Some points: Fine art, including fine music is, 'ipso facto' the preserve of the few. The same could be said for Wisdom. Both require leisure & preparation. Instant relief is provided by commodified coarse art,unchallengingly designed for the undiscriminationg majority. We know the purposes of the crass, be it junk-food, junk-music, sugar-water or cliched-language. Typically, the mind-numbing escape offered by loud, pulsating silliness is amusing & refreshing, for a few seconds, like a naughty child. What some see as the excessive proliferation of junk (it has always existed) has been facilitated by mass-production with its imperative to aim for the biggest returns. Cheap music has always appealed at the lowest (i.e. physical)level. 20th-Century tecniques in, to take two, amplification & sequencing, make it easier to satisfy that appeal. Also, when 'Music' is mentioned it is assumed that the silly, cartoon version is intended.('Literature' though, is not yet taken to mean comic-books any more than viniculture describes alcopops.) In early post-WW2 years juvenile commercial pop was called 'crazy' music, as if people still had at least one foot on the ground & recognised that the appeal lay in its obvious naive excess & silliness. Now, though,we witness the spectacle of august journals treating this daft stuff as if it were of the intellectual canon. Perhaps 'baby-boomers' really are the fist generation never to reach adulthood?

I think Ian's perspective can best be understood from a comment he made about his school experiences on Desert Island Discs last week: "I was one of nine very peculiar little boys who spent most of their time arguing over whether Wagner was any good and what mass did a photon have..." I was one of them too. And boy, has it warped my perspective ever since!

classical music yet remains essentially discursive, long- breathed, temperamentally serious, historically avant-garde.

Let me preface my questions by saying that I am deeply greatful for classical music; it is the music I always gravitate toward. It reaches into my soul in ways no other music has been able to do. My life would be greatly diminished without it. I am a pretty good reader, but was unable to find an argument for the thesis of this article. It seemed more like an introduction to the thesis, an exposition of the setting for the argument, the thesis being that classical music still presents a challenge to the way we live now. And, who is represented by the 'we' in 'the way we live now.' How does Mr. Bostridge defend his thesis? My thought is that he has merely stated it, but has not made an argument for it. Can someone help me with this. I may be quite off-base.

This is something of a false dichotomy - almost protesting too much about the marginalisation of a specific portion of the classical canon. Musical fashions and tastes change even within what would be defined as a high-cultual ghetto - it would have been unthinkable for the celebration of Vaughan Williams this year to have achieved its UK profile when the prevailing orthodoxy was serialism and the Second Viennese School. The place of culture in a market-driven society is always going to be problematic, but holding onto notions of relative superiority does not answer the issue. It creates and sustains a siege mentality. It is perfectly possible to appreciate different styles and values for music, from superlative interpretations of the existing canon to improvisors and avant-garde rock and jazz musician/composers. Good music is good music - its power to move, challenge and engage with the emotions and the intellect is not tied to genre or perceived cultural value. It's probably far healthier for people not to have to pretend to like particular forms for the sake of status or advancement, and being able to make their own choices. The issue of providing suitable education and opportunities to make this happen is another issue altogether!

Ian, where do you think we are at the beginning of the 21st century in terms of our arts? I've been feeling for a very long time that Western arts are creatively and spiritually exhausted. And I'm not just talking about "serious" art. I'm thinking pop music, cinema and much of TV. They're all in the same boat.

Why sad ? The Beatles and Brahms were prodigious musicians, Adorno a second-rater (musically speaking). And his views on "modern" music rather predictable.

amazing that Adorno doesn't appear at all here... sad that the Beatles and Brahms are the avatars.

The comment above strikes me as odd. True, some classical music does sound 'convoluted' - but by no means all of it, near infinite variety being one of the classical repetoire's more unanswerable merits. Just to pick a random example, has Mr Barz ever tried listening to Schubert's songs, e.g. Winterreise? While not underestimated how astonishingly difficult it may be to perform these well, the result sounds, more often than not, almost heartbreakingly simple and direct - more like 'songs' than classical music - yet at the same time including, for those who like that sort of thing, 'deep often mind wrenching insights'. Give it a try. PS I am hugely enjoying Ian Bostridge's articles - the absolutely high point of Standpoint, as far as I'm concerned.

why not just say that seriousness "presents a challenge to the way we live..." and be done with it, no matter what artform or style of music. seriousness being the element which demands time and dedication, thus avoiding easy takeover from parasitehypes or demagogues. but i think Mr.Bostridge will agree that when classical music has "challenged, disturbed and subverted" the product itself were in a zone that resisted labelizing it as classical or whatever. Thus the problem sticks to the labelizers, the ones that want to glue this world togheter instead of dedicating themselves to listening, seeing and evolving.