It is not affection for, but distaste towards, classical music that is elitist

[MarxSchmarx]

Classical music has an awful image problem among the working class. People who like it are frequently relegated to the "elitist" camp, those who are attached to a genre of music which the salt of the earth proles find too hard to understand. It is seen as hoity-toity, contemptible fodder for the ruling classes to show how they somehow have the mystical key that make them "our betters" Appreciation of classical music is derided as elitist, a bourgeois hold out, or worse.

I think this narrative must change. Classical music speaks to the soul in such an unpretentious, principled manner that only the most cynical elitist bourgeois hipster can deny.

Consider the following:
A4bUCMV2oCE

TBH I don't care if you substitute the 5th symphony or the nigh queen aria or whatever.

Now, if I had never studied music seriously, I'd be inclined to say that this melody captures the emotion of longing in a way that P-Diddy, Taylor Swift, hell even the genius of Johnny Cash, much less that Gangnam character, struggled to capture.

Why? Well, part of it is that it doesn't need clever lyrics to get the idea of how hard it is to struggle and fail for something you dream of. Look at how the key shifts in this work. You go from going on a certain trajectory of major keys, and shift to the minor all of a sudden. There is an obvious trend in the notes early on that is betrayed. It suggests aspirations, then disappointment. The trend is repeated again, and then never quite reaches where we think it will. The tempo is upbeat whilst also being incredibly sad. Who cares if it was some dead white guy who lived what, 400 years ago? This piece of music to me captures the idea of striving for the unattainable. Within the first minute, it is seek a solution, seek another solution, but never quite getting at it. Why? Struggling with that problem is apparent by the second minute of this composition. What an incredibly human response to 99% of the crap we have to deal with.

Yet, because I appreciate it for its ability to capture this very human emotion we all have, I am derided as an elitist?

So what exactly is the problem with classical music? Is it that it is too crude? That emotions are so obvious they are practically communicated without verbiage? That a select priesthood of modern music affectionados can deride and ridicule it for its simplistic assumptions - for its raw emotionalism?

That, comrades, is the definition of elitism in the arts that we must struggle against.

Classical music may have been produced for the entertainment of the ruling class (this too is questionable - as a historical fact most composers were ambivalent about their patrons) but so what if it was? Isn't modern music produced for the profit of the ruling class?

Thus I contend that dislike of classical music is a disease engendered by modern capitalist consumerist notions that ask us to elevate the aesthetic merit of that which raises the stock price of a record producer over that which speaks to us as humans. The view that classical music is elitist presupposes a capitalistic music industry which aims to dehumanize us as consumers. The true elitist is anybody who says that classical music is too crude, or too, gasp, emotional. These are people who would rather see the cold calculation of the chart hitlist drive human responses - an ideal that can only be explained by the contemporary profit motive.

TL;DR: you don't like classical music? You are scum.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Wow you really seem to feel strongly about this topic.

Personally I don't really care one way or another. I'm not particularly fond of classical music simply because most of the time it bores me and doesn't suit my short attention span

[The Disillusionist]

At first I thought this was a troll attempt, but then I saw that the OP has thousands of posts and an excellent reputation, so I guess it's just a ridiculous opinion. People like what they like, and usually after highschool people figure out that no one else really cares anymore what their musical taste says about them or what your musical taste says about you.

I'm into all kinds of music myself, but classical doesn't do much for me, unless it's mixed with metal, those two genres seem to go well together. But generally, classical is too clean and principled for me. I like more primal, chaotic music.

However, I will say that if you don't like traditional Arabic music, I don't understand you, because that stuff is just amazing.

[Rafiq]

Absolutely. One thing that working people find off putting about classical music is precisely the fact that they, in a paranoid sense, think there is a mystical element which they are simply unable to comprehend that rich snobs can. In reality, only the damned, the wretched and the exploited could ever properly understand Beethoven. I haven't met a non-radical in my life who has, I've heard all sorts of stupid interpretations attributing it to "insanity" or "his personal problems". Classical music can certainly be divided on class lines, though - Vivaldi, for example can be regarded as reactionary. We need a Marxist discipline that disallows the notion that the 'elite' have a monopoly over the arts. "Proletarian culture" without consciousness is the culture of exploitation and ignorance: it must be replaced, refined and tempered with positive revolutionary discipline.

[The Disillusionist]

Absolutely. One thing that working people find off putting about classical music is precisely the fact that they, in a paranoid sense, think there is a mystical element which they are simply unable to comprehend that rich snobs can. In reality, only the damned, the wretched and the exploited could ever properly understand Beethoven. I haven't met a non-radical in my life who has, I've heard all sorts of stupid interpretations attributing it to "insanity" or "his personal problems". Classical music can certainly be divided on class lines, though - Vivaldi, for example can be regarded as reactionary. We need a Marxist discipline that disallows the notion that the 'elite' have a monopoly over the arts. "Proletarian culture" without consciousness is the culture of exploitation and ignorance: it must be replaced, refined and tempered with positive revolutionary discipline.

This is absolutely ridiculous. So you like classical music. That's nice for you, but it's hardly the epitome of proletarian music as you so strangely suggest. Beethoven had a rough life due to his poor health, but like most classical musicians, he was a lap dog for the wealthy, never having to do any real labor beside writing music.

Second, music is just music. It makes you sad, it makes you happy, it makes you angry. But it's strange that you deny that there is some sort of "mystical element" to classical music and then claim that only certain classes can truly understand certain music, and that classical music can be divided along class lines. That's ridiculous. Sure, some classes might identify more with certain types of music based on culture and ideological preference, but that is hardly set in stone. In terms of who identifies with what music, I would guess that has much more to do with lyrics than actual musical quality anyway. Classical music was originally an elitist art because only rich people could afford to own their own musicians or go to fancy concerts. Then things changed, and everyone could got out and buy music to listen to for cheap, so classical music really stopped being anything other than nice sounding music.

[Illegalitarian]

I've always loved classical music, personally. My shitty car for whatever reason, back in high school, only picked up NPR's classical station... so I was kind of forced into loving it, I guess, but that's beside the point! :wub:

Rafiq has a rather serious point on this somewhat lighthearted subject, and this is something that ethnic minorities in the first world such as myself must come to understand when it comes to matters of culture.

My family moved off of the Piegan reservation in Montana two generations ago and there are some in my family who consider us to be "sellouts" for moving away for better opportunities, they say that my part of the family turned their back on our culture.

I know that many Latinos and African Americans who are lucky enough to make it out of the hood are also considered "sellouts" as well by many in the community, and this is a notion that has to be combated tooth and toenail.

It's not in our culture to be poor. Poverty has only been a part of our communities for the past 150-200 years, for thousands of years before that we had something to be proud of, rich, vibrant societies, even.

Of course, we should not long for the days of tribal theocracy, but that part of who we are as a people must not be forgotten lest we fall into the pit of self-hating internalized racism that so many tend to fall in to.

[Illegalitarian]

This is absolutely ridiculous. So you like classical music. That's nice for you, but it's hardly the epitome of proletarian music as you so strangely suggest. Beethoven had a rough life due to his poor health, but like most classical musicians, he was a lap dog for the wealthy, never having to do any real labor beside writing music.

Second, music is just music. It makes you sad, it makes you happy, it makes you angry. But it's strange that you deny that there is some sort of "mystical element" to classical music and then claim that only certain classes can truly understand certain music, and that classical music can be divided along class lines. That's ridiculous. Sure, some classes might identify more with certain types of music based on culture and ideological preference, but that is hardly set in stone. In terms of who identifies with what music, I would guess that has much more to do with lyrics than actual musical quality anyway. Classical music was originally an elitist art because only rich people could afford to own their own musicians or go to fancy concerts. Then things changed, and everyone could got out and buy music to listen to for cheap, so classical music really stopped being anything other than nice sounding music.

