It would no doubt be preferable to have a vibrant classical music scene and a sense of elegance about it (at least at the high end). But to the extent that there is only a high end, and the sense of occasion B speaks of is a barrier to entry--and, in some sense, reinforces the notion that it's a dead art form--it seems better to get as many people attracted to the music as you can. Expand the audience, then worry about appearances.
(I note in passing that it's Ben friggin' w-lfs-n decrying elitism and exclusionary mores.)
What? Why is this remarkable?
Greg Sandow would also salute a relaxation in the performers' dress codes!
Oh, also, sometimes I see bassists sitting on high stools, is that just a personal preference?
You might want to insert a space between the semicolon and the "a" in "comfy;a".
I would draw an analogy to a dying patient in need of a transfusion.
I'm not sure if you're asking or making a scatological joke about the stool preference. My view is it's better to play with a stool because it's easier to keep the instrument still without requiring any left-hand input. This is particularly important in the transition to thumb position. Preferences vary.
Oh yes, I'm sure your average working stiff would be much more comfortable at the symphony if the audience was full of 20 year old hipsters in low waisted jeans, trendy t-shirts, and modish wrestling shoes.
Hrm. The discomfort isn't a fit issue? I've never worn a tux, but I wear suit jackets all the time, and I don't find them restrictive. (Well, I suppose they'd suck if I was doing something that involved having my arms over my head, but reaching forward and down seems as if it should be okay.) You're sure you don't just need a bigger jacket? (Which I recognize raises its own problems, in your case.)
I'm with cw. My parents are working class people, and they are sincere, if unconfident, fans of classical music. My dad has one, very old, suit, and my mom has a couple of fairly formal dresses, and they both love having a reason to get dressed up. I remember one occasion, five or six years back, when they went to the LA Phil -- kind of a big deal, since tickets are expensive -- and they were bewildered and disappointed at the people dressed like slobs all around them. It was, I think, fairly discomforting for them, both because they felt their experience was in some way ruined, but also because it made them feel gauche and awkward. Truly, in my experience, the working and poorer classes are the more insistent on getting dressed up for formal occasions. The folk who flaunt how comfortable they are in the expensive seats, by wearing jeans and fleece, seem rather the more elitist to me.
j raises a very interesting point.
This is also the case for audiences at The Color Purple currently playing on Broadway right now; it is attracting an audience that does not normally go to Broadway theater, and that audience also is better-dressed on any given night than most other Broadway audiences.
I hadn't phrased it this way, but yes, exactly. Also compare dsquared in the other thread saying that one doesn't dress up for the opera because it makes one look low-class; part of the 'dressing like a slob at the opera' attitude that annoys me is that I read it as 'The little people may be impressed by going to the opera, but it takes more than this to make me dress up. I'll put on dress clothes for an event that's important to me, and if this were such an event, you wouldn't be in sight, peon.'
Peter Schjeldahl calls "snob appeal," as established by things like expectations in dress, "one of the underestimated engines of culture."
If dressing up was done with comfort in mind my wife, who is always cold, would get to wear the jacket and pants, and I, being always hot, would wear the sleevless gown with shorts.
I think the male hot/female cold thing is generally true, and formalwear always seemed very foolish to me with this in mind.
I've always suspected that any truth in that stereotype comes from the fact that men's clothes are almost always warmer than women's. My office is cold. I have a number of suits, many of which, as is normal for women's clothes, are in lighter, flimsier fabrics than are customary for men's suits. In those, I'm chilly. In the suits I have that are made of menswear fabrics, I'm comfortable.
But the point is that whatever is currently going on in classical music is not working, in terms of drawing a large audience. And it does seem like it's snob appeal that is not working.
ac, I think that the answer is, people don't much care for the music anymore, at least not in large numbers. Sitting through long instrumental pieces is hard work and normally requires some musical education if one is to enjoy it on a regular basis. We can change our public education system to teach real in-depth music appreciation, but short of that, it doesn't matter what the patrons wear. And I speak as one who loves concert music.
My two cents.
Fair enough. But then it seems like you shouldn't chastise people who are coming for wearing the wrong thing.
Maybe I'm just odd, but I think the loss of snob appeal is off-putting, even to the hoi polloi. I'm not an educated listener to classical music, but I go to the opera occasionally, largely because Mr. Breath likes it. I have a good time, the music is pleasant, but I would enjoy it more with more glamour and fewer people in Dockers and sweatshirts, and I think that's a lowerclass, rather than an elitist, attitude of mine. Goddamn it, tickets are expensive -- I want it to be an occasion.
So isn't it possible that loss of snob appeal contributes to lack of ticket sales?
LizardBreath,
I agree about the clothes, but there is also a physical explanation.
From a physics standpoint the surface area to volume ratio goes down as an item gets bigger. Since men are generally larger than women this means they have less percentage of surface area and would tend to be warmer, since being warm blooded we are designed to be losing heat at all times.
Thus I'd think men would get the lightweight fabrics and women would get the heavier fabrics.
One shouldn't, not you necessarily, Joe.
It's clearly debatable whether it improves or detracts from sales. But there's a rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic element to this discussion.
I've lost some of my interest in classical music over the years. I've started to find it boring.
I think it needs more 'spectacle.' Providing a glamorous audience that was wearing fancy duds and were wonderful to look at would certainly add some spectacle, but I'm not sure how the Orchestras themselves can arrange for that to happen.
I think I'd stick with a bit of fog and lasers. Perhaps some pyrotechnics, too.
Or how about an outreach concert where the ticket prices were lowered and laser pointers were passed out to the audience who were encouraged to use them?
One funny thing at the last two performances I attended happened when they made the annoucement to please turn off all cell phones and pagers - for a few seconds the theatre was full of the sound of de-activating cell phones and the audience got a laugh out of it.
post-concert Bacchanaliae would help too.
(Not sure how that would mesh with the fancy-dress requirement.)
Re: 24
Also some rebranding is in order. I propose that the term "classical music" be dropped, and the term "shouty bollocks" be used instead.
