Interesting points about classism above, as Standard English is not a regional dialect, and has been considered to be a class dialect, belonging to middle class and upper class people, in England, that is. But I think in Scotland it is also found.
It lends some weight to the charge of correctness being used by some people as a kind of snobbery and reinforcing of hierarchy, this was definitely true at my school. But maybe this is lessening, as regional accents are found more often on radio and TV. Although some actors say that acting is becoming posh again, I don't know.
Interesting points about classism above, as Standard English is not a regional dialect, and has been considered to be a class dialect, belonging to middle class and upper class people, in England, that is. But I think in Scotland it is also found.
It lends some weight to the charge of correctness being used by some people as a kind of snobbery and reinforcing of hierarchy, this was definitely true at my school. But maybe this is lessening, as regional accents are found more often on radio and TV.
I do think it is lessening a bit in the general population, but that doesn't as quickly translate in the overall workplace, especially as one moves up the ladder.
The thing about clarity and standardized usage is particularly important to most writers. These things are the tools of our calling. It is natural for us to care about them, and ridiculous to accuse us of "classism" for doing so. You might as well accuse a cello player of classism for insisting on producing the notes distinctly and at the proper volume and tempo.
Classical music is typically associated with classism. It is part of a world not generally accessible to the hoi polloi.
Language evolves with culture and variations along with sub/satellite culture. The richness in the variation is part of the beauty of life. It is also the beauty of writing. Technical writing and general mass communication should follow a basic standard because it gives a more equal reference and ambiguity can have consequences. Other forms, not so much. Literature would be fairly limited and a bit dead if "proper" English were the only acceptable standard.
BTW, improvisation used to actually be a part of classical music. Music is a live thing, change is part of that, just like language. Joyfully embracing that change is egalitarian, grudgingly accepting it is classism.
The part that I don't really understand is when writers and editors claim to have some exclusive hold on "proper" English language. As if they are some learnèd clan of bearded priest intelligentsia, entrusted to hold up the standards of "true" grammar by a God of Pomposity and Pedantry.
This is bullshit.
Publications choose their own style guides, editors attempt to keep writers to the in-house style. Sometimes the rules make sense, but that doesn't usually matter. It's not a historical study, it's just a stated line in the sand of acceptable English.
That's it.
Editors have no more claim on what is "Good English" than anyone else.
Classical music is typically associated with classism. It is part of a world not generally accessible to the hoi polloi.
If we're speaking solely of season tickets to orchestra seats at, say, the Metropolitan Opera, accessibility is a definite issue. But buying-to-own-and-replay a CD (or whatever) of Shostakovich's 5th costs the same (maybe less!) as the equivalent item featuring a 2020 Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame nominee.
In addition, concertgoers for big name pop music stars shell out staggering sums to attend standing room only performances, just the way I might shell out big bucks (if I had them) to attend a BSO concert featuring a favorite soloist. And I'd get to sit down while listening.
The problem isn't really accessibility at all. It's deep-seated, ground-in, decades-long, well-poisoning prejudice against old dead white guy composers. And it's this which makes "shopping" for such music difficult; the local record store carries a tiny section devoted to this consisting of the same 4-6 old war horses in versions you've already played to death, and God help you if you're after a particular version of something where the conductor set a tempo that made you heart soar.
Oh yeah. Thus I must feed the gaping maw that is Amazon.
And give me a freaking break, "Classical music is typically associated with classism. It is part of a world not generally accessible to the hoi polloi."
I happen to be the daughter of a machinist and a nurse. I am the first in my family to finish college, and if we have middle class pretensions, that's pretty much what they are--pretensions. (Though my nephew was doing quite a good business in Port-a-Potties.) And I came to classical music via Handel's Messiah when I was 14--borrowed from the local public library. Borrowed why? For love of the subject (yes, I mean the Messiah the work is focused on). If I gained a pleasure in classical music as a result, well, God is generous and gives good and unexpected gifts.
The part that I don't really understand is when writers and editors claim to have some exclusive hold on "proper" English language. As if they are some learnèd clan of bearded priest intelligentsia, entrusted to hold up the standards of "true" grammar by a God of Pomposity and Pedantry.
This is bullshit.
Publications choose their own style guides, editors attempt to keep writers to the in-house style. Sometimes the rules make sense, but that doesn't usually matter. It's not a historical study, it's just a stated line in the sand of acceptable English.
That's it.
Editors have no more claim on what is "Good English" than anyone else.
As for this--
I hope this was not addressed to my account. My post had the purpose of explaining why Rossweisse and I care about English usage--neither more nor less than that. In the hopes that you were NOT in fact addressing me, I will refrain from addressing the nasty bits about editors who think themselves gods.
