A few years ago, a Brit violinist named Nigel Kennedy made a small 
splash by showing up for concerts in grungy clothes and spiked hair.
He never deviated from the mainstream classical repertoire, but his
personal image was late-punk, early Gen-X.  

Nobody cared.

Why did classical music become so marginalized?  What would it take to
bring it back into the mainstream?  My own opinion is that classical
music is perceived as dull and boring by most people.  You'll hear
some people theorizing that it's "elitist" too, but I don't think
that would be a problem even if it were true, which it isn't.
Classical music, in fact, is much more democratic and less elitist
than some of the more cultish forms of pop music, where if you don't
join completely you're completely excluded.  At least if it were
cultish and elitist, people would have something to aspire to --
membership in the group.  Instead, it's open to one and all, and no one
seems to be showing up anymore.  What's the problem?

65 responses total.

 Cultural Education. The common belief among the teen set is that classical
is for squares and doesn't speak to them. I'd agree if I weren't cultured
enough to know how beautiful and meaningful Mozart, Bach and Beethovan really
are. 
 The problem will only get worse with public and private schools gutting thier
music and arts programs in the name of costs and the bottom line. We will
probably see more of this backlash as the X generation comes into power.

I think people usually progress through a variety of forms in developing
their interest and tastes in music. I certainly did - starting with the
"big bands", which was mostly what was played in my home during my
childhood. But as I was exposed to more forms, I became interested in
classical music...Tschaikovsky, you know, and all that. It took time
to gravitate to the Baroque, and then modern genres. 

Apropos of cultural education - I once *created* a Bach (and baroque)
fanatic. He was into light classics and asked me what I saw (heard) in
Bach. So I led him through the tutti-riponello form and fugue structure
of one of Bach's Brandenberg Concertos. Thereafter he could not get
enough! (It probably helped that he was a physics major and could appreciate
form and structure - it was just he could not perceive it himself until it
was pointed out.)

Our daughter has grown up in our home where our radio tuners have gotten
stuck on classical music stations (until WUOM changed their format - when
I have essentially stopped listening to them), and she attends chamber music
and operatic performances with us. She is now exploring more popular forms
- especially show music - but I think she has to "fill in" those simpler
musical forms in her education, before she returns to what she grew up
with. 

Maybe the question to answer first is, does it matter?  Is classical
music "better" than, say, world music or alternative rock?  If it
is, shouldn't it just be a matter of exposing people to it a couple
of times?  But that obviously doesn't work.  It isn't like the "Aha!"
effect most people experience when tasting good food after a lifetime
of Burger King, and that makes most people *always* go for the better
food when they can afford it.  Anyone who can afford to build a big
collection of world music just as easily could've built a big
collection of classical music.  So, is classical music really better
than world music, and if so, sez who?  And are there any possible "bad"
consequences from the vast majority of people thinking classical
music sucks?  If not, what's the fuss about over WQRS?  That is, what
does it matter that only this one, out of the many possible kinds of
equally good music, is no longer available on the radio?

It's just ignorance.  "You just don't know the power of the dark side, er,
I mean, classical music."  :-)  It's not a matter of classical music being
"better" than any other kind of music.  In my mind, there's only 2 kinds of
music, regardless of genre:  Good & bad.  It's certainly true that classical
music is more sophisticated than the average 1-4-5 rock tune, and so requires
more knowledge to understand the subtleties, to appreciate it, etc.  But most
classical music is not *popular* music.  And it's not going to be a substitute
for popular music (this ain't the 1700's in Vienna :-).  Nobody said that an
art museum was a substitute for cartoons, either.

Your horns are showing, Michael. :) Personally, I got tired of the repetitive
nature of almost all popular forms. Some new idea is repeated endlessly.
For me, classical music is always exploratory. Two beethoven quartets are
enormously different in meter, harmonics, themes, etc. Popular "forms"
are immediately identifiable as such. Even the whole "jazz" genre is based
on a simple musical idea, endlessly repeated in short phrases. So I find
the variety and complexity of classical forms much more interesting than
the repetitiveness of "pop". Others, of course, just want to stamp their
feet.

