What do classical musicians think of pop music? Do they hide away in their own familiar classical genres, avoiding pop as much as one can in modern society? Or do their personal listening preferences align with the broader public?
Are they technical snobs that look down on pop musicians, that haven’t put in decades of study to perfect their performance skills?
Do they long to break free of overplayed establishment classical music, and are jealous of the constant stream of new music being created by and for pop music bands?
And are they concerned about the wealth disparity between established pop artists and established classical soloists?
I’ll share with you my personal anecdotes to answer some of these questions…
All of the classical musicians I know listen to pop
Of all the classical musicians I’ve known, the entire lot have been just as enamored with their favorite popular genres of music as the broader public.
A particular gifted flutist I went to school, and played in wind band with, would kill it on stage, performing the Cecile Chaminade Flute Concertino, then after the gig, I’d see her with her CD Walkman listening to rap music.
One fellow I know from Facebook, who tours as a concert pianist, made his own classical piano versions of his favorite band’s tunes. Here’s a recording of him playing a Radio Head cover I found on Youtube.
Another guy I used to play classical guitar with back in the day had a masters in classical guitar performance from Peabody Institute. He’d teach classical guitar at our local music conservatory, but he also liked to just jam out in a local pop band.
I’m a unique case in that I’m the one stuck rendering new classical music, so it’s kind of a garbage in = garbage out situation, where I’ll do a strict listening diet of purely classical music, to prepare to write a piece. Though I do like to jam out to one of my best friend’s rock band, from time to time, in the car. Suzi Forever is an awesome sing along song!
But why do these classical musicians enjoy listening to pop?
Pop is designed to capture a broad audience
As I explained in my musings on classical music vs pop music, popular music is designed to have a broad appeal to the general listener, for the sake of selling a ‘unit product’ in a capitalistic market, whether that be an album, concert ticket, or t-shirt, to such. And what gets brought to market, for a broad target audience to consume, is a product perfected to be extremely appealing, sonically or otherwise.
And further by design, in order to maximize the sale of these ‘unit products’, pop music uses a suite of nebulous social mechanisms to enhance its appeal, which I won’t much go into here. But heck, just the act of piping the music everywhere, from radio, to film, to T.V., to commercials, to shopping venues, to marching band covers, to social media, it becomes so over-saturated in society, that without much thought upon it, a general listener considers pop music synonymous with, well just plain music; not to mention, current culture.
And indeed when one is young, and interested in forming new interpersonal relationships, it’s almost a requirement that they be versed in their consumption of pop music, and able to express such to others.
Pop music captures classical performers well before they become such
Such is the case, thusly, that before any living classical musician went on their journey of years of training to become a what they are, they too were sucked into the world of pop, by this designed appeal and social institutionalization, at a young age, and likely have a strong connection to a set of pop musicians.
Some classical musicians enjoy performing in pop bands
A subset of classical musicians actually enjoy performing in pop bands. This is more frequent among those whose instruments happen to be frequently used in pop, such a guitarist, pianist, or percussionist.
But I’ve also seen a particular Japanese classical harpist – again an online acquaintance from years back – temporarily trade in her standard harp for a smaller lever harp, and sometimes even an electric version of the instrument, and play in a local band.
However you also have to remember, some classical musicians may crossover into pop, just to keep cash flow positive. Welcome to reality.
Classical musicians are more likely to be classical listeners
Now that we’ve established that it’s not unique for classical musicians to enjoy, or even perform pop music, let’s now address that which does make them anomalous in society: Not only will classical musicians listen to pop, but a significant number also enjoy classical music. This likely makes them less discriminatory than the average listener.
