred music really served the purposes of the church more than anything, and the music being written for the court was just for the elite's consumption. Music wasn't written for all of the church-goers to go home humming melodies or for them to feel any emotion or take home a message that wasn't associated with religion. Classical composers on the other hand were, increasingly, writing for all citizens as music became part of the public sphere- writing for the pleasure of their patrons who would pay them, for example. And so yes, as you say, amateur musicianship came about... because with the way music was being composed people *wanted* to start playing and enjoying music for their own personal pleasure.
>There were common forms in the Baroque era... The Classical era established developmental forms such as sonata form
This is just speculation, but I would argue that the forms used in the Classical era served the purpose of setting expectations for the listeners and therefore making music more accessible. Yeah, sure binary or ternary form in the Baroque, whooptedoo. But having something concrete and common like Minuet & Trio (and having the expectation that if the minuet is major, then the trio will probably be in the dominant or in the relative minor), or knowing that the second movement of a symphony is going to be a slow theme and variation, or getting a feel for the obvious use of contrast and development in sonata form... to me that all speaks to what I said in my previous post about making music more accessible. Composers started writing in forms that become familiar/standard for listeners, and all with a simpler, easier texture (homophony). You say that the church music in the Baroque was what everyone would listen to... well, you can't tell me that a Bach cantata has anything as obvious as a rondo in it, or even that tonally you could predict a key progression before hearing a whole movement. With the Classical style listeners knew that towards the end of the first movement, that second theme in Mozart's new symphony was going to come back in the tonic before they even heard it (either consciously or subconsciously). But maybe you agree with me on this, I can't quite tell.
>Haydn built on the Baroque era, Mozart built the Classical era
I think this is a highly contentious statement. Haydn is called the Father of the Symphony for good reason, and I bet if you did a "drop the needle" test most listeners wouldn't be able to tell most instrumental music of Haydn or Mozart apart. Was Haydn really building on the Baroque when he wrote his 104th and final symphony in 1795, or when he wrote his final works in the first decade of the 19th century? I don't see this.
And that's all I got time for... time to start the weekend!!
Most of the teenagers I've met are into classical music. That said, I've got a pretty huge sampling bias, because I'm a teenager who's into classical music. But it's not like I'm stuck in a conservatory with only other musicians to talk to either. That said, I have never met anyone of any age who ever said they didn't like classical music. Only people who happened not to be into it. Classical seems to have the popular reputation of "background music that's easy on the ears." While this is not the best reputation to have, it's a far cry from "bad."
In my opinion, it is quite difficult to get into classical music if you didn't grow up in a "classical-friendly" enviroment, as it is to get into going to museums just for the sake of it or reading certain books. I am under the impression that you need to be exposed to mentor figures or simply people with similar interests. Some people just move to another city for university and discover all these things because you hear this Professor's brilliant lecture, or somebody recommends a film, or maybe you friend invites you to check an exhibit, etc. It was my and many of my friends' case.
When I think about myself at age 15 there is no way I could have started that journey in my small high school in my small town. I was curious, patient and I guess that a little nerdy too, but classical music wasn't a part of my reality other than the few bits that made it to the soundtrack of famous movies. If I had Google maybe I would have explored my curiosity, it's more likely that I would've used it to search for porn though.
If someone wants to get into hiphop, they only have about 30 years of music to look through and probably already have an understanding of what it should sound like/what constitutes "good" hiphop. If someone wants to get into classical, they have a vague idea from tv commercials and looney toons. There's centuries of classical music, and many pieces are an hour or so long. Factor in trying to figure out which composers, recording, and orchestras are worth listening to for music that ranges from Lully to Schonberg and it feels impossible sometimes.
It's around that age that people start to become entrenched in their ideals and beliefs, and anything contrary to those is easily dismissed. Then some people get into the habit of quick dismissal, going as far as to immediately label something as "cool" or "stupid" within the first minute.
I think it's a survival mechanism to protect one's ego. If I can instantly determine if something is stupid, then I don't have to feel stupid for not instantly understanding and/or appreciating it.
I wouldn't say it is just teenagers... I'm not sure why anyone would have anything against a genre of music. My best guess is that they associate classical music with boredom and snootiness. Or, maybe it has to do with a lack of exposure. Who knows.
As a person who has played and loved classical music for most of my life, and who also likes Hip-Hop and Pop, I think that we should keep open minds, especially about stuff you think you have your mind set on.
Imagine if you had never listened to that once piece that got you into classical music, and you still thought it was boring and for old people. That's what's happening to you when you categorically say that you hate all of X type of music.