Well, folks, alow me to speek as a member of "The Teen Set" and as an ardent
classicall music lover.  I think that what many teens like in thier popular
music happens to be the sheer emotional _omph_ that many artists manage to
put into their work.  Classical music simply is not *percived* as having that,
eh?
So why the h-ll not?  My best guess is a lack of exposure.  I know that many
of these kids parents don't play classical, or a wide variety there-of in
their homes; they prefer oldies, 'classic' rock or perhaps country.  Coming
from that background, the only places that they are very likely to hear it
is on the radio, in the supermarket, etc.  Lets face it folks, a lot if that
can be pretty boring.  The reason I listen to so little classical that is
played on the radio is because all too often I would tune in to hear some
violins sawing away, and while that can be nice, it's not _captivating_.  
I think that what really needs to happen is for kids to get the chance to
hear classicall that (a)has words and lyrics, (b)is in a language they
understand, and (c) has a degree of drama to it.  Now I know that
disquallifies a WHOLE lot of good music, but get kids listening to it, and
then they can work into the rest of it on their own!
Well, that's my advise...
re 4: Ken, feel free to argue with me, but I see a degree of "musical
snobbary here.  One does _not_ need "more knowledge to understand the
subtleties" to appreciate classicall.  Frankly (my dear, I don't give a sh-t),
I don't know what a  tutti-riponello form is or what a fugue structure is.
Does that prevent me from appreciating Bach?  I think not.  Knowing this stuff
might give me a _greater_ appreciation for it, but I don't need to know it.
Many teens don't appreciate classical because of ignerance, yes, but I think
it stems more from an ignorence of what is *out* there, than all the
subtelties.  We are not simply a bunch of blockheads with no appreciation for
good music, blindly going from "New Kids on the Block" to "Spice Girls".  Each
of us has our own reasons for liking or disliking what we do.  You might
consider asking us about our choices before you term it dumb.  You could learn
something, maybe as much as we could learn by asking you why you like a
particular peice of classical.
<All Done!>

I knew what a fugue was long before I learned what a fugue was.
And when I finally did learn, none of it was news to me; it was
just the technical names for things I'd been feeling in my bones
all along.  I could've *written* a fugue without ever knowing
about tonic, dominant, counterpoint, etc.  It's a little like
learning the rules of grammar after years of reading well-written
prose and imitating it in your own writing, which is how most of
us learned.  You just learn the names of things you already know.
So, in that sense I agree that music education isn't really
necessary to appreciate music.  If you start learning about the
sonata-allegro form before you've worn out your CDs of Haydn and
Mozart, in fact, you be turned off to classical music forever.
I've seen it happen.  So much education of all kinds nowadays seems
almost calculated to make kids hate the subject being taught.

Anyway...  So, Cricket, you haven't been going blindly from "New
Kids on the Block" to "Spice Girls," eh?  Does that mean you don't
think the music of those two groups is as good as the pop music you
*have* been listening to?  

Actually, I don't know, I've never really heard any that I can remember. 

Just for the record, my name is Kevin, and nowhere did I refer to any music
or anyone as "dumb".  Ignorance is not meant to express a value judgment, it's
meant to express a fact of amount of knowledge.  E.g. my ignorance of the key
elements that make punk music what it is and what it is not doesn't dismay
me, it's just my ignorance.  Yep, appreciation at at least some level doesn't
necessarily require knowledge.  But knowledge may end up giving insight into
why certain musical passages have impact, things that one missed, etc.

[I don't think anyone called you anything.  Rane was calling me
the devil's advocate somewhere up there (the "horns" and all).]