I cannot recall whether I explained my background in publishing upthread, but if not, I was a professional proofreader (and very sometime writer, editor, developer and layout person) for a good-sized publisher for seven years. I am largely responsible for the existence of the house stylebook at my current job. I am aware of the arbitrary nature of stylebook choices--how should I not be, when I make them?--and my point (made either on this thread or elsewhere, sometime in the past two days) is that stylebooks and manuals are useful. They prevent publishers (and authors!) from looking inconsistent, which pisses off a large fraction of the reading public. Who then call or write to demand the author/editor/copyeditor/proofreader's head on a platter. Because it spoils their reading pleasure.
When I have been an editor or a professor, or the mother of at-home children, it has been my job to insist on proper usage and correct same. When writing or speaking professionally, it is still my job. I don't go around correcting strangers (although I may be silently judging them), but you're still free to disdain my standards. I won't change them for you.
Damn straight. I am a teacher of writing (30 years and counting) and my sole purpose in life, when it comes to students in my classes, is to get them to READ what they've actually WRITTEN (as opposed to what they hope they wrote but can't be arsed to check) to see if they can understand it the way an unknown reader might. Why? So the teachers of their other course might be able to make heads and tails of the random verbiage they dribble across the papers they hand in.
Furthermore, some professions (not just in academia) for which they're preparing will demand writing skills and even publication of them, and what is so blithely dismissed as "high-falutin'" English is essential for the writer (and the constituency s/he represents) to be taken at all seriously.
Damn straight. I am a teacher of writing (30 years and counting) and my sole purpose in life, when it comes to students in my classes, is to get them to READ what they've actually WRITTEN (as opposed to what they hope they wrote but can't be arsed to check) to see if they can understand it the way an unknown reader might. Why? So the teachers of their other course might be able to make heads and tails of the random verbiage they dribble across the papers they hand in.
Furthermore, some professions (not just in academia) for which they're preparing will demand writing skills and even publication of them, and what is so blithely dismissed as "high-falutin'" English is essential for the writer (and the constituency s/he represents) to be taken at all seriously.
Of course it is. But the problem is that there are thousands of academic journals and each one has its own style. It is certainly a job of management to get academics to write in a particular and appropriate way, but that doesn't mean what is being used is correct English.
Some posts at the beginning of this thread were complaining about the standard of English of other people on the internet and generally in life.
Educated people tend to understand that they need learn lessons in order to moderate the way they speak and write to different audiences. People with less exposure to different kinds of audiences tend to be less aware of this necessity.
But that doesn't make any specific kind of English the correct one.
If you think it is your job to correct other people's diction in order to point out their grammatical faults (rather than because you have a specific job to help in a specific context), you need to take yourself outside for a good talking to.
My understanding of Rossweisse's post was in fact that she had / has had precisely such jobs, and was not practicing Grammar™ on random strangers.
May I point out that the editor is the author's slave, diaper-changer and general bottle washer? When I edit someone, the goal is always to make that person's message shine through--to remove anything that could be obstructing the message, whether it is bad spelling, poor sentence construction, incomprehensible idioms, or unfortunate double meanings. In essence, I am making the author look as good as he/she possibly can. (And being a professional, I am doing this regardless of whether I agree with him/her.)
Authors may throw hissy fits and get away with it. Editors have to suck it up and deal. It's much the same dynamic as that between student and teacher, or child and parent--NOT that one is of lower status (that isn't the point, please understand that!) but rather that the author created the material and is largely responsible for its embodiment in text, and the editor can only scurry around cleaning up whatever messes the author made in the process. The same is true of children and students, who have their own autonomy and will ultimately have their way in everything some day; the parent or teacher can only hope to do a little clean-and-polish on the raw material they're given.
You may object that the teacher or editor has the power to completely throw out what the author has written. This is rarely the case (go and talk to any publisher or school administration), but even when it does happen to be true, the editor still has no power to force the author to do anything. At most (and this is rare) we can withdraw the author's opportunity to be published. We cannot put his or her work into a form that the author refuses to permit. (And thus an editor's life is made hollow... Remind me to tell you about the author who insisted--on my watch--on telling the universe that "Jesus didn't ride into Jerusalem as a Lion on a white horse; he came as a Lamb on a donkey!")
My understanding was that both Jesus' and Jesus's are correct. I use the former because it looks more elegant, but that is only my humble o.
Strangely, in writing I use the former for the 'elegant' reason you give. But when I speak a sentence including something like: 'Jesus' thoughts' or 'Jesus' disciples', I usually speak it 'Jesus's' because it seems to give the pronunciation a bit more definition! Weird! But, like you, I too was brought up to believe that both forms are correct.