This phenomenon is on display in the UK:
The UK – high rates of classical listening and amateur bands/orchestras
A recent poll found that 80% of people in the UK listen, in some manner, to classical music:
A survey by YouGov has found that 80 percent of British adults ‘have a relationship’ with classical music, with 43 percent listening while relaxing at home. The survey, commissioned by the Philharmonia Orchestra, asked 2,020 people about their relationship with classical music and found that 38 percent of respondents listened to it in concert halls, compared with 34 percent who listened while on a car journey…
Survey shows that 8/10 people listen to classical music; BBC Music Magazine
This is not surprising considering how many amateur classical wind bands and orchestras there are in the UK. There are hundreds of these groups all over the country, which is about the same geographic size as the US state of Oregon.
The UK likely demonstrates the idea that classical consumers are in some significant set classical musicians themselves. Though it could also mean that classical music is more entrenched in their culture; they being so close to Europe and all!
What do classical musicians think of pop, regarding the technical skills needed for its performance?
Because classical musicians have had to put in the work, to have enough technical proficiency in their instrument to tackle the classical repertoire, they are hyper aware that it takes a heck of a lot more dedication to credibly pull of a performance in that repertoire, than it does to perform a piece of pop music.
Yes, there are some that cynically combine this idea with the wealth disparity happening between established classical and popular musicians (see wealth disparity section below), and complain that the world is not fair. It doesn’t take that long to find these types of comments online, when browsing around Reddit and the like:
I really, really hate pop music. It requires little to no talent, while the classical genres require a lot of talent and skill to do well… Yet 90% of pop musicians are insanely rich and famous, while 99% of the classical musicians are the exact opposite (yes, Lang Lang is the remaining 1%). I mean, opera singers could EASILY perform ANY pop song, and it’s the same with classical instrumentalists. I think it’s so unfair that those with much, MUCH more talent and skill can’t get anywhere in the music industry…
Random thread on piano street (pianostreet.com)
I get the frustration; it wasn’t that hard for me to learn how to adequately perform pop music when I was a kid:
It’s really not that hard to become a pop instrumentalist
When I was a teenager, I was a ‘lead guitar virtuoso’ of sorts, regarding the electric guitar, in that I owned the selfsame technical level on the instrument of that of a professional solo rock guitarist. It took me maybe 4 to 6 years to gain that level of proficiency on the electric guitar.
And though, at the time, I could somewhat pull of the Villa-Lobos Etude 1, on the classical guitar, and performed some Vivaldi and such in my guitar trio and quartet groups, I recognized I was not anywhere near the skill level of that of a classical guitarist with a masters in performance (like the fellow I used to hang with, back in the day).
The same held true for my clarinet performance. I could pull off individual passages in a Mozart concerto, but there was no way I could go from the first measure to the last (though I was never really dedicated to that instrument, past what I had to do to participate in school wind ensembles).
But this isn’t a monolithic position in the world of classical musicians. Just as most listen to pop, a significant set appreciate the unique skills a pop artist can garner though self development (versus the institutional, conformist development classical training revolves around):
Recognizing a unique performance technique of a pop singer
There is a certain dedication to individualism when it comes to a pop singer’s style and technique. They develop their strengths and find ways to minimize their weaknesses in order to create a good product for a broad set of listeners. They aren’t endeavoring to garner a skill set that allows them to perform a highly technical standard repertoire. They’re selecting or writing the songs that complement their own skill set.
As such, pop singers are able to excel in their own unique technical abilities, that often cannot be mimicked by other singers.
I think classical musicians recognize and appreciate this rugged individualism, even though they are aware these singers could not pull off a credible opera, or art song performance, in the standard classical repertoire.
What do classical musicians think of pop, regarding the wealth disparity between pop and classical musicians?
There’s no consensus here on what classical musicians think of pop, concerning its revenue generating power. Some are jealous, some are understanding. But let’s explore a little background on this before I give a more nuanced answer:
Pop music is where the money is at
When I was growing up, my friend’s dad performed in the local capital city’s orchestra, and taught oboe performance on the side, not unlike the majority of worker bee classical performers out there. Keep in mind this was in the 1980’s and 90’s, but he could afford a decent 3 bedroom 2,000 sqft. modern house, and a baby grand piano. And he could afford to have kids of course!