This is just idealist nonsense, most things are divided among class lines and can only truly be experienced by certain classes. That's just reality.

[consuming negativity]

beethoven and the rest were like rock stars in their time. that's what everybody listened to back in the day. and i mean shit, look at jazz; it was pretty much the epitome of prole music if there ever was such a thing, and it was also the most technically demanding music there's pretty much ever been. so yeah, you're right that instrumental music is good and not at all high brow unless you want it to be.

but at the same time, people who listen to it nowadays are often doing so while snubbing their nose and acting all superior. want proof? look at your own post. it comes off as snotty and condescending. you fucking ended it with "if you don't like classical music, you are scum". i mean, how much more prolier-than-thou could you get? and you did that in the same post where you're saying you're not being an elitist. like lol, okay man :rolleyes:

[The Disillusionist]

This is just idealist nonsense, most things are divided among class lines and can only truly be experienced by certain classes. That's just reality.

Absolutely not. We all have the same sensory organs and roughly the same cognitive mechanisms for those senses. Virtually everyone can fully experience everything that everyone else can. Interpretation of that experience is what varies, and it's ridiculous to think that the understanding of something as vague as music would be aligned with any significance along class lines. Music, especially music without lyrics, can have multiple meanings to multiple listeners, and none of those meanings will be any truer than the others. To claim that you know some secret, a secret that only certain people can access, to the truest understanding of the music of a guy who died before any of us were born is absolutely elitist.

Overall, it is not elitist to like or dislike music, it's elitist to claim intellectual authority over music that isn't your own.

[Sabot Cat]

Not popular with the working class? Quite the contrary: orchestral music that primarily rely on their arrangements to convey emotion have never been more popular in human history.

From video games,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bytvxk97kzY

to movies,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8

we have such an infatuation that we fill almost every crevice of our entertainment with it. People often don't sit down and enjoy classical music anymore because they feel like they're entitled to more, because we've progressed in our ability to give more as artists.

So I don't necessarily reject the premise of your post, but I certainly don't understand it as the full truth on the matter.

[Lily Briscoe]

Classical music just sounds like men in powdered wigs with faces paralyzed from Botox.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Classical music has an awful image problem among the working class. People who like it are frequently relegated to the "elitist" camp, those who are attached to a genre of music which the salt of the earth proles find too hard to understand. It is seen as hoity-toity, contemptible fodder for the ruling classes to show how they somehow have the mystical key that make them "our betters" Appreciation of classical music is derided as elitist, a bourgeois hold out, or worse.

Is this really the case, though? Here, at least, I have met a lot of proles who appreciate classical music. In fact, I would say that the vast majority of the proletarians I have met enjoy some classical music. Likewise, when I go to the threatre, I would guess that most of the people in the audience (I haven't actually checked, and they could be petit-bourgeois on the weekends, who knows) are proletarians - there are much less obviously, ostentatiously rich types than one would assume - and the stereotypical impoverished students.

In fact, if any sort of music is associated with our bourgeoisie, it would be the ear-grating turbofolk genre that thankfully seems to be contained in this geographic region and is not spreading.

I think many people make the mistake of equating the progressive bourgeoisie of the time of Verdi, for example, with their sad modern descendants, whose cultural as well as political level has gone down immensely.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

TL;DR: you don't like classical music? You are scum.
Dismissing people as "scum" because they don't like classical music makes you a bit of an asshole, to be honest.

[Futility Personified]

My favourite overture is the car horn from caddyshack. So emancipatory!

Seriously though, lots of people enjoy classical music and other things that might be considered 'high art'. The top 40 chart music is more than anything a tool of social cohesion for the meat markets, cut price ear worms that mostly the younger generations like in lieu of marking yourself as having different taste. Those who actually have a passion for music will like whatever they want.

[IDrinkYourMilkshake]

beethoven and the rest were like rock stars in their time. that's what everybody listened to back in the day. and i mean shit, look at jazz; it was pretty much the epitome of prole music if there ever was such a thing, and it was also the most technically demanding music there's pretty much ever been. so yeah, you're right that instrumental music is good and not at all high brow unless you want it to be.

Kinda. Its difficult to imagine now that we have almost any piece of music available to us at the push of a button, but back in the day its probable that people may only hear their favourite piece of music a handful of times in their entire lives. You're right about jazz, though. Although even then the popularisation of jazz was helped along by the increase in mass media (radio, in particular) and how music was produced, marketed and sold... and that it was great, of course.

Image has a huuuuuge impact on how music is consumed by a lot of people. Same with anything, really. It's mostly based on individual perception, but there are generalisations out there. Unfortunately it is often the generalisations shape perception. Which is why advertising works.

I like classical music. It can be every bit as powerful as anything by the Clash or Public Enemy or whoever.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Yet, because I appreciate it for its ability to capture this very human emotion we all have, I am derided as an elitist?

[...]

TL;DR: you don't like classical music? You are scum.
Who exactly are you talking to with this post? Are you saying that people on this forum would call you an 'elitist' due to your music tastes (and seriously mean it)? Are you saying that people who don't get the same sorts of pleasure as you from certain styles of music are literally beneath you?

[RedAnarchist]

I like some classical music, plus a lot of music I listen to is "soundtrack" type music which is similar, although I generally like some of most genres of music without having any one big favourite. I don't see classical music as being "off-limits" to the working class, because it's something many workers enjoy.

I also remember, back in primary school (ages 4-11), we would have assemblies in the morning, and one of the teachers would often play classical music whilst everyone was coming into the assembly hall, and everyone who went to that school was from a working class family.

[Rafiq]

Absolutely not. We all have the same sensory organs and roughly the same cognitive mechanisms for those senses. Virtually everyone can fully experience everything that everyone else can. Interpretation of that experience is what varies, and it's ridiculous to think that the understanding of something as vague as music would be aligned with any significance along class lines.

And apparently, any kind of paradigm of variation as far as experience goes is impossible. Drawing any sort of pattern is impossible - every "individual" is different and therefore, every "individual's" different experiences, which are all just as different from each other, will see to a different interpretation... We can then therefore draw the conclusion that class does not exist. Our society is composed of individual actors who have their own distinct individual interests. Everyone's just trying to get ahead in the game. Capitalists then are simply individuals who got ahead, not a distinct class who constitute a distinct relationship to the process of production...

I'm absolutely baffled that somehow, the fact that we all have the same sensory organs means we all experience the same thing. The conclusion we can draw from this is that we are all biologically similar. Lantz is trying to say that experience is the same for everyone - because everyone has the same mechanisms of experience (sensory organs). Therefore, our experiences, and how we interpret things are a matter of biology and/or genetics.

Except if this were true, we would be living in a hell on Earth. Lantz denies the existence of ideology and attributes interpretation to the creative mechanisms of the unique "individual". Excuse me while I vomit. I don't even know if I should even bother with this. Something tells me that users are able to recognize why this is utterly and absolutely wrong, at this point. Yes music can be divided on class lines, yes music is divided on class lines.