Sometimes on Grex, there will be pop music fans complaining about
what they perceive as the "elitism" or "snobbery" of classical music
lovers.  People that love classical music (they say or imply) think
classical music is "better" than pop music in some objective sense,
when it's all just a matter of personal taste and all kinds of music
are equally valid.  Then, often in the same sentence, these good 
relativists sneer at the pop music other people listen to, such as
the Spice Girls and Hanson, thus implying that there *are* standards
of good and bad that can be applied to music and to the taste of
people that listen to music.  

Speaking as a lover of almost every kind of music you can think
of, including the Spice Girls, I think it's obvious that most
people mistake their own inclinations for absolute categories of
value.  In my experience, the *vast* majority of people that claim
to be indifferent to the Spice Girls and Hanson are people who (I
can't stand it anymore, Rane, I have to go back to saying "who")
want to be seen as deep and serious and who show their deepness and
seriousness by listening to music with gloomy or cryptic lyrics and
tunes that make no effort to be catchy or toe-tapping.  There are
other people who try and match their music to their non-musical
interests, such as the skateboarders who think the only music to 
listen to is ska.  (Or used to, anyway -- that seems to be changing
now, as such enthusiasms will do.)  There is music that catches on
with a particular set (Hanson, young girls) and *must* be despised
by everyone who doesn't want to be associated with that set  
("Teenyboppers!" [sneer]) whether the music actually has any good
qualities or not.

These prejudices run deep and can be hard to shake off.  Nobody is
to blame for being infected with them -- we're all infected, to one
degree or another.  All I can say is, if you point to the people who
think the music they like is better than the music you like and say
to them, "How dare you?  It's all just a matter of taste, you 
elitist snob," then you'd better not even *think* that the music my
11-year-old daughter loves is any worse than what you listen to.
If there are no objective standards of quality, then there are no
objective standards of quality, period.  You're entitled not to enjoy
the Spice Girls, for whatever *personal* reasons, but you can't say
there's anything about the *music* that makes it intrinsically
inferior to the music you do enjoy.

Okay, in *this* environment -- which I think is stupid but which I
don't realistically expect to change -- what would it take to get
people listening to classical music?

A sense of ownership.  I wish more modern tonal and atonal music was
available, both on recordings and in concert, performed on mostly
classical instruments, in a chamber or symphonic forum, but without the
content needing to be palatable for the nursing home set. If I were 17 and
wide open to new things and excited about possibilities no way would I be
drawn to old music by dead white guys - music that had been done to death
and loved by generations. 

Then what would it take to draw you to that kind of music?
That's my question.  What would it take to get a 17-year-old
to start raving about Brahms' Violin Concerto?

 A miracle. ;)

<We should all head-bang to Bach more often!>
Anyway... first of all, I do agree that having more specific knowledge of a
piece can yeild to greater appreaciation.  I'm sorry I didn't make that clear
(I was kind-of ranting...).  As for unconcious, or concious predudaces against
certain music, I agree, they are out thier, and _very_ difficult to shake off.
I'm influenced by them too, though I try to stay objective (can one be
objective about an art that is mostly subjective?).  As for drawing kids to
rave about a piece of classical, I think that much of it lies in the
performance.  I think that it would help if artists had an intamate
understanding of the peice that they were playing, perhaps on a personal
level.  Whatever the genra, I think that half of the "rave quotient" if you
will, lies in the performance, and that the performance is always improved
if the peice _means_ something to the artist.  Am I making any relevant sences
her, or am I just raving again?

I am wondering why Michael even raised this question if he believes, as
stated above, that "there are no objective standards of quality". On the
other hand, he also does seem to think there are objective standards of
quality by saying classical music is "much more democratic and less
elitist". If all music is "good music", why try to draw anyone into any
particular genre?

But I don't think he thinks all music is "equal" - in quality or goodness
or some other measure, or the question would not be raised. I perceive the
thought that it would be "good" to have more people appreciate classical
music.

I'm much less ambivalent. Rock stinks and jazz is boring (!), and I
fervently hope that there are ways to elevate musical tastes among the
public, and have them experience the delight and excitement provided by
all forms of the classics and the avant-garde.

