At my school, at least once a year, comes a celebration of sound, and this one was no different from the others. The highlights included a cellist's mimicry of a butterfly's colours, the resonance filling the whole room, and a piano sonata that sounded like moving water. The audience sat entranced.

And then came, by far the least impressive sound of the evening, the thin ripple of applause. Not thin because the audience of the school music scholar’s concert didn't like the performances, but because at these events it can hardly be called an audience at all. Mostly made up of parents (who have heard it all before and secretly are thinking that their child was the best anyway) and a few teachers, the audiences, although appreciative, are always the same and each member has been to hundreds of school concerts. Almost any other school event can fill the hall, but concerts need to be held in smaller venues to stop them looking depressingly empty. Surely the talented pupils who have put in so much practice deserve to be heard by someone new?

So why does nobody else turn up to these high-quality events, even just to support their friends? Because classical music is boring, obviously. What teenager in their right mind would give up their time to come into school in order to appreciate musical fodder for the elderly?

Even if you do genuinely find classical music devoid of entertainment, I don't understand how this is considered an acceptable opinion. Imagine announcing to your teachers that you don't read because “reading is boring”. Why should you read when you have the internet? Anyway, you'd much sooner go on Facebook and watch TV instead.

And most teachers would be shocked by this. Even if these are your thoughts, by saying them you are declaring yourself an intellectual lightweight, who can't be bothered to do anything that involves more than the bare minimum.

However, the same teachers would probably not bat an eye if you said the same of classical music.
Scratch that. They wouldn't bat even an eyelash. There are actually some very relevant comparisons to be made between classical music and 'proper' books (I'm going to offend some people here, but you know what I mean). A piece of classical music is usually longer than a pop song ( in the way that a novel takes more time to read than a TV programme takes to watch, and on the surface, classical music is sometimes quite difficult to get into, which is what puts most people off.

But, as with books (as any teacher or librarian will tell you) once you have broken the exterior and engaged with a piece of classical music, the experience is far deeper than anything you can get from most pop songs. There is simply more variation in the music, Don’t get me wrong: I like pop, and I play it, but next time you hear a song on the radio, listen carefully. Ideas come and go, but nothing lasts much more than three minutes, or lacks a drum track.

A common misconception with classical music is that it is “relaxing”, which might not what you're looking for if you like upbeat songs. However, some of it is far too exciting. I defy you to fall asleep during Berlioz’s ‘Roman Carnival Overture.’ “Classical” after all, is just an umbrella term. Just as I have used 'pop music' to encompass rock, RnB, metal, dance, hiphop, even skrillex, there are many different kinds of classical music. Symphonies, Renaissance church music, huge pieces of music theatre lasting six or seven hours, tiny piano pieces lasting one minute, John Cage's 4 minutes 33 seconds (look it up). And then there’s jazz. 

If you want to limit yourself to one sphere of music, fine. But if you claim to be a fan of 'good' music- listen up and try something new. Don't insult your own intelligence by thinking that just because you're young, classical music won't appeal to you. Classical doesn’t mean Old.

Just try it. And if anyone gives you hassle, send them to me.