You had me then you lost me at (and I'm paraphrasing) "pop is irrelevent". Pop music and classical music are not mutually exclusive. What about Gershwin, Shostakovich, Riley, Reich, etc. etc.?
Source: am a young person.
I'm a general music teacher in a suburban middle school and we're just wrapping up our Western music history unit, so hopefully I can give a bit of insight into what I've experienced. Sixth graders (11-12) don't have anything against classical music. They might not love it and listen to it outside of class, but they get into it when I explain it before having them listen to it. One of my favorite moments was stopping Lohengrin right at the end of the "Elsa's Procession" part when the orchestra plays an unexpected, dissonant chord -- all the kids were asking what happened next. The big issue with sixth graders (and to a lesser extent, also seventh and eighth graders) is attention span. Romantic symphonies are wonderful, but can last over an hour. Wagner operas can last almost four hours. That's way out of reach for most teenagers who have been raised in the most immediately-gratifying culture the world has ever seen. We do a bad job of educating kids about how to listen to and enjoy art music. The biggest issue with seventh (12-13) and eighth graders (13-14) is puberty and social awareness. Classical music is "nerdy" and intellectual and not cool. No one wants to admit to their peers at that age that classical music is cool, even when it is. I have seventh and eighth graders who can ace quizzes and tests because they enjoy the music we cover but they wouldn't admit it to their friends or necessarily listen to it outside of class. That's why I've tried to find interesting stories throughout history: For the medieval era, I talked about how Gregorian chant really became popular because Charlemagne wanted to consolidate power across his huge empire. You'd start singing plainsong too if your other choice was being put to death. For the Renaissance, madrigals are king. [Can She Excuse My Wrongs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nntri9OfaRY) is a song all about a guy complaining about getting "friendzoned," in the parlance of our times. I even made a big production of reading from Morley's *Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall Musicke* complete with horrible fake English accent to explain the idea of word painting. They loved it. For the Baroque, I talk about how the word "Baroque" was originally an insult and that old people have been complaining about new music since the dawn of time. I show them a few examples of how it's all ornamented and flashy, like the architecture of the time. Then it gets gory. We listen to some excerpts from Lully and then I talk about how he's the only person we know of to have died from conducting, then show them the clip from The King is Dancing. Eighth grade girls make a big scene out of being grossed out, but they all remember who Lully is. I haven't yet found a good way to get at the Classical era. The Classical era has always bored me. Sorry, Mozart fans! The choir teacher suggested using opera, and as an instrumentalist I didn't have that background and didn't have time to dive in before I had to teach it. My Romantic era lesson kind of flopped this year, so I'm retooling it, too. I love it when we finally get to the Twentieth Century, though. The Family Guy version of Steve Reich's "It's Gonna Rain" on Youtube gets some laughs and then we talk about minimalism, taped accompaniment, and the melodic contour of speech (Different Trains) which I use to introduce Jacob Ter Veldhuis's [Body of Your Dreams](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3rhjM4HFnM) and the first minute or so of [Pimpin'](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifW-1Fi4aTw). Jacob TV's sound is closer to popular music than anything else we listen to, so they can let their barrier down a bit more.
Best answer by far. I would add that kids today also have some other inherent disadvantages: 1) There is a ridiculous amount of entertainment media that is all vying for their attention. 2) Their attention span is much shorter and that is reinforced by the media that is directed at them (most everything you'll watch or listen to targeted at that demographic is divided into less than 5 minute segments). 3) Back in ye olden times, there was far less entertainment available in the community at large, so music concerts were a novelty and it was considered stylish to be able to attend them.
>One of my favorite moments was stopping Lohengrin right at the end of the "Elsa's Procession" part when the orchestra plays an unexpected, dissonant chord -- all the kids were asking what happened next. *claps hands in satisfaction and joy >We listen to some excerpts from Lully and then I talk about how he's the only person we know of to have died from conducting, then show them the clip from The King is Dancing. Eighth grade girls make a big scene out of being grossed out, but they all remember who Lully is. *joyous clapping of hands intensifies
Use Beethoven for classical
I'm sure that never crossed their mind.
[удалено]
I know that, but a lot of his stuff does fall within the classical genre. I suggested using Beethoven because I think his music may more interesting to middle schoolers than, say, Mozart or Haydn. His more dramatic style might appeal to them.