I don't know that it's as bad as all that, ac. The classical repertoire has never been the music that the masses listened to. When you look at "classical" sales versus, say, hip hop sales, obviously there's no comparison, but there are still millions and millions of listeners and enthusiasts all over the world, and that's not going to change any time soon. There is of course the problem of paying enough players to get a decent live performance, and that's a real issue, but if we're talking about "classical" music dying, I don't think that's true.
It also may be true that no one is listening to works by modern composers, but that's a whole other discussion. And it depends on one's definition of "modern composer", which even as stuffy an institution as the Pulitzers is revising lately (.pdf link).
Well, it won't die out, because of patronage, but it's shrinking all the time. And it's really about loss of vitality--like people in Paris worried about becoming Venice. Ossified. Some kind of false, playland quality.
This may sound tongue in cheek, but it really is not.
I think since the Upper Class has gone into hiding there really has been a loss of the things the rest of us tried to emulate.
It used to be that the incredibly wealthy would flaunt their wealth and their 'class', which wasn't totally about wealth. It was more about promoting a certain lifestyle that could be emulated but was really impossible to maintain without incredible wealth.
I think the upper class still exist but they've gone nearly completely underground. You can't see their houses from the road and they avoid the spotlight like the plague.
I've always suspected that any truth in that stereotype comes from the fact that men's clothes are almost always warmer than women's.
Designers know what's important (nipples).
. . . and pheremone armpits. Don't forget those.
So isn't it possible that loss of snob appeal contributes to lack of ticket sales?
That's Peter Schjeldahl's point. It's the desire to be l33t that furnishes the interest in classical music rather than a more organic route like early childhood exposure or public-school music programs or what have you.
I don't know what kind of financial state classical music is in (the assumption is bad), but if it's not in fact on life support, there is a question as to what is gained by expanding the audience (beyond financial viability). Decisions that seek to promote art to new audiences involve sacrifice, and afficionados who are willing to entertain those compromises do so, I think, because they see some transformative value in the genre. Which is sort of an authoritarian impulse, if the art isn't under threat of extinction.
But isn't "financial viability" a rather low bar to set? Sure, it'll keep the form from becoming a museum relic, but I would think encouraging a larger audience would lead to having a more lively classical community. Also, wider popularity encourages more people to pursue classical music as either a career or a hobby, which seems like it would improve the quality of the art form.
It has often seemed to me that the more recent the date of composition of a piece, the less formal the audience, but that might also be because I seem to hear more newer pieces of chamber music than symphonic works, and they're frequently less expensive. Sandow has mentioned a few time a cellist, Matt Haimovitz, who plays Bach and whatnot at the Kitchen and Knitting Factory and related places. Maybe not the Kitchen, does it exist still? Knitting Factory, though.
By the way, those of you who are into classical shouty bollocks music, as well as those who want to learn more about it, might want to check out Peter Gutmann's website, which features some very well written reviews and essays.
Not classical music, but for the New Yorkers...the friend going with me to the John Waters Christmas Show tonight at the Bowery Ballroom bailed because of the transit strike (fears she won't be able to get back to Brooklyn). If anyone wants to go, drop me a line (becks@r/dp.mail/shell.com) and I can hook you up with a free ticket. So far, I can't find any takers because people are afraid of getting stranded on the LES. I went to the Bowery Ballroom last night for another show and found a cab home pretty quickly. Then again, I wasn't going to another borough, so YMMV (some of the cabbies appear to be refusing Brooklyn fares).
And I'm pretty sure you can wear jeans.
I actually have to concede (following further discussion w/ Ben via chat) that Ben is right, at least about the symphony: it would be generally good if people had less of a sense of "big occasion" about classical music. Since the dress code of the performers is formal, I tend to think that it's nice if people bother to change beforehand, but the argument for not making a big stink about people dressing casually is a really good one, and I withdraw my argument that people who do so are philistines.
I do still think, though, that as opera is about both music and spectacle, that part of the spectacle is the audience, and for that reason I really prefer to dress formally and wish other people would as well: a big part of my enjoyment of the thing (and history is on my side here) is watching people wander around the lobby beforehand and at intermission wearing opera finery. But I agree Ben has a good point, at least for the symphony.
A few comments:
My dinner jacket (tuxedo) is not uncomfortable to wear because it fits. In general, wearing clothes that fit is a good idea and I'm surprised it isn't more popular.
Classical music, even modern classical music, is perfectly popular if intelligently programmed and well played. Steve Reich reliably sells out the Barbican, and every time I've been to either the Albert Hall or the South Bank they've been at least respectably full. I think this is because I live in a proper city. There is no problem to be solved here, other than the general problem of towns of less than 2m inhabitants not really being big enough to support a proper cultural life.
One does dress up for the opera, but not necessarily for a concert. This is just social convention.
When people of whatever class want "an occasion to dress up" then it's not something that should be valorised or encouraged. It's a bit more subtle than the May Day Parade in Red Square but it's still an ostentatious display of loyalty to the prevailing social structure and class system and it's still not a laudable impulse. If you're going to defend "dressing up" as a social norm at the opera, you're going to have a hard time explaining what's wrong about bars and restaurants that enforce a "suits and ties" dress code.
If you want to wear your nice clothes, wear them already and don't feel the need to tell the rest of us about it. In particular, to look down on someone for not sharing your taste in clothes is pure and simple snobbery, whether you're doing so because they're in a ballgown and you're in jeans or vice versa. There is a slight aesthetic benefit to having everyone all dressed up in the same style but it's bloody slight and certainly not worth making someone uncomfortable over.
How often does Reich get programmed? Honest question. Kyle Gann gives one the impression that, of recent composers, there are maybe composers not recognizably descended from high modernism or an NY Uptown sound that get programmed at orchestras or at all in mainstream venues. But perhaps it's different across the pond.
Cool, Tia. Just an FYI in case it affects your decision - I'd want to get there in time for the first opener (The Trachtenberg Family Slideshow Players) since I've heard a lot of good things about them. They'd probably come on around 8.
I think we should all acknowledge and applaud. the grace with which Dr. B has withdrawn her argument.
Hold the phone - is this the Steven Reich of "Come out to show them" fame you are talking about?
Extraneous period, damn you.
Fertility problems, Ben?
Yes. I've seen him programmed three times in the last two years (four if you count the "Double Quartet" that he wrote for the Kronos Quartet which they performed when they were here last time but one). Fair to say that the 1960s tape-delay pieces are not really staples of the concert season, but his more recent stuff is. There's going to be a Steve Reich season at the Barbican in 2006. There aren't many *other* non-melodic modern composers who get a fair shake but Reich himself is box office.
Ah, okay, it is the "Come Out" composer I listened to all those years ago in college.
And, now that I educate myself through the web the "bruise blood" stuff was very early - he has expanded his work.
No offense to anyone but I don't think Reich will save the modern symphony. I was kinda joking above about the fog and lasers but I really think audiences will want a certain amount of multimedia for their money. Unless they legalize drugs the background music/Grateful Dead stuff won't pack them in.
A few years ago, the London Sinfonietta programed a bunch of orchestrations of Warp artists (Aphex Twin, Boards of Canada, et al.) along with some modern composers (only one I remember is Ives' "Unanswered Question", I think Ligeti too), and reportedly met with much success; I think they've done similar things since.
These shitheads have designed their site to prevent meaningful links, but they did do an album of Aphex Twin's music played on acoustic instruments that's pretty fun.
I heard that Esa-Pekka Salonen commissioned a piece from Radiohead not too long ago, but I never heard what became of that.
(He's the conductor of the L.A. Philharmonic, or was at the time.)
It would be troubling if you had been following my private conversations with Bphd.
Ben, I'm from the CIA, and we need to talk.
I heard that he was talking with Jonny Greenwood (composer-in-residence of the BBC Concert Orchestra) and Thom Yorke (lead singer and lyricist of rock band Radiohead) about commissioning a piece, I guess the idea was that the two would work together, but like you I don't know what happened. But I didn't even hear that the commission had gone through.
FL,
I'm pretty sure classical music is hurting. Fewer or no new recordings - symphonies having budget problems.
I really think it has to do with the loss of an upper class in America. Think about it. Where is our high society? Where is Bill Gates? Where are the billionaire Waltons? They are all hiding.
We are left with movie 'stars' and sports 'stars' and, for awhile anyway, CEOs. None of these define class. None of these model any sort of standards.
Tripp, I'm oddly in agreement with you on the benefits of a visible upper class with "class", and it's disturbing to me, since I'm absolutely certain that I hate and resent The Rich.
Speaking of my hatred for The Rich, why in the world am I only hearing about this movie today? This is my kind of movie.
59: You don't watch enough television?
This is true. I haven't watched TV in months, other than CYE.
I haven't watched TV in months
If I had known it would be that kind of party…
In lots of mid-sized American cities
There will never be a sufficient audience for art music however you dress. Mid-sized cities don't have a large enough audience for a minority taste and that's it. As far as I know, the main British orchestras are on a decent financial footing as is the Welsh National Opera and Covent Garden; the ENO is in a right two-and-eight but that is apparently due to bad management rather than anything else.
Btw, Ben, Jonny Greenwood was the BBC composer in residence for a season, but he is probably better known as the guitar player of Radiohead!
the guitar player of Radiohead
You're making the baby Ed O'Brien cry.
Becks, I just sent you that I am lame/too poor to spend $25 on a cab home.
Joe,
I'm sure you know that 'class' and 'wealth' are far from the same thing.
There are good things one can say about the upper class that one would not be able to say of the rich.
Our society needs visible examples of proper behaviour. Traditionally the wealthy are the ones with the means to perform this task but they are hiding. We need our idols and our ideals, dammit!
Hey Tia, I understand. This transit strike is making everything so much more expensive. I spent $20 in cabs getting to and from my $10 concert last night. Someone needs to explain that whole "sunk cost fallacy" thing to me again.
There was a post on Brian Weatherson's blog a while ago disputing the fallaciousness of the sunk cost fallacy. I didn't read the linked paper but I think it had something to do with the occasionaly value of demonstrating what a tenacious fucker you are.
71 - Well, there is some merit to that. When we discovered that the sold out venue was less than half full, we felt slightly hard core for making it there.
Tenacious fuckery was only one part of the argument, per Weatherson's summary. Unfortunately the original paper is gone from the internet anyway, though it can probably be found wherever recent issues of Nous are.
Because I fear that the other thread has been abandoned and because I really want to know, I repeat my question here: Why does Bertie call his evening attire "the full soup and fish?"
I was going to say that it's a phrase in fairly widespread use, and indeed it is, but according to this Wodehouse is the first OED citation for it. This says basically the same thing with more confidence and at the top of the page.
Matt,
Excellent work! You beat me to it.
I actually like classical music and studied it in school to the very limit of my small talent, but if I was in charge of the American culturosphere I'd move half the subsidies from classical to jazz, including avant-garde jazz, and I'd try to jimmy the snob factor so that's what people went to show off at.
Classical music $$ mostly supports long-dead musicians, but there are some jazz greats who are still alive.
I'd also put $$ into new, contemporary classical music, but that's a very tough row to hoe. A lot of people actually like jazz.
I've never worn a tuxedo in my life.
I was going to say that it's a phrase in fairly widespread use
If it is in common use now, especially among the children, it's almost certainly owing to The Wiggles.
I do think dsquared is wrong about formal dress being just a way of excluding people, though. As others have pointed out, in fact the importance of "dressing up" is *not* something that only the "upper" classes value--if anything, it's the middle and professional classes that are more likely to dress down for things like church and going out than the working classes and the poor.
And anyway, one of the main reasons for formal (or "nice") dress isn't just aesthetic--it's a mark of respect for the occasion and the company. Part of the problem with dressing down inappropriately is that it's rude--showing up for a funeral in jeans, or a cocktail party in a t-shirt implies a lack of respect for the occasion, and should be avoided unless you know the host/company very well and are sure that they're jeans kind of people in that situation.
In the future, everyone will wear silver jumpsuits and there will be no "special occasions."
On the decline of classical music audiences: I actually think this has nothing to do with the decline of an "upper class" and everything to do with the rise of other forms of entertainment. Multiplexes, shopping malls, video arcades, bars, clubs, etc. Not only are these things generally cheaper than a night out at the symphony, they're also better advertised and don't require planning ahead. You can pick a movie fifteen minutes before it begins and be sure of getting tickets (if not, you just pick another movie); with a symphony, not so much.
This is why we need a healthy chamber music culture! I don't see why it should be much more impracticable than the myriad small jazz venues of, say, Chicago, how I miss them.
I prefer to see modern popular artists as a modern continuation of the old classical composers, not as a separate phenomenon. Technology has made possible the mass performance of a different kind of music. It's allowed singers to sing at reasonable volumes in crowded venues (and thus to sing intelligibly). It's allowed guitars to become viable as lead instruments in loud ensembles. It's changed the kind of music that's it's possible to write. I would say that the expressive capabilities in the electric guitar are far greater than any any single classical instrument.
Classical music is dying because it's obsolete. If you're unhappy about the loss of harmonic variation, and the popularization of the more repetitive and monotonous (yet often driving and catchy) harmonies of modern music, then you're not getting the point. Variations have moved from the harmonic to the sonic. The poverty of sounds in the past forced harmonic ingenuity, whereas the infinite variety of sounds possible in the present allows for more experimentation around a few basic chord patterns. In fact, this same phenomenon I think explains the progression from Baroque and Classical to Romantic pretty well.
I say this as someone who's seriously played the piano clasically, so I think I have the proper respect and appreciation for classical music. In fact, I still have a bunch of Bach piano solos playing in my car stereo.
I do think there's room for people who want to combine modern instrumentation with more advanced harmonies, but there is a certain tension, in that less pure, and thus more interesting sounds will be less amenable to advanced harmonies. That's why performing a fugue on my keyboard's "space phasers 3000" voice setting doesn't really work. On the other hand, not a lot of popular artists nowadays really do all that can be done. (Maybe some do, but I haven't heard of them. I really don't buy/download enough music.)
Aside from the whole repertoire/improvisation thing.
I can't believe no one's linked to one of Alex Ross's takes on this issue, where, consdering possible explanations for the rise of the "silent audience", he reaches #5:
The rise of popular culture made classical audiences anxious about their status. They wanted to be sure that they were seen to be "serious," not like those plebians and vulgarians who made noise elsewhere.He then argues for "a relaxation of this strict standard," but, alas, it occurs to me that each one of you most probably possesses the ability to read.
Aren't you worried about your car battery running down?
showing up for a funeral in jeans, or a cocktail party in a t-shirt implies a lack of respect for the occasion
Yet, in our culture I think this is more admissable, or at least less embarrassing, than showing up overdressed. Somehow overdressed says rube in a way that underdressed doesn't. Not to say that's the right way to approach things, but I think we're more likely to be extremely self-conscious in the situation where we're overdressed.
#75: Because "the full soup and fish" = a multi-course (i.e., "formal") meal.
#89: I dunno. Being ridiculously overdressed is embarrassing, but being slightly over- or better-dressed than everyone else isn't. I think the "better to be underdressed" thing stems from the desire to look like you didn't try too hard, which is cool in some instances and just rude in others.
Classical music is dying because it's obsolete. If you're unhappy about the loss of harmonic variation, and the popularization of the more repetitive and monotonous (yet often driving and catchy) harmonies of modern music, then you're not getting the point. Variations have moved from the harmonic to the sonic.
So, nearly forty years of the music of minimalism and its descendants has made no mark on your understanding of classical music? It also strikes me that if you think this answer will be satisfactory to anyone who does like harmonic variation or unusual harmonies, then you're missing their point—such a person wouldn't regard harmony as a crutch that livens up an otherwise uninteresting sound source, to be abandoned once we can get lots of varied sources in the mix. I'd also like to know how nonmodern popular artists fit into the mix.
I see no particular reason that composers can't use the new sounds at their disposal, or that doing so would make them "modern popular artists"?
James: that was eleven months ago.
This Ross move is unbearably dumb:
In the 18th and 19th centuries, we had 1) boisterous, crude, cavalier audiences; 2) a cavalcade of masterpieces. In the early 21st century, we have: 1) polite, restrained, undemonstrative audiences; 2) by AC Douglas' own account, an almost total lack of masterpieces. Are these things unrelated? If audiences were to show more emotion, more involvement, might composers respond with more powerful, moving music?
I mean, honestly. We don't get good composition (suppose that's true) because audiences are too quiet?
I think since the Upper Class has gone into hiding there really has been a loss of the things the rest of us tried to emulate.
Hiding in plain sight, apparently:
The familiar tactic was to play on the sense many people have that the rich are not after all so different from the rest, if only because they hope one day to become rich themselves. A poll conducted by Time/CNN on the estate tax issue in 2000 revealed that 39 per cent of Americans believe that they are either in the wealthiest 1 per cent or will be there ‘soon'.
Nearly fourty years of the music of minimalism and its descendants have been many times less popular and appealing than the previous eras of classical music.
And I fully realize that the transformation I speak of involves a genuine loss as well as a gain. That's why I still listen to Bach--it has something that rock and roll doesn't. It's more a matter of the listener having a limited capacity for appreciation, that can either be taken up by harmonic interest, or by sonic interest. Incidentally, appreciation of harmony takes more training and effort the more complicated it is.
Compers can use new sounds as much as they like. But the tradeoff is between the simplicity of the sound and the simplicity of the harmony.
The difference between popular music and "serious" music, for me, is in the how often the harmonic progression returns to the basic key, and in how important a role the beat plays.
Reich packs 'em in, apparently. My understanding is that minimalism wasn't/isn't terribly respectable, especially academically, and didn't receive very much performance (with a few exceptions).
Maybe y'all already discussed this distinction in the dressing up/dressing down debate, and I missed it, but there are two issues: 1) what social/class space we want "fine" music to occupy (with w-lfs-n saying that we should want them to be accessible to everyone, and to be as free of class markers as, for example, movies, or arena rock shows) 2) how to bring about that state of affairs, with the particular emphasis in this debate on whether not dressing up to attend fine music events can exert some small social force, or whether it just comes off as rude or disrespectful.
I don't really see how anyone can disagree with 1. 2 is more complicated: I'd like to see the dress code go away for the symphony, for example, but would think that someone who didn't dress up for the symphony tonight would be rude. It's the kind of thing that ought to be top-down, with the symphony declaring a "casual Friday" or some such, which will remove the social anxiety about being inappropriately dressed, and start a casualification that will be hard to stop.
We don't get good composition (suppose that's true) because audiences are too quiet?
Yeah, that doesn't seem like a valid conclusion. First, define "masterpiece". Second, recognize that "AC Douglas' own account" sucks. Ross got lazy there, I think. In his defense, though, he does imply that he thinks contemporary masterpieces exist, but "masterpiece" remains undefined.
eleven months ago
I figured Ross's analysis was still applicable because it's been more than eleven months since Radiohead has released an album that REVOLUTIONIZES MUSIC AND LIFE AND EXISTENCE 4EVAR!!!1!!!EINS!!!
Well, matinee performances are already pretty informal, dress-wise. Also, cheaper.
Does north face make a slightly dressier top, Ogged?
How dressed down is dressed down?
I actually agree with the dress up! view in that I don't think jeans and fleece is appropriate to a lot of occasions, but there's space between that and a tie-appropriate attire.
Apropos of nothing, I have to confess I'm violating most of Sherry's rules lately by wearing my new north face soft shell all the time, even with pleated slacks. I'm just an aging, once outdoorsy, shabby prepster.
Does north face make a slightly dressier top, Ogged?
Yeah, they make shirts like this, though if you're going to wear something like that, I don't see any reason to get it from North Face.
Today, in fact, we had a client in the office, so I had to "dress up," which means Banana Republic khakis and a Brooks Brothers sweater--same idea as my regular get-up, just classed up a bit. And pretty much the worst of all possible worlds, by Sherry's lights.
I think that Ross was pointing out that a lot of the classical music audience today are not people who are enthusiastic about music. Making an appearance and seeing what everyone else is wearing is a big part of it, and even that is dwindling.
When my son was in youth music (classical), a lot of parents pushed it for character-building and social-climbing reasons. I don't think that many of them wanted their kids to actually be musicians. Or at least, only the scraggliest of us did.
re: 99 -
But I submit that "dressing up" is not a marker of upperclassedness. Growing up, most of my working class family friends had suits or at least formal-looking clothing. Moreover, they generally *liked* wearing them -- I would see the formalwear pretty frequently, at family parties and church and christenings. It's only since I've gone to college and grad school, etc., that I see people refusing a suit and tie, or even dark pants and a dress shirt, in favor of khakis and polo ts. So I think of a distaste for formalwear to be more of an upper class thing, and I think it's terribly rude not to dress up for an event that a lot of other attendees clearly consider to be an occasion worthy of their best frock.
Speaking of minimalism and "having a sound", I heard a surf guitar thing today which consisted of one or maybe two chords, two or three melody notes, three or four bass notes, and three verses and two choruses with a slight variation on the last verse.
But the saxophone had a great dirty sound, and the guitar and bass had a great surf sound, and while the rhythm was simple, it moved right along.
about the dressing-up/down issue: maybe i am being dense here, but what about just wanting to give visual pleasure, to oneself and others? it seems like this can be a nice & generous (and not just snooty or vain or ethical or superficial or class-based) thing - rah for hedonism.
also i notice strangers & service-workers, treat me significantly better when i am dressed well. (of course, i live in paris, but i think this is generally true). so it's practical.
and there's a little whirr of pleasure being around good-looking people when working or playing. i submit that although you guys may have mastered the art, it is very difficult to look good in fleece.
I listen to CD's at home and seldom go to concerts, so I don't even have to wear pants at all when I listen to music. If I did go to concerts, I'd wear pants, but even having made that enormous concession I'd still piss Bitch off.
Yes, this is entirely true. My cousin's fiance showed up to my grandmother's funeral in jeans and a fleece. He was also a jerk who tried to make suggestions about how the funeral should go. It's true that they came for a visit to see her--because she was very sick--and she died without their having proper clothes, but he made no effort.
When he later married my cousin, he later admitted that he didn't believe in God--even though he had made my cousin convert to Judaism.
It was totally disrespectful, and I'm sure that if anyone had asked him to wear a suit, he would have gotten a kick out of bucking conventional norms. The fact that he managed to graduate from UC Santa Cruz has permanently lowered my opinion of that institution.
107 - i do agree, j.
often poorer people feel it is especially important to have good clothes on - however they define that - to show self-respect and get respect from others. That's why, if I may generalize, poorer African-Americans often have a very precise sense of style and spend large percentages of their income on things like footwear or designer clothing.
I remember feeling the force of this logic myself when I went through a very poor phase as a grad student -- you may be eating nothing but rice and salt for dinner again, because groceries are so expensive right now, but by god you'd better not show it! a pride thing.
The difference between popular music and "serious" music, for me, is in the how often the harmonic progression returns to the basic key, and in how important a role the beat plays.
The existence of Tony Conrad's collaboration with Faust, Outside the Dream Syndicate, no doubt represents an argument here, but, like that of Duff's Device, I'm unsure whether it's for or against your statement.
but what about just wanting to give visual pleasure, to oneself and others?
One doesn't want to be arrested for exposure again.
114:
Oh come now. Give us just a little bit.
95
No, I think that shows the opposite. It is because the upper class are hiding that the rest of us presume that they are just like us, or that we are as rich as they are.
The truth is that most of us don't even know who the upper class are and know just the tiniest bit about those that need to remain public.
These days the 'society' pages are nothing but celebrity gossip and the anxious middle class trying to act fancy.
116 was me.
We are very close to the gilded age of the late 1800's and I ask you "Where are the Rockefellers of our time?" Where are the Gates? Where are the Waltons? Where are the Duponts and Daytons?
I'll tell you where. Hiding from sight because they don't want to share and they don't want to be too visible when the peasants revolt.
mmf! you live in paris? can we have a blog meet up there?
In the future, the dictator will institute sumptuary laws which will correlate heel height with income.
The Gates go out; people see them at movies and things in Seattle. Apparently Bill has a habit of rocking in his seat.
If anyone needs to pump up their loathing of the rich a notch or two, see this annoying slide show in the times:
the other side of the mountain
Does Bill also bang his head on the seat in front of him?
if the next meetup is in Paree, the housing will be in Belgium I'm sure.
Oh come now. Give us just a little bit.
I'll show you my 1 if you show me your 0.
But I should warn you, my bits are decidedly bigendian.
Actually, re 94, as a performer I think that Ross is pretty correct here. While there is something to be said for actually listening to a concert instead of treating it like background music, rules about when to applaud and when not to are much more exclusionary than unwritten dress-codes.
And as an audience, I feel like part of the performance when I am aloud to applaud. It reinforces the fact that I am at a live show. It makes the experience much more real to cheer for Tosca when she throws the fan down and says that God will forgive her than when we are forced to sit on our hands through artistic triumphs and bite our tongues through artistic travesties. Let us cheer and boo when appropriate instead of waiting until the end of the show.
Sandow's written a lot about applause, especially in operas, after arias for example. Apparently it used to be the custom to applaud after one (the way it's still the custom to applaud after jazz solos (though this seems to be going out as well)), but now you'll reveal yourself as a rube.
I don't know how relevant this is to anything, but it's worth noting that musicals are still very, very popular, and are an exception to the no-planning rule that Bitch mentioned above. Audience response is allowed and encouraged, people (in New York at least) still eagerly anticipate new works by respected figures (the Sondheims) as well as the crowd-pleasing showmen and show-women (the Shaimans and Stromans). It's not quite what it was in the 50s, culturally, but it's much better than it was in the 80s, and even Broadway tastes seem to be diversifying rather than unifying, which means that there's more of an audience for all sorts of different voices. The music is, of course, different than other music, in that it is (or at least, should be) an absolute slave to the story, but musical theater seems to be one art form that has continually evolved to straddle the line between popular tastes and "high art", which is part of why it's so appealing to me.
I'm sympathetic to the notion that theater music isn't "pure" music, because it's obviously not. It's music that fits into a larger narrative, and although it drives the narrative (as opposed to a film score, which merely aids the narrative at best), it's still not the whole reason for the evening. It is, though, a very large reason for the evening, and it is what people remember about the evening.
As others have pointed out, in fact the importance of "dressing up" is *not* something that only the "upper" classes value--if anything, it's the middle and professional classes that are more likely to dress down for things like church and going out than the working classes and the poor.
Well yes, but the word "up" is in "dressing up" for a reason; it's not "dressing nice", it's "dressing like someone further up the social scale than you are". At base, it's an act of obeisance; you're stating through your dress that you think that the upper class look nicer and smell sweeter than you do and you would look like that all the time if you weren't so lowly.
Similarly, when you "make an effort" to go to a concert, you're not showing respect for people; it's impossible to show respect through your clothes (excepting odd corner cases like a "I'm With Laudable -- >" tshirt). What you're showing respect for is their idea that operas and concerts are really only for the upper class and should really only be attended by people who have made an effort to look like their idea of how the upper class dresses. Which is not part of that set of generally held beliefs that deserves respect. These little dress codes are really a lot more pernicious than you'd think.
it's impossible to show respect through your clothes … What you're showing respect for …
I'm sympathetic to the case you're advancing, dsquared, but I'm a little confused as to how one can show respect for ideas or beliefs through clothes but not for people. (Or, if it's through something else that you think respect for ideas or beliefs is shown, why someone couldn't respond by saying that, no, it's for the people involved.)
Though I am quite tired right now, and may be missing something obvious.
Since most operas are mostly just strings of arias interspersed with stupid melodrama, applauding after each aria makes sense.
I just read that the particular forms Verdi's operas took was effectively decided by the censors. He didn't want to write shit plots at all, but the censor let them by.
Well, what I mean is that it's perfectly possible to put on a white tie and tails and go to the opera, but to do so while absolutely despising everyone there for their petit-bourgeois pretentions. I doubt it's even uncommon. If you have dressed up to go to the opera and you see someone else who has dressed up, then you have enough information to conclude "that man respects the social conventions regarding dress at the opera" but not enough information to conclude "that man has worn those clothes because he has respect for the people who will be at the opera" or even "that man actually does have any respect for people at the opera".
127 and 131, opera has been around for about 400 years, and things changed a lot over the course of the years. But during Handel's time, when the audiences went to the same opera night after night after night, they would talk (and play cards and eat and buy roast chicken from the roast chicken vendors and even go to the bathroom) during the talky bits that advanced the plot and then pay attention and cheer after and even during the shouty bollocks.
But even 30 years ago, if you listen to live recordings from the Met, the applause was more like that for jazz solos.
i think "dressing up" can actually give you more mobility - no one can tell which class you come from, necessarily.
this might be easier for women, since there are no codified laws about which sort of clothing where, so just looking really really sharp can be appropriate for a wide variety of occasions in a very fluid way.
sure, blogmeet in paris! but you will all have to pack your suitcases according to bitch phd's guidelines if you come... otherwise the waiter will not be hiding his laughter if you are all in fleeces and there will be nothing i can do...
What is a "fleece". Is that a down jacket?
Incidentally, while it possible to refuse to accept a Nobel Prize entirely, it is not possible to accept a Nobel Prize without dressing properly (some specific tux type thing, not just any old formal outfit).
it would be interesting to have a list of people who have refused their Nobel prizes. Is there anyone besides Sartre?
Well yes, but the word "up" is in "dressing up" for a reason; it's not "dressing nice", it's "dressing like someone further up the social scale than you are". At base, it's an act of obeisance; you're stating through your dress that you think that the upper class look nicer and smell sweeter than you do and you would look like that all the time if you weren't so lowly.
I get this point, but disagree -- dressing festively is something that lots of people just like to do. In much more class-rigid societies, where there was no question of being able to pass as the upper-class, proles like the lot of us still had party clothes. I don't think you're democratizing classical music, I think you're elitifying dress-up.
fleeces are shapeless fuzzy warm things you can wear under jackets or as jackets.
i do get laughed at regularly myself when i am dressed for going to the gym in paris. but once back in proper street clothes again it becomes lots of fun to people-watch with everyone else...
it would be interesting to have a list of people who have refused their Nobel prizes.
Some people who refused a Nobel. Feynman said something about wanting to refuse, and noted the silly protocols. But he accepted and, in Feymanesque fashion, appears to have enjoyed the silly parts too.
122: this picture is awesome, on a level with anything at Eurobad.