The point isn't that people are hearing different patterns of sound, or that people are hearing sound waves, Lantz. This is the hallmark of ideological zealotry, everyone: To Lantz, the bourgeois-liberal ideological universe can be justified by nature. In other words, the bourgeois liberal ideological universe to Lantz constitutes an objective reality - it's the same logic that prompts many to attribute problems relative to capitalism, to human nature. Variation in interpretation is wholly ideological. Beethoven's is the music of struggle, his music is violent and chaotic. You want to attribute this to his "personal problems" - but what exactly were his personal problems? The man absolutely despised the aristocracy and the remnants of the feudal order rendered him unable to pursue his love interest successfully. Before Beethoven, classical music conveyed harmonic rhythms and melodies, they were pleasing to the ear. They were explicitly ruling class - in the sense that they expressed submission and feelings of beauty toward the social order of things. No one really gives a fuck as to whether you like classical music. The point is that dismissing classical music along the lines of it being "elitist" is wrong. Not because our preferences are so precious by merit of us being "unique" individuals, but because classical music is not inherently elitist. That isn't to say elitist music does not exist at all. I really can't fucking believe that this is an argument:


Second, music is just music. It makes you sad, it makes you happy, it makes you angry. But it's strange that you deny that there is some sort of "mystical element" to classical music and then claim that only certain classes can truly understand certain music, and that classical music can be divided along class lines

Music is just music? What disgusting infantile ignorance. I would expect better from a child really, yes only certain classes can understand certain music. No one makes the argument that these classes are equipped with more refined sensory organs which allow them to pick up hidden sound waves - but that the sentiment, the meaning and the fervor of Beethoven could only be properly understood by a radical. And yes, there are experiences shared in common by all members of the working classes that is identifiable and distinct. Music is not, has never been, and never will be "just music" - it has higher and deeper implications. You yourself claim that variation in interpretation cannot be attributed to "sensory" organs alone - so what the fuck is it attributed to, Lantz?


I would guess that has much more to do with lyrics than actual musical quality anyway.
[...]
Music, especially music without lyrics, can have multiple meanings to multiple listeners, and none of those meanings will be any truer than the others.


We still have no explanation for what prompts this variation in interpenetration - what we have is the complete trivialization of meaning and sentiment conveyed by music, replaced by bare bones "lyrics". Music is, to Lantz, exactly what it claims to be, and this is how preferences are formed. Any idiot can know that lyrics are always secondary, lyrics serve to add to the melody, to the overall sound. If they contain impactful lyrics, this can only be significant if the first criteria is met for people. Lantz, I don't care about "what you guess". Tell me, what prompts you to make this guess? I'm eager for an explanation.

Lantz's understanding of music is the same understanding ruling class ideologues have of politics (the ABSENCE of). You have a fixed standard for "objective reality", which presumes ideology not to be ideology at all, but a matter of human nature. Music then, as an art - is reduced to mere personal preferences, the notion of free choice is exalted simply because it is conceived that our choices exist in a vacuum because we live in such a "free society". Music, to them "makes you happy, it makes you sad" - there is nothing more to it. Our preferences for music are comparable to choosing which flavor of ice cream we want. Well, sorry, Lantz - the self-professed "anarchist" - we radicals are not concerned with choosing what flavor we want. For a radical, the true struggle is deciding to, true freedom is to choose to burn down the shop.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I'm pretty sure classical music is still just the snobby nerds' version of metal covers of music from Megaman.

Like, joking/not joking.

I have nothing at all against epic instrumental music - but what sort of resources does it take to make? Do most proletarian communities and organizations have the capacity to or interest in fielding an orchestra?

I think an important qualification for proletarian culture ought to be the question of whether or not it can be produced autonomously by real proletarians. Lots of young workers have access to the materials to put together a hip-hop mix tape, or a four-piece bass-drums-guitar-guitar band, or . . .

That's not to say that a proletarian orchestra is impossible, or even necessarily undesirable in the longer view. It just seems wildly out of touch with real conditions. Something like the cultural equivalent of the mistake made by some '70s urban guerrillas - the high degree of specialization and resources necessary constituted a real limit on popular participation.

[Lord Testicles]

I think an important qualification for proletarian culture ought to be the question of whether or not it can be produced autonomously by real proletarians. Lots of young workers have access to the materials to put together a hip-hop mix tape, or a four-piece bass-drums-guitar-guitar band, or . . .

That's not to say that a proletarian orchestra is impossible, or even necessarily undesirable in the longer view. It just seems wildly out of touch with real conditions.

Real conditions where though?

In the city I currently live in there is a community Orchestra, which anyone is welcome to join and for some reason I imagine it isn't entirely comprised of the local bourgeoisie.

[motion denied]

JFMzHv_zRo0
Poor working class youth.

Just because it's produced by proletarians, "autonomously" (let's pretend it's not a market niche too), it doesn't mean it's not complete shite. I'll rake the elitist music anyday.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

JFMzHv_zRo0
Poor working class youth.

Just because it's produced by proletarians, "autonomously" (let's pretend it's not a market niche too), it doesn't mean it's not complete shite. I'll rake the elitist music anyday.

Note the list of corporate sponsorships at the beginning of the video.
I think it falls something short of my criteria for "autonomous".

Similarly, as regards the previous post (Skinz's), while I may be mistaken, and there may be a real autonomous community orchestra in your city, I suspect this is not the case. Initiatives by the state aimed at directing cultural production toward certain "acceptable" ends (eg Don't write graf, play oboe!) would, again, fall outside of what I would think of as autonomous.

What I'm interested in, culturewise, is production directed by working class people using the materials they are able to organize from what is on hand and widely available without turning to existing institutions of the ruling class.

Again, as per my above post, I'm not saying this couldn't include an orchestra (as, maybe in Skinz's case it may), but it doesn't tend to. I recognize the limit to this sort of generalization. We can say that working class people don't tend to favour $6 grande soy lattes, and the spaces created and used by working class people and their organizations are more likely to serve something you just call "coffee" with no further adjectives. That's not to say no working class people like fancy coffee, or that working class organizations never meet in, for example, fair-trade co-op cafes with pricey options. But there are real tensions there that need to be explored and grappled with.

[Lord Testicles]

Similarly, as regards the previous post (Skinz's), while I may be mistaken, and there may be a real autonomous community orchestra in your city, I suspect this is not the case.


I honestly couldn't tell you how autonomous these community orchestras are but from what I can tell they aren't supported by the state and there are no obvious sponsors.

http://www.amateurorchestras.org.uk/owales.htm


(http://www.amateurorchestras.org.uk/owales.htm)I think culture and location has a lot to do with this. For example Britain has had a history of brass bands made up from local workers which other countries might not have.

(http://www.amateurorchestras.org.uk/owales.htm)

Many UK bands were originally either works bands, or sponsored by various industrial concerns. This was particularly evident in coal mining areas, such as the Grimethorpe Colliery Band and Carlton Main Frickley Colliery Band, in Yorkshire and Tredegar Town Band in the South Wales Valleys
[...]
One of the reasons for this was to keep the workers from organizing in radical groups.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_brass_band#History

[Rafiq]

I think an important qualification for proletarian culture ought to be the question of whether or not it can be produced autonomously by real proletarians. Lots of young workers have access to the materials to put together a hip-hop mix tape, or a four-piece bass-drums-guitar-guitar band, or . . .


So if some proletarian communities have a lack of access to education - as they did in the 19th century, does this make ignorance part of proletarian culture? The point isn't that proletarians ought to celebrate that which they can compile which is at their disposal alone - the point is to MAKE these things at their disposal - to make it so they can produce it "autonomously" (whatever that means).

[The Disillusionist]

And apparently, any kind of paradigm of variation as far as experience goes is impossible. Drawing any sort of pattern is impossible - every "individual" is different and therefore, every "individual's" different experiences, which are all just as different from each other, will see to a different interpretation... We can then therefore draw the conclusion that class does not exist. Our society is composed of individual actors who have their own distinct individual interests. Everyone's just trying to get ahead in the game. Capitalists then are simply individuals who got ahead, not a distinct class who constitute a distinct relationship to the process of production...