What it would take to get a 17 year old to start raving about Brahms is
exactly what Mary said: "a sense of ownership". The music should be
readily available and valued by society - and the 17 year olds would "get
it". 

I asked my daughter the question, and she said almost the same thing
(before I gave any hints!). She then acknowledged that she had grown up in
a home where the only music she heard was classical, and therefore did not
think it unusual, or difficult to listen to. In a way, her shoe is on the
other foot, and she is in the position of having to explore popular music
on her own! 

I don't think md said that there were no standards; he said that much
criticism of classical music as elitist is by people who make that claim on
grounds of relativism & then turn around & make judgments incompatible with
their claimed relativism.  (Am I wrong, Michael?)

Personally, if by "elitist" one means believing that some music is better than
others or that some is good & some is bad, I'll enthusiastically plead guilty.
(Same for some other areas than music.)  It's also true, however, that taste
influences judgments; there's plenty of stuff out there that's fine but which
I don't happen to like, & in many given cases it's hard for me to distinguish
whether I'm judging honestly.

davel got it right.  I don't think every kind of music is a good as
every other kind, and neither does anyone else.  But people who listen
to pop music and who won't give classical music a chance will often
*say* that's the case when talking about classical music -- and then
claim the high ground they were just saying doesn't exist when they
talk about Hanson, the Spice Girls, et al.  

I do appreciate cricket's comments about performers having an intimate
understanding of the music they're performing.  You can usually tell
when a performer's heart and head and soul aren't all in it, and the
really committed performances knock you off your feet -- Ian Bostridge
singing Die Schone Mullerin, Pierre Boulez conducting La Mer, Mitsuko
Uchida playing a Mozart concerto.  How can anyone not rave about such
things?

I think the "sense of ownership" Mary is talking about is all the way on
the other end of the scale from what we have now.  Most 17-year-old
Americans must believe that Brahms' Violin Concerto belongs to someone
else, and that whether or not they listen is a matter of complete
indifference to the owners.  How did we let it get this bad, and how
do we fix it?  (I guess we now agree it's worth fixing.)

We didn't exactly "let" it get this bad. There are enormous forces -
commerical especially - to promote the "most popular", and the "most popular"
before there is any education, is loud and simple, or saccharine. Music
education is not exactly a priority in the home, in business, or in schools.
People are left to adopt their own interests in music - or rather that of
their peers - long before any effort appears at all to introduce "good"
(since that term is now permmissible :)) music. I don't think it was ever
otherwise.

   I, like Rane's daughter grew up in a house filled with classical, but also
rock and country and rock. I grew to appreciate the form of the music and the
similarities between Bach and Barry Manilow, who used some themes from Chopin
and other composers. But not only that, I learned that all music, whether it
be rap or a fugue has it's place. Classical is not all roses and sunshine,
because there are some dreadful pieces by Mahler, and Wagner to only mention
two, just like there are some pretty foul rap songs, but I am not ready to
throw out the entire genre based on just 1 bad track.

   On the other hand you have my mother, who is a classical pianist. She hates
rock and roll, and everything else I have, well, except the classical stuff.
I think she is someone who took classical too far, shutting out anything but
classical, and she is poorer for it.
   Another case is my sister, who is not a headbanger, but is the exact
opposite of my mom. She hates all classical, and loves anything that is rock,
but refuses to listen to rap and country. I think that is pure rebellion
against my mother's adhesion to classical and hatred of pop music.

   I saw this early on and swore to myself that I would at least listen once
to the music, then base my opinion on what I heard. As I said before, I like
most anything and my CD collection reflects it. I have Eric Clapton right next
to LeAnn Rimes and she is next to the HMS Pinafore, which I adore, as well
as I do The Mikado, and that is next to my Boyz 2 Men, and Barry White CD's.
and that is next to my beloved, and Rane can understand this one, Beethovan's
6th Symphony which is my all time favorite piece of music. No other symphony
can express the joy that is spring when all things are new again. I bought
that one for $9, and it's the best money I ever spent.