Yes, I don't disagree with any of that. Editors are heroes.
Editors are a more important part of writing, and film making, than the public is generally aware. One can tell when an author has gotten too big for their britches by how thoroughly a book is edited. Same with film makers. It is not coincidence that the real first Star Wars film was far, far better than any of the prequels.
The thing about clarity and standardized usage is particularly important to most writers. These things are the tools of our calling. It is natural for us to care about them, and ridiculous to accuse us of "classism" for doing so. You might as well accuse a cello player of classism for insisting on producing the notes distinctly and at the proper volume and tempo.
Classical music is typically associated with classism. It is part of a world not generally accessible to the hoi polloi.
How is it not accessible to anybody? Don't they have radios and internet?
I came to classical music via Handel's Messiah when I was 14--borrowed from the local public library. Borrowed why? For love of the subject (yes, I mean the Messiah the work is focused on). If I gained a pleasure in classical music as a result, well, God is generous and gives good and unexpected gifts.
Ooh, you too? I learned about classical music and jazz both from records I checked out on days I missed the bus and had to walk past the library to get home from middle school. (I was also a first-to-graduate-from-college in my family.)
My understanding of Rossweisse's post was in fact that she had / has had precisely such jobs, and was not practicing Grammar™ on random strangers.
May I point out that the editor is the author's slave, diaper-changer and general bottle washer? When I edit someone, the goal is always to make that person's message shine through--to remove anything that could be obstructing the message, whether it is bad spelling, poor sentence construction, incomprehensible idioms, or unfortunate double meanings. In essence, I am making the author look as good as he/she possibly can. (And being a professional, I am doing this regardless of whether I agree with him/her.)
Authors may throw hissy fits and get away with it. Editors have to suck it up and deal. It's much the same dynamic as that between student and teacher, or child and parent--NOT that one is of lower status (that isn't the point, please understand that!) but rather that the author created the material and is largely responsible for its embodiment in text, and the editor can only scurry around cleaning up whatever messes the author made in the process. The same is true of children and students, who have their own autonomy and will ultimately have their way in everything some day; the parent or teacher can only hope to do a little clean-and-polish on the raw material they're given.
You may object that the teacher or editor has the power to completely throw out what the author has written. This is rarely the case (go and talk to any publisher or school administration), but even when it does happen to be true, the editor still has no power to force the author to do anything. At most (and this is rare) we can withdraw the author's opportunity to be published. We cannot put his or her work into a form that the author refuses to permit. (And thus an editor's life is made hollow... Remind me to tell you about the author who insisted--on my watch--on telling the universe that "Jesus didn't ride into Jerusalem as a Lion on a white horse; he came as a Lamb on a donkey!")
Another first-generation college grad here. Introduced to the Old Dead White Guys by Miss Illingsworth, 7th grade music teacher. Fell hard. Drove my parents craaaazy playing library borrowings at top volume on the family's one player in the living room
I came to classical music via Handel's Messiah when I was 14--borrowed from the local public library. Borrowed why? For love of the subject (yes, I mean the Messiah the work is focused on). If I gained a pleasure in classical music as a result, well, God is generous and gives good and unexpected gifts.
Ooh, you too? I learned about classical music and jazz both from records I checked out on days I missed the bus and had to walk past the library to get home from middle school. (I was also a first-to-graduate-from-college in my family.)
Yep. The public library was just across the street from my high school.
The thing about clarity and standardized usage is particularly important to most writers. These things are the tools of our calling. It is natural for us to care about them, and ridiculous to accuse us of "classism" for doing so. You might as well accuse a cello player of classism for insisting on producing the notes distinctly and at the proper volume and tempo.
Classical music is typically associated with classism. It is part of a world not generally accessible to the hoi polloi.
How is it not accessible to anybody? Don't they have radios and internet?
Many kids of A Certain Age, at least on this side of The Pond, were exposed to classical music through Disney’s Fantasia, Bugs Bunny cartoons or things as mundane as Rice Krispies commercials.
Meanwhile, I live in a state that created the first state-supported symphony orchestra in the US (organized in 1932, permanent receiving state funding in 1942). When I was growing up, it came to my small town and to my schools with some regularity. It still gives 300+ performances a year all over the state, in school auditoriums and gymnasiums as well as in concert halls and outdoors, while maintaining an education program that serves over 70,000 students each year.
Please. Though anyone who can listen to music can listen to any form they choose, it remains that classical is more often associated with the upper classes. It is yet another thing so common as to be a trope.