I'm absolutely baffled that somehow, the fact that we all have the same sensory organs means we all experience the same thing. The conclusion we can draw from this is that we are all biologically similar. Lantz is trying to say that experience is the same for everyone - because everyone has the same mechanisms of experience (sensory organs). Therefore, our experiences, and how we interpret things are a matter of biology and/or genetics.

Except if this were true, we would be living in a hell on Earth. Lantz denies the existence of ideology and attributes interpretation to the creative mechanisms of the unique "individual". Excuse me while I vomit. I don't even know if I should even bother with this. Something tells me that users are able to recognize why this is utterly and absolutely wrong, at this point. Yes music can be divided on class lines, yes music is divided on class lines.

The point isn't that people are hearing different patterns of sound, or that people are hearing sound waves, Lantz. This is the hallmark of ideological zealotry, everyone: To Lantz, the bourgeois-liberal ideological universe can be justified by nature. In other words, the bourgeois liberal ideological universe to Lantz constitutes an objective reality - it's the same logic that prompts many to attribute problems relative to capitalism, to human nature. Variation in interpretation is wholly ideological. Beethoven's is the music of struggle, his music is violent and chaotic. You want to attribute this to his "personal problems" - but what exactly were his personal problems? The man absolutely despised the aristocracy and the remnants of the feudal order rendered him unable to pursue his love interest successfully. Before Beethoven, classical music conveyed harmonic rhythms and melodies, they were pleasing to the ear. They were explicitly ruling class - in the sense that they expressed submission and feelings of beauty toward the social order of things. No one really gives a fuck as to whether you like classical music. The point is that dismissing classical music along the lines of it being "elitist" is wrong. Not because our preferences are so precious by merit of us being "unique" individuals, but because classical music is not inherently elitist. That isn't to say elitist music does not exist at all. I really can't fucking believe that this is an argument:



Music is just music? What disgusting infantile ignorance. I would expect better from a child really, yes only certain classes can understand certain music. No one makes the argument that these classes are equipped with more refined sensory organs which allow them to pick up hidden sound waves - but that the sentiment, the meaning and the fervor of Beethoven could only be properly understood by a radical. And yes, there are experiences shared in common by all members of the working classes that is identifiable and distinct. Music is not, has never been, and never will be "just music" - it has higher and deeper implications. You yourself claim that variation in interpretation cannot be attributed to "sensory" organs alone - so what the fuck is it attributed to, Lantz?



We still have no explanation for what prompts this variation in interpenetration - what we have is the complete trivialization of meaning and sentiment conveyed by music, replaced by bare bones "lyrics". Music is, to Lantz, exactly what it claims to be, and this is how preferences are formed. Any idiot can know that lyrics are always secondary, lyrics serve to add to the melody, to the overall sound. If they contain impactful lyrics, this can only be significant if the first criteria is met for people. Lantz, I don't care about "what you guess". Tell me, what prompts you to make this guess? I'm eager for an explanation.

Lantz's understanding of music is the same understanding ruling class ideologues have of politics (the ABSENCE of). You have a fixed standard for "objective reality", which presumes ideology not to be ideology at all, but a matter of human nature. Music then, as an art - is reduced to mere personal preferences, the notion of free choice is exalted simply because it is conceived that our choices exist in a vacuum because we live in such a "free society". Music, to them "makes you happy, it makes you sad" - there is nothing more to it. Our preferences for music are comparable to choosing which flavor of ice cream we want. Well, sorry, Lantz - the self-professed "anarchist" - we radicals are not concerned with choosing what flavor we want. For a radical, the true struggle is deciding to, true freedom is to choose to burn down the shop.

Reread my post, and pay a little more attention to what I said regarding interpretation. Nothing in this response has anything really to do with what I said, and the majority of the response is just restating stuff that I already said doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

But, I'll humor you I guess. The attempt to link my ideas with the "bourgeois-liberal" universe is cute...

I never said that class doesn't exist. I have no idea how you got to that point from my statement that everyone is capable of experiencing music equally, that is insane... This is the kind of ridiculous radical-materialist thinking that doesn't go anywhere. Music is not directly analogous to the class system. You might as well be saying the same thing about toothpaste types... "Only the proletariat can truly experience the sparkling shine of baking soda and water! Only a primitivist can truly appreciate the joy of eating an apple, nature's toothbrush."

I don't consider classical music to be elitist, although this thread has convinced me that its listeners, or at least its more devoted listeners, might tend to be.

This fourth paragraph is entirely just baseless speculation to support your own views, and it ignores so much context in its narrow approach that it's hardly even addressable. Beethoven's music is Beethoven's music, it sounds nice, and you might personally associate it with the struggle of the proletariat, but objectively, it has very little to do with any of that.

I love how so many people like to scream ignorance and naivete at anyone they don't agree with. It''s like hearing, "Santa lives on the SOUTH POLE, not the North Pole. Only a naive child would believe otherwise." The rest of this fifth paragraph is just narrow minded, ungrounded elitism. As I said before, but someone didn't bother to actually read, it is ridiculous to think that a class of people could claim an absolute monopoly on the understanding of something.

I'll repeat, music is emotional. Everyone hears the same music, and tends to feel the same things when listening to music, but music means nothing but what the listener thinks it does. Only language, in the form of lyrics, has any real, concrete meaning.

Final paragraphy: More nonsense that completely ignores any nuance in my original post in favor of calling me a bourgeoisie again. Music IS primarily a personal preference (though lyrics can play a part), any notion otherwise is most likely elitist self-aggrandizement.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I honestly couldn't tell you how autonomous these community orchestras are but from what I can tell they aren't supported by the state and there are no obvious sponsors.

http://www.amateurorchestras.org.uk/owales.htm


(http://www.amateurorchestras.org.uk/owales.htm)I think culture and location has a lot to do with this. For example Britain has had a history of brass bands made up from local workers which other countries might not have.

(http://www.amateurorchestras.org.uk/owales.htm)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_brass_band#History

Well! In this instance I undeniably stand corrected!
Very interesting!


So if some proletarian communities have a lack of access to education - as they did in the 19th century, does this make ignorance part of proletarian culture? The point isn't that proletarians ought to celebrate that which they can compile which is at their disposal alone - the point is to MAKE these things at their disposal - to make it so they can produce it "autonomously" (whatever that means).

I think education is actually a fantastic example, because it's a real site of struggle. Like, let's really get at this - we can't talk about "education" generically as though it's all one thing. For example, the mis-education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mis-Education_of_the_Negro) provided by the bourgeois state is hardly a boon - it serves primarily to organize the working class into a (racialized, gendered) hierarchy of labour and to reproduce capitalist ideology, historical revisionism, etc. What we need to look to is the means of education which working class people can and have crafted for themselves, against the state and capital. The answer to proletarian "ignorance" (ignorance of what?) is not the sophisticated ignorance fostered in schools - it's the self-organized and emancipatory pedagogy of the oppressed!

[GiantMonkeyMan]

And apparently, any kind of paradigm of variation as far as experience goes is impossible. Drawing any sort of pattern is impossible - every "individual" is different and therefore, every "individual's" different experiences, which are all just as different from each other, will see to a different interpretation... We can then therefore draw the conclusion that class does not exist. Our society is composed of individual actors who have their own distinct individual interests. Everyone's just trying to get ahead in the game. Capitalists then are simply individuals who got ahead, not a distinct class who constitute a distinct relationship to the process of production...

I'm absolutely baffled that somehow, the fact that we all have the same sensory organs means we all experience the same thing. The conclusion we can draw from this is that we are all biologically similar. Lantz is trying to say that experience is the same for everyone - because everyone has the same mechanisms of experience (sensory organs). Therefore, our experiences, and how we interpret things are a matter of biology and/or genetics.