  You learn this early as a child. That's where you form your opinions.
You cannot take a 17 year old headbanger and make him into a classical 
afficianado. It aint gonna happen.

I bet it could.  In any case, the headbangers are the ones I worry
about most.  Kids who grow up in houses where classical music is
played, or who somehow connect with a group of friends who are into
classical music, aren't the problem.  It's the ones who've been
exposed to classical music only briefly and by happenstance (commercials,
certain movies like 2001 and Platoon), and whose home environments
are limited to pop music of one kind or another.  I can't accept that
their minds are lost to classical music by age 17, and that they will
go through life missing out on the kind of pleasure you get from
Beethoven's 6th Symphony.  The kind of rush you get -- the audiogasm --
at the climax of the last movement; pop music has nothing to offer
like it.  Isn't it sad to think that there are people who will never
experience that in their whole lives?

(I can identify Beethoven's 6th from a couple of measures from anywhere
in the work, I played it so much after I 'discovered' it - but I did
not grow up much exposed to classical music.)

I don't think I get what you guys are saying when you say "A sence of
ownership" could you elaborate further?
I don't think that there is any one way to just up and get a kid raving about
classical.  I think that gaining apreciation for music- any music- is a slow
prossess, but I kind of disagree with omni who thinks it is impossable.  I
suppose that if you were talking about 17yr old who never had any expereince
with classical you might be slightly right... But I don't think that they will
_never_ start raving about it, just that they might take untill they are 20!

I agree with teflon.  The home I grew up in never, *never* played
classical music.  I didn't get exposed to a classical instrument
or learn to read music until I was well into adulthood, and it 
was my choice.  I purchased my first classical  recording in
1984, the Bach Double Violin Concerto, on a whim, and I fell in 
love with the genre.  I was tired of folk, and the Beetles, and
Ronstadt, and Joni Mitchell, and so on.  So I was ready.

What I mean by a sense of ownership is a sense of finding something that
relates to you on a personal level.  The more universally known and loved
something is the harder it is to see it as personally relevant.  And you
know what, as incredible as Bach and Mozart and Beethoven are, they are
dead white men who already have a whole lot of fans, and have been
recorded to death.  It's not new ground.  Young people, really creative
and intelligent young people, usually aren't satisfied which past
adventures.  They are into cutting new ground.  I tend to think of their
"finding" classical music as a sign that their energy and enthusiasm has
peaked.  Unless they're into some funky stuff, like Morton Feldman or
Kronos. ;-)

Too, I give young people a whole lot of credit when it comes to seeing
through the cultural hype surrounding classical music.  I seldom go to a
classical concert and find folks dressed in casual clothes and asking
questions about the genre.  It's part of the deal that you dress up and
act ultra-civilized and knowledgeable.  And if you don't think that's true
just consider *your* thoughts when some newbie applauds at the end of a
movement.  Kids see through this stuff and avoid it like the plague.  I
tend to think part of why they avoid classical performances is out of a
sense of honesty, not ignorance.

And Michael, don't feel too sorry for young people who haven't experienced
a Brahms climax.  Kids are doing just fine.  They are into their own
journeys.  As it should be. 

I have no problem with someone sampling Mozart and then rejecting it
in favor of Morton Feldman.  I did the same sort of thing when I was
a teenager, everyone goes through phases like that.  My concern is
with people who reject *all* classical music out of hand.  That's the
vast majority of teenagers, even in places like AA that fancy themselves
cultural centers, even among educated kids.  They grow up to be adults
who reject classical music out of hand, and they spend they're whole
lives not even knowing what they're missing.  ("their" -- Katie's right,
I have a real problem with that.)  