Please. Though anyone who can listen to music can listen to any form they choose, it remains that classical is more often associated with the upper classes. It is yet another thing so common as to be a trope.
I got into a discussion at a party a few years ago, in which a fellow (who makes a great deal more than do I) was arguing that the various levels of government shouldn't subsidise orchestras and opera companies, etc., because they're "elitist" entertainment. I pointed out that I can get a very good seat at the local very good opera for about 1/4 to 1/3 the price of his middling seat at the local (middling) NHL team's multi-purpose centre. Which one is reserved for the elite? And, before anyone chimes in with the fallacious argument that hockey tickets are more expensive because the pro sport teams are not subsidised, I encourage anyone to look at how teams, stadia (sorry, couldn't resist) are given sweetheart deals by governments of all levels. It is not unheard of for a team then to hold a city ransom - give us a better deal, a new stadium, a whatever, or we relocate. Tell me that the various incentives (land deals, tax breaks, etc.) are not subsidies.
As for exposing children to the "elitist" arts vs the "populist" sports or culture, have you any clue how much it costs to equip a growing kid to play hockey? League fees? Hockey/football/etc. camps? As expensive as lessons and instruments can be for, say, music, it's an 'investment' that lasts a lifetime. NHL stars coming from pond shinny is long a thing of the past. Or to buy a couple of tickets for a stadium-level band.
As for the assertion that good literature/classical music/art/dance performance/fill-in-the-blank being "associated with the upper classes", I know a good number of culturally illiterate millionaires who, even if aware of their illiteracy, remain unfazed. Don't know and don't care. If the association does persist, it's because those making that assertion haven't bothered to look at the demographics and economics of so-called high culture.
I'm not sure when I was first aware of classical music. Definitely picked up some from the Bugs Bunnies cartoons! But I watched all sorts of TV, including early public broadcasting. So there would've been televised concerts, musicians as guests on talk shows, holiday concerts, background music in shows and ads, etc.
I've just gifted someone a seat to all nine Beethoven symphonies performed over a weekend in a world class venue by an international level orchestra for 60 quid. Fuck your accusations of elitism.
Please. Though anyone who can listen to music can listen to any form they choose, it remains that classical is more often associated with the upper classes. It is yet another thing so common as to be a trope.
Actually, @lilbuddha, it's not. It's more upper middle class. The upper classes have a bit of a reputation for being philistines and proud of it. They'd be more likely to go for dance music.
Please back atcha. "Associated with" <> "only accessible to". You overstate your case then give out that you were meaning something else all along.
This. We were responding to what you said, @lilbuddha. You said classical music “is part of a world not generally accessible to the hoi polloi.” It is generally accessible to the hoi polloi, whether it is associated with the hoi polloi or not.
If what you said isn’t what you meant, just admit it.
Please back atcha. "Associated with" <> "only accessible to". You overstate your case then give out that you were meaning something else all along.
This. We were responding to what you said, @lilbuddha. You said classical music “is part of a world not generally accessible to the hoi polloi.” It is generally accessible to the hoi polloi, whether it is associated with the hoi polloi or not.
If what you said isn’t what you meant, just admit it.
Oh fuck the lot of you, and your simplistic bullshit. Accessible is a broarder term than merely being allowed in the doors. Class boundaries are as much social control as anything else.
Go to hear a symphony, concerto, etc. and actually pay attention to the people around you. The majority will be in the upper income brackets in the majority of places.
Please. Though anyone who can listen to music can listen to any form they choose, it remains that classical is more often associated with the upper classes. It is yet another thing so common as to be a trope.
Actually, @lilbuddha, it's not. It's more upper middle class. The upper classes have a bit of a reputation for being philistines and proud of it. They'd be more likely to go for dance music.
Upper classes was a broad casting to catch the various audiences on the Ship. The class systems are different.
Whilst I would agree that (UK) middle class are indeed classical concert goers, I disagree that the upper-classes eschew it. One, form experience, two from the philistine bit being over-represented in popular media.
Classical music is accessible in one sense, that anyone can buy a ticket for a concert. However, my memories of a Mancunian working class youth, and I apologize for being anecdotal, are that to me and my friends it felt alien. Occasionally, at school we had some played at us, while of course the music that we were enjoying at home and in coffee bars, was studiously ignored. Is this elitist? What else would you call it?
For another example of the importance of editors I would suggest the first three Harry Potter books, where Rowling was still treated as an author. By the last four she was a phenomenon, and every word was treasured when many should have been excised.
Please back atcha. "Associated with" <> "only accessible to". You overstate your case then give out that you were meaning something else all along.
