Engaging with this question, though worded to be a simple yes/no answer, we find that the answer is not so succinct.

Dr. Kramer took the entirety of a book in order to accomplish this task. Dr. Kramers argument within the book is not whether classical music matters, but why it matters. This allows Dr. Kramer the ability to focus almost entirely on anecdotes that complement his perspective, instead of word discrepancies. For this paper I am forced to oppose Dr. Kramers answer, saying instead that classical music does not matter. Through this paper I will prove using Dr. Kramers analysis of, the definition of classical, Listening and Emotional context, why though classical music matters to me, we cant answer with anything but No. To start, Dr. Kramer gives us his definition of the term classical music to only include some three hundred years of music that was designed for the sole purpose of listening, and not including such sensations as seeing or touching (K, 11, 22). I commend Dr. Kramer on narrowing his definition for the express purpose of being able to talk about the question more concretely. Though subjective anecdotes dont allow themselves to be authentically altered, he uses several examples that musically do not fit his criteria. Including music used in movies, which is not music for listening but rather playing second fiddle to the visual (K, 27-8). Dr. Kramer might simple suggest that he is not claiming that classical music is not in fact dramatic or theatrical, but that his distinction is the purpose of what the music was created for (K, 31). One of his most problematic assumptions in his definition is that classical music was created for listening, and in fact invented listening (K, 19). And in truth if you could convince everyone that classical music invented listening there would be no question to its power. This view of the subject is the same philosophically as using the pronoun he solely in an American academic paper post 1970. In a world that is growing smaller by the year as new technology allows for unprecedented communication between cultures, we can no longer afford

to be so ethnocentric. No longer (if it ever really was) is it acceptable to make a claim that only Western Europeans from the seventeen hundreds to now had the benefit of correct listening. This is not the only culture or music that provides the listener with an inner self (K, 19, 141). As the concept of listening is as intrinsic to music as they are for Dr. Kramers first two arguments the text leaves me feeling lost. To fix either of these problematic ideas, we either have to expand our use of classical to encompass more musics than that of Europe postenlightenment, or get rid of our assumption that listening was invented by our narrow definition and we allow for more freedom. We could replace classical music in our question with a new definition, Classical music, in which we encompass all musics of a traditional, trained music designed for active listening. Changing this definition we find new philosophical traps trying to find a common thread that all Classical musics embody. None of these quandaries were thought about, or even alluded to within Dr. Kramers Book. This is because the book was not written to answer why classical music still matters, but instead why classical music still matters to our author (K, 5-7). If we make the assumption with our writer, and talk about our specific culture, we can progress to his next argument. Our author makes a very sincere attempt to justify classical music by separating its power to convey emotion from that of pop music (K, 29). Though pop music presents emotions to the listener, it is more like that of a painting or photo graph, where in it sets out to express one emotion to the listener and does not develop or grow that into something new (K, 30). Classical music takes the listener on an emotional journey transforming both the music and the listener from one state of being into a completely new one (K, 31, 207). Using Wittgenstein as a philosophical ladder on which to climb, he makes the assertion that through whole body listening all will be emotionally impacted by what is heard (K, 29-30). Then for

emotional release classical music provides more transformation, as well as being able to be fully comprehended if actively listening, there is no better outlet (K, 16-17). This point I find to be Dr. Kramers most interesting arguments within the entire book. And is the hardest argument for me to personally disagree with. Because I have used the world perspective as my largest discourse against the other ideas presented and so this one will be more personal. Though I agree that classical music often moves the listener through a series of emotions, such as Beethovens third symphony, is this the whole story? Kramer talks in length of Schumann and the emotions of lieders protagonist (K, 119). But, his assertion that pop music does not seek, or accomplish, this same effect seems to be completely unsubstantiated. As an avid listener of a variety of musics, I know several albums that present similar emotional arcs to those of 19th century lieder. And, if we have not been involved in the appreciation racket, can we hear the same expressions as those who have? With no training I am skeptical that everyone would get the same emotional charge from Un sospiro by Liszt, that one who has studied active listening and historical context for the wonderful piece, would get. With no knowledge does someone hear a Gamelan the same way as an Indonesian, and evoked with the same emotion? In this paper I have written against Dr. Kramer to the conclusion that classical music does not matter. I presented three of Kramers philosophical key words that are used throughout his book. The ideas I found within Kramer are not badly thought out, or misunderstood, but rather so subjective that when we make an objective assertion we are bound to find problems. Though I also personally agree that classical music matters, given Kramers arguments I showed that we cannot accept those, and thus must be unconvinced. Though I dont want to ask a bunch of questions I hope to have left the reader, as I myself have been struggling, with more questions than at the beginning of the essay.