The people who reject Mozart and Beethoven because they're dead white
males are mostly doctrinaire multiculturalists, feminists, Afrocentrists
and others who would (and do in a few cases) reject sex if it doesn't
fit whatever arbitrary template they have to place over reality.  I
suppose it's possible that's filtered down to a few headbangers who
might in turn use it as an excuse, but I doubt it.  Also, I don't
believe I've ever heard anyone say, "Gee, that Mozart already has lots
of fans and he's been recorded to death -- I think I'll listen to
Fiona Apple instead."  Maybe I wasn't there when they said it, who knows?

Now, if you wrote "people that..." you would be sampling new experience
in language, and by becoming familiar with it, you would learn how
much more interesting and resonant it is. So, try some new language
forms, instead of just staying stuck on pop usage.           :)

There is a problem with the venues for classical music. I don't really
like the pressure to conform in clothing and behavior. I also don't see
the necessity for the performers to dress as they do. Isn't it the *music*
that is what it's all about? I don't get dressed up to listen to classical
music at home. The clothing at least male muscicians wear for classical
music looks like it would interfer with playing their instruments. I'm
not the only one that thinks this way, judging my the standards of dress
at chamber performances in Ann Arbor - everything from "student" dress
(though I've never seen them leave their baseball caps on - backwards) to
formal wear (like to musicians). Women musicians at least have a lot more
freedom in dress (as well as they do as part of the audience). Perhaps
if both musicians and audiences dropped these semi-formal to formal standards,
more young people would attend?

Michael, I don't think young people reject classical music
without having had some degree of exposure.  You'd have
to live somewhere high in Nepal to not have an impression
of Bach or Mozart.  They simply aren't buying it at this point
in their lives.  They may later.  It's not a done deal if they
aren't lining up for the latest re-release of DuPre's classic
performance of Elgar's greatest hits.  That music isn't going
anywhere.  There is time.

You're not going to like this but you've bought into classical music
like some people have bought religion.  It ain't so for everyone
like it is for you.  Share your enthusiasm, sure, but don't
make it some test of enlightenment and see it as a tragedy if
some decide to invest their imagination elsewhere.  

Meanwhile, I would work at making classical music more
casual and available and less "safe" if you're
going to try to get young people interested.  If your 
audience isn't into classical music for the status
and culture thing then you're going to have to find 
another hook.  It would be a Good Thing for the entire
audience, actually.

I don't think it's just classical music concerts, it's "the theater
experience."  The last time I felt seriously underdressed was at a
performance of "Cats."  You'd think we would've moved way beyond
that.  It can't possibly make young music lovers feel welcome, and
has probably put more than a few of them off it forever.  But, as
you say, you can listen to CDs dressed any way you like, so at
least there's that.  And I tried to write "people that," I really
did.  You saw.  It just didn't work for me.  I guess I don't have a 
sense of ownership over the "that."

Re "sense of ownership," it's one of those vogue-terms that started, 
as so many of them do, with management consultants.  It's used to 
describe what a company is supposed to instill in its employees with 
regard to their work so they'll work harder and you can lay people off. 
Most people see through it, alas.  The term has spread, as so many of 
these management vogue-terms do, into the general population, where it 
has the same effect on my nervous system as fingernails screeching 
down a chalkboard, even when used by well-meaning folks like Mary.  
As a right-sizing re-engineer from way back, I could make the case 
that Mary hasn't bought in and therefore isn't empowered to use the 
term.  ;-)

In the context of this item, Mary says she was using it to mean 
"something that relates to you on a personal level."  If I know 
something intimately, it relates to me on a personal level.  But I 
can know any piece of music intimately, even Mozart, so that can't 
be what Mary means.  *I* took it simply to mean "something I feel as 
if I own."  Brahms' Violin Concerto is (literally) public property.  
I "own" it as much as anyone else.  What bothers me is the thought 
that most kids don't realize this, and believe it's "owned" by others,
maybe by those formally dressed swells they see at classical music 
concerts.

One nice thing about any work of art -- I mean the work of art itself,
not its reputation -- is its imperviousness to fads and fashions.  
You can call Mozart dead, white, European, male, old-fashioned, 
over-played, over-recorded, anything you like.  K. 491 will just 
sit there infuriatingly, with not a single note changed, waiting to 
be discovered by people who aren't buying the bullshit.