Except if this were true, we would be living in a hell on Earth.
You're making so many logical leaps here that you might as well be doing philosophical parkour.

[Rosa Partizan]

have you noticed that a lot of people who listen to "sophisticated" and technically ambitious metal music would also have a weak spot for the classical stuff?

[Hit The North]

The division between the classical and popular repertoire, where opera and orchestral music becomes the preserve of an elite whilst popular music becomes a commodity sold to mass consumer markets is an invention of the 20th century. Partly it is a result of the enormous boost given to industrialised popular music by the invention of recorded sound and partly it is the result of 'serious' music abandoning the populist stage and engaging in avant-garde trends like serialism, which makes music interesting on a theoretical level but often obscure and un-listen-able. The 19th century Italian opera, for instance, was enormously popular; as was the Austrian and German opera, which was often cannibalised and re-translated (sometimes lampooned) for more affordable working-class theatres.

Cultural tastes are undoubtedly subject to class forces. Pierre Bourdieu's monumental empirical study on the tastes of various classes in French society, Distinction, provides enough supporting evidence.

A sociological study conducted in Britain in the 1990s, indicated that consumption of culture differs across the population in a number of ways, a key division being one between 'omnivores', who consume a wide spectrum of culture, and 'univores', who consume a narrow range of culture. Levels of education, rather than social class, was seen to be the key variable here - but as education and class map closely together, we can assume class is a contributing factor. But the division established in the 20th century between 'high' and 'low' cultures appears to be losing currency.

Back in the 1960s the sons and daughters of the British upper classes were tutored almost exclusively in high, classical culture and were almost completely ighnorant of what was happening in popular culture. Now, in the second decade of the 21st century, half of these fuckers are in bands while the rest of them are running the music industry. The same is true in acting and comedy. The proportion of persons from a private school background has increased greatly. In the 1960s, most up and coming British actors and comedians were working class. Now, 50 years later, most of them have been to elite schools and washed up at Oxford University.

So the ruling class have gone from fencing off the classical repertoire for their own exclusive enjoyment and symbolic cache, to colonising popular culture, which has become another field where those individuals with the right cultural and social capital can enrich themselves.

[Creative Destruction]

Classical music has an awful image problem among the working class. People who like it are frequently relegated to the "elitist" camp, those who are attached to a genre of music which the salt of the earth proles find too hard to understand. It is seen as hoity-toity, contemptible fodder for the ruling classes to show how they somehow have the mystical key that make them "our betters" Appreciation of classical music is derided as elitist, a bourgeois hold out, or worse.

I don't know how much of this is true. Where I grew up, there was an immense appreciation of classical music in the working class. It wasn't unusual to hear Mozart being played right after Hank, Sr. I remember when I was doing warehouse work, we'd often have the classical station on and people would do pop quizzes on who they thought the composer was that was currently on. Specifically, I remember that a couple of guys almost went to fists over Vivaldi and Bach... which I think had more to do with lingering resentments over something else, but it was interesting that that was the "straw," so to speak.

I did notice, though, that some of the motivation to listen to classical music was, in part, racial. Which was kind of frightening. But, I dunno. I didn't get the impression that it was shunned at all. At worst, it wasn't really thought about or ignored. I think, more than anyone, Aaron Copland was largely responsible for bringing "classical" to the masses (I've always been confused as to whether you could call it "classical" rather than just referring to it as symphonic or orchestral music.)

[Rafiq]

I never said that class doesn't exist. I have no idea how you got to that point from my statement that everyone is capable of experiencing music equally, that is insane... This is the kind of ridiculous radical-materialist thinking that doesn't go anywhere. Music is not directly analogous to the class system. You might as well be saying the same thing about toothpaste types... "Only the proletariat can truly experience the sparkling shine of baking soda and water! Only a primitivist can truly appreciate the joy of eating an apple, nature's toothbrush."

Everyone is not capable of experiencing music equally simply because experience is more than the internalization of the same sound waves. Every idiot should know this well. I'm so sick of having to re-state my points. Fuck your ego, you're utterly wrong, if that hurts your feelings or your sense of self confidence, stop posting and go see a therapist. Honestly, I am shocked at this level of ignorance. "Music is not analogous to the class system"? WHAT? This could only ever induce a headache. This kind of eccentric, inconsistent and nonsensical shit. No one claims music is "analogous" to the "class system". The "class system" is not some kind of fucking intellectual abstraction by which we REDUCE society to, or something that society exists independent of - society is COMPOSED of different classes, different individuals who are organized into groups who have DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS to the process of production, and of survival. Even your MOCKERY reveals your utterly depraved philistinism, as if the proletariat - a real existing class whose identity is continually and actively reinforced, is compared to "primitivists". It's utterly schizophrenic.

The first confusion comes from the fact that - no, Beethoven's music was not 'proletarian' and proletarian ideology did not exist during the time. But music WAS divided on class lines, every MORON knows this - Beethoven's music represented the FERVOR, the sentiment, the EMOTION (if you will) of the struggles of the revolutionary bourgeoisie - whilst vivaldi's music was of the old aristocracy. This is ANALOGOUS today for any radical proletarian as Beethoven's music is the music of struggle. Yes music can be divided on class lines, and here's a fucking tip: It might appear otherwise because today music is overwhelmingly ideologically homogeneous (with exceptions, of course)! No one is claiming that there is this vast conspiracy in which music artists are expressing propaganda, OR that listening to popular music makes you a dirty counter-revolutioanry. The point is that there does not exist a social movement to abolish the present state of things, there is no real proletarian movement - this is why "revolutionary" music today is confined to shitty edgy punk garbage.

In contrast to Beethoven, whose symphonies coincided with one of the most often cited examples of a revolutionary period in history. For fuck's sake, the denial here is absolutely shocking: I cannot believe someone could deny the association of Beethoven's music with the revolutionary bourgeoisie. Nonsense!

Music is made by real individuals, real people who are part of the real process that is capitalist production. Art is not exempt from class - more specifically, from ideology - sorry kiddo, you've got a lot to learn. This is probably why you think Marxism is "outdated". You are utterly ignorant of what marxism is, besides some kind of proposed abstraction about reality that is divorced from what you view as "actual" reality - different individuals with different tastes bestowed with the sacred gift of free choice.

What a buffoon I must look like arguing with you. I am absolutely disgusted with myself that I would lower my standards here.


This fourth paragraph is entirely just baseless speculation to support your own views, and it ignores so much context in its narrow approach that it's hardly even addressable. Beethoven's music is Beethoven's music, it sounds nice, and you might personally associate it with the struggle of the proletariat, but objectively, it has very little to do with any of that.


"Objectively" Beethoven's music is a bunch of sound waves and patterns of rhythm with absolutely no meaning. What the fuck do you mean by "objective"? What constitutes as objective, besides a reality which is utterly independent of our consciousness? The error here is the presumption that subjectivity can only be reduced to "individual interpretation". THAT is what I'm attacking! What constitutes personal interpenetration? Why do different individuals interpret things differently? What are the mechanisms of this difference, and what conclusions can we draw from it? Nothing according to you, because in the background of all of this we have a religious-like portrayal of a world of individuals whose decisions and choices are irreducibly a product of their soul. People and individuals are not outside of ideology. You cannot be outside ideology. Yes experience, most especially this kind of allegedly trivial 'emotional' experiences - these are all subordinate to ideology. You reject this because you think there is some kind of political-moral connotation with ideology - but we're speaking strictly scientifically, we are not engaging in a political discussion.

I can even take your blatant garbage and tie it to the fact that - yes, there is truth in it. Not that what you say is true, but that it is true in the sense that it is contextual. Your line of thinking is pretty common - stemming from de-industrialization and the focus of consumer goods on individual identities.


it is ridiculous to think that a class of people could claim an absolute monopoly on the understanding of something.