However, when I was in my 20’s, my guitar friends asked me to play the bass guitar a few times, in some jam sessions, with a drummer than toured with the Billy Ray Cyrus band. That particular singer was a famous country idol type, or at least he was, around where I grew up. So we drove down to this drummer’s home to jam, and fellow had this nice private lot, off the beaten path, and a huge house with these giant windows. He had several up to date vehicles in his large driveway. He was living large!
The wealth disparity at the top is even worse
And the wealth disparity is even worse at the top tier levels: Hillary Hahn in her 40’s probably has a good seven figure net worth. But her pop equivalent, say Michael Jackson, had a mid-nine figure net worth back when he was at the top of his game, a sum worth more than a billion in today’s dollars. Even today, Jackson’s estate likely generates more yearly revenue than Hahn and 50 to 100 of her top tier classical cohorts.
Youtube view generation – classical lesson vs. pop lesson
Just surveying Youtube for how many views videos are generating for pop guitar lessons vs clarinet lessons, it’s rather obvious that even Youtube pop teachers are doing better:
| Cumulative Views for top 8 YouTube Guitar Lessons | Cumulative Views for top 8 YouTube Clarinet Lessons |
|---|---|
| 31.477 million | 1.661 million |
What classical musicians think of pop music’s money making ability
I’ve seen the jealousy, or sense of unfairness, classical musicians express when they see less disciplined pop musicians living well. Even with all the monetary and policy misadventures these last 20 years, there are still some younger folks that have a principled stance on the idea of a merit driven society. And it usually is the younger classical musicians that have yet to build up their net worth that are the ones in the envious camp. We all think we’re going to strike it rich someday, at that age.
But, I’ve also seen classical musicians express their understanding that pop music is meant to be popular, and hence profitable.
So I don’t think there is a consensus in either direction, regarding how classical musicians think of pop musicians, when it comes to revenue generation.
And I would expect that if you have a masters in classical performance, you’re more likely to find better paid steady work, than if you are an aspiring pop musician that gets paid a few peanuts to put on an hour long set at a local bar. And you’re more likely to be able to start a credible real world private lesson business on the side.
Privacy and satisfaction in what you do often trumps riches
I personally would much rather prefer to be my friend’s dad, that wakes up in his own bed, drives 15 minutes from the suburbs, up in the mountains, to go to the local concert hall, play different repertoire of large scale, interesting pieces every season, and not have to deal with being in the spotlight. My personal privacy is worth more than whatever Michael Jackson’s estate, and all the drama that goes along with it, is worth.
What a classical composer thinks of pop music
Okay, so what do I think of pop music? Again, I’m kind of in a weird spot, since I’m the one burdened with the creation of new art music. Further, when I was a kid, my IQ was tested to be over 140, so that may bias my opinion. But I’ll try to explain it with an analogy:
Sandbox Analogy
Imagine a world in which people hanging out in small, 4 foot by 4 foot sandboxes in their back yards, in their free time, was extremely profitable for a capitalistic sector of the economy.
As such, TV shows, news shows, movies, social media, printed art, retail outlets, and every other facet of society where people garner cultural cues, and learn what is acceptable in society to fit in, all involved messaging that people should exclusively hang out in sandboxes in their free time. Commercials for a national beer brand showed men meeting attractive partners in their backyards, in their sandboxes, while they enjoyed drinking beer and kicking around sand from one side of the boxes to the other. That sort of thing.
And imagine, because of this overwhelming indoctrination, that’s what everyone did! All their free time was wasted hanging out in small sandboxes. Some folks made sand castles. Others used random sticks to write base messages in their boxes. The people with blue sandboxes made fun of the people with green sandboxes.
Now imagine you actually liked to get out and explore the world. Hike thousands of feet up scenic mountains. Fish in beautiful, wild streams with the Autumn leaves of the woodland all around. Kayak in still, clear ocean water around a Pacific Island. Eat authentic paella at a quaint restaurant on the coast of Spain. Ski or snowboard in the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. You get the picture.
