The Language of 'Classical' Music

Inaccurate language use really bugs me, particularly if it serves to generate inaccurately judged opinions. One such case of both surrounds a news item from yesterday's Observer, in which it is told that the cellist Julian Lloyd Webber has spoken out in defense of classical music. As is often claimed, classical music is 'elitist', its audiences full of white, middle class punters. Lloyd Webber (and his teenage son) counter this widespread notion about the elitism of classical music with the claim that if you go to any music event (such as Glastonbury or V Festival) today, you will find, er, white middle class punters:

To prove his point, this weekend Lloyd Webber has enlisted the help of his 15-year-old son, who is attending the Reading Festival as part of an audience of around 80,000 rock fans. David, who is part of a rock band called RoomTwenty, confirmed that the crowds around him in Reading were made up predominantly of white, apparently affluent, middle-class people. 'It was the same at the V Festival, and I expect it was like that at Glastonbury too,' the teenage Lloyd Webber said. 'This is something that is not only true of classical concerts.'

This renders totally untrue the elitism claim argued against classical music. OK. But why defend it from the social demographic position? Even if you approach it from this angle, a capacity Proms audience, in which you will see represented a cross section of society, will prove ill-judged the notion that classical music is for one group alone. But before we think about this, let's think about language use, in particular the word 'elitism'. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines elitism as 'advocacy of or reliance on leadership or dominance by a select group'; and, in definition number 2, 'a sense of belonging to an elite'. Expressed this way, classical music is to be found dominating the cultural landscape, wielding its cultural superiority over it in the form of an artistic hegemony. But can this be said about classical music these days? Does the word elitism reflect the reality of classical music? More importantly, is the word being used in a prejudicial way against an art form that by all accounts is experiencing anything but the glory of artistic hegemony?

I think we need to be accurate about our use of the word 'elitism'. It has been waved above classical music like a carrot above a hungry horse. If we are going to use words like elitism, then we must remember that the same can be said technically against gangsta rap in that the often homophobic and misogynistic lyrics of rappers manifest 'advocacy of or reliance on leadership or dominance by a select group'. Even the Concise OED's second definition extends to gangsta rap in that its lyrics and musical characteristics manifest 'a sense of belonging to an elite', something which is also evident in the social exclusions entailed by this genre of music. Yes, I am saying that gangsta rap is socially exclusive and elitist. Why? Gangsta rap is socially exclusive and elitist because its aggressive, homophobic, and misogynistic values naturally exclude many of society's groups. You will not in all seriousness find the happy and comfortable co-existence of those aged 80 and 18 at a gangsta rap gig, but you would at a Proms concert in which Mahler is being performed by the Berliner Philharmoniker. So who's calling the elitist shots there, then?

Much is said about money and classical music, as in it is an elitist art form because it costs too much to indulge in it. This is unbelievably untrue. It could reasonably be argued that tickets for the Royal Opera make opera elitist because decent seats cost through the roof. But even this is wrong these days because there are opportunities for people of all levels of income to try out the Royal Opera. And the Royal Opera isn't the only opera company in existence. English National Opera is equally as important but much less greedy than its neighbour on the other side of Covent Garden - you can get best seats for the price of a heavy night out. And orchestral concerts cost even less, simply because there is a democratic price structure and the best seat in the house isn't as much of an urgent requirement at the philharmonic as it is at the opera. So: elitist? Think about how the adjective doesn't fit its noun the next time you consider paying £50 or more to see one person sing in a stadium that seats 10,000!

Classical music fosters the sense of belonging to an elite? It's elitist? What about the millions of education programmes set in place for each and every orchestra in this country, that go out to many different kinds of communities and introduce children and young adults to something they've probably never been exposed to, at no cost to the parents, them, and quite possibly in some cases the schools? What about family concerts that are intricately put together for their young audiences and which cost less than the price it pays to park a car? Elitist? If you go down to the philharmonic today, you're sure of a big surprise..

OK, so Mahler isn't exactly accessible to children. Well, neither is F. Scott Fitzgerald, but before long I am sure such young people might introduce themselves to The Great Gatsby. And what if adults tire of Bruckner? Well, that's their fault! Bruckner isn't exactly saying they can't listen to his music. And if people can't deal with challenging structures and monumentalism, then it's just not for them. It doesn't mean that the art work is elitist as such. And if a number of people absolutely love Mahler (as I do) and Bruckner (as I kind of do), then are they really making any other claim than the one that articulates their love for music?

Why am I taking time to defend classical musical? There are many other more important things that I could be blogging about! Well, it happens to mean a great deal to me. I've always found that masses of people just get it wrong about classical music, and it starts with the overarching misnomer 'classical' which has been used to generalise anything that is not 'popular' (which doesn't exclude elitism), and which is therefore laying superior claims to its own intrinsic value above and beyond those of its paranoid audience. 'Classical' refers technically to the music produced during the Enlightenment (Mozart, Hadyn) and not to Stockhausen or Peter Maxwell Davies. 'Classical' refers to purely musical values of balance, symmetry of structure, tonality, and instrumental writing. There! It's language use again! What is in fact pushing its head above the parapet is the irritating widespread existence of the generalisation, something which accurate language use erases by matching the correct use of words with the unfolding of a precise argument.

Looking at the stellar work of Pierre Boulez, for instance, you have an example of a composer who has, for more than 50 years, done phenomenal work to explain and clarify bewlideringly complex (and supposedly 'elitist') music to audiences of all ages. Boulez is 82 now, and continues to reach out to new audiences, some of whose members are a tenth of his age.

Looking at the documentation of the West-Eastern Divan Orchestra, led by Daniel Barenboim, charges of elitism fall by the wayside in total shame. The same can be said for the Simón Bolívar Youth Orchestra of Venezuela, for most of whose members 'elitism' has precluded an irredeemably miserable life or even death through drug addiction or drug dealing. See what is thought of their 'elitist' music-making here.