So, I repeat, (no matter whether, like me, you think it would be a 
good thing, or, like Mary, you don't think it would be a good thing): 
How do we get 17-year-olds hooked on classical music?

[Btw, Mary, if you'd said I've bought into *music* the way other
people buy into religion, you'd've scored a bullseye.  And no, I
don't mind your saying it.]

I know nada what business means by "sense of ownership".
I'm not a business person.  I'm into saving lives. ;-)

It was *my* term for meaning relevance on a person level.
Mahler's Ninth is, for me, an understanding of death.  
Bob Dylan is (was) relevant to me in understanding my disgust
over the Vietam War.  The Bach Suites are an incredible
view of what can happen when you master simplicity.
And at this point in my life I'm finding the concept of 
mastering simplicity intriguing.  I didn't at sixteen.

So, when I say kids needs to have a sense of ownership
before they invest, maybe the content of classical music
isn't yet relevant to their world.  Beats me, I'm too old
to remember sixteen with any accuracy.

Now I'll bugger out of the discussion as I'm not making
much progress toward answering your (much asked) question. ;-)

Does the Ann Arbor Symphony - and its audience - dress up like
the majors? I've never attended one of their concerts. Do they
perform in informal wear for an informal audience? Who attends?

The conductor wears a conductor's tux.  The orchestra wears
non-matching black dress with white accents, little if any jewelry,
plain shoes, and always all black below the waist.  The audience
tends to moderately dress-up.  Men wear suits or turtlenecks and
sport jackets.  Women dress for a business office or better.
Little kids are often the best dressed of the lot.  Students tend
to come in jeans but there aren't a lot of them.  There will
be a few who come really dressed to dazzle and a few who
look like they wore what they had on all day while working
around the house.

There is a slightly higher dress code standard for classical
concerts at either the Museum of Art or Kerrytown Concert Hall,
evening weekend concerts.

Maybe they should try a "you come as you are - we'll come as we are"
concert, and advertise it heavily among schools. It doesn't seem to me
that a dress code is *necessary* for the performance or enjoyment of
classical music, and more than it is necessary for performance/enjoyment
of 'pop' music. How has it come to be so rigid? Would society fall apart
if the custom got set aside? Would classical music become more popular
if everyone relaxed?

Idle question: what would happen if you showed up at a rock
concert in a buiness suit?  "Business casual"?  Full highschool
nerd regalia?  Does anyone imagine the dress code at rock concerts
(which I realize varies with the type of music) is any less rigid
than that at a classical music concert?  What's off-putting about the
dress code at classical music concerts isn't that it's there, but that 
it looks so much like your parents, or worse, like that annoying
brother of your mom's and his snobby wife.  It's not really a 
code, of course.  Anybody can get in.  We're just talking about
whether what you see when you get there makes you want to come back
again.

If you showed up at a rock concert (remember, I have never gone to one)
in a  business suit, they would think you are an agent. 

Yes, I did assume the "dress code" for a rock concert was casual - that
is, what you have hanging around your closet for cleaning the garage.

But you make the point - are you comfortable. Dress codes should be what
you'd wear to visit any mall (not necessarily any shop in the mall). I
don't mind if some 'dress up', and others 'slum' - it is just that everyone
should be confortable in themselves and no one should notice. Until the
musicians join in, however, it can't happen.

speaking for myself, I like to dress up  for concerts and suchlik, but if I
choose not to, I don;t feel like I'm particullarly out of place... It's like
"I'm the way I am, and if you don't like it, too bad...." Nobody says anything
anyway...

That's true....but all that black on the stage - makes one wonder who died.

Somehow I've always had the feeling the musicians were dressing
up for *us*.  It's as if they're our servants.  There may be some
historic truth in that.  Anyway, all the more reason not to do it.

Also, it is often apparent that those blacks rags are pretty old and
worn. Time to discard them...

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss