We all know that classical music has an image problem in that it is seen to be elitist. But is that reputation fair? Do performers and composers (still) cater for specific patrons or demographics? The only example of concious exclusivity that I can think of is the attitude of some avant-garde composers in the 60s, Milton Babbitt in particular, that thier music was not intended for any audience at all - quite an egalitarian approach in some ways.
One problem is that culture is always linked to identity, and identity requires exclusion. European classical music has historical links to Europe and Christianity, but appears to have moved well beyond both. Financially, classical music is more accessible than ever before. So who are the elite that make classical music elitist?

I don't think it was always as elitist, or rather perceived to be elitist, as it is now. And for that I blame, in part, reviewers and musiclogists and other strokey-beard types who use complicated, convoluted and inaccessible language to try and "explain" what's going on in a Mahler symphony or a Bach Prelude & Fugue. Most people who go to concerts just want to enjoy the music, without feeling threatened by the programme notes before the music has even started.

The image issue is also a major factor: Joe Public thinks that boring old futtocks go to classical concerts - and one glance into the Wigmore of an evening would seem to confirm this: a sea of white haired heads. Then there is the highbrow conversation in the bar at the interval. It can be very offputting and appears to be highly exclusive. Some musicians don't do their art any favours either - being pompous and self-important, and behaving as if they are somehow on a higher plane than the rest of us (actually, there's quite a lot of this in the art world too!). I am no fan of Lang Lang, Chinese poster-boy-pianist, but what he's been very good at is making music more accessible to a much wider audience. Ditto Classic FM (which I can't abide either - does that make me elitist?!).

There are some good things happening though to try and draw more people into classical music and to show them that it is not all high-falutin' and full of obscure language. I thought the recent Opera season on BBC4 was excellent; ditto Charles Hazelwood's series last year about Purcell, Handel etc. The music "toffs" would claim it is fairly low-brow content, but if it gets more people interested, I am all for it.

I wonder if the elitism is coming from the top - from the venue directors, the heads of arts organisations, and some of the musicians themselves who want to keep it exclusive? (Why??) But I think most performers would agree that they would far rather play for a wider audience and to introduce as many people as possible to the wonderful variety that the classical repertoire has to offer.

In the end, maybe it's just about education (or edukashun!)? But that's another discussion thread......

Perhaps image is everything in this matter. Perhaps if classical music is seen to be elitist, it is elitist, and any philosophising on the issue is just avoiding the subject.
Speaking of subjects, I think your example of a Bach Prelude and Fugue is apposite Frances. A couple of years ago (2000 probably) the BBC were doing late night broadcasts of Bach organ music on the telly. I remember sitting there with my house-mate at the time and him telling me that the music meant nothing to him. When I explained how the voices were interacting, he could at least engage to a certain extent. He still wasn't enjoying it though. But one problem with the genre of fugue is that it is too open to explanation. And, like serialism, once you have outlined how it works you think you have covered everything, which of course is completely missing the point.
Lang Lang is an interesting case too. I'm not a fan, and I think that one of the reasons for his popularity is that his playing is so exaggerated and two-dimensional. It is like he is explaining it as he is going along. If music has to be elitist to be subtle, then maybe we should just accept the fact.

I wish people would stop trying to explain serialism, actually - counting up to 12 and back is a only a tiny fraction of what's going on technically in such pieces (even in that tiny number of pieces in which that actually happens), and an even tinier fraction of what's going on aesthetically. It's like reducing the B Minor Mass to a string of perfect cadences.

I wish people would stop trying to explain classical music all the time full stop! Let's just sit back and LISTEN now and then!!

;-)

(listening to Liszt's Annees de Pelerinage as I write.....

I suppose I am happy for it to be elitist if that keeps out the Proms in the Park people (because of  how they behave).   In the end, though, I`d centre around money,  the price of a ticket, and say that I don`t give a toss if classical music is deposhified if I only have to pay a couple of quid for a ticket. That`s the bottom line. If people are allowed to sit and chat, text, or children are pulled in to be entertained, then the ticket is devalued. I can`t afford to subsidise folks who just want to behave like they do in front of their TV.  If I am expected to pay for a full price ticket then I fully expect to be able to LISTEN to the MUSIC. That`s what I `m there for.
best,sam

You don't like those "Proms in the Park people", do you, Sam?! I have to agree with you though.... going to a classical concert is not like going to hear the Red Hot Chilli Peppers at Earls Court, where it is quite acceptable to yell loudly, take photos, drink beer, stand on one's seat, dance, shout, sing along, wave pointlessly, and totter home with bleeding ears.... I know, I've done it..... (and I admit I enjoyed the RHCPs more than Paul Lewis at the Wigmore!!!)

I don't like elitism in anything; but what I think classical music deserves is respect. Good behaviour at the venue does not make those of us who enjoy classical music elitist, just quietly respectful. And no, people should not behave like they do in front of the telly at concerts: I mean, why bother going out if you're going to behave like that?!

Yes, I agree about "respect" ! And, yes, anger aside, I have experienced children of 8 or 9 who have sat motionless in contrast to the adults around them.
Just to prove that I am not elitist I would say that I am broadly in favour of opening up concerts to the many and, to prove my good nature, I confess that I do a lot of work for animal rights and would WELCOME animals at concerts, so long as I only pay a nominal amount. I`d willingly go to the English Concert or the O.A.E. with a load of animals, for two quid a time. Look at what I`d learn from watching them (the English Concert and the animals)!
Best,sam

Is it elitist to expect audiences to listen to unamplified music, and to not get up and leave mid-movement?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/sep/05/jonathan-harvey-classical-music-amplifiers

I find live classical music perfectly audible, thank you. Orchestral instruments do not require amplification. Very occasionally, I have found the piano at the Wigmore too loud (and I am always at the back in the cheap seats). Angela Hewitt brought in a Fazioli for a concert I attended two years ago, and the voice was just too big for a small venue like the Wigmore. It completely spoiled the Beethoven cello sonata.... Amplifying classical music destroys our connection with it and undermines the composer's intentions.

Allowing people to wander around does not appeal to me either - it could be distracting for both players and other audience members. But one could adopt a more "club" style format by seating people at small tables, or in groups, or in the round, which is a much more friendly shape. It would also be nice to be allowed to take a glass of wine in (a friend of mine sipped Pimms from a flask during a Chopin recital at the Wigmore a few years ago; she also asked me, after hearing the B-flat minor sonata "so who wrote the original 'Funeral March'?" !!!!)