But that is EXACTLY the function of the ruling class - nothing that exists is independent of ideology, and ideology is indicative of some kind of class interest. You would then claim "How would this function, then?" - it is functioning through you, Lantz. Ideology functions by suppressing the mechanisms of recognizing itself as ideology. Ideology becomes legitimate when it no longer perceives itself as ideology - this is how the state apparatus forms. Welcome to 2014, where Marxist theory has rapidly advanced since Marx's death.


I'll repeat, music is emotional. Everyone hears the same music, and tends to feel the same things when listening to music


Is this by merit of the music alone, or the fact that there may be something "everyone", according to you, has in common as far as their ideological universe is concerned? (!!!) Because no, there is music that I absolutely distaste, that provokes euphoric feelings of happiness and so on in others. There is music that has absolutely no effect on me that makes others sad. There is music I find beautiful that leaves others scratching their heads. What the fuck are you even saying? You are also ignoring variation as far as different social epochs are concerned. For societies which are culturally different - culturally not within capitalism, it is almost impossible for us to conceptualize their music. Relativists like to attribute this to a vast array of complex cultural differences, but it is more than that. These societies are composed of completely different relationships to production, which are responsible for these cultural differences in the first place. This alone completely and utterly destroys your claims.


music means nothing but what the listener thinks it does. Only language, in the form of lyrics, has any real, concrete meaning.

This is just blatantly wrong. Just blatantly, utterly fucking wrong. It speaks volumes of ignorance - and IDEALISM. Why are lyrics given meaning, but not the music itself in a concrete way? Because only the INTENTION of the artist, in your mind, gives the art meaning. This is IDEALIST and utterly ignorant - but even then, it completely ignores how artists go to great lengths to convey meaning through melody, through rhythm and so on. Meaning is more than the self-profession or intention of the artist! Music only means what the listener thinks it does, you claim: WHAT MECHANISMS allow the listener to form the meaning that she/he does? Pure free choice or free will, Lantz? Fucking god. Music DOES have an objective meaning because it tries to EXPRESS objective reality, or objectively existing things. The process of INTERPRETATION itself is real, rational and explicable - it therefore has MEANING. Humans are not exempt from this. Fascism is not meaningless - Fascism is not irrational, it is REAL and represents REAL social phenomena. Humans aren't concerned with objective truth. We are not biologically equipped with the mechanisms of objective truth, this is something that requires discipline. To suggest that music exists independent of the reproduction of our lives, and or lively experience, is preposterous.


You're making so many logical leaps here that you might as well be doing philosophical parkour.


I'm making "so many" logical leaps is that there is only one? Don't give me this garbage one liner - explain. I didn't think I needed to explain that it would be hell on Earth because this should be obvious. if experience was so varied between individuals (there are 7 billion people on Earth), there would be no coherent social organization, there would be no societies, just a bunch of people running around flailing their arms in confusion of the utter ridiculousness of reality. The very fact that humans are social animals means that variation in experience, and perspective goes beyond simple "individual interests" divorced from the interests of a class collective. Language (ideology, mechanisms of interpretation, or drawing 'meaning') does not form because of "individual" isolated interests, but the summation of individual interests, interests in common.

That was my fucking point.

I swear, day by day I keep thinking that the previous arguments I have engaged, no matter how intense in are more and more fruitful and I become more and more sympathetic to my previous opponents. At least they didn't say this shit ( In reference to Lantz).

[Redistribute the Rep]

Mozart died penniless. Definitely not 'elite'. There were classical composers who wrote from working class backgrounds

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Not popular with the working class? Quite the contrary: orchestral music that primarily rely on their arrangements to convey emotion have never been more popular in human history.

From video games,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bytvxk97kzY

to movies,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8

we have such an infatuation that we fill almost every crevice of our entertainment with it. People often don't sit down and enjoy classical music anymore because they feel like they're entitled to more, because we've progressed in our ability to give more as artists.

So I don't necessarily reject the premise of your post, but I certainly don't understand it as the full truth on the matter.
I don't quite agree with your conclusions here, Sabot. It assumes a sort of spontaneity of decision making from the part of the audience to consciously enjoy classical music as it is produced within another medium that simply doesn't exist. Classical music isn't put in film because it is popular but because it serves the same purpose in film making as an establishment shot or a writer falling back on clichés to progress a plot - it's part of the mechanisms of production that ensures that nothing is produced or sanctioned that would differ from what the executive authorities would determine as their conception of consumers.

For example, you don't see films set during the renaissance being accompanied by jazz music and yet a gangster film taking place in the prohibition era will easily have a classical score despite both genres of music being perfect for expressing emotional development. The combined experience of classical music with moving images has already been calculated, I think.


I'm making "so many" logical leaps is that there is only one? Don't give me this garbage one liner - explain.
I feel you derived conclusions from things Lantz never suggested. Lantz claimed that, due to (nearly) everyone having biologically similar sensory organs with which to receive and process music, everyone could experience music in the same fashion and derive meaning from that experience. You kept putting "individual" in quotation marks, even though Lantz never once used the term, and further go on to assert that Lantz's conclusion is that class therefore doesn't exist. In your first post you claim he posits "experience is the same for everyone - because everyone has the same mechanisms of experience" and in this post you write "if experience was so varied between individuals (there are 7 billion people on Earth), there would be no coherent social organization, there would be no societies" both of which you claim as being the reason Lantz's assumptions would be a hell on earth - hence your conclusions about what Lantz wrote just seem confused. Another example would be when you write "Lantz denies the existence of ideology and attributes interpretation to the creative mechanisms of the unique "individual"" when, in fact, Lantz never used the term 'individual' and did use the term "ideological preference".

I agree with you that the production of culture is determined by the material conditions of the society within which it is produced or, rather, that culture can have a class nature, an ideological reflection on class society. I just think your posts have basically shown a wilful lack of reading comprehension in order to magnify a point that could have easily been served by writing "you misunderstand what 'ideology' is, Lantz, when you suggest people simply have an 'ideological preference'". Your constant aggressive polemic attacks do nothing but degrade the discussion, that could have been interesting, into personal attacks.

[consuming negativity]

At worst, it wasn't really thought about or ignored. I think, more than anyone, Aaron Copland was largely responsible for bringing "classical" to the masses (I've always been confused as to whether you could call it "classical" rather than just referring to it as symphonic or orchestral music.)

You can, but it's more of a popular term than a technically correct one. Originally, classical music referred to the period of musical history between the baroque and the romantic periods in the mid-to-late 1700s. Truly "classical" composers were people like Mozart and Haydn; Vivaldi or Bach are more properly classified as baroque, whereas Beethoven played a large part in ushering in the romantic era. And, as Rafiq said, you can pretty much line up the periods of musical history with the political history that surrounded them. I was a music nerd in high school but it's really interesting for me now to see how all of the arts and everything else tie right into the political economy, which is something that was pointed out to us but that means a whole lot more than you'd think it would.

As for Copland, I have no idea what you could call him except to just say "orchestral music". He didn't really bring that music to the masses, though. Plenty of composers had gone to more rural music for influence before him, like Bartok did. And plenty of people listened to the music beforehand anyway. So I'm not sure what you're getting at there. He's probably most well known for being an American composer and for writing about America... like all of the composers were doing during the time he was writing.

[LiaSofia]

About poor communities not having the resources or time for classical music - I remember years ago seeing a great documentary about a man who started an orchestra for young people in a favela. I don't remember that many details, but the violinists were amazingly good and for a lot of the teenagers it gave them a purpose that changed the course of their lives, whereas before they would have become involved in crime, with their orchestra they got to tour around the world. There was also an online video about a group of people who made instruments from garbage; it was so impressive.