Emerson -- I believe 'fleece' is that fluffy white petroleum-byproduct lining that vaguely resembles sheep fur. And 'a fleece' is a garment featuring same.
Or it could be that mmf! is correct in 139, and I am mistaken. Probably.
For the same reason that I don't go to the opera, I would also refuse to accept a Nobel prize. I'd be willing to wear pants, but I wouldn't want to wear the tux thingie. And I'd hate to have all the Bitches of Sweden sneering at me and gritting their teeth.
For those truly interested in this topic, I would recommend Paul Fussell's book Class. He tries to understand the class signifiers of dressing up/down in different situations and discusses the out-of-sight-Rich phenomenon that Drymala brought up. It's a little old (1992) but I think most of what he says holds up well.
Late to this, but it's ridiculously true how much better one is treated when dressed nicely. I'm in LA, and was out to dinner with my siblings and some other people, and it was sort of ridiculous how much more attention was paid by the waitstaff to my brother, who came directly from work and is an extremely stylish dresser (fuckwit? possibly), and was wearing a rather nice suit (the rest of us were very casual).
I guess I did say it was ridiculous.
the out-of-sight-Rich phenomenon that Drymala brought up
That book looks good, but I think Tripp brought it up first.
comments on d^d's #41 :-
"One does dress up for the opera, but not necessarily for a concert. This is just social convention."
I'm with Miles Kington on this - "Opera is classical music for people who don't like music".
"the general problem of towns of less than 2m inhabitants not really being big enough to support a proper cultural life"
Prolly true, but in the last 3 years I've been to sold-out classical concerts in London, Athens, Budapest & Funchal. The Athens gig was depressing because the dressers-up were all coffin-dodgers and it didn't look as if the really-big, modern concert hall was used for anything but paid-for evening concerts. No lunchtime jazz at the cafe, no school choirs, no community involvement. The one at Funchal was the best, because it appeared relatively classless, and the concert hall/municipal theatre was well-used for a wide range of activities.
But if you want the choice of 6 to 10 very good classical concerts every night, (and a couple of dozen second-division ones) I think London's unique.
Oh, and as for tuxes, Marks & Spencer have developed a dress suit that's washable and very light. They beta-tested it on the LSO, who wear the things 150 days a year.
Now this is snobby:
"Opera is classical music for people who don't like music".
#134: I would agree that Paris is quite different; one would always dress up there, but perhaps all this proves is that I am not as free of this myth as I would hope to be.
One nice thing about New York is how many different ways I feel comfortable dressing. I've been dressed in ballgowns, in costumes, and in sweats and never felt that if I got attention at all it was anything but positive. There are beautiful people on display, but it's okay not to be one of them on any given day. I prefer a range of dress to be acceptable for theater and music events too; I've gone to music performances straight from work; that entails, for example, carrying my backpack.
There are beautiful people on display, but it's okay not to be one of them on any given day
quite right. I have perhaps not stressed enough that this is reason enough for we people who live in the big cities to not criticise people who don't, as well as vice versa.
Opera is like "soccer", it upscaled when it crossed the ocean. Soccer is a hooligan game in places where it is played well, but in the US it's a yuppie game for white kids who can't compete in other, blacker sports.
Italian opera, at least, which is the most listened-to, was pretty low-class during its days of greatness. My musical education basically forbid Verdi.
Wagner is a whole disfferent story, but don't get me started; I've never forgiven him for starting WWII.
#124: Untrue.
I disagree that dressing nicely is paying homage to the well-to-do. An anecdote: a friend of mine, now an anthropologist, went to do some Peace Corps-type work in South America. While there, she learned that the men and women in the towns and villages she worked in were extremely offended by the young Peace Corps-type kids' habit of dressing down, hippie-style. The reason? She was told that (1) the folks she was working with dressed as well as they could, especially in company; (2) they viewed the Peace Corps kids as guests, and were offended that their guests didn't see the need to wear anything but dirty jeans around their hosts; (3) they knew damn good and well that these kids could afford more than one pair of jeans, and found the faux-populism of dressing down insulting.
I'm also not convinced that it's easier for women to dress up. It is, in the sense that a woman wearing a skirt to a barbeque can look fine, while a guy wearing a suit would look ridiculous; on the other hand, a man can own one suit or one dinner suit and wear it over and over again, no problem. Whereas (second anecdote) I once went to a formal event for Mr. B.'s work wearing the same dress TWO YEARS IN A ROW. One of his colleagues' wives, who didn't like me much, made a point of saying snottily, "oh, I remember that dress from last year." To which, being a bitch, my response was a breezy, "yes, I realized I hadn't gained any weight, so I didn't see any need to buy a new dress."
I realize that this anecdote supports the argument that clothing is used to compete, which I don't deny. I just deny that dressing up on appropriate occasions is, in and of itself, snobby.
My son says that it's impossible to be too crazy-looking for Brooklyn. Nobody cares.
Or rather, what is the whole thing?
159, it is somebody wealthy who is featured in the NY Times Rocky Mountain Slideshow which mcmc links in 122. Beyond that I know nothing, I was just engaging the picture on a purely aesthetic level. Look at the woman... look at the beast-heads... look at the furnishings... look at the panelling...
Peace Corps-type kids' habit of dressing down, hippie-style. The reason? She was told that (1) the folks she was working with dressed as well as they could, especially in company; (2) they viewed the Peace Corps kids as guests, and were offended that their guests didn't see the need to wear anything but dirty jeans around their hosts; (3) they knew damn good and well that these kids could afford more than one pair of jeans, and found the faux-populism of dressing down insulting.
If the local convention is guests dress up, I'd dress up, but 3 is irritating. If I could afford to, I'd buy such and such style clothing, therefore people who can afford what I'd buy, but don't buy it are offensive.
I just deny that dressing up on appropriate occasions is, in and of itself, snobby.
This I agree with. I just deny that not dressing up on occasions where some would and others would not dress up is, in and of itself, snobby.
Ok, reading more closely: dirty clothes, only one pair of jeans? Yeah, that's pretty slobby and insulting. I'm trying to defend a sense of clean respectability somewhere between jeans and dress clothes and probably failing.
If I could afford to, I'd buy such and such style clothing, therefore people who can afford what I'd buy, but don't buy it are offensive.