This. We were responding to what you said, @lilbuddha. You said classical music “is part of a world not generally accessible to the hoi polloi.” It is generally accessible to the hoi polloi, whether it is associated with the hoi polloi or not.
If what you said isn’t what you meant, just admit it.
Oh fuck the lot of you, and your simplistic bullshit. Accessible is a broarder term than merely being allowed in the doors. Class boundaries are as much social control as anything else.
Go to hear a symphony, concerto, etc. and actually pay attention to the people around you. The majority will be in the upper income brackets in the majority of places.
Right. Pretty much the whole lot of us who responded to your post took you mean “able to access” by “accessible,” and it’s our fault and our simplistic bullshit for not knowing that by “accessible to” you really meant “associated with.” Even though it seems like everyone who responded to you read your post the same way, it must be everyone’s simplistic bullshit at work; it can’t possibly be any communication failure on your part.
I’ve been to countless concerts, though not in Southern England, which is where that article seems to be focused, and what I’ve seen sometimes matches your description and sometimes doesn’t. I’m also well aware that classical music is available lots of ways other than going to concerts; indeed, concerts may be one of the less common ways these days to enjoy music of all kinds.
Can there be some correlation between class or income and listening to classical music? Of course, But it’s complicated and variable, based on lots of factors—much more complicated and variable than simply stating “classical music is generally not accessible to the hoi polloi” or “classical music is associated with classicism.” Overgeneralized statements like this are the simplistic bullshit here.
As for looking around at concerts, you do realize that there are different expectations of how you should dress at various kinds of concerts? I'd no more turn up to a classical concert in a ripped up tee shirt than I'd go to a rock concert in pearls and a long dress.
I assume you were identifying class by looking around at the classical concerts you yourself have attended. When I have done so, what I see is people dressed up in what used to be called their "best"--which is of course purchasable by anybody but the very poorest. I do not feel competent to decide whether the wearers of said clothing are of any particular class.
As for looking around at concerts, you do realize that there are different expectations of how you should dress at various kinds of concerts? I'd no more turn up to a classical concert in a ripped up tee shirt than I'd go to a rock concert in pearls and a long dress.
I assume you were identifying class by looking around at the classical concerts you yourself have attended. When I have done so, what I see is people dressed up in what used to be called their "best"--which is of course purchasable by anybody but the very poorest. I do not feel competent to decide whether the wearers of said clothing are of any particular class.
Purchasable, but may not be currently possessed. It's a potential barrier.
Fortunately I don't know that these expectations necessary exist in the UK; I am not aware of them if they do. They may; I don't make a habit of attending classical concerts.
I went to college in the Boston area. When I was a poor student living on packets of cheese crackers from vending machines and keeping milk for my tea on the windowsill of my dorm room, almost my entire wardrobe consisted of jeans and turtlenecks.
My roommate was studying to be an opera singer. She "borrowed" assorted items from her department's wardrobe supply for us to dress up in to go and get last-minute free "standby" seats at the Boston Symphony Orchestra. We eventually acquired concert wear by haunting thrift stores
LB's notion of class divisions seems to go along with the idea that actually learning to read music constitutes a felony-level class treason.
I went to college in the Boston area. When I was a poor student living on packets of cheese crackers from vending machines and keeping milk for my tea on the windowsill of my dorm room, almost my entire wardrobe consisted of jeans and turtlenecks.
My roommate was studying to be an opera singer. She "borrowed" assorted items from her department's wardrobe supply for us to dress up in to go and get last-minute free "standby" seats at the Boston Symphony Orchestra. We eventually acquired concert wear by haunting thrift stores
LB's notion of class divisions seems to go along with the idea that actually learning to read music constitutes a felony-level class treason.
There is also a sort of reverse-snobbery going on. My working class parents looked down their noses at classical music as something "those people" liked. They didn't get why I liked it, with my solidly working-class background. It was a type of class betrayal.
Oh fuck the lot of you, and your simplistic bullshit. Accessible is a broarder term than merely being allowed in the doors. Class boundaries are as much social control as anything else.
Go to hear a symphony, concerto, etc. and actually pay attention to the people around you. The majority will be in the upper income brackets in the majority of places.
Well, if the author's only going to study (a) people who play classical music, rather than people who listen to classical music and (b) people who live in the south of England, rather than people who live in the whole of the UK, they're going to come to certain set of conclusions that aren't necessarily replicable across the whole of the country. I'm in the North East of England, and we have our own international level orchestra. We have our own world class concert venue. We have a very lively classical music programme, with choirs and ensembles and quartets. And I'm absolutely certain that almost everyone who goes to these concerts are from the region. So fuck you, you prejudiced, cantankerous, self-righteous, worm-hearted spectre.
Also, I bet you spent a frantic hour googling anything that would back up your mean-spirited and entirely classist attack on those of poorer means who might enjoy a bit of Bach. So frantic you didn't bother to read the description.
Well, if the author's only going to study (a) people who play classical music, rather than people who listen to classical music and (b) people who live in the south of England, rather than people who live in the whole of the UK . . . .
Holy fuck. Is there any lump of right-ness that @lilbuddha won't clamp so hard in her cloaca as to turn into purified crystalline inverted wrongness? What -isms are left for her to become in her fervor to decry them?
Holy fuck. Is there any lump of right-ness that @lilbuddha won't clamp so hard in her cloaca as to turn into purified crystalline inverted wrongness? What -isms are left for her to become in her fervor to decry them?
...IME, editors have less power as the author's/director's fame grows.
J.K. Rowling is an example of that. The 870 pages/38 chapters of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix were desperately in need of an editor's blue pencil - but she (reportedly) wouldn't hear of it. The resulting book is redundant and dreary. If it weren't for Dolores Jane Umbridge, it would be unbearable.
As for music, I was blessed to grow up with classical composers and their works at home, in church, and at school. The library helped, and so did the cut-out bin at my local record store. You can get a great music education just listening and reading the liner notes - and it is accessible to all.
Received Pronunciation bring, to many minds 1950s BBC English. It is not like that now. Much more muddied and losing a lot of final consonants (shoppin’). There is no such thing as an English accent. Regional accents are more comforting and have warmth. RP can sound authoritative which is why a lot of advertisers use regional accents.
Classical music is not elitist. It less instant than popular music. You have to listen to it properly. Popular music constantly borrows from classical. They are written the same way. I have very eclectic taste in music and don’t dismiss any genre.
Earlier someone mentioned Bach as classical music. I had to stop the pedant in me say that Bach was not classical. He was Baroque.
Well, yes, I don't see how any type of music can be elitist in itself. It's the sociological and psychological apparatus around it that could be elitist. As I said earlier, my early experience of classical music was that it was, but then so were/are many other cultural products, since England is a class-riven society.
Comments
Whilst of course promoting "improper" usage doesn't increase division at all ? Takes two to quarrel...
Can you point to one single person who allocates resources on the basis of quality of English usage ?
Education doesn't end at the school gate. Here's to life-long learning...
No but you seem to have ended yours in the 1940s.
It lends some weight to the charge of correctness being used by some people as a kind of snobbery and reinforcing of hierarchy, this was definitely true at my school. But maybe this is lessening, as regional accents are found more often on radio and TV. Although some actors say that acting is becoming posh again, I don't know.
Language evolves with culture and variations along with sub/satellite culture. The richness in the variation is part of the beauty of life. It is also the beauty of writing. Technical writing and general mass communication should follow a basic standard because it gives a more equal reference and ambiguity can have consequences. Other forms, not so much. Literature would be fairly limited and a bit dead if "proper" English were the only acceptable standard.
BTW, improvisation used to actually be a part of classical music. Music is a live thing, change is part of that, just like language. Joyfully embracing that change is egalitarian, grudgingly accepting it is classism.
This is bullshit.
Publications choose their own style guides, editors attempt to keep writers to the in-house style. Sometimes the rules make sense, but that doesn't usually matter. It's not a historical study, it's just a stated line in the sand of acceptable English.
That's it.
Editors have no more claim on what is "Good English" than anyone else.
If we're speaking solely of season tickets to orchestra seats at, say, the Metropolitan Opera, accessibility is a definite issue. But buying-to-own-and-replay a CD (or whatever) of Shostakovich's 5th costs the same (maybe less!) as the equivalent item featuring a 2020 Rock'n'Roll Hall of Fame nominee.
In addition, concertgoers for big name pop music stars shell out staggering sums to attend standing room only performances, just the way I might shell out big bucks (if I had them) to attend a BSO concert featuring a favorite soloist. And I'd get to sit down while listening.
The problem isn't really accessibility at all. It's deep-seated, ground-in, decades-long, well-poisoning prejudice against old dead white guy composers. And it's this which makes "shopping" for such music difficult; the local record store carries a tiny section devoted to this consisting of the same 4-6 old war horses in versions you've already played to death, and God help you if you're after a particular version of something where the conductor set a tempo that made you heart soar.
And give me a freaking break, "Classical music is typically associated with classism. It is part of a world not generally accessible to the hoi polloi."
I happen to be the daughter of a machinist and a nurse. I am the first in my family to finish college, and if we have middle class pretensions, that's pretty much what they are--pretensions. (Though my nephew was doing quite a good business in Port-a-Potties.) And I came to classical music via Handel's Messiah when I was 14--borrowed from the local public library. Borrowed why? For love of the subject (yes, I mean the Messiah the work is focused on). If I gained a pleasure in classical music as a result, well, God is generous and gives good and unexpected gifts.
As for this--
I hope this was not addressed to my account. My post had the purpose of explaining why Rossweisse and I care about English usage--neither more nor less than that. In the hopes that you were NOT in fact addressing me, I will refrain from addressing the nasty bits about editors who think themselves gods.
I cannot recall whether I explained my background in publishing upthread, but if not, I was a professional proofreader (and very sometime writer, editor, developer and layout person) for a good-sized publisher for seven years. I am largely responsible for the existence of the house stylebook at my current job. I am aware of the arbitrary nature of stylebook choices--how should I not be, when I make them?--and my point (made either on this thread or elsewhere, sometime in the past two days) is that stylebooks and manuals are useful. They prevent publishers (and authors!) from looking inconsistent, which pisses off a large fraction of the reading public. Who then call or write to demand the author/editor/copyeditor/proofreader's head on a platter. Because it spoils their reading pleasure.
Furthermore, some professions (not just in academia) for which they're preparing will demand writing skills and even publication of them, and what is so blithely dismissed as "high-falutin'" English is essential for the writer (and the constituency s/he represents) to be taken at all seriously.
Of course it is. But the problem is that there are thousands of academic journals and each one has its own style. It is certainly a job of management to get academics to write in a particular and appropriate way, but that doesn't mean what is being used is correct English.
Some posts at the beginning of this thread were complaining about the standard of English of other people on the internet and generally in life.
Educated people tend to understand that they need learn lessons in order to moderate the way they speak and write to different audiences. People with less exposure to different kinds of audiences tend to be less aware of this necessity.
But that doesn't make any specific kind of English the correct one.
If you think it is your job to correct other people's diction in order to point out their grammatical faults (rather than because you have a specific job to help in a specific context), you need to take yourself outside for a good talking to.
May I point out that the editor is the author's slave, diaper-changer and general bottle washer? When I edit someone, the goal is always to make that person's message shine through--to remove anything that could be obstructing the message, whether it is bad spelling, poor sentence construction, incomprehensible idioms, or unfortunate double meanings. In essence, I am making the author look as good as he/she possibly can. (And being a professional, I am doing this regardless of whether I agree with him/her.)
Authors may throw hissy fits and get away with it. Editors have to suck it up and deal. It's much the same dynamic as that between student and teacher, or child and parent--NOT that one is of lower status (that isn't the point, please understand that!) but rather that the author created the material and is largely responsible for its embodiment in text, and the editor can only scurry around cleaning up whatever messes the author made in the process. The same is true of children and students, who have their own autonomy and will ultimately have their way in everything some day; the parent or teacher can only hope to do a little clean-and-polish on the raw material they're given.
You may object that the teacher or editor has the power to completely throw out what the author has written. This is rarely the case (go and talk to any publisher or school administration), but even when it does happen to be true, the editor still has no power to force the author to do anything. At most (and this is rare) we can withdraw the author's opportunity to be published. We cannot put his or her work into a form that the author refuses to permit. (And thus an editor's life is made hollow... Remind me to tell you about the author who insisted--on my watch--on telling the universe that "Jesus didn't ride into Jerusalem as a Lion on a white horse; he came as a Lamb on a donkey!")
Strangely, in writing I use the former for the 'elegant' reason you give. But when I speak a sentence including something like: 'Jesus' thoughts' or 'Jesus' disciples', I usually speak it 'Jesus's' because it seems to give the pronunciation a bit more definition! Weird! But, like you, I too was brought up to believe that both forms are correct.
How is it not accessible to anybody? Don't they have radios and internet?
Ooh, you too? I learned about classical music and jazz both from records I checked out on days I missed the bus and had to walk past the library to get home from middle school. (I was also a first-to-graduate-from-college in my family.)
Lamb riding donkey.
https://i0.wp.com/metro.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/sei_38991196-e2a0.jpg?quality=90&strip=all&zoom=1&resize=644,571&ssl=1
Yep. The public library was just across the street from my high school.
This high school marching band seems to have thought that classical music is quite accessible.
Meanwhile, I live in a state that created the first state-supported symphony orchestra in the US (organized in 1932, permanent receiving state funding in 1942). When I was growing up, it came to my small town and to my schools with some regularity. It still gives 300+ performances a year all over the state, in school auditoriums and gymnasiums as well as in concert halls and outdoors, while maintaining an education program that serves over 70,000 students each year.
I got into a discussion at a party a few years ago, in which a fellow (who makes a great deal more than do I) was arguing that the various levels of government shouldn't subsidise orchestras and opera companies, etc., because they're "elitist" entertainment. I pointed out that I can get a very good seat at the local very good opera for about 1/4 to 1/3 the price of his middling seat at the local (middling) NHL team's multi-purpose centre. Which one is reserved for the elite? And, before anyone chimes in with the fallacious argument that hockey tickets are more expensive because the pro sport teams are not subsidised, I encourage anyone to look at how teams, stadia (sorry, couldn't resist) are given sweetheart deals by governments of all levels. It is not unheard of for a team then to hold a city ransom - give us a better deal, a new stadium, a whatever, or we relocate. Tell me that the various incentives (land deals, tax breaks, etc.) are not subsidies.
As for exposing children to the "elitist" arts vs the "populist" sports or culture, have you any clue how much it costs to equip a growing kid to play hockey? League fees? Hockey/football/etc. camps? As expensive as lessons and instruments can be for, say, music, it's an 'investment' that lasts a lifetime. NHL stars coming from pond shinny is long a thing of the past. Or to buy a couple of tickets for a stadium-level band.
As for the assertion that good literature/classical music/art/dance performance/fill-in-the-blank being "associated with the upper classes", I know a good number of culturally illiterate millionaires who, even if aware of their illiteracy, remain unfazed. Don't know and don't care. If the association does persist, it's because those making that assertion haven't bothered to look at the demographics and economics of so-called high culture.
And I think I've always liked classical music.
If what you said isn’t what you meant, just admit it.
Go to hear a symphony, concerto, etc. and actually pay attention to the people around you. The majority will be in the upper income brackets in the majority of places.
Whilst I would agree that (UK) middle class are indeed classical concert goers, I disagree that the upper-classes eschew it. One, form experience, two from the philistine bit being over-represented in popular media.
I’ve been to countless concerts, though not in Southern England, which is where that article seems to be focused, and what I’ve seen sometimes matches your description and sometimes doesn’t. I’m also well aware that classical music is available lots of ways other than going to concerts; indeed, concerts may be one of the less common ways these days to enjoy music of all kinds.
Can there be some correlation between class or income and listening to classical music? Of course, But it’s complicated and variable, based on lots of factors—much more complicated and variable than simply stating “classical music is generally not accessible to the hoi polloi” or “classical music is associated with classicism.” Overgeneralized statements like this are the simplistic bullshit here.
I assume you were identifying class by looking around at the classical concerts you yourself have attended. When I have done so, what I see is people dressed up in what used to be called their "best"--which is of course purchasable by anybody but the very poorest. I do not feel competent to decide whether the wearers of said clothing are of any particular class.
Purchasable, but may not be currently possessed. It's a potential barrier.
Fortunately I don't know that these expectations necessary exist in the UK; I am not aware of them if they do. They may; I don't make a habit of attending classical concerts.
My roommate was studying to be an opera singer. She "borrowed" assorted items from her department's wardrobe supply for us to dress up in to go and get last-minute free "standby" seats at the Boston Symphony Orchestra. We eventually acquired concert wear by haunting thrift stores
LB's notion of class divisions seems to go along with the idea that actually learning to read music constitutes a felony-level class treason.
There is also a sort of reverse-snobbery going on. My working class parents looked down their noses at classical music as something "those people" liked. They didn't get why I liked it, with my solidly working-class background. It was a type of class betrayal.
Also, I bet you spent a frantic hour googling anything that would back up your mean-spirited and entirely classist attack on those of poorer means who might enjoy a bit of Bach. So frantic you didn't bother to read the description.
That's poetry.
Anyway, @Lamb Chopped, thank you for your stirring, sterling defense of clarity and high standards!
J.K. Rowling is an example of that. The 870 pages/38 chapters of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix were desperately in need of an editor's blue pencil - but she (reportedly) wouldn't hear of it. The resulting book is redundant and dreary. If it weren't for Dolores Jane Umbridge, it would be unbearable.
As for music, I was blessed to grow up with classical composers and their works at home, in church, and at school. The library helped, and so did the cut-out bin at my local record store. You can get a great music education just listening and reading the liner notes - and it is accessible to all.
Classical music is not elitist. It less instant than popular music. You have to listen to it properly. Popular music constantly borrows from classical. They are written the same way. I have very eclectic taste in music and don’t dismiss any genre.
Earlier someone mentioned Bach as classical music. I had to stop the pedant in me say that Bach was not classical. He was Baroque.