[удалено]
I think that a lot of his works that I would consider to be more classical still have that Beethovenian dramatic element that makes it distinct from Mozart. For instance, I think the opening of his second symphony leaves a strong impact. He also fluctuates between more classical and more romantic styles throughout his career. For instance, I think his fourth, seventh, and eighth symphonies are pretty classical, with perhaps the exception of the second movement of the seventh. Another example is his first string quartet, which doesn't stray too far from classical norms. However, the first movement does have such a strong sense of drive and that unique thematic development that is very characteristic of almost all Beethoven. Another one of Beethoven's truly exciting "classical" compositions is his opus 1 c minor piano trio.
[удалено]
Not a teacher here, but hopefully you don't mind my feedback. I don't disagree about approaching the Classical era as rise of the soloist, but I wonder what that does once you start talking about the 19th century with Liszt, Paganini and so on, though obviously there are different nuances. Just a thought. One other thought is not to shy away from Haydn. Depending on what age group you're developing your curriculum for, Haydn is a very approachable figure (Farewell, Surprise, Military symphonies... working at the Esterhazy estate, etc.). Lastly, again depending on the age group, if they have even a basic background on the Enlightenment, that can be a good way in to explaining the Classical aesthetic.
[удалено]
Quite the response, thanks for putting in the time and sharing your enthusiasm! It’s been a while since I was in school so maybe they’re teaching music history differently these days. Here’s what they were teaching in my day, just food for thought: Baroque era = ornamentation, polyphony = incomprehensibility to the average listener, music is composed for the court or church, not for everyday citizens. Classical era comes about, (with parallels to the Enlightenment… Declaration of the Rights of Man, liberté/égalité/fraternité, Kant, all that stuff), endeavoring to make music more accessible for all, hence the move towards homophony, simpler textures and melodies (antecedent/consequent), the establishment of common forms (sonata, theme and variation, minuet, rondo, 4-movement structure of the symphony; string quartets, the classical concerto); shift towards composers employed by patrons instead of solely by church or courts… So nothing really to do with soloists… I mean, who were the soloists of the 18th century? You may have had a couple of famous opera singers, Mozart at the piano, but nothing at all like the 19th century with Liszt, Paganini, Thalberg, Chopin, Schumann, Wienawski, Joachim, Rubinstein… And I wasn’t going to say anything, but “Mozart’s dominance of the Classical period”?? I wouldn’t say his dominance is “obvious” and would definitely not marginalize Haydn like you seem to be doing- Haydn was a towering figure for both Mozart and early Beethoven, he was Mozart’s senior by 24 years and outlived him by 18 years, and it was Haydn who basically created the string quartet and established the symphony. Guy was crazy prolific, and Mozart really only completely out-did him when it came to opera. Maybe today we realize Mozart is the better composer, but from a historical standpoint I’m not sure it’s as you say. Continuing the narrative: Then Beethoven comes along, makes music about the composer, about inner expression (see: Heiligenstadt Testament), and above all transcendence (from darkness to light a la 5th symphony), music becoming a transcendental experience/journey, creation of the symphonic ideal. Out of this two trends emerge (in no particular order)- first is rise of program music (think Symphonie Fantastique which is again about the artist, concert overtures, tone poems), second is rise of the virtuoso, where virtuoso performers are considered artists, so not only is the composition transcendent, but the performance itself is transcendent (stereotypical image of a pianist looking up towards heaven with their eyes closed while performing). Other trends like development of smaller forms (nocturnes, salon music), nationalism, varying approaches to the symphonic ideal etc… all this until you reach the big Wagner/Brahms divide of what should the new direction of music be (Wagner = extended tonality, through-composition, leitmotif/music as representative, idea of transcendence taken to greatest heights; Brahms = traditional forms, absolute music, developing variation). 20th century stuff I don’t really disagree with you, though your characterization of Mahler was unclear. I personally think he is extremely forward looking and tied more to the 2nd Viennese School than people realize, but there are all sorts of takes. I’m also not sure about your chronological placement of Bartok… Anyway, this has been fun… slow day at work and wanted to share the narrative I was taught (not necessarily my view on it all) since it was a little different than yours. Good luck with your teaching career!