So basically that’s what it’s like to be a classical music composer in a sea of pop songs that has saturated modern society.
The listening diet
In order for me to become proficient in writing classical music, I had to go on a strict listening diet for a good 10 years, when I was developing my compositional technique.
Constantly being inundated with pop music is poison to the developing classical composer. Yes, incidentally I know some composers have just capitulated to this indoctrination, and produced minimalist works that mimic the simple, repetitive nature of pop music. And some have become wealthy doing so.
But during that time, I listened to zero pop music, including jazz. Anything with a drum kit was nixed.
Instead, I exclusively listened to works of composers I wanted to be a disciple of. The early 20th century British school of music’s integration of folk melody captured my attention. Those selfsame folk pieces made their way through the Appalachian mountains in America, as old world settlers brought along their culture. So that music sounded like home to me: the mountains, rivers, streams, fields, and forests that I grew up exploring.
What do classical musicians think of pop, regarding novel repertoire?
There is one aspect of pop that is, for my part, admirable: that new music is constantly being generated and brought to mass market, as the consumer of such is constantly hungry for the next big thing in the genre.
Obviously this arrangement doesn’t exist by purely artistic virtue. When your industry’s main, work-horse product is a 3 minute, relatively low information piece of sound and time, that has the selfsame form as the last several thousand similar pieces, then you have to embrace change to avoid consumers’ fatigue.
So basically to maintain that cultural capture and market share, the pop music industry has to constantly find marginally unique ways of doing the same thing on repeat, such that the latest generations feel ‘their music’ is culturally different that what came before them; that they have, or are leaving their own novel impression upon the world.
But because this phenomenon is so prominent in the world of pop, such that music consumers feel that is where the cultural frontier exists, the classical world has no chance in replicating such due to its inability to compete with it.
Worker bee classical musicians are open to new classical music
It’s been my philosophy and experience that classical musicians themselves enjoy performing new pieces. That is, as long as the pieces are sonically pleasing, are well written and interesting to the performer, and aren’t more difficult than the standard classical repertoire. Indeed as long as you’re producing a high quality product, you can write in any style and the musicians themselves will like it.
Soloists compete on who can perform the standard repertoire the best
Soloists trying to make a name for themselves are more resistant to new music. They’re more interested in showing the world they can perform the standard repertoire, as were it a gauntlet that must be accomplished to gain any semblance of credibility in their field.
The classical world is still waiting for that breakout moment where a soloist concentrates 90% of their efforts on performing just-written music for them, similar to the ‘album’ model in the pop world. Some of the top soloists do flirt with this idea a little, but for the most part cannot vary from the classical world’s institutionalized dedication to composers from 100 to 200 years ago, without financial ruin being the result.
Directors of major orchestras have to worry about marketing
Those making the choices on what gets performed by major orchestras have to worry about filling seats and staying cash flow positive. Thus they’re less likely to focus their seasons on new works from composers the general public has never heard of.
Large orchestras need that super star name for their marketing, to get consumers to take the plunge on buying concert tickets. And because the pop industry has fine tuned its ability to take 97% of the market share of music listening and cultural prominence, it’s very difficult to create a new super star composer in the classical world. What little space is available in the general public’s short term memory, that keeps a list of who is who in the music world, most of it is dedicated to pop musicians.
Academia likes new music
And of course the world of academia whose focus is more on art than marketing, and who have an incentive to keep compositional lineages going, thrives off the creation of new music.
However, less like pop, where listeners/consumers in the free market to a greater degree, organically choose who will define their generations’ music, academia seems more like totalitarian king makers, as to who is who in the compositional world. Thus a fellow like myself, who writes retrograde neo-romantic pieces, would be shunned, in favor of the latest composer whose music is heavily influenced by their star professor. This ensures that this professor’s legacy and musical lineage is passed down in orderly and conservative fashion. Everyone wants their little share of art history.
So basically academia does like new music, it just doesn’t like rogue composers that ignore the last 100 years of artistic progress inside its walls.