Try this thinking for the offended locals: "You don't wear dirty jeans to your cousin's wedding back in the US, do you? No. She's important. She's worth dressing up for. Your mother would murder you if you pulled a stunt like that. We, on the other hand, get to look at you in dirty jeans because we don't matter." Someone who literally never dresses up is fairly eccentric, but inoffensively so. Someone who dresses up rarely is judging most events, and most people, unworth of their respect.
(I sound like an incredible hard-ass on this. Really, I'm a slob, and I spend as much time as I can in jeans. I just recognize that it can legitimately be understood to send a message of disrespect.)
David Sedaris: "Comfort has its place but it seems rude to visit another country dressed as if you've come to mow its lawns."
I don't disagree with that reasoning. But that reasoning isn't (3).
167 to 165.
Also, Becks, how does Fussell come across in Class? I thought about reading it until I read his Abroad, on travel writing, and came away about as irritated with him as I've ever been with any author in the history of reading. (Maybe not that much, but you get the point.) His book on WWI literature is supposed to be a classic, though.
167:
It's close to (3) -- Try it as: "Dressing as if you were impoverished would be fine if you were, but I know you aren't. You're dressing like that not because you can't afford nice clothes, but because this isn't a worthy occasion to bring them out."
That sounds like 3, but it isn't the cousin example. The cousin example doesn't turn on what one can or cannot afford. Affordability may underlie the cousin example, but it's more about respect and occasion. You don't dress up for your cousin's wedding just because you can pay for it.
Next: arguing that arguments that relegate money into the unstated background are elitist. I may be guilty of that.
159: Further research reveals it to be Julia Koch (wife to business maggot David Koch), wearing "an Alesandro Dell'Acqua silk chiffon dress, $1,300. At Alessandro Dell'Acqua, 818 Madison Avenue. Monique Lhuillier necklace and bracelet. Celine shoes," and seated in her posh Aspen home.
I didn't notice the tiger before. Good lord.
I also found this picture inspiring. Ms. Stockman's outfit is much more expensive than Ms. Koch's. And her daughters are hott, if you're into wealthy WASPy waifs of unnatural proportions.
David Nathanson wears a DSquared parka, $4,485.
God damn, Davies!
What a bunch of populists. They're wearing jeans, don't they know it's the Style section of the New York Times?
Sorry, the jeans wearing should be in the singular. I was blinded by the opulence.
eb -- you ignore that these are $1110 "denim trousers". Totally acceptable as evening wear.
Is evening like leveling? If so I fully support it.
168 – eb, I've only read Fussell's social commentary (Class and a book he wrote on the cultural meaning of uniforms) so I don't know if it has the same style that annoyed you in his travel writing. I would warn that Class is kind of similar to Brooks's Bobos In Paradise. If you didn't like that, you might not like this book. I find Fussell at least a lot less annoying than Brooks.
Wow, that photo essay makes me hate The Rich so much more than I already did.
Maybe I will read Class, then. Abroad isn't Fussell's own travel writing, which might be kind of fun, but about the travel writers he likes and why anyone who likes other writers or wants to know about other aspects of travel writing is wrong. Pop sociology at least has the benefit of presenting interesting information.
Osner- If you're completely insane, an all-denim suit ensemble works very well.
(I am completely serious about this, too- a friend of mine, since he was from the middle of damn nowhere, had a range of clothing that went from "new jeans" to "jeans that have nearly fallen apart." He joined an engineering fraternity, and for one of their formal things, his mother sent along a fully servicable denim sport jacket, and a denim tie.)
Moleman -- nice. I have dreams of doing something similar, except with cordueroy.
You know you guys are re-running a Seinfeld routine, right? I think that can get you banned.
The boxers would chafe, though, JO. Briefs, even more.
Slol- Oh God. Really? Please tell me I'm not George.
Class is good (though dated- 1983) except for the last chapter about "category X". If there really were those "category X" guys, they deserved a smackdown.
Interesting. I always thought "category X" was an astute early trendspotting of the changing attitudes towards class that would come with Generation X and he just kind of lucked on a similar name.
Fussell is actually writing approvingly, but he is describing dressing down as a form of aggression.
I'm not George
I dunno, one of those guys wanted to wear a velvet suit, iirc.
Dressing down is (or can be) aggressive: "Unlike you, I don't need to dress up to be noticed." Or, "I've already made it, and no longer care."
I have dreams of doing something similar, except with cordueroy.
It's the new hot style.
If it's such a hot style, why is it 60% off?
I think you're projecting an awful lot onto something that likely has no thought behind most of the time, B. And you've sounded incredibly aggressive about it.
Hm. I can't read the tone of that last comment, but in case I've overdone it, I'll shut up now.
No, no, I'm not trying to shut you up. It just seems odd that you have such strong feelings about something that strikes me as pretty trivial.
Which says as much about me as you, of course.
I've dressed aggressively down for decades, but at the end of the day that seemed to have been pretty ineffective. If I had my life to live over again, I'd probably just sneak up behind people and whack them with lead pipes.
I think there is a definite difference between what dress people are entitled to expect of me at a wedding or funeral and what they're entitled to expect from me at the opera, mainly because it is a long while since anyone invited me to an opera and I rarely buy tickets for funerals.
159: Further research reveals it to be Julia Koch (wife to business maggot David Koch), wearing "an Alesandro Dell'Acqua silk chiffon dress, $1,300. At Alessandro Dell'Acqua, 818 Madison Avenue. Monique Lhuillier necklace and bracelet. Celine shoes," and seated in her posh Aspen home.
What kind of fuckwits decorate their house with heads of dead animals? It would be cool if one of these fuckwit's guns malfunctioned when he was hunting and the tiger he was trying to shoot killed him instead. Poetic justice.
Re: 194-197. There's a tendency, when explaining a subtle gripe, to sound overheated because of the energy that goes into making something murky clear. I've been almost as heated as B., and aggressive under-dressing is completely not a hot issue for me, just a minor annoyance.
(And I'm a musical idiot. My main interest in opera, concert-going, whatever is in the spectacle, because I have no idea what I'm listening to. I don't think I quite qualify as tone-deaf, because I can sing on key if necessary, but I'm certainly tone-stupid.)