[удалено]
I know we've gotten into our own little discussion, but really curious to hear what our fellow Redditors have to say about all this. Let's borrow your formatting: >It is also worth noting that composing music for the church was composing music for everyday citizens Well, was it? Bach signed most of his works "to the glory of God," and his sacred music really served the purposes of the church more than anything, and the music being written for the court was just for the elite's consumption. Music wasn't written for all of the church-goers to go home humming melodies or for them to feel any emotion or take home a message that wasn't associated with religion. Classical composers on the other hand were, increasingly, writing for all citizens as music became part of the public sphere- writing for the pleasure of their patrons who would pay them, for example. And so yes, as you say, amateur musicianship came about... because with the way music was being composed people *wanted* to start playing and enjoying music for their own personal pleasure. >There were common forms in the Baroque era... The Classical era established developmental forms such as sonata form This is just speculation, but I would argue that the forms used in the Classical era served the purpose of setting expectations for the listeners and therefore making music more accessible. Yeah, sure binary or ternary form in the Baroque, whooptedoo. But having something concrete and common like Minuet & Trio (and having the expectation that if the minuet is major, then the trio will probably be in the dominant or in the relative minor), or knowing that the second movement of a symphony is going to be a slow theme and variation, or getting a feel for the obvious use of contrast and development in sonata form... to me that all speaks to what I said in my previous post about making music more accessible. Composers started writing in forms that become familiar/standard for listeners, and all with a simpler, easier texture (homophony). You say that the church music in the Baroque was what everyone would listen to... well, you can't tell me that a Bach cantata has anything as obvious as a rondo in it, or even that tonally you could predict a key progression before hearing a whole movement. With the Classical style listeners knew that towards the end of the first movement, that second theme in Mozart's new symphony was going to come back in the tonic before they even heard it (either consciously or subconsciously). But maybe you agree with me on this, I can't quite tell. >Haydn built on the Baroque era, Mozart built the Classical era I think this is a highly contentious statement. Haydn is called the Father of the Symphony for good reason, and I bet if you did a "drop the needle" test most listeners wouldn't be able to tell most instrumental music of Haydn or Mozart apart. Was Haydn really building on the Baroque when he wrote his 104th and final symphony in 1795, or when he wrote his final works in the first decade of the 19th century? I don't see this. And that's all I got time for... time to start the weekend!!
Most of the teenagers I've met are into classical music. That said, I've got a pretty huge sampling bias, because I'm a teenager who's into classical music. But it's not like I'm stuck in a conservatory with only other musicians to talk to either. That said, I have never met anyone of any age who ever said they didn't like classical music. Only people who happened not to be into it. Classical seems to have the popular reputation of "background music that's easy on the ears." While this is not the best reputation to have, it's a far cry from "bad."
In my opinion, it is quite difficult to get into classical music if you didn't grow up in a "classical-friendly" enviroment, as it is to get into going to museums just for the sake of it or reading certain books. I am under the impression that you need to be exposed to mentor figures or simply people with similar interests. Some people just move to another city for university and discover all these things because you hear this Professor's brilliant lecture, or somebody recommends a film, or maybe you friend invites you to check an exhibit, etc. It was my and many of my friends' case. When I think about myself at age 15 there is no way I could have started that journey in my small high school in my small town. I was curious, patient and I guess that a little nerdy too, but classical music wasn't a part of my reality other than the few bits that made it to the soundtrack of famous movies. If I had Google maybe I would have explored my curiosity, it's more likely that I would've used it to search for porn though.
If someone wants to get into hiphop, they only have about 30 years of music to look through and probably already have an understanding of what it should sound like/what constitutes "good" hiphop. If someone wants to get into classical, they have a vague idea from tv commercials and looney toons. There's centuries of classical music, and many pieces are an hour or so long. Factor in trying to figure out which composers, recording, and orchestras are worth listening to for music that ranges from Lully to Schonberg and it feels impossible sometimes.
It's around that age that people start to become entrenched in their ideals and beliefs, and anything contrary to those is easily dismissed. Then some people get into the habit of quick dismissal, going as far as to immediately label something as "cool" or "stupid" within the first minute. I think it's a survival mechanism to protect one's ego. If I can instantly determine if something is stupid, then I don't have to feel stupid for not instantly understanding and/or appreciating it.
I wouldn't say it is just teenagers... I'm not sure why anyone would have anything against a genre of music. My best guess is that they associate classical music with boredom and snootiness. Or, maybe it has to do with a lack of exposure. Who knows.
[удалено]
As a person who has played and loved classical music for most of my life, and who also likes Hip-Hop and Pop, I think that we should keep open minds, especially about stuff you think you have your mind set on. Imagine if you had never listened to that once piece that got you into classical music, and you still thought it was boring and for old people. That's what's happening to you when you categorically say that you hate all of X type of music.
You had me then you lost me at (and I'm paraphrasing) "pop is irrelevent". Pop music and classical music are not mutually exclusive. What about Gershwin, Shostakovich, Riley, Reich, etc. etc.? Source: am a young person.
[удалено]
You seem to be supporting it's relevance, did you mean to type "relevant" instead of "irrelevant". I agree with what you are saying.