I know you'd all probably look up the music used, but in terms of sampling, do any of you think that ruins the music? Or as I put before, does it cheapen the original music?

I think in most cases, neither.

No, I don't feel like it ruins or cheapens the original music. I don't mind sampling like others do where they feel like certain pieces of work shouldn't be touched and/or sampled.

What are your thoughts on it?

I don't think it really cheapens it either. Most of the stuff is public domain now anyways so people can do whatever with it. I'm more on the side that it might pique someone's interest and they will look it up.

I think there is stuff that should not be used for sampling or should just ty to be avoided. For example, sacred hymns, Bach's chorales, Gregorian chants (take that Enigma lol), and other liturgical music. I'm not religious at all but I still think that stuff should be respected for what it is, since much of it is still used and sung in church and in daily prayer to this day.

Thats like saying "Beethoven, you can't use that sequence of notes, they use them in Church!"

All music is plagerised in some form or another. As far as Classical being relevant, it is. It may not be noticeable to the average Joe, but most music you hear today is a decendant of the classics in some form or another. Kind of like how Led Zeppelin is a decendant of the earlier forms of blues. Pulling in bits and pieces from various resources to create what the artist sees.

Plagiarism on a quantitative level.

I should probably stay out of this thread and stop repeating myself but the question in the thread title is different from what Burning Down ends up asking in the OP.

In the OP she mentions classical music's relevance compared to other genres that's it.

She doesn't ask about how relevant it is by it's influence within other genres or anything of the sort.

I didn't read the OP, just the thread title. And here I thought I had some great insight.

3 lashes with a wet noodle for me.

Yeah, pretty much mostly purists will keep making it relevant as far as that goes. Masterpieces will always stand the test of time though.

That's not exactly what I was implying there. I've been picking apart symphonies and concertos and the like for 10 years now, for analysis assignments, and composers were always borrowing ideas from their predecessors. There was no such thing as copyright law until when... the mid-late 1800's? Copying and imitation was often seen as a huge compliment towards the originator of that melody. Plagiarism didn't become a problem until governments and lawyers got involved.

I was speaking about how artists come up with tunes, not copyrights. I guess the use of the word plagiarism threw it off a bit. Quite the difference in a purist sense, but I don't want to detract from the thread topic any more than I already have, so I'll just say it's an interesting one.

I attend classical concerts of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and Chicago Lyric Opera. The performances are always packed. Most of the audience is middle-aged to elderly, but there are a good number of people in their teens and twenties who attend. I'd say 10-20 percent are in that age bracket. I think there'd be more young people if the tickets were cheaper. Some of the music bores me (as does some of the music in any genre), but quite a bit of it is exciting and emotionally moving. I think you have to listen to it a little differently and not expect to be rocked out by it, although some of it definitely rocks. Classical music seems to be fairly popular in Asia and Europe. A lot of the best young classical musicians now are Asian, so I think you have to look at its worldwide appeal as well. It is not just Western music anymore. It's got a long history, and lots of different styles, so it is not just one thing. Also, all other Western popular music, including pop, rock, metal and jazz, is structurally based on it (e.g. same harmonic scales), so it is still technically relevant.