But I still say that folk music is the music of the people! Trad. folk is rooted in communities and the stories of people who lived there.

[Palmares]

have you noticed that a lot of people who listen to "sophisticated" and technically ambitious metal music would also have a weak spot for the classical stuff?

I believe I'm somewhat of a case of this. It was black metal that got me into folk metal, and then folk metal got me into neofolk and neoclassical. Obviously some of the metal I listen to had classical elements to it too.

But yeah, it's disputed if there is any direct link between the genres, but I think it put it vaguely, as they both examples of the ultimate of music nerds, is the most accurate link I can think of.

This link has some (non-conclusive) thoughts on it:

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110306062201AARW9h8

[Rafiq]

I feel you derived conclusions from things Lantz never suggested. Lantz claimed that, due to (nearly) everyone having biologically similar sensory organs with which to receive and process music, everyone could experience music in the same fashion and derive meaning from that experience. You kept putting "individual" in quotation marks, even though Lantz never once used the term, and further go on to assert that Lantz's conclusion is that class therefore doesn't exist. In your first post you claim he posits "experience is the same for everyone - because everyone has the same mechanisms of experience" and in this post you write "if experience was so varied between individuals (there are 7 billion people on Earth), there would be no coherent social organization, there would be no societies" both of which you claim as being the reason Lantz's assumptions would be a hell on earth - hence your conclusions about what Lantz wrote just seem confused. Another example would be when you write "Lantz denies the existence of ideology and attributes interpretation to the creative mechanisms of the unique "individual"" when, in fact, Lantz never used the term 'individual' and did use the term "ideological preference".


He didn't use any of those terms - but these were the only possible conclusions we can draw from his logic. I guess you could attack me for putting the words in quotations and not specifiying that I was quoting and referring to popular trends of thought, rather than his individual post (This is something I do ALL the time, among others. When people use it when referring to "Free-Market economics" or when using it in the context of mockery of prevailing or significantly notable ideas). It's quite common for liberals to talk this way - emphasizing the "individual". But who cares? You claim that I'm making too many assumptions - you have yet to give us any examples besides pointing out the improper usage of quotation marks.

Tell me, if it is true that we are all equipped with the "same sensory organs" in which we could experience music (a STRAW MAN - no one has claimed otherwise) - and that this is a basis for understanding music - then all interpretations, or conclusions drawn about music can be deduced to the preferences, or experiences of the individual. But go ahead, blow my mind - explain to me how this is not the case. Explain to me that this isn't what is being implied, I'm not even saying this rhetorically. Enlighten me of what I'm missing here, I would be very interested to know what he could possibly be saying if not that all interpretations, preferences or meaning derived from music is based on "what people think it means", or their individual "preferences". You could argue that he might be talking about other demographics, i.e. what it means for other groups of people, whether it is on a cultural level or whatever - but that would be impossible, considering he explicitly stated meaning is mostly expressed in the lyrics, and not the actual music itself.

I swear - philistinism has become something rather fashionable on the Left today. Music is not "just music" and never has been "just music". I also want to make something clear: I never claimed that simply by being a part of a certain class are you going to like certain music. I said music is interpreted ideologically and ideology derives from class. As we know, the proletarian class does not adhere to proletarian ideology (i.e. False consciousness). No one claims that you should feel guilty listening to music - and no one claims that you are more revolutionary than thou by listening to certain types of music. And hopefully, Lantz was simply trying to say that attempting to consciously impose which music we ought to listen to is rather stupid - well here I would agree. If we have to force ourselves to do it, it's not genuine anyway.

[Rafiq]

I think education is actually a fantastic example, because it's a real site of struggle. Like, let's really get at this - we can't talk about "education" generically as though it's all one thing. For example, the mis-education (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mis-Education_of_the_Negro) provided by the bourgeois state is hardly a boon - it serves primarily to organize the working class into a (racialized, gendered) hierarchy of labour and to reproduce capitalist ideology, historical revisionism, etc. What we need to look to is the means of education which working class people can and have crafted for themselves, against the state and capital. The answer to proletarian "ignorance" (ignorance of what?) is not the sophisticated ignorance fostered in schools - it's the self-organized and emancipatory pedagogy of the oppressed!

You are misconstruing this argument into whether bourgeois education is praisable. It is good - but good in retrospect to what? In retrospect to the possibility of a form of revolutionary education? Of course not. In retrospect to no education at all. This is all too simple - and even if we take your logical conclusions to the end, this kind of proletarian education, in its own way, is still modeled off of the notion of state-based education which arose from capitalist relations. It could not be a form of education at all of it simply relied on the mechanisms of their daily exploitation, and lack of. This is what I mean by proletarian ignorance: the ignorance of the average proletarian, anti-political philistinism, reactionary attitudes with regard to race, sex and ignorance toward theory. I use this word quite literally: Not as an attack, or even criticism - simply literally. The daily mechanisms of exploitation disallow the proletarian to have the time, or energy to concern themselves with this.

You are ignoring a crucial element here too - public education is something that historically, the working class had to fight for, even if it was put in service of reproducing the conditions of their exploitation, it is better than nothing at all (hell, capitalism itself is better than nothing at all). Which is why I am concerned that your logic follows up to a lack of public education being a good thing for working-class communities, or kids dropping out of school as a sign of people fighting the existing order. This is not the case. Proletarian ideology and the ideas of the revolution arise from the pre-suppositions of the ideas of the ruling order. The demand for real freedom cannot exist without the already existing presence of formal freedom. You're taking for granted the presence of even a very limited, and oppressive form of knowledge - working class communities had nothing at all - systematized education is always better than no education, but that doesn't mean it's a justification for the suppression of its improvement or superseding.

Grassroots, "proletarian" education is a bunch of cack - public schools are composed of proletarians and are irrevocably a part of "proletarian" communities, just as much as extra-state ghetto life is. What a real revolutionary struggle would aim for, in the process of fighting the state, is a fight over what material is actually taught in schools, or how school is taught in the first place. The proletariat must fight for its immediate circumstances or revolutionary struggle contextually is impossible. A good example might be the fight for the de-segregation of public schools. Could you say that this is, somehow a struggle that wasn't worth fighting for? It does not arise from leaving the domain of power, or "backing out" of society. The self organized, emancipated pedagogy of the oppressed is impossible if it does not DIRECTLY confront the conditions of their oppression - this does not mean running around in the forest naked. The proletariat is irrevocably a part of capitalist society, they compose an overwhelming majority of it, actually. When they have the privilege to retreat from society, they are no longer proletarians at all - but members of the petty bourgeoisie.

Proletarian struggle arises from the conditions of exploitation itself - or else there would be no proletarian struggle. This grassroots bullshit you're talking about - it's fundamentally petty bourgeois in character. Only the petite bourgeois classes seek to retreat from society.

[Zoroaster]

I like classical music, especially Tchacovsky and Beethoven. Still, I think that people can be snobby about it, especially those who call it "real music" and use it as an excuse to trash on modern artists.

[The Disillusionist]

My further participation in this conversation would essentially be arguing with a brick wall, so I don't plan on letting any further effort go for naught, but thanks for the clarification GiantMonkeyMan.

[Rafiq]

My further participation in this conversation would essentially be arguing with a brick wall

An intellectual dwarf can neither climb, nor shatter a brick wall.

[The Disillusionist]

An intellectual dwarf can neither climb, nor shatter a brick wall.

I'm trying to stay civil (more than I can say for you), but I don't like you much. You're an arrogant, elitist, close-minded bully with nothing to say but empty misrepresentational insults and walls of circular thinking disguised under elegant prose. But, I can take consolation in the fact that I won't ever run into you in any other context because your type of thinking won't allow you to escape this comfortable little niche you've created for yourself.

[Rafiq]

nothing to say but empty misrepresentational insults and walls of circular thinking disguised under elegant prose.

This isn't rhetoric, Lantz. We are not giving speeches here, you can't play this game of accusing me of trying to dupe people with "elegant prose". It isn't elegant prose. If you haven't noticed, my posts are a stream of consciousness - they aren't planned, they aren't particularly organized, they are what they are. I don't edit them frequently (and when I do, it's because I accidentally phrased something so that it makes no sense at all) and I don't really give a damn of they come off as profound, or whatever you want. I care about getting my points or ideas across, namely demonstrating the error in the ideas of others, and exposing self-righteous ignorance passed off as 'common sense'.

Say whatever the fuck you want, but don't act like you are capable of engaging in this discussion. Either retract your arguments, defend them - or simply admit you are incapable of doing so. You claim that "music is just music" and that there can be no class analysis as far as music goes. You then go on to back up your assertions by claiming that we all experience the intrusion of sound waves in the same manner, because we are all biologically equipped with the same sensory organs. You then say that you recognize there is variation in interpretation, and therefore "experience" of music - emotionally, but then you make this giant assumption that this can all be attributed to individual tastes or preferences - or individual "emotional" experiences. I have tried to tell you that our emotions and innermost sentiments are not exempt from ideology, but apparently, this is too much for your sensitivities. Apparently, I'm the "close-minded" one - but you are unable to recognize this perfectly reasonable fact simply because it hurts your sensitivities. It's better to be a self-conscious dogmatist than a self-righteous dogmatist, Lantz.

Go on though - about how this is circular reasoning or whatever you like. Here's a hint Lantz: it may appear like it's circular reasoning because it is true. Just as those who were wary of Marxism in seeing it's overwhelming validity were unable to simply confront the reality that it is omnipotent because it is true and nothing more.

[The Disillusionist]

There is no discussion to have. I already explained my argument, and in my opinion, no one has provided a sufficient response. I don't see any need to explain myself further, the rest is up to people with critical reading skills.

[consuming negativity]

An intellectual dwarf can neither climb, nor shatter a brick wall.

If you are so much more intelligent than Lantz, then you should then be able to understand why calling someone stupid is not a good way to get them to admit that they're wrong or to otherwise consider your ideas. He is not stupid; he is wrong. There is a difference. And you can tell that he is intelligent. So don't insult him out of your own frustration.

[Illegalitarian]

To be fair Rafiq kind of puts a lot into his posts and has an appetite for elaborating on Marxian analysis' that probably surpasses almost everyone else's on this site, he's done a pretty thorough job of dispelling previous posts to be met only with, well, nothing, so i get the frustration.

[Rafiq]

If you are so much more intelligent than Lantz, then you should then be able to understand why calling someone stupid is not a good way to get them to admit that they're wrong or to otherwise consider your ideas. He is not stupid; he is wrong. There is a difference. And you can tell that he is intelligent. So don't insult him out of your own frustration.

For the record, I don't consider myself particularly intelligent, and that's only if we claim intelligence actually exists. I do not care to recognize it. Intellectual prowess is not defined by "intelligence" but your ability to properly adhere to a set of ideas external from yourself, and your immediate surroundings. Lantz is incapable of doing this.

I have gotten into arguments with a lot of people, many of them you might call more "intelligent" than me. But Lantz has contributed absolutely nothing, to anything which has a semblance of worth. Nothing. I don't care to know Lantz personally, we can only judge each other by our posts. And judging from his posts, he has an utterly poor understanding of almost everything his posts concern.

Look at this thread communer. Where is Lantz's "intelligence"? How has he even confronted my points in any meaningful sense? Shame on you for calling ME out, when he's posted nothing but insults. He IS an intellectual dwarf - I give a detailed comprehensive rebuttal of his points and what am I met with? "I'm arguing with a brick wall". Anyone can say that to anyone. No one is going to change their views do easily. He thinks he's said things which would compel a reasonable person to agree: sorry, but that's hilarious. Sorry I'm such a brick wall who want submit before Lantz's shattering high school insights.

[consuming negativity]

For the record, I don't consider myself particularly intelligent, and that's only if we claim intelligence actually exists. I do not care to recognize it. Intellectual prowess is not defined by "intelligence" but your ability to properly adhere to a set of ideas external from yourself, and your immediate surroundings. Lantz is incapable of doing this.

I have gotten into arguments with a lot of people, many of them you might call more "intelligent" than me. But Lantz has contributed absolutely nothing, to anything which has a semblance of worth. Nothing. I don't care to know Lantz personally, we can only judge each other by our posts. And judging from his posts, he has an utterly poor understanding of almost everything his posts concern.

Look at this thread communer. Where is Lantz's "intelligence"? How has he even confronted my points in any meaningful sense? Shame on you for calling ME out, when he's posted nothing but insults. He IS an intellectual dwarf - I give a detailed comprehensive rebuttal of his points and what am I met with? "I'm arguing with a brick wall". Anyone can say that to anyone. No one is going to change their views do easily. He thinks he's said things which would compel a reasonable person to agree: sorry, but that's hilarious. Sorry I'm such a brick wall who want submit before Lantz's shattering high school insights.
I wasn't calling you out. Sorry if it felt like that. But if you want someone to consider your points you've gotta be respectful. Even if they aren't doing the same. And I know you know that, so I figured you were just frustrated. And when I'm frustrated I appreciate reminders.

At any rate, you're smart as fuck and you know it so don't feed me no modest bullshit cause I ain't buying it.

[Ravn]

JFMzHv_zRo0
Poor working class youth.

Just because it's produced by proletarians, "autonomously" (let's pretend it's not a market niche too), it doesn't mean it's not complete shite. I'll rake the elitist music anyday.


What about the AACM (Association for the Advancement of Creative Musicians)? That definitely had working class origins. The output of some of their members is beyond expectations, actually challenging & toppling the cultural paradigm, that is, Eurocentricism. (The cats are out of the bag, so to speak.)

Look, youth pick things up from the people who came before & the results can vary so where is the real grounds to be dismissive about it?

[Бай Ганьо]

Absolutely. One thing that working people find off putting about classical music is precisely the fact that they, in a paranoid sense, think there is a mystical element which they are simply unable to comprehend that rich snobs can.

While I do agree, pace Scriabin fans, that there is indeed no mystical element, there is an intellectual side about it one just can't deny. Without specific education, that side is very hard to get for an untrained ear.

If you don't know what sonata form, rondo, virelai, etc. are, chances are high you will get lost in the listening process. The larger the composition (e.g. symphonic movements), the higher the chances of disorientation. You'll just hang on to the beautiful (or not so beautiful - depending on your taste) sounds of the instrument(s), and to some biographical facts about the composer and the genesis of the composition.

As The Disillusionist stated, "we all [except disabled people, my note] have the same sensory organs and roughly the same cognitive mechanisms for those senses." The trouble is that some people can pay the education needed to understand how classical music works (i.e. music theory), and others cannot. The access to that knowledge is divided among class lines.


Classical music can certainly be divided on class lines, though - Vivaldi, for example can be regarded as reactionary.

You are confusing classical music and classical composers. While Vivaldi was without doubt politically a reactionary, his music was among, if not the most progressive of his era. You definitely know nothing about the subject.

[Viktor89]

LoL, everyone can listen to what they want. When I feel like it I put on classical music or opera, who would even care? I grew up with parents playing Pavarotti and classical music. Working class socialists. Intellectuals yes, but elitist? What lol. Naaah.