In trying to make classical music accessible, are we failing to listen?
I’ve had one of those France v Brazil moments. Both are great footballing nations and when they play each other I don’t mind who wins. But as the game goes on, I do start to mind that someone will lose. Can’t there be an eternal penalty shootout?
Well, for France, substitute Philip Pullman; and for Brazil, Bobby Seagull. I admire them both. Who doesn’t? Pullman is a superb writer who has inspired children and adults into thinking about the deepest aspects of human existence. Seagull is a brilliant communicator who has given millions of people new confidence about ‘doing maths’. Both are civilising influences. You don’t want either publicly castigated.
Yet they have disagreed, bizarrely, over the function of classical music – and Twitter has (as usual) turned a difference of opinion into a storm. It started innocuously with Seagull posing a question to his social media followers: ‘When you were studying for exams, writing essays or just trying to create an environment for learning, what were/are your best pieces of classical music to listen to?’ He received hundreds of suggestions – and one negative reply, from Pullman: ‘That’s not what classical music is for. Treat it with respect.’
That did it! Everyone – professional musicians, students, teachers, grannies – weighed into the argument, and the overwhelming majority supported Seagull and were scathing about Pullman. ‘Dear old Phil,’ one respondent posted, ‘with respect that is a ridiculous and supercilious point of view.’ Another asked sarcastically who had appointed him as ‘classical music’s gatekeeper’.
It’s easy to see why people are agitated. We all want classical music to be as accessible as possible, especially to the young. If some of them are using Bach or Schubert as a tool to get their brains in gear for study or revision, what’s the problem? Subliminally, they may develop an attachment to classical music that could enrich the rest of their lives.
And there’s some evidence, at least, that classical music does enhance concentration. Seagull cites Don Campbell’s provocative 1997 book The Mozart Effect, which popularised the (now largely discredited) view that listening to Mozart boosts results in IQ tests. Wisely, Seagull doesn’t repeat that controversial claim, but does suggest that listening to classical music ‘could relieve stress, improve communication and increase efficiency’.
So is Pullman being ‘ridiculous and supercilious’ by objecting to classical music being used for this purpose? At
