HAHA, if I get it right, that is finally something we can agree upon.
I suppose it's okay for the original poster, but I don't like that one either! I know it was just one of those 95% of all statistics that were made up on the spot, but lots of people like older music; it's the crazy contemporary stuff they tend to not get. Well, most people can handle this sort of music better when it's incidental music in a film or some other kind of drama, because it isn't trying to be music for the sake of music; that goes for all 'classical' music, but more so for the wildly dissonant music. But if you take a random poll, I'd guess at least 20-30% of people would like a broad range of classical music, and even more would like a smaller range of it.
My definition was tongue-in-cheek of course. How could you possibly run a survey on every supposedly classical piece of music? Aside from that, the five per cent boundary is more or less the proportion of classical on all music sales (again, they are rough figures, since they do vary with the different countries and, again, depend on which shelf you find Bocelli's crossover or Allevi's fashionable emptiness -but they're usually accounted as classical, this is what we have come to...
) You could call that the Marketeer's criterion.
As good as another.
Seriously, as Scott has already pointed out, the definition of 'Classical' music can only be outlined by looking at the music landscape from a certain (temporal) distance (after all, being "classical", it cannot belong to the contemporary turmoil by definition), but it's quite sure that since the end of WWII, art music has radically changed in many aspects. Art in general has.
His defense tactics still amaze me. He liked to question students about things that they 'liked', asking this and that about the piece or the composer or whatever, and always coming to the conclusion that we didn't know the piece well enough to like it.
This is crap. One essential quality of art music is that offers multiple tiers of understanding and fruition -you don't need to reach one to have the 'right' to like a given piece. It's obvious to me that the more you understand about music (inner process, compositional devices, milieu and so on) the better, the goal being always to increase the awareness of what you hear as a listener or do as a pianist, but what we may experience through music goes well beyond that.
I am not totally sure about this answer. Consider a sold out concert featuring Freddy Kempf. If people are paying money to see him perform Beethoven's Pathetique, then how could it be that 5 out of 100 people are the only ones who like it? (why would the other 95 waste their money on something they value at zero)
Nope, that would be a self selected sample, how could it work?
we have to make this choice here on PS regularly as we claim to be a classical music site. But there is no criterium for this,
There should be, how fun a bike race, much better than my poll!
2. Beethoven was only an 'apprentice' of Mozart through indirect means (he was a fan of Mozart, and he studied with Haydn, Mozart's teacher). He never studied with Mozart, and the tales of their meeting when Beethoven was a child have the earmarks of urban legend. No one has ever come up with convincing evidence that they actually met.
I didn't know that Haydn was Mozart's teacher.
I am starting to get the idea that you have no idea what you are talking about, and that you're just bouncing around Wikipedia pages and pretending to have a clue.
I'm afraid that it was my fault. No more Wikipedia to anyone, I promise.