Originally posted by: OvErHeAtInG
I was struck right away how people associate classical music with a certain genre. Actually, the term refers to the classical period in Western music, which lasted for one century. If we turn to the
source of all info on anything in the Milky Way, we see that it lasted 90 years! :Q
So when someone says "modern classical," what do they mean? Each period, each culture, is characterized by certain artistic styles, but there are still different genres within each period. For part of Western history, there were really identifiable characteristics -- things like harmony, counterpoint, etc. were really "avant-garde" for this brief period, in the mid-eighteenth century. These technical details certainly don't fulfil the same capacity in today's culture as then -- they can just as easily be used in a cliched, boring manner. But a few centuries ago, they enabled the expression of all kinds of new sentiments and artistic ideas. It was of paramount importance to the culture, society, and consciousness of the time. And some recognized this at the time: Hegel said "The universal need for art... is man?s rational need to lift the inner and outer world into his spiritual consciousness as an object in which he recognizes again his own self."
There is really good music being made today, although it's hard to say if there are any geniuses of the caliber of WA Mozart. Today as 200 years ago, there is tons of really bad music, and some excellent music. And the disconnect between the good and the popular is not a new one either: a brief glance at the wiki article above indicates how Gluck and Antonio Salieri were really popular: "Their emphasis on accessibility was hugely successful in opera, and in vocal music more widely: songs, oratorios, and choruses. These were considered the most important kinds of music for performance, and hence enjoyed greatest success in the public estimation."
And yet, it's a terrible cliche, but: whose music do you know more; Salieri or Mozart?
It's not terribly surprising that most peple don't appreciate Mozart's music now, since most people didn't appreciate it in his own day. Even GWF Hegel, who held art in the highest regard as you can see from his quote above, kind of poo-poo'ed music; he was contemporary with Beethoven (they were the same age in fact), and yet Hegel never once mentioned Beethoven in any of his writings.
One other little thing in this terribly long rant. It's not a question of "liking" the music or not. It's a matter of appreciating it for what it is, for lack of a better word. Not everyone can appreciate it, and that's fine. But the question is, can you really understand the impact that it's had on people; can you understand-- and I mean, understand in your gut-- why some of the most powerful men in the world were reduced to tears the first time they heard "Freude, schoene Goetterfunken, Tochter aus Elysium" sung? It doesn't have to be to your "taste." I no longer like a lot of the garbage I listened to as a teenager, yet I remember and appreciate exactly why I liked it. There's a quality of sentiment that is achieved by each work of art, and it's that variety of aesthetic values that makes up what we call our civilization, or lack thereof. And if you prefer listening to music which makes you feel angry, or pimpin', or horny; as opposed to peaceful, or joyful, or compassionate: well then- you are making your own contribution to the culture we live in as much as the artist.