It's not that young people don't listen to classical. It's the NUMBERS of young people that don't. Maybe five percent actually listen or play (if they are taking lessons then they WILL learn some). Some will listen to it as they get older as someone pointed out. Most never will. It starts in the home when you are very young. If your parents owned classical music recordings and played them for you, chances are that you will listen to it as you age, if they don't then you probably won't. I grew up listening to Tchaikovsky and Chopin and remember my mother teaching me to sing "I am always chasing rainbows" while she played the piano. The melody is a Chopin piece. My dad read me the story of the Nutcracker and then gave me an album to listen to. My aunt gave me "Peter & the Wolf" when I was like 9. I played the grooves off the thing. In the West, we seem to be falling behind. You go to Asia--Japan in particular--and young kids (and I mean YOUNG) can play classical, jazz, ragtime, etc. They know our music better than we do and Westerners don't seem to care so I don't know what can be done about it.

Yes any other genre as long as it is contemporary music. Strange why you guys are fighting this so hard and think that there are even close.


Below is the total revenue for live performances from a 2011 study

Ballet and Dance $59,164,135
Children's/Family $58,777,398
Classical Music $60,096,039
Festivals (Multi-Category) $9,890,881
Festivals (Single-Category) $96,453,486
Musical Theatre $246,792,376
Contemporary Music $539,274,481
Opera $47,305,786
Special Events $15,799,946
Theatre $65,880,712
Circus and Physical Theatre $55,865,945
Comedy $51,999,602


Source

I assume that number is the total for all contemporary music. That's not even remotely the same thing as saying any other genre is more popular than classical.

Also, why is Australia your case study here? Seems like an odd choice.

That study is only from Australia so its just a sample and not indicative of the whole world.

I only used Australia because I'm lazy and it's the first study that popped up when I did some googling.

Are you saying Australia doesn't count? hahaha

I'm pretty sure the results are similar worldwide.

I would have to do more extensive research to pull the numbers though

I never said Australia doesn't count lol. I just meant if you're going to provide a statistic it would be better if it represented a broader range of countries. Consumption of different genres varies by country based on culture.

Here's a list of Symphony Orchestras in the U.S. I couldn't find financials for them though.

But here's a recent article about the decline in average salaries for working classical musicians in the US. Sad news but still... 80K - 150K annually at the top and 10K - 49K for the average musician.

Considering that most working musicians don't earn even 10K annually, I consider this good evidence for the relevance of classical music.

How much they get paid doesn't made good evidence for their relevance. It just goes to show that that they have to be more trained than the average musician and rich people attend their performances.

Similar to what duga said earlier.

So... relevance is not how much a musician is paid. And relevance is not how much a genre is heard or appreciated. Fine.

Please tell me what 'relevant' means then.

Why isn't relevance how much